When the point of “free speech” is to exclude one’s targets from participation in public life, it is not free. Book burnings are not celebrations of intellectual freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3LLpNLo864

Any protesters ready to get on this bandwagon?

The point here is that we are way too sensitive about race. Can’t even make a joke about it. And don’t ever utter the word “jigaboo”! My God, as if “honkie” had never been used by a black comedian before. But then racism is purely a white phenomena, right?

As I’ve said, racism is indeed pervasive, and trying to suppress any kind of offensive racial references in speech is not the way to deal with it. I’m in favor of letting down impulse control in the area of speech. I always go by the motto “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” So keep up the vitriol if you like. Just don’t try to get me fired from my job for defending offensive speech.

It’s not protesting against the joke that makes the women victims, it’s the manner and degree to which one protests. Clearly, most of the media outrage is making these women into victims. I’ve heard their own coach call Imus “evil”, which raises the whole thing to a ridiculous level of warfare. I think these women are being taught a terrible and stupid lesson, and women like you are only perpetuating it. The pressure on these women to go along with this witchhunt is unconsciencable. No one even seems interested in what they actually think, and none of them are even able to speak for themselves – it’s all about going along with the team, the coach, the media, the critics, and going against that grain gets you targeted as a villain – as you and others here are doing.

Does it even occur to you that I’m not a racist, just in favor of free and open speech? It doesn’t seem to. Most of you are simply whitewashing this story, pretending there is only one side to it, your side, and anyone else is on the side of racism and evil. I would be defending Imus just as strongly if he were a black man making offensive comments about white women – the sad thing is, so would most of you out there. Which is precisely my point – this is a politically motivated witchhunt that has nothing to do with these women at all. They are just bystanders in a cultural war.

THe fact is, black men do make all kinds of offensive comments about white women – listen to rap music, my dears. I do. I really dig rap music, even the most offensive varieties, as long as it’s well done. Not everyone does of course, and that’s fine. Protest their misogyny and racism if you like. But don’t try to get them banned and censored and record companies to refuse to publish them. Scream all you like about Imus, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But don’t try to pressure anyone to fire him.

You may want to live in a society which censors all offensive statements that you consider offensive. I don’t. I don’t want to censor statements that I consider offensive. And Imus’ remarks do not, to me, in the modern cultural context, seem like any big deal at all.

As for “ho”, you can take it any way you like, but the usage of the term varies tremendously depending on context. Are you really saying that Imus’ intent was to impute that the Rutgers players were prostitutes? If so, then the Minnesota football team should be protesting that they are being called rapists and murderers when people call them “Vikings”. Or if a male football player is called a “marauder”, or a “Raider”. All of these imply rape as a way of doing business. But clearly, no one means to say that male football players are rapists when using such terms. Nor is “Pimp my ride” a phrase about learning how to be a pimp. Language is highly flexible, and making it rigid and offensive is the reactionary response of humorless church ladies and censors of all stripes.

So yes, I do consider many of these protests to be sexist in nature. I doubt anyone would be raising a stink if it were the Rutgers men’s team who had been referred to by Imus as “gangstas”. The fact that they are women is precisely what makes this a “story”, and the media is using the sexist notion that women are defenseless victims the primary reason to go after Imus here. Do you disagree with that?

Drop the zero, people, get with the hero!

the jowly cretin…”

Bigotry sucks, doesn’t it? Unless it’s directed at people who really deserve it. Then it’s okay.
Everybody knows hillbillies are worthless subhuman scum. And cavemen, well, that one’s been over for a long time, hasn’t it?
Though you have to admit Australian bushmen do resemble the stereotyped caveman, at least a little, even with clothes on and all drunk and lying on the sidewalk.
Cretins are okay to laugh at because hey, who knows any? None around here. They’re all in institutions!
You worthless assholes.

Or the Secretary of State. Just depends on what you expect to see, I guess.

Seriously, though, the whole “is he or isn’t he a racist” line of questioning is bogus, not least because treating people like substances and seeing whether X or Y characteristic is in their essence is not really a good ontology for human beings. We’re much more like complex events unfolding in time as we interact with other events than we are like substances with a set of essential characteristics.

Finally, as long as we’re talking about the remark, “joke” is not the right word. What was the set up for which Imus delivered his remark as the punchline? It wasn’t a joke, it was an insult.

You are right that the joke was racial, and that it was played on sympathetic parties. But calling them “victims” is exactly what I’m criticizing. I think that’s pretty sexist too – thinking of woman athletes as poor victims of a lame joke. To think that way actually requires that we diminish the strength and power of these young women. I don’t see them as victims at all, unless they are willing to play that role. The non-victim posture would be to just shrug this kind of crap off and refuse to let oneself be portrayed as victim in this witchunt craze.

Also, the issue of whether Imus is actually a racist does matter, even for longer than two weeks. It also matters whether the remark itself is actually racist, or just a bad racial joke on sympathetic people. The second is not a firing offense, nor a cause celebre for the civil rights movement.

For Ajay, as I said, the context of using the word “ho” matters greatly. I’m sure Imus would never use it to refer to a man’s wife, white or black, at a social occasion. His show is shock-jock entertainment, in which the host says precisely the kind of thing that none of us would say in regular social life. That’s the point. If you don’t approve of that kind of entertainment, fine, don’t listen to it. But don’t try to tell everyone else what they can and cannot listen to, based on your own preferences. Or, be prepared to have your own preferences censored as well. Let’s all go back to the 50’s, when even talking about black people was considered a no-no. Is that what you want?

Tell you what. What do you think would happen to you if you said (to a black man) “Your wife is a well-dressed woman”? Now, what do you think would happen if you said “Your wife is a well-dressed ho”? Because I think you might notice a difference in the reaction.