Did anyone listen to Norm this morning????

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by 5 Super Bowls, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. 5 Super Bowls

    5 Super Bowls Member

    415 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I heard all of the PC police calling in to talk about BP comment. Then I heard Jimmy talk about the Barry Switzer comment, and because it was 1995 or so nothing was made out of it. Did anyone else hear this?? If so can you quote what Switzer said. I am very upset by the outrage of what BP said.

    What is wrong with calling a suprise play a Jap move or play. Pearl Harbor is the greatest example of a suprise move. When someone says Jews is that a slur????

    I don't understand why so many people are looking for something to be offended by.

    When did this start becoming so rediculous???????
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,137 Messages
    15,498 Likes Received

    I think Barry said about the same thing except he did say something like...Just like pearl harbor and the jap attack...something along those lines.

    Also remember that 1995 was a different time and many did not have access to hear or read some of these types of coverages.
  3. Skeptic

    Skeptic New Member

    851 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Man I hate PC.

    Just for good measure.

  4. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Backwoods Sexy Staff Member

    68,137 Messages
    15,498 Likes Received

    You may hate PC....but respect the board a little and not throw those words in your post please...BTW I took it out.
  5. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,361 Messages
    19 Likes Received
    I've made this point in other forums here, but I'll make it once again.

    A word like "Jew" can have an innocent descriptive meaning, as in:
    "Jay Fiedler is a Jew."

    or an insulting "slur" meaning:
    "Boy, Jerry Jones sure is being a Jew this offseason."

    The difference here between acceptable and insulting should be obvious.

    "Jap," in my experience, is rarely innocent or merely descriptive, and is almost always considered offensive. It probably isn't the MOST offensive racial slur out there, but it certainly isn't innocent.

    That said, I agree that people are overreacting. But let's not pretend that it's a harmless word.
  6. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    5,776 Messages
    1,556 Likes Received
    All words are harmless.

    What we need to worry about are sticks and stones.
  7. LaTunaNostra

    LaTunaNostra He Made the Difference

    14,987 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    Here's the "historical" spin. ;)

    The words precede the sticks and stones, Eric, always have. They're what make the sticks and stones work.

    The Nazis ( and let's take it as a given I'm not calling Bill one :) are a text book case of how a society used words to stereotype and revile the Jewish population, to dehumanize Jews to the extent that a whole citizenry could be rounded up and literally shoveled into ovens with nary a protest. Such an unfathomable act was only possible because several years of racial name calling had softened the collective German brain to a polluted mush. (of course there were individuals - exceptions who decried it)

    The propaganda machine led by Josef Gebbels featured a whole vipers nests of pyschopaths like the "political cartoonist" Julius Streicher, whose "artwork" consisted of large beaked swarthy men lurking after innocent Aryan beauties. Words like "defiler", "Christ-killers", "parasites" and "polluters" were throughout the mid to late nineteen thirties used to describe the Jewish population. The difficult times following the international stock market crash, and the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles were both blamed on the "Jews".

    All of this was done with words, not sticks and stones. The word campaign so thoroughly convinced the Germans that their fellow citizens were "subhuman" (a favorite term of the Nazi mind controllers, that by the time the sticks and stones were hauled out, the "battle was already won". We wonder now how a whole nation could sit silent as they watched their neighbors, and co-workers rounded up, but just as the first concentration camp victims were given over silently or eagerly (the gays, German Communists and "mental defectives".. all of them attacked as unpatriotic or impure or unproductive for some time before they were imprisioned), the dehumanized Jews could be sacrificed merely because they were "Jews".

    One thing Nazi Germany taught is that a nation's minorites are ALWAYS at risk. Germany was the most technologically, and scientifically advanced nation in the world at the time, with a long flowering in the arts and philosophy. On one level, this was the most advanced civilization of its time. But is was able to do the unthinkable, because WORDS, rhetoric, scapegoating and simple name calling produced an environemnt in which millions, and many of them children, could be slaughtered.

    Of course this is one of the most horrible examples of concentrated STATE power using the "word" to instill its evil will, but ALL governments at some time actively engage in deliberately dehumanizing a population, usually in wartime.

    The use of the word "gook" in the VietNam Era was an example. In wartime a soldier is going to get killed himself, or cause the death of comrades, if he has even the slightest hesitation about killing. But it's hard to kill another human being, as every moral code in the world deplores it, and every decent human instinct protects life. For some it might be enough to kill out of a sense of duty, patriotism, or just because you were told to do so. But killling a "gook" is a lot easier than killing a human being. If you have to sink a bayonet into a man's gut at close range, it helps to think he's not quite a man exactly like you are. Who could anyone kill more easily? A ____________ or a man?

    Similarly the N word, supported, and often incensed lynchings, sometimes executed by quasi governmental elements, as the local law enforcement was typically involved in KKK style murders. The young men who killed Matthew Sheppard were said to use the word "faggot" often, and not in a adolescent way,. In a hate filled, dehumanizing way. It is almost unheard of that hate crimes are not accompaned by hate slogans. Before the bomb goes through the window of the synagogue or church, the term "mud people" has been used a million times.

    This is why, dislike the "politically correct" or not, the government of any reasonable nation sometime appears to overprotect its minority populations, and sometimes with specific legislation. Hate talk can turn to pogroms, and vendettas, and vigilanteeism fast. We saw how quickly the Bush Admin set the tone afetr 9/11 to protect our Arab American and Muslim citzenry. Some folks thought "what are they worrying about THOSE people for", but the gov did wise to let it be known no extra-legal independent actions were going to be appreciated.

    Racial and ethnic slurs dehumanize. They make the reipient less than human, and over time, their use desensitizes us to the condition or pain of that population. We might use these words with our friends, and even call our friends and relatives "you dumb ______" because we are so close, we actually share positive regard through a shared history with the word (such is the case of the "taking back" of the N word by black Americans, who managed to finally take the POWER of that word back and negate it with in-group use, tho personally I think it's time to put that one to bed). I call my best friend a dumb guinea and he loves it. But don't let a non-initiatee try it. It means something threatening then, not confirming.

    This is nothing new. Enough research has been done correlating the relationship between ethnic and racial violence, crime, and abuse and the use of racial slurs and epithets. And just as it is far easier to imagine a man who would use the words "B**CH" and "ho" as synonyms for "woman" mistreating a female than a man who would never allow those words to pass his lips, then its not hard to imagine the guy who calls someone a F*G at the drop of a hat, doing some physical gay bashing. Acceptance of the word sets up a climate where escalation is not just possible, but probable. Which is why every enlightened society enforces it own brand of political correctness. Minority populations everywhere are at special risk, always, be it Rwanda, or Sri Lanka, Iraq, or the USA.

    History has PROVEN that.

    As for the Tuna thing. Bill's habit of entertaining his press audience is a great show for us, but this is twice now he let a "term" he uses with his players slip out in public, and twice he's been burned for it. Just as the Marine drill sgts call raw recruits "ladies" , so we know some football coaches use similar "female" name calling to promote some idea of male toughness, and build esprit de corps. So Bill and Sean call them "Jap" plays. I think they'd do better to call them "Trojans", but whatever they call them, Bill has to keep it to himself. That little isolated universe of the football team has its own lingo, and so be it. The use of the term "Jap" plays is not a threat to broadening of racial dehumanization, because it stays solely within the context of that football use. (and that is what that Japanese football journalist present yesterday obviously understood... that man understands the sports vernacular and how it differs from much more dangerous generalized racist slurs.)

    But the public is not going to take such a narrow view of the very narrowly used teminology. And probably won't try to understand the difference either.

    Poor BILL!
  8. adbutcher

    adbutcher K9NME

    11,381 Messages
    1,316 Likes Received
    BRAVO! and thank you.
  9. Eric_Boyer

    Eric_Boyer Well-Known Member

    5,776 Messages
    1,556 Likes Received
    Spin is a good word for this.

    It requires quite a bit of stretch of my imagination to blame the atrocities of Germany simply on a succesfull propoganda machine. The truth was, and still is, that anti-semitism runs very deep in Europe, as it once did in America. These feeling stem not from words that were spoken, but in a belief of wrongs that were committed for hundreds of years.

    I'm not sure how America was able to shed these feelings but it seems we were successful at it and I don't believe it can be attributed to the politically correct crowd.
  10. LaTunaNostra

    LaTunaNostra He Made the Difference

    14,987 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    Yes, anti-semitism did and does run deep in Europe, which is why pograms cropped up in Eastern Europe and inquisitions in southern.

    But name a few, name ONE, of those wrongs that were committed by Jews to incite such hatred. ONE. The Nazis drew on that deep seated resentment, but they still needed to frame the debate, to find the words that brought the longstanding biogtry of SOME to the place where it could translate to the compliance of the many.

    The old saying "The pen is mightier than the sword" is most certainly true. The pen represents the WORD, and the sword never comes from "nowhere". It follows the words.

    PS OF course, our own specific idea of "political correctness" has protected the right of the Jewish minority here. But not always so well. Jews, like Catholics, and blacks have traditonally been the target of the right wing extremists and their many many many organizations.

    Just a little bitsy net surf will remind us much that "political correctness" is needed in the US. Some SCARY stuff out there.

    The overreaction to the perceived anti-semitism in Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ is an example of trying to head off potential backlash against a minority perhaps a little too heavy handedly. Did Newsweek really need to do that cover story? I do not know. But Jewish leaders certainly felt compelled to restate that "Jews did not kill Christ" before the films release. That such eminently rational people felt the need to question the film's portrayal of Jews as less sypathetic than the Romans, and more culpable, reflects the very real fear our Jewish minority feels. If a mere movie can make a community fear backlash, what does that tell us? It isn't ALL their imagination.

    Minorities need some measure of "political correctness" in any society , for basic reasons of security. There are folks out there,and many of them, who hate based on religion, skin color, and ethnicity, and some of them do something about it. They have their rights to the expression of their race hatred only within limits.

    Besides, it isn' t the government that in the end sets the tone for what can and cannot be said. It is US, it is society that makes the decisions on "politically correct" speech. And our society has decided, not any law, that you can use words like "g*ok, sp*c and k*ke". But don't expect to be welcomed into polite, educated society if you do. Don't expect to hold a job where a company's rep is in danger from your ignorance. Expect to wash toilets for a living. Expects to be beyond the pale. It's your choice. In a democracy where majority consensus sets the standard, we collectively have decided certain speech is anathema.

    Yup, we are free to use, legally speaking, any manner of "politically incorrect speech", we so choose, short of inciting violence. But the values, mores, and choices of the vast majority of oir own population has made the social decision to rise above race hatred, and to protect our minority populations. The restriction on speech comes via human dignity, and decency, and is a reflection of our national strength and character. One can remain a neanderthal if he or she chooses, but understand the price that comes with it is knowing the rest of the society marchs on without you. And so do the benefits of civilization.

    The way a nation treats its minoities has always been said to be the true measure of "degree" of civilization. The way we as a society are currently, if belatedly, choosing to protect our minorities makes me proud to be an American. We are doing a LITTLE legally (hate crime legislation), but MORE socially, (unacceptance for racial slurs and the like). This, imo, is the right balance. We don't want govrenment telling us what we "shouldn't say. We want our neighbors, peers, and fellow citizens to. We want to frame the debate ourselves, with the language we feel is appropriate, and we have.

    For me it's a source of patriotism, not complaint. What some choose to call "political correctness" I see almost always as postive evidence of the continued upwards development of a great society, one that couples economic and technological progress with the elevation of human rights, AND the protection of minorities.

    Who knows? Historically speaking, we just might be onto something that really does look impressive 1000 years from now.

    I'm signing off on this issue.. the trials and tribulations of AB are much more compelling right now. LOL

Share This Page