PDA

View Full Version : Conservative Radio Host quits after racist rant


wantafanta
21-08-10, 01:14
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/192233/thumbs/s-DR-LAURA-large.jpg

Yo! Ann Coulter. Take a good look.

Dr. Laura, who is not an MD, but wants you to think she is, has quit her longstanding talk radio gig, after a racist tirade in which she used the N-word eleven times. Crying about her 1st amendment right to free speech, the quack has vowed to take refuge in the Internet. A much more hospitable place for the brand of hate speech which has made this person millions. Of course, you can say just about anything you want and not be prosecuted under the law. The constitution says that. But that doesn't mean a private radio network can't fire you. If I talk like "Dr. Laura" at my job - then I'm gone, and I would deserve it. It's worth noting that "Dr." Laura is Jewish. I wonder how she would have answered had the caller been a Jewish woman who complained about her husband's friends using pejoratives for Jews?

http://www.salon.com/news/race/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2010/08/13/dr_laura_the_n_word

Dr. Laura's N-bomb meltdown
The controversial radio host goes off the rails making a point about race. Was she just misunderstood?
By Mary Elizabeth Williams

If you're going to make a point about racial sensitivity, Dr. Laura is probably not the best person for the job.

On Tuesday, the controversial radio host/crackpot fielded a call on her program from an African-American woman who said she was weary of her white husband's family and friends' racist comments. Dr. Laura immediately went on the offensive, asking the caller to cite specific examples, because "Some people are hypersensitive." The caller, a woman named Jade, explained that her husband's comrades ask her questions like "How do you black people like doing this? Do black people really like doing that?" -- which Schlessinger promptly dismissed as "not racist." It's funny, because I thought that ascribing a particular set of traits to a person based on the color of her skin was pretty much the textbook definition of racism, but, clearly, I'm no doctor. "A lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black,'" Dr. Laura continued. "Didn't matter what he was going to do in office. It was a black thing."

The caller then pressed on, asking: "What about the N-word? The N-word's been thrown around." To which Dr. Laura airily retorted: "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a buh-lack comic, and all you hear is nigger nigger nigger. I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it's affectionate."

The caller, clearly agitated by now, nevertheless remained respectful, asking, "Is it ever OK to say that word?" Schlessinger responded by accusing her of having a "chip on [her] shoulder," telling her "Don't NAACP me" and that she possessed "a lot of what I hear from blackthink." For the kicker, she added, "If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race." In other words, why are you black people so uptight?

Uzi master
21-08-10, 01:18
well, funny because of the point I was making she made the same one, but rudley.



you have to admit she sort of does have a point('s), like it or not it's true.



though she still was very rude and still a bit racist.

Tombraiderx08
21-08-10, 01:19
ew racists! D:

Encore
21-08-10, 01:24
ew racists! D:

Yeah..... pretty much my thoughts. :vlol:

t-raider26
21-08-10, 01:25
I hate her. She's the one always going on about how homosexuality is wrong. Check out this letter (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=284) some guy wrote to her in response to her homophobic comments, and constant quoting of the bible :vlol: It's one of the funniest things I've ever read :vlol:

TRhalloween
21-08-10, 01:25
Oooh, Dr Laura, she sounds very familiar :pi:

CiaKonwerski
21-08-10, 01:26
Read it. I agree with everything that she said.

Does anyone seriously believe that Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a racist? Anyone, I mean, who isn’t already accusing all conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party Americans, etc., etc., etc. of being racists?

Adversaries who have been trying to silence Dr. Laura for years seized on her recent use of the n-word on her show as she subsequently suggested that rap “artists” and other creative types like those producing HBO shows who regularly use the n-word could be questioned for doing so. Her intention in discussing the issue with a caller seeking advice was not to be hateful or bigoted. Though she did not mean to insult the caller, she did, and she apologized for it. Still, those who oppose her seized upon her mistake in using the word (though she didn’t call anyone the derogatory term) to paint her as something that she’s not. I can understand how she could feel “shackled” by those who would parse a single word out of decades of on-air commentary. I understand what she meant when she declared that she was “taking back my First Amendment rights” by turning to a new venue that will not allow others the ability to silence her by going after her stations, sponsors, and supporters.

I, and obviously many others, have been “shackled” too by people who play games with false accusations, threats, frivolous lawsuits, misreporting, etc., in an effort to silence those with whom they disagree. That’s why I tend to defend people who call it like they see it while others stop at nothing to shut them up. I learned this valuable lesson when the partisan obstructionists in my state tried to shackle, bankrupt, and destroy my family and supporters, and my record, with endless frivolous litigation when I returned from the Vice Presidential campaign trail. In order to shake off the shackles they wanted to paralyze us with, I handed the reins to another, much like Dr. Laura is doing, so that these obstructionists who hated a Commonsense Conservative agenda wouldn’t win. I didn’t retreat; I reloaded in order to fight for what is right on a fairer battlefield. So, more power to someone with good intentions who refuses to be shackled by their detractors when they are falsely accused of being racist.

Dr. Laura did not call anyone or any group of people the n-word. Curiously, the same criers over this issue didn’t utter a word when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel called a group protesting the Obama Administration’s actions, “f***ing retards.” When this presidential spokesman uttered this term I commented that the President would be better off not including Emmanuel in his circle of advisers, and my opinion was based not just on the crude and disrespectful term Emmanuel used to label people, but because he too often gives the President very poor advice. I was called intolerant and narrow-minded by many on the Left for commenting on that issue. Many of these same Leftists are now spinning the Dr. Laura issue into something it is not. As usual, their hypocrisy and double standard applications are glaring.

- Sarah Palin

Chocola teapot
21-08-10, 01:32
She can GTFO.

...

Catracoth
21-08-10, 01:43
Am I the only one who thinks she looks like the offspring of Amanda Evert and Jacqueline Natla (from Lara's Shadow)?

Uzi master
21-08-10, 01:44
or sophia lee whithout her make-up

t-raider26
21-08-10, 02:07
or sophia lee whithout her make-up

I lol'd :vlol:

just croft
21-08-10, 02:36
Never heard of this woman before and I didn't read the article only listen to the audio... I really can't see anything racist about her. The only thing I didn't like about it was when the put Obama in the conversation, I mean what's her point there? It wasn't used to present any good argument at all, she just mentioned him and I got the feeling it was because she's a strong conservative. As for racism in the words, I really didn't feel there was any.

On the other hand I also feel that the phone caller was somewhat nervous and didn't get a propper chance to explain herself better.

wantafanta
21-08-10, 03:54
Read it. I agree with everything that she said.

Does anyone seriously believe that Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a racist? Anyone, I mean, who isn’t already accusing all conservatives, Republicans, Tea Party Americans, etc., etc., etc. of being racists?

When I see your party ( and I assume you are a Republican ) supporting the flying of the Confederate flag over state buildings in the South, then I have to believe that, yes, conservatives are racist. And her flagrant use of this offensive, hateful word 11 times in front of a black woman is despicable. Of course there is a big difference when white people use the N-word and two African-Americans use it. It's called "Context." Duh! The word serves 2 different purposes depending on who is using it. You'd think that an educated "doctor" would know that.

Name for me 3 programs which the Republican party has promoted to help minorities in this country. Your party opposes Affirmative Action, it opposes school lunch programs, it cut legal assistance for the poor. It's not coincidence that Republicans never earn the black nor the Hispanic vote. And well they shouldn't.

As I asked, how would "Dr." Laura have responded had the caller been a Jewish woman complaining that her husband's friends were calling her a pejorative for 'Jew'? Do you think Dr. Laura would have answered the same way? I think not.

aktrekker
21-08-10, 04:21
Of course there is a big difference when white people use the N-word and two African-Americans use it. It's called "Context." Duh! The word serves 2 different purposes depending on who is using it.
A white person can use the word in different contexts.
Perhaps you are confused as to what "context" means? It doesn't mean "the person who says it". It means "the topic of conversation and how it fits into that topic".

CiaKonwerski
21-08-10, 04:28
When I see your party ( and I assume you are a Republican ) supporting the flying of the Confederate flag over state buildings in the South, then I have to believe that, yes, conservatives are racist. And her flagrant use of this offensive, hateful word 11 times in front of a black woman is despicable. Of course there is a big difference when white people use the N-word and two African-Americans use it. It's called "Context." Duh! The word serves 2 different purposes depending on who is using it. You'd think that an educated "doctor" would know that.

Name for me 3 programs which the Republican party has promoted to help minorities in this country. Your party opposes Affirmative Action, it opposes school lunch programs, it cut legal assistance for the poor. It's not coincidence that Republicans never earn the black nor the Hispanic vote. And well they shouldn't.

As I asked, how would "Dr." Laura have responded had the caller been a Jewish woman complaining that her husband's friends were calling her a pejorative for 'Jew'? Do you think Dr. Laura would have answered the same way? I think not.

Did you even listen to the interview or read what I posted?

t-raider26
21-08-10, 04:44
Alright, well, what she said is definitely true. However it's the way she said it that upset people. And I mean she's said much worse things before, so people have already accused her of being a racist. So it's not like this is a one time thing. What she said about the n word and so on, is indeed true. But she is indeed a racist. Maybe not 100% for this one comment, but she's proven herself to be a racist (as well as other things) many times before.

knightgames
21-08-10, 05:06
I don't know what bee flew into her bonnet, but she either misunderstood the caller, wasn't listening or had her mind so preoccupied that no answer she gave would have mattered. Not sure where the disconnect with her and the caller came about. Too old? Bad day? Curmudgeon?

Dr. (sic) Schlesinger did jump the shark by answering her like she did; advising the woman to get a sense of humor.

The "N" word spoken 11 times? Taken out of the context from the lady's call, I have no issue with what Laura said. Hey. South Park makes a comedy episode regarding the "N word" and strikes a ratings bonanza. She makes a point regarding the inequity of certain people using certain words by using the word and she's racist.

Again. I think there was a huge disconnect between the two. Was Schlesinger rude? Yup. Callous (in that she never really listened/heard the caller)? Yup. Racist? No. Maybe she is getting too old to do the show and it is affecting her ability but I don't see her comments as racist.

Cochrane
21-08-10, 07:55
The question isn’t whether she is a racist person. The real question is whether she is offensive. And if you look at the context, as so many people here claim to do, she definitely is offensive. After all, she was saying it to a woman who already called because she was upset about racist comments. And she also told her she shouldn’t have married outside her race, which, joke or not, is something I’d consider more offensive.

And this is not an accidental slip-up. Nobody’s asking her to walk on eggshells. She said things that anybody should know to be offensive, to a person who already said that she was offended by them. If she was truly not aware that people would object to that, she shouldn’t be given her own radio show. Or, for that matter, a license to operate motor vehicles.

Mokono
21-08-10, 08:10
This is beautiful. In order to determine if she's a racist or not, we must think about the word itself. What does it mean? What's it's origin? In what context was it used? I'm clumsy about anything regarding racial conflicts in the United States, but one thing is certain: this word couldn't be more ambiguous. If it's offensiveness depends on the racial background of the person who says it, then it's not offensive at all, because insults are meant to trigger a negative emotion in the receiver mind and this can only be accomplished if the receiver acknowledges the offensiveness of the word. For example, the Spanish word for black is negro. Is it offensive for us? No, because it only means a color that is present in shoes, pencils, etc. That said, it's even common in this country to describe someone by the color of their skin and maybe nickname a person because of it without being racist; in order to insult someone, you'd have to use a preposition and a cuss word inmediately after the adjective in order to make it sound offensive or probably use an alternative word. But let's go back to the topic, i only mentioned this as an example to show how words are strictly linked to the mental images we make when we hear or think them. If that mental image is negative, then it's an insult, but how am i supposed to know whether it is or not an insult if it's right for some and wrong for others? As long as there's a semantic conflict regarding the word, then you can bet that there are gonna be more conflicts of this nature. Not only because you may or not offend someone, but because someone who is not actually offended may use the ambiguity of the word in order to pretend to be offended and try to exploit a benefit from the situation. Sad, but happens more than we think.

Lara's Nemesis
21-08-10, 08:21
I can't hear the audio but from what I have read I'm sure that I wouldn't get on very well with Dr Laura.

"The caller then pressed on, asking: "What about the N-word? The N-word's been thrown around." To which Dr. Laura airily retorted: "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a buh-lack comic, and all you hear is nigger nigger nigger. I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it's affectionate."

Oversized GIF removed.

aktrekker
21-08-10, 08:58
The woman married a white man. She knew what he was like when she married him. At least she should have. If she didn't it's her mistake, either accept it or get out of the relationship. If she did know what he was like and still married him, again it's her mistake, either accept it or get out of the relationship.

The woman was wrong, all the way. Dr Laura tried to tell her. The woman wasn't getting it, probably because she didn't want to admit she had made a major mistake in her life. While she may have seemed a bit rude, I think the woman knew what she was saying was true but was trying to make excuses for what she had done and for now regretting it.

Ignore the use of the n word and listen again, or read the conversation. Dr Laura was right. The woman was wrong.

Apathetic
21-08-10, 09:04
The woman married a white man. She knew what he was like when she married him. At least she should have. If she didn't it's her mistake, either accept it or get out of the relationship. If she did know what he was like and still married him, again it's her mistake, either accept it or get out of the relationship.

The woman was wrong, all the way. Dr Laura tried to tell her. The woman wasn't getting it, probably because she didn't want to admit she had made a major mistake in her life. While she may have seemed a bit rude, I think the woman knew what she was saying was true but was trying to make excuses for what she had done and for now regretting it.

Ignore the use of the n word and listen again, or read the conversation. Dr Laura was right. The woman was wrong.

Well you'd have to be a fool to not see that she was being attacted by a woman who is blatantly racist?

aktrekker
21-08-10, 09:14
The woman wasn't being attacked.
She got herself into the situation she was in. So this call amounted to whining, nothing more. Dr Laura told her what she needed to hear - get over it.

t-raider26
21-08-10, 09:16
But Dr Laura went about it completely wrong. And looks like the idiot in the end of it all.

Mokono
21-08-10, 09:19
The woman wasn't being attacked.
She got herself into the situation she was in. So this call amounted to whining, nothing more. Dr Laura told her what she needed to hear - get over it.

I just heard it on youtube and that radio host said something important: "don't take it out of context". Of course, she said the word as an example, but the woman on the other side of the line got offended because the radio host isn't Oprah Winfrey :confused:?

t-raider26
21-08-10, 09:26
Ok, I just heard the audio, and I've come to the conclusion that Dr Laura is the biggest ***** alive. Done.

Mokono
21-08-10, 09:32
Ok, I just heard the audio, and I've come to the conclusion that Dr Laura is the biggest ***** alive. Done.

But why specifically? I mean, sure her tone was above the line and even after recognizing that the woman was "hyper sensitive" she didn't try to work out a level to picture the woman a better scenario so she can understand the root of her problem and take some advices. What i see in this Dr. Laura it's not racism, just an arrogant way to treat those who doesn't fit her standards of normality. She could've gone deeper on the issue and probably think about other black people listening the show who also happen to think the same way the caller does. The discussion could've been amazing and many lessons could've been learnt that day... But no, she had to confront this woman and try a pseudo victim role by describing some sort of "racial war for power". That's where the mistake is, not in the N-N-N thing.

t-raider26
21-08-10, 09:38
just an arrogant way to treat those who doesn't fit her standards of normality.

In this case the person was a black person, which is technically racism. I dont think the fact she said the N word was racist, but the way she treated that woman wasnt right. When the woman gave the example about her neighbor making remarks, Dr Laura said they weren't racist when they definitely were. And the basketball thing was too.

aktrekker
21-08-10, 09:41
Ok, I just heard the audio, and I've come to the conclusion that Dr Laura is the biggest ***** alive. Done.
There are many other candidates for that title. Several names on this forum come to mind...:p

t-raider26
21-08-10, 09:42
:vlol: Yeah I can think of a few

Apathetic
21-08-10, 09:50
:vlol: Yeah I can think of a few

A few? I could list a whole page.

Mokono
21-08-10, 09:51
In this case the person was a black person, which is technically racism.

I'm really sorry, but i don't understand what you mean. Is adressing to a black person something racist? Or is it having an oppinion different than a black person what is racist?

I dont think the fact she said the N word was racist, but the way she treated that woman wasnt right.

I fully agree with you here, but mistreatment is not exclusive to one race or groups in particular. If tomorrow i go to a foreign country and i get a bad treatment for someone... Sure, it may be because of xenophobia, but i can't be 100% sure that that's the case. Maybe i just had an argument with someone and this person reactions happen to be over the tone every time and regardless what background i may have. Thinking that this person is yelling at me because i'm Peruvian is nothing but an assumption, and it gets me nowhere.

When the woman gave the example about her neighbor making remarks, Dr Laura said they weren't racist when they definitely were. And the basketball thing was too.

I didn't understand the basketball thing, but Dr. Laura explained that people is interested in knowing the perspectives of other people. Using a similar example than the one i gave you above: if someone asks me how Peruvians think of a certain topic or whether Peruvians in general like one thing or another, should i feel threatened? Absolutely not, in fact, it's something that happens more oftenly than you think here on the internet or whenever i talk to exchange students in my university. I've been asked about corruption, poverty, racism, stereotypes and even things that are a little rough to ask someone depending on the context, but i've always been calmed about it and replied all the questions i've been asked, people is curious and sometimes they just want to know about some things. And why is it that you think that the family of this man was racist? The N word issue is the perfect proof that there's a communication gap between Americans with different colors of skin. So i can imply that there are some things that some people think and some things that others do not; if this is the case, it's normal that someone from group A asks someone from group B what does people from the B group thinks or what does he/she as someone from group B thinks. People is curious and we're social beings perfectly capable of holding exchange of thoughts withoug having to jump at each others.

Cochrane
21-08-10, 10:39
The woman married a white man. She knew what he was like when she married him. At least she should have. If she didn't it's her mistake, either accept it or get out of the relationship. If she did know what he was like and still married him, again it's her mistake, either accept it or get out of the relationship.

The woman was wrong, all the way. Dr Laura tried to tell her. The woman wasn't getting it, probably because she didn't want to admit she had made a major mistake in her life. While she may have seemed a bit rude, I think the woman knew what she was saying was true but was trying to make excuses for what she had done and for now regretting it.

Ignore the use of the n word and listen again, or read the conversation. Dr Laura was right. The woman was wrong.
How do you manage to come to that conclusion? Did you listen to the same interview I did? The woman complained about her husband’s friends, not him (and why shouldn’t she if they are making racist remarks?). Dr. Laura did not try to tell her that she should accept this racism or get a divorce. She told her that she was an idiot for being offended and that the remarks are not a big deal.

The woman wasn't being attacked.
She got herself into the situation she was in. So this call amounted to whining, nothing more. Dr Laura told her what she needed to hear - get over it.
The only thing that woman did wrong was calling this radio host.

aktrekker
21-08-10, 10:41
Everyone has their own opinion.

Mad Tony
21-08-10, 10:43
Your party opposes Affirmative ActionYou make it sound like that's a bad thing. Affirmative action (or "positive" discrimination) as it's called over here is criminal and completely wrong. If you support it you're just as bad as those who were in favor of segregation 50 years ago.

You wouldn't support discrimination against minorities so I find it very hypocritical that you think it's acceptable to discriminate against whites.

lunavixen
21-08-10, 13:06
I hate her. She's the one always going on about how homosexuality is wrong. Check out this letter (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=284) some guy wrote to her in response to her homophobic comments, and constant quoting of the bible :vlol: It's one of the funniest things I've ever read :vlol:some of thise quotes came from the West Wing (i think it was Season 1 "the state dinner") when Josiah Bartlet rips a "doctor" to shreds

The question isn’t whether she is a racist person. The real question is whether she is offensive. And if you look at the context, as so many people here claim to do, she definitely is offensive. After all, she was saying it to a woman who already called because she was upset about racist comments. And she also told her she shouldn’t have married outside her race, which, joke or not, is something I’d consider more offensive.

And this is not an accidental slip-up. Nobody’s asking her to walk on eggshells. She said things that anybody should know to be offensive, to a person who already said that she was offended by them. If she was truly not aware that people would object to that, she shouldn’t be given her own radio show. Or, for that matter, a license to operate motor vehicles.i think the words she actually said weren't that offensive on their own (i don't personally think this way though) but the way she said them was highly offensive

Super Badnik
21-08-10, 15:15
Oh God, what an ignorant twit. Although she did make a resonable point about who can use the N-Word. IMO if one group of people can't say it, then nobody should be allowed to say it (otherwise its almost discrimination). Too bad she had to be a total bigot about it. And how can she seriously suggest racism is funny?

knightgames
21-08-10, 15:38
Ok, I just heard the audio, and I've come to the conclusion that Dr Laura is the biggest ***** alive. Done.


Yes. But is she a racist *****? :ton:


re atrekker's comment about the caller getting herself in the situation.


If you marry a guy you'd think you'd know what kind of friends/family he has and would be able to make a judgment on how your relation might be affected by other sources...... ie: his friends/family being racially insensitive. There's nothing wrong with that. It's called love. We overlook many things to be with the one who makes our heart go aflutter.

Now after years (asumedly) of stupidity from his friends she's asking advise on how to deal with it. It may be a situation of the horse already out of the barn, but it's still an issue she was seeking help with and as a professional Lara funked up big time.

As I said earlier, I don't know how or why she jumped to the tangent she did but she did.



Her comments about the "N word" are fine OUTSIDE the context of this callers dilemma.

trlestew
21-08-10, 15:40
Oh God, what an ignorant twit. Although she did make a resonable point about who can use the N-Word. IMO if one group of people can't say it, then nobody should be allowed to say it (otherwise its almost discrimination). Too bad she had to be a total bigot about it. And how can she seriously suggest racism is funny?

I'm black, and I don't call "fellow negros" the 'N' word.
Neither do I like to be called it.

She was just biased and ignorant in what she said.

Super Badnik
21-08-10, 15:59
I'm black, and I don't call "fellow negros" the 'N' word.
Neither do I like to be called it.

She was just biased and ignorant in what she said.I wasn't sterotyping, but society in general is more accepting of black people and african-americans using the "N word".

Catracoth
21-08-10, 16:01
I wasn't sterotyping, but society in general is more accepting of black people and african-americans using the "N word".

Since when? Where I come from, the N word is the worst form of vulgarity.

Super Badnik
21-08-10, 16:18
Since when? Where I come from, the N word is the worst form of vulgarity.Since when? Really? Its been the way for along time, although these days more people do seem to question whether its ok for anyone to use the word. From where ever you come from that may be the case, but soceity as a whole seems to say no to white people saying it but don't seem bothered about black people saying it. Of course there are contexts but white people saying it will almost always result in offence. All you have to do to find examples is look at pop culture, we've all played San Andreas but who here complained to Rockstar about the use of the "N word"? Not many I suspect. Meanwhile you have Steinbeck's book 'Of Mice and Men' which was controversial because the word was used by a white man. It should be pointed out that it is not a racist book and by no means encourages racism and the "N word" was used in context of the setting.

To be honest I don't believe or am saying people should be banned by law from saying words, it is un-liberal to do so and the only way to fully eradicate racism is to educate people on why its wrong.

Catracoth
21-08-10, 16:21
Must be a UK thing. I have never heard of the N word being accepted in society.

Paddy
21-08-10, 16:23
Some people do say it to each other but to say society generally does is ludicrous.

Agent 47
21-08-10, 16:40
Since when? Where I come from, the N word is the worst form of vulgarity.

I agree and i'm white. Resulting racial slurs is lowest form of arguing and shows an utter lack of class.

Must be a UK thing. I have never heard of the N word being accepted in society.

I don't believe the UK is accepting of the N word. Maybe the person you are responding to is trying to make the UK sound more intellectually tolerant than it actually is. It's certainly NOT acceptable to use such words in my presence that's for sure.

Over here if a presenter used such language they'd be out of a job for sure, not only that but OFCOM would in all probability give the network a dressing down and maybe a fine.

CiaKonwerski
21-08-10, 18:00
Does anyone in here know that Dr. Laura is always openly blunt on her radio show to begin with? The caller knew what she was getting into when she called, as atrekker had said. She knew that Dr. Laura would tell her out it is, and if she is offended, she should not have called in the first place. Dr. Laura's radio show is always openly verbal, or however you want to call it. She tells it how it really is, and if people do not want to listen to it and get offended by something that she says, then oh well.

Cochrane
21-08-10, 19:24
I wasn't sterotyping, but society in general is more accepting of black people and african-americans using the "N word".
But isn’t it possible and in fact likely that "Blacks use it all the time" is another almost racist stereotype? Dr. Laura herself only quotes TV channels as evidence for her statement.

Does anyone in here know that Dr. Laura is always openly blunt on her radio show to begin with? The caller knew what she was getting into when she called, as atrekker had said. She knew that Dr. Laura would tell her out it is, and if she is offended, she should not have called in the first place. Dr. Laura's radio show is always openly verbal, or however you want to call it. She tells it how it really is, and if people do not want to listen to it and get offended by something that she says, then oh well.
That is true, I have no idea why this woman chose to call this radio host (or any radio host for that matter). Still, there is no denying that Dr. Laura said it and that it did offend many people. One could say that this incident brought out her true nature.

knightgames
21-08-10, 19:28
I wasn't sterotyping, but society in general is more accepting of black people and african-americans using the "N word".

It's tacitly opposed which IMO isn't far removed from being accepted.


With a lot of the music industry becoming more and more lax in 'decency' the 'N word' is thrown about a lot. 'Youngins' either think it's cool or just don't have the judgment skills to know what's acceptable or not.

The open nature of the internet is another source where standards of 'decency' have many levels. Again, kids don't have the ability to judge acceptability. Sure, Mommy and Daddy covered all the bases, but when you read, hear, and are exposed to so many different things opposed to what you were brought up with, the excesses become normal.

Anyone remember the topic a few weeks back where an 11 year old girl dropped the *C* word on national morning TV? There was an astute comment regarding the prevalence to the type of media she was exposed. It's how most of her friends talk. Probably her parents to some extent. All combine to make her use of the *C* word so acceptable to this young girl, that she didn't even think to filter her comment.

I think it's the same phenomena regarding the use of the racial epithet that while not socially acceptable the prevalence of it has become tolerated. Thus it appears socially accepted - though it's not.

Uzi master
21-08-10, 19:35
or maybe what you find unn-acceptable the "youngins" as you say don't care, standards can change, and really everyone uses swear words anyway.

Super Badnik
21-08-10, 19:56
Some people do say it to each other but to say society generally does is ludicrous.

But isn’t it possible and in fact likely that "Blacks use it all the time" is another almost racist stereotype? Dr. Laura herself only quotes TV channels as evidence for her statement.Oh Jesus. What part of "Society is generally more accepting of it" euquates to soceity in general is using the "N word"?

knightgames
21-08-10, 19:58
or maybe what you find un-acceptable the "youngins" as you say don't care, standards can change, and really everyone uses swear words anyway.


That's fair. I don't disagree 100%. But if standards are going to change, do they have to degenerate?

My comment wasn't strictly based on swearing, but I thought it was a decent accessible example as to how standards change (or becomes socially 'accepted/tolerated'). If enough people use the word nigger then it becomes a new standard? That's what I get from your post.

Uzi master
21-08-10, 20:02
well how people perceive a word would change, the n word could just be considered another way to say black person, cause it's kinda what it meant in the first place, it's a word and it can't physically damage you or anything, that were the slavedrivers not the word:p

aktrekker
21-08-10, 20:29
Something else to consider.
The woman says it's her husband's friends that do this. Surely they aren't around unless her husband is home. So they must be doing it in front of her husband. And he does nothing about it. Apparently he feels the same way as his friends.
Yet the woman won't admit that in the call. She obviously isn't willing to face it. So she tries to hide behind the old "it's a friend" story. She wasn't being honest. She needed to be called on it. Sometimes you have to be tough on someone to get them to admit to the real problem.

If this woman won't be honest then what does she expect someone to tell her?

She surely wouldn't have called unless she had listened to the show before. And she wouldn't have called unless she (at least partly) agreed with Dr Laura's opinions. She had to have some idea what kind of answer she would get. And that's the answer she got.
Or else this was a deliberate setup.....conspiracy theory anyone?

Legend 4ever
21-08-10, 20:49
How is this even a debate? Saying "Do black people really like that?" as if they're supposed to like or dislike something because of the color of their skin is undoubtedly offensive. And then this lady goes to tell the caller she is overreacting or too sensitive. Plus, Obama? Who's even asking her about Obama?


"I was attempting to make a philosophical point," she explained, adding that "I ended up, I’m sure, with many of you losing the point I was trying to make, because you were shocked by the fact that I said the word."
This woman knows nothing about philosophy if she thinks she was being philosophical with this. I was not shocked she said the word, I'm shocked she actually thought there wouldn't be people who would expect exactly this kind of behavior from a person like her. It's easy to pull a "You misinterpreted it." card once you've already said what you wanted to say. This wasn't about the caller at all, and that's why people should have boycotted her "show" a long time ago. She's only pushing her agenda.

Cochrane
21-08-10, 21:28
Something else to consider.
The woman says it's her husband's friends that do this. Surely they aren't around unless her husband is home. So they must be doing it in front of her husband. And he does nothing about it. Apparently he feels the same way as his friends.
Yet the woman won't admit that in the call. She obviously isn't willing to face it. So she tries to hide behind the old "it's a friend" story. She wasn't being honest. She needed to be called on it. Sometimes you have to be tough on someone to get them to admit to the real problem.

If this woman won't be honest then what does she expect someone to tell her?

She surely wouldn't have called unless she had listened to the show before. And she wouldn't have called unless she (at least partly) agreed with Dr Laura's opinions. She had to have some idea what kind of answer she would get. And that's the answer she got.
Or else this was a deliberate setup.....conspiracy theory anyone?

You keep trying to read things into what Dr. Laura said that I simply can’t find in there. Dr. Laura never asked "What about your husband? Is he OK with that?". She never "called her out" on anything. She never said or even implied that the woman was lying about who it was who was offending her. No, she only said that the caller should not be offended in the first place because such remarks are not offending to anyone but "hypersensitive" people.

The only thing she said that remotely approaches what you say is the closing statement that if that caller doesn’t have a sense of humor, she should not have married out of her race. Looking at that statement in context, it appears to be more a "shut up, *****" than a hidden hint to talk this through with her husband. If you have reason to believe anything else, I’d like to see what parts of the call exactly you base it on.

As for the deliberate setup, I doubt it. If you tried to goad someone into saying something offensive, would you use this approach?

aktrekker
21-08-10, 22:15
I did not say Dr Laura said any of those things. And there is nothing in my post you can point to that would imply I said it.

To see what I see you have to ignore Dr Laura for a moment. Look at the caller. What was their intention? Why did they make the call? Why did they choose Dr Laura? Why would her husband put up with this treatment of his wife? Why can't she see that? Or does she see it but doesn't want to admit it?

Now back to Dr Laura...she has been doing this for many years. She would obviously have seen through the caller. She would realize she was really talking about her husband - that was the real issue.
Since the woman wasn't willing to deal with her husband, it was obvious she was willing to put up with this treatment. Or maybe she wasn't. In any case she shouldn't have to put up with it. But until she faced the real problem - her husband - the treatment would continue. She had to be pushed to the point that she would realize what the problem really is and what really needs to be done. She had to be made to realize where the real source of the treatment was. She had to be confronted with the discrimination she thought she was experiencing.
This is a common method used by psychologists, forcing people to face something that is unpleasant. Some psychologists are more subtle about it, some are rather crude. Both types get results.
Dr Laura just happens to use the rather crude style. But I bet it woke the woman up so she can deal with the real problem. Or maybe she still can't face the truth.

Super Badnik
21-08-10, 22:59
I did not say Dr Laura said any of those things. And there is nothing in my post you can point to that would imply I said it.

To see what I see you have to ignore Dr Laura for a moment. Look at the caller. What was their intention? Why did they make the call? Why did they choose Dr Laura? Why would her husband put up with this treatment of his wife? Why can't she see that? Or does she see it but doesn't want to admit it?

Now back to Dr Laura...she has been doing this for many years. She would obviously have seen through the caller. She would realize she was really talking about her husband - that was the real issue.
Since the woman wasn't willing to deal with her husband, it was obvious she was willing to put up with this treatment. Or maybe she wasn't. In any case she shouldn't have to put up with it. But until she faced the real problem - her husband - the treatment would continue. She had to be pushed to the point that she would realize what the problem really is and what really needs to be done. She had to be made to realize where the real source of the treatment was. She had to be confronted with the discrimination she thought she was experiencing.
This is a common method used by psychologists, forcing people to face something that is unpleasant. Some psychologists are more subtle about it, some are rather crude. Both types get results.
Dr Laura just happens to use the rather crude style. But I bet it woke the woman up so she can deal with the real problem. Or maybe she still can't face the truth.That seems like a real big maybe. And this woman's apparent homophobic history makes me think that the most likely explaination is the most obvious one unfortunatley.

knightgames
21-08-10, 23:14
I did not say Dr Laura said any of those things. And there is nothing in my post you can point to that would imply I said it.

To see what I see you have to ignore Dr Laura for a moment. Look at the caller. What was their intention? Why did they make the call? Why did they choose Dr Laura? Why would her husband put up with this treatment of his wife? Why can't she see that? Or does she see it but doesn't want to admit it?



IOW: If her then fiancee, his friends, his family had said anything overtly racist to indicate a dislike for another race she wouldn't have married the man. If the relationship prior to marriage was peppered with ignorant comments, but not overtly racial - then since she continued the relation this wasn't an issue. Now that she's married and is perturbed with her hubby's friends slights she wants to know how to deal with the issue.

These comments the hubby's friends were making weren't described as anything more disturbing than comments. Had they been so she should have left.

SO............. instead the issue is how to get a back bone and tell your hubby's friends off concerning their stupidity and not racist comments.


THAT'S what Laura was saying. She cut to the B.S. instead of letting the lady feel sorry for herself.

I'd not have done it the same way and I still think she muffed up, but after thinking about this and comments on the forum - her perception was spot on. Her APPROACH was very wrong.

Paddy
22-08-10, 01:50
Oh Jesus. What part of "Society is generally more accepting of it" euquates to soceity in general is using the "N word"?
Even saying society in general is accepting is ludicrous too.

wantafanta
22-08-10, 04:18
You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Affirmative action (or "positive" discrimination) as it's called over here is criminal and completely wrong. If you support it you're just as bad as those who were in favor of segregation 50 years ago.

You wouldn't support discrimination against minorities so I find it very hypocritical that you think it's acceptable to discriminate against whites.

I think it's a terrific and wonderful idea to discriminate against whites, if a company has a documented history of excluding minorities from its payroll and hiring only whites, and our court system orders that company to start hiring qualified minorities and to stop their racist BS.

I know your reasoning very well, Tony. I've heard it all before on right wing talk radio. You guys kick and scream about "discrimination." But only when it is the law is giving a black guy an even break. Then it's a crime. But when it's business as usual and the blacks and the Hispanics get turned away just because of their color, you guys are nowhere to be seen. So don't go calling me hypocritical.

Paddy
22-08-10, 04:20
I dont see how its teriffic to discriminate against whites. How is that any better then discriminating anyone else?

lunavixen
22-08-10, 04:51
the reality is everyone has racist tendencies or discriminatory tendencies, white people against each other, darker skinned against white, black against black. it's whether we show it or not that people pin it on us, discrimination (if you take it very simply) can be defined as merely excluding someone from an activity because of one of their features, whether it is hair or skin colour, eye colour or anything.

this is just a very simple definition mind taken at the most basic level.

i personally don't see why anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone, discrimination and racism are unacceptable to me, full stop.
i'm not saying i haven't subconcoiuosly discriminated against people before, but i just wholly disagree with people discriminating against others for something that person has no control over, like their skin colour or their background

TRhalloween
22-08-10, 04:58
White people say the stupidest thiiiiings! :D

remote91
22-08-10, 06:16
White people say the stupidest thiiiiings! :D
Gurl we crazy!

aktrekker
22-08-10, 06:34
And white men can't jump :p

Mad Tony
22-08-10, 11:48
I think it's a terrific and wonderful idea to discriminate against whites, if a company has a documented history of excluding minorities from its payroll and hiring only whites, and our court system orders that company to start hiring qualified minorities and to stop their racist BS.That's disgusting. You're joking right?

I know your reasoning very well, Tony. I've heard it all before on right wing talk radio. You guys kick and scream about "discrimination." But only when it is the law is giving a black guy an even break. Then it's a crime. But when it's business as usual and the blacks and the Hispanics get turned away just because of their color, you guys are nowhere to be seen. So don't go calling me hypocritical.Look, I know you hate all right-wingers but stop assuming we're all the same. I don't know what Conservative radio hosts you've been listening to and quite frankly I don't care either, but that doesn't give you a right to just go out and pretty much call me a racist just because you find some of the conservatives in your country racist. I don't agree with discrimination at all. It's wrong. It doesn't matter who or what group it's against it's all equally wrong.

Oh, and I should point out that affirmative action isn't giving anybody an even break. Giving minorities an even break would be anti-discrimination laws (which I agree with), not laws which encourage discrimination.

Jeez, and I thought I was partisan. You're way worse.

How is that any better then discriminating anyone else?It's not. However, some people have this warped idea that because minorities have been treated unfairly in the past the majority should now be treated unfairly.

What I find funny is that these people claim to stand up for black rights but don't even consider some of the things which MLK said.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Take note of that statement wantafanta.

I can't stand racists.

just croft
22-08-10, 13:51
The thing is, Mad Tony, that while nowadays society is more acceptable of a multicultural environment and discrimination by the color of one's skin is less and less likely to happen as time goes by, that was not the case when these law came into force. At that time, when applying for most jobs/universities, black people would not be judge by their character. The world needed positive discrimination, it is why we have a more tolerant society today.

Does positive discrimination still make sence today? Certainly not as much as it did back then but I don't know if it is already the right time to take it out.

Dennis's Mom
22-08-10, 14:04
Dr. Laura is a hack. She isn't even a psychologist. Her doctorate is in physiology, and I think it's grossly misleading to refer to herself as "Dr. Laura." Technically correct, perhaps, but definitely misleading.

She's horrid, dispenses terrible advice and abuses her callers. That said, anyone stupid enough to call her has no right to be upset when she treats them like s***. It's how she treats everyone. It's why she has(had) a show.

I'm glad she's off the air.

Alive_and_Funky
22-08-10, 14:20
I wasn't sterotyping, but society in general is more accepting of black people and african-americans using the "N word".
Since when?
In 'gangsta' culture, perhaps.

Mad Tony
22-08-10, 14:54
The thing is, Mad Tony, that while nowadays society is more acceptable of a multicultural environment and discrimination by the color of one's skin is less and less likely to happen as time goes by, that was not the case when these law came into force. At that time, when applying for most jobs/universities, black people would not be judge by their character. The world needed positive discrimination, it is why we have a more tolerant society today.

Does positive discrimination still make sence today? Certainly not as much as it did back then but I don't know if it is already the right time to take it out.No matter how bad discrimination was, "positive" discrimination is never the answer. It's just stooping down to the level of people who feel the need to discriminate and helps fuel racial tension. You can't fight discrimination with discrimination.

Beans-Bot
22-08-10, 15:00
I read the title ad assumed it was Glenn Beck. :( I've never even heard of this crazed ***** before, so I guess now I won't have to. :wve: Apparently Sarah Palin still supports this lady; which should be enough to end her career for good, but sadly her fanbase will just eat up anything she says.

and lol @ calling a racially-derogatory slang peppered tirade "not racist".

Cochrane
22-08-10, 15:27
I did not say Dr Laura said any of those things. And there is nothing in my post you can point to that would imply I said it.

To see what I see you have to ignore Dr Laura for a moment. Look at the caller. What was their intention? Why did they make the call? Why did they choose Dr Laura? Why would her husband put up with this treatment of his wife? Why can't she see that? Or does she see it but doesn't want to admit it?

Now back to Dr Laura...she has been doing this for many years. She would obviously have seen through the caller. She would realize she was really talking about her husband - that was the real issue.
Since the woman wasn't willing to deal with her husband, it was obvious she was willing to put up with this treatment. Or maybe she wasn't. In any case she shouldn't have to put up with it. But until she faced the real problem - her husband - the treatment would continue. She had to be pushed to the point that she would realize what the problem really is and what really needs to be done. She had to be made to realize where the real source of the treatment was. She had to be confronted with the discrimination she thought she was experiencing.
This is a common method used by psychologists, forcing people to face something that is unpleasant. Some psychologists are more subtle about it, some are rather crude. Both types get results.
Dr Laura just happens to use the rather crude style. But I bet it woke the woman up so she can deal with the real problem. Or maybe she still can't face the truth.
Personally, I am still not comvinced that the call supports this theory at all, but let's pretend that this is what happened for a minute. Why didn't Dr. Laura say so when asked about this? Her defense was along the lines of "it is not fair that I can't use that word", never "I was trying to help by being shocking".

wantafanta
22-08-10, 15:27
No matter how bad discrimination was, "positive" discrimination is never the answer. It's just stooping down to the level of people who feel the need to discriminate and helps fuel racial tension. You can't fight discrimination with discrimination.

So, if a robber sneaks into my house and shoots me in the arm, then it is wrong for me to shoot back? Two wrongs don't make a right, is that it? I shouldn't "stoop" to the level of the robber, right?

You are being disingenuous and trying to call an effective remedy "discrimination", when it is clearly not. Then what is your solution. Say you have a factory in a city that is 40% black, and that factory refuses to hire any black workers. All 200 workers there are white. What is your solution? Let the factory go on its merry way?

Or do you fix the problem and order this factory to begin hiring blacks the way it should have been doing all along. What is your remedy?

Mad Tony
22-08-10, 15:38
So, if a robber sneaks into my house and shoots me in the arm, then it is wrong for me to shoot back? Two wrongs don't make a right, is that it? I shouldn't "stoop" to the level of the robber, right?Depends on the situation. You should be able to do whatever is neccessary to defend yourself, your family and your home but this is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You are being disingenuous and trying to call an effective remedy "discrimination", when it is clearly not. Then what is your solution. Say you have a factory in a city that is 40% black, and that factory refuses to hire any black workers. All 200 workers there are white. What is your solution? Let the factory go on its merry way?It's discrimination.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudicehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

Even proponents of affirmative action (or positive discrimination as it's known here) admit that it's discrimination.

That's quite a simplistic example and you're not taking into account various other factors. What if few black people applied for jobs there? What if the white candidates were actually better? You just don't know. Regardless of all this I really do think it's a bad idea to start thinking a workplace should be representative of the local demographic. If you apply that logic to blacks you must also apply it to other minorities and we once again come back to selecting people for jobs based on skin color and not on merit.

Or do you fix the problem and order this factory to begin hiring blacks the way it should have been doing all along. What is your remedy?All the factory should be doing is treating all prospective job candidates and employees fairly regardless of race. This is why I think laws requiring employers to treat all people equally regardless of race are a good thing.

One of the big problems with affirmative action is that it's very counter-productive. Sure the intentions are good but in the process you will inevitably end up turning down better candidates. Not only that but as I said earlier, it does nothing for race relations.

robm_2007
22-08-10, 22:32
i just think that its quite terrible that black people have to be cursed with having an insult that is considered the worst word.

why has the N word become so much worse than insults for other races?

peeves
22-08-10, 22:42
She used the N word eleven times? It's just like saying the sp word 11 times. I guess she chose to say that due to freedom of speech.

Ward Dragon
22-08-10, 22:59
i just think that its quite terrible that black people have to be cursed with having an insult that is considered the worst word.

why has the N word become so much worse than insults for other races?

I think it's more the history of the word and how it's tied to slavery. Other races don't have that history (at least not in the US) therefore there aren't any other racial slurs which remind people of something as horrible as slavery (speaking purely from a generic US media type of standpoint of course -- I'm sure anybody getting insulted wouldn't like it regardless of what race they are or which slurs were used).

As far as Dr. Laura goes, this is one of those things where if a late night comic said it as part of a skit people would find it hilarious (I've seen similar things on Comedy Central, and I'm very tempted to post a certain Chris Rock video if it didn't break the forum rules), but I cannot believe she actually said it directly to a particular person. While I agree with her general complaint of a double standard regarding who can say what, it seems out of place to go off on the caller the way she did. I don't really see how she made the leap from what the caller said to complaining about the double standard. It seems rather that she has a lot of frustrations with society in general and she took it all out on this one caller who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If that's the way she treats her callers then she shouldn't be giving advice anymore.

Niveus
22-08-10, 23:46
Must be a UK thing. I have never heard of the N word being accepted in society.

Just want to add, that it is in many songs I have heard, world wide as well as here in the UK. :) I'd also like to add, that it isn't censored on the forum. :p Just saying. To me no profanity is a nice thing to hear or see, but, I wouldn't consider it the worst.

interstellardave
22-08-10, 23:54
Like her or not Dr. Laura doesn't coddle her callers. She gives them what she believes is the right advice--and it's often tough for people to hear, but that's usually the advice people really need.

Anyone who calls her HAS to know that by now. And she's not being attacked for her advice being "wrong" or "bad"; she's being attacked for using the "N" word... which seriously ought to be demystified by now. It's used all the time by tons of people but she can't say it, even in the context of telling someone that they basically need to be more thick-skinned when dealing with family? Everyone has to do that; even in non racially mixed marriages!

Mad Tony
23-08-10, 00:15
Apparently Sarah Palin still supports this lady; which should be enough to end her career for good, but sadly her fanbase will just eat up anything she says.Is it me or do people who don't like Sarah Palin seem to go on about her more than anyone else? :tea:

Ward Dragon
23-08-10, 00:27
Like her or not Dr. Laura doesn't coddle her callers. She gives them what she believes is the right advice--and it's often tough for people to hear, but that's usually the advice people really need.

Anyone who calls her HAS to know that by now. And she's not being attacked for her advice being "wrong" or "bad"; she's being attacked for using the "N" word... which seriously ought to be demystified by now. It's used all the time by tons of people but she can't say it, even in the context of telling someone that they basically need to be more thick-skinned when dealing with family? Everyone has to do that; even in non racially mixed marriages!

I've never listened to her show so I don't know what her usual methods are. I was thinking more like if she wants to go off on tangents complaining about society in general, then she should just do a commentary on it instead of doing it in the context of giving advice to a specific person. Her rant was too general and I don't really see how it was relevant to what the caller was asking about, so I can't imagine it was very helpful to the caller. Granted I blame Obama for a lot, but I can't see how he's possibly connected to the problem that woman was having with her husband's friends and family :p I think it would have made more sense to ask the caller questions like what does her husband say about the problem (has she even talked it over with him?), do the people seem malicious or are they just clueless, etc. and then give advice on how to deal with it.

Draco
23-08-10, 01:32
I hate race threads. They inevitably boil down to two camps:

Those that consider racism a good thing (liberals these days) and those that don't.

The stupidest part is of course that Democrats don't even care about minorities, they just talk about how much 'Republicans hate them' to voted into office.

Now we finally have a half assed black President, maybe the minorities can finally get out of the stigma they themselves are propogating.

wantafanta
23-08-10, 01:51
One of the big problems with affirmative action is that it's very counter-productive. Sure the intentions are good but in the process you will inevitably end up turning down better candidates. Not only that but as I said earlier, it does nothing for race relations.

Here is a prime example of you complaining about the possibility of better white candidates being turned away, when you couldn't care less that the company was probably turning away better qualified black candidates all the time. You don't care about the discrimination, only about the "reverse" discrimination.

I asked you what would you do with a company that refuses to hire black workers and has 200 employees all white. You refused to answer. I asked what your solution would be. You didn't give me jack.

What is your answer? What do you do with a company that refuses to hire minorities?

Uzi master
23-08-10, 01:53
Here is a prime example of you complaining about the possibility of better white candidates being turned away, when you couldn't care less that the company was probably turning away better qualified black candidates all the time. You don't care about the discrimination, only about the "reverse" discrimination.

I asked you what would you do with a company that refuses to hire black workers and has 200 employees all white. You refused to answer. I asked what your solution would be. You didn't give me jack.

What is your answer? What do you do with a company that refuses to hire minorities?

he is ignoreing youre point but you're ignoring his, reversing the situation isn't better, it's just different discrimination.

wantafanta
23-08-10, 01:55
Now we finally have a half assed black President, maybe the minorities can finally get out of the stigma they themselves are propogating.

Oh, yeah, Obama is half---sed, so what was Bush, full ---sed? Got 5,000 men killed in Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist. You find those WMDs yet, Draco? Who is going to pay that $3 trillion war tab? Yeah, I know, it's Obama's fault.

OK, Uzi, except I asked my question first. And what would your answer to the question be?

Draco
23-08-10, 01:55
Here is a prime example of you complaining about the possibility of better white candidates being turned away, when you couldn't care less that the company was probably turning away better qualified black candidates all the time. You don't care about the discrimination, only about the "reverse" discrimination.

I asked you what would you do with a company that refuses to hire black workers and has 200 employees all white. You refused to answer. I asked what your solution would be. You didn't give me jack.

What is your answer? What do you do with a company that refuses to hire minorities?

Why not find out what the cause is instead of assuming its a race thing?

voltz
23-08-10, 01:55
The caller then pressed on, asking: "What about the N-word? The N-word's been thrown around." To which Dr. Laura airily retorted: "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a buh-lack comic, and all you hear is nigger nigger nigger. I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it's affectionate."

This is the one thing I hate about people with sensitivities. Blacks have no problems calling each other the N word, but when "white folks" say it, ruh roh, it's time to roll out that racist card! :eek:

If you ask me, this whole thing about moralities on equal rights is a hoax. Groups of people still hate each other regardless and there's never going to be an end in sight for any of it since everyone still has it out for each other.

Draco
23-08-10, 01:58
Oh, yeah, Obama is half---sed, so what was Bush, full ---sed? Got 5,000 men killed in Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist. You find those WMDs yet, Draco? Who is going to pay that $3 trillion war tab? Yeah, I know, it's Obama's fault.

God, you are so dense! I've been against the socalled war since it was a mere rumor!

But honestly, what can I expect from you other than predictable leftist dogma centered in a selfish myopic perspective?

knightgames
23-08-10, 03:47
Here is a prime example of you complaining about the possibility of better white candidates being turned away, when you couldn't care less that the company was probably turning away better qualified black candidates all the time. You don't care about the discrimination, only about the "reverse" discrimination.

I asked you what would you do with a company that refuses to hire black workers and has 200 employees all white. You refused to answer. I asked what your solution would be. You didn't give me jack.

What is your answer? What do you do with a company that refuses to hire minorities?


I have no problem at all levying heavy fines should a thorough examination of the facts determine that better qualified minorities didn't get the job. IF THAT'S what you're advocating I'm with ya. But to just hire a minority for the demographic percentage is wrong, and is not supported by this forum member.

If a hospital has to hire a a percentage of minorities to fulfill a racial quota, and I need open heart surgery, I'm not going to be concerned one iota what color their hands are when he's rummaging about my innards. What I WILL be concerned about is having the best qualified staff.

Mad Tony
23-08-10, 11:38
Here is a prime example of you complaining about the possibility of better white candidates being turned away, when you couldn't care less that the company was probably turning away better qualified black candidates all the time. You don't care about the discrimination, only about the "reverse" discrimination.Actually, I'm complaining about the possibility of better candidates being turned away. I don't care about their skin color. This is why I also don't agree with discriminating against minorities - because ultimately there will be better candidates who will get turned away. Simply put, I don't agree with discrimination. I want to see all job candidates treated based not on their skin color but on their merits and qualifications. Is there something unreasonable about that?

I asked you what would you do with a company that refuses to hire black workers and has 200 employees all white. You refused to answer. I asked what your solution would be. You didn't give me jack.

What is your answer? What do you do with a company that refuses to hire minorities?Well if you'd bothered to read my post fully maybe you'd know the answer.


That's quite a simplistic example and you're not taking into account various other factors. What if few black people applied for jobs there? What if the white candidates were actually better? You just don't know. Regardless of all this I really do think it's a bad idea to start thinking a workplace should be representative of the local demographic. If you apply that logic to blacks you must also apply it to other minorities and we once again come back to selecting people for jobs based on skin color and not on merit.

All the factory should be doing is treating all prospective job candidates and employees fairly regardless of race. This is why I think laws requiring employers to treat all people equally regardless of race are a good thing.

Personally I think an investigation should be undertaken first before we start jumping to conclusions and assuming said factory refuses to hire blacks. If it is found that the factory is refusing to hire blacks, I'd suggest they be forced to treat all candidates equally and not discriminate on the basis of skin color.

Draco is absolutely right about you by the way. You only see things in black and white. To you there are only conservatives and liberals. You think people on both sides all believe exactly the same things and are all the same when that's just not the case. I think the worst thing about your assumptions is that they're completely one-sided.

Goose
23-08-10, 19:20
Oh, yeah, Obama is half---sed, so what was Bush, full ---sed? Got 5,000 men killed in Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist. You find those WMDs yet, Draco? Who is going to pay that $3 trillion war tab? Yeah, I know, it's Obama's fault.

OK, Uzi, except I asked my question first. And what would your answer to the question be?

The war was about bringing democracy to an oppressed nation, WMD's was just a way of making it 'hoo ahh' to you americans. Kurd's were being oppressed in large enough numbers to warrant military force, but not really a complete restructure of a country. And yes, there were WMD's in Iraq, WMD's is not another word for ICBM, its a blanket term for anything Biological, nuclear, chemical or radiological. So it was a garunteed find in the first place, as during the revolution before the Iran Iraq war, we sold revolutionaries biological weapons, which they used on Iran and the Kurds later. Similar to The taliban using our old stock piles from the Soviet occupation of Afghan.

Only reason it isnt widely publicised is due to the fact our names are stamped all over them, but its certainly not a secret.