Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Pan:
Are you referring to these two remarks, or did I miss something?
|
Yep.......
I can even live with the latter. But the original statement, is hateful, prejudicial, and divisive.
My whole argument (and this is similar very much so to my own experience that I argued from day one).... you cannot pick and choose who can label, say hateful and divisive things.
Either everyone who does it is wrong and should face the same consequences... (people demanding jobs be lost, retribution paid, public appologies etc.) or you allow people to say those things and let people make up their own minds about it.
It's one thing to say "Imus said something very wrong, I don't like it I'll turn the radio station and tell my friends to boycott his show."
It's another to punish him, demand he lose his job, threaten to boycott his sponsors and so on. And then go out there less than a month later and spew hate and prejudice.
I'm simply calling BULLSHIT where BULLSHIT hypocrasy is. If Imus deserved the scorn and hate of a nation for his labelling of others.... Sharpton should also (moreso because he led the attack against Imus.)
If Sharpton is going to be this pillar who plays speech police then he better be held to the same standards..... and yet as the posts show, and as the press kind of just whitewashes this and it fades..... we allow hatespeak, divisiveness, prejudice to be said.... but it comes from a black, democrat against a white republican.
As a Democrat and one who believes in what's right and what's wrong regardless of party affiliation..... I am ashamed that the vast majority in my party make excuses for this being ok.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Pan, I think you missed my point. Among other things, Sharpton is a religious leader. He's certainly a civil rights leader and he's possibily a political leader. I'm viewing his comments almost strictly in his religious role. He's a conservative Babtist religiously (not politically conservative, etc. - those are separate). If you look at this as a statement by a religious leader in the context of Mormonism in the US historically I don't see where it's devisive or labelling or whatever you want to call it. It's no more than saying "Babtists won't vote for a Mormon" or "Pentacostals won't vote for a Jew" by a preacher in those faiths. Maybe they're right. I don't know. I see this as a throw-away line acknowledging that some voters won't vote for people of differing faiths. Is that somehow new? The "faithful" aren't going to vote a certain way? Haven't we heard that before, and hasn't it sometimes been true?
Labels are impossible to remove from our culture or any other culture. We're all unique, but we all fall into groups like employed, white, black, tall, short, assholes (I forget the rest of it). Labels are groups. Groups are labels. People in groups share common things. Labels are misused by ascribing things that aren't true to groups - like Jews being cheap or Auburn fans being bug-eaters. Sometimes labels are wrong. Not always.
|
Ok let's look at it this way:
Quote:
|
Sharpton is a religious leader. He's certainly a civil rights leader and he's possibily a political leader.
|
I didn't know civil rights were just for blacks.... I thought it encompassed making sure EVERYONE got the same rights regardless of race, RELIGION, ethnicity, etc..... so if you are a LEADER of the civil rights movement, you more than anyone should be held accountable for prejudicial talk.
It is one thing to be in your church and say that as a minister, it is another to say that not as a minister but as a political authority, a civil rights leader and someone who is supposed to fight for the rights of ALL against prejudice.
Pat Robertson can say what he likes because he uses the guise of religion and everyone knows he's supposedly using religion to guide him.
Al Sharpton is foremost recognized as a Civil Rights leader.... NOT as a religious leader.
Do you think MLK Jr. would have spoken these words??????
As for labels, yes, we all label someone as soon as we see them or meet them. My argument is that if I start yelling at someone for labelling and pointing out their prejudices.... then when mine come to surface, I should be judged as I judged. Privately, we have those prejudices, biases and so on.... and as private citizens we can speak them. But if you are a public figure and you are going to burn someone for what they say.... you best not say anything your own damned self. Or don't get all huffy and start shit when someone says something or puts labels out, you don't like.
If Sharpton and people want to burn Imus.... then those same people need to pull away from Sharpton and demand the same penalties they did for Imus.
Otherwise, people who make excuses why Sharpton's hatespeak was ok and Imus deserved what he got.... lose all credibility and respect I have for them in this area.
If the presidential candidates who spoke out against Imus refuse to speak out against Sharpton..... I will have no respect for them.
Now, if you or they said, "I see nothing wrong with what Imus said, he has his opinion and is aloowed to speak it." and then you or they say the same about Sharpton..... then you or they have not shown any bias, hypocrasy or bullshit.
If you attacked Imus and you attack Sharpton equally, then you show no bias, hypocrasy or bullshit.
If you didn't attack Imus but attack Sharpton, you are showing bias hypocrasy and bullshit.
NEITHER one said a nice thing, BOTH said very vile, hateful, prejudicial things... so either you punish both equally or let both go .... but if you take sides... you are as wrong as they are.