Smedley said:

ridski said:

Where I come from, my friends and I used it as a term of endearment, 

 Where exactly do you come from?

Latitude: 51° 31' 18.51" N
Longitude: 0° 08' 2.30" E

ml1 said:
I'd tend to agree that it was a tactical error from Bee.  Because it's actually a good example of why liberals always lose.  Conservatives would NEVER have apologized for something like Samantha Bee said.  NEVER.  No excuses.  No retreat, no surrender.
Liberals rush to grovel and apologize.  That more than anything is what people love about Trump.  He sticks it to the liberals and NEVER apologizes.  Liberal tears are what drives him and his base.

Liberals will eat their own. They’re the first to demand resignations from their representatives on issues that would not even register on the radar of Republicans.  George Clooney had an opinion about this during the Obama administration and I thought it was spot on. At the time Obama was campaigning for his second term and some Democrats were flailing.  [edited a bit]

"If he was a Republican running, because Republicans are better at this," Clooney continued, "they'd be selling him as the guy who stopped 400,000 jobs a month from leaving the country. They'd be selling him as the guy who saved the auto-industry. If they had the beliefs, they'd be selling him as the guy who got rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' who got Osama bin Laden. You could be selling this as a very successful three years."

I’m not advocating we join the Republicans down in the gutter but we could have some conviction and stick to it. We’re all over the place with what irritates us from day to day. Keep this up and we’re down one Supreme Court Justice from overturning Roe V Wade. 

ElizMcCord said:

I’m not advocating we join the Republicans down in the gutter but we could have some conviction and stick to it. We’re all over the place with what irritates us from day to day. Keep this up and we’re down one Supreme Court Justice from overturning Roe V Wade. 

 Yes, apparently some people didn't get that message when they told us how much they hated Hillary Clinton and refused to vote for her.

but, but Bernie.

Where is Lenny Bruce when you need him? Or George Carlin? Or Bill Maher? From my perspective it is much ado about nothing. It's a word. I've used it deliberately when I'm speaking to my female friends and I want to make a point. I've used it knowing that it makes most women cringe. I'm sure I've used it about Ivanka. It is meant to be harsh. She seems so impenetrable. Some women held out hope that she would be a modifying influence. I didn't. Most women are horrified at the separation of mothers from their children and I think Samantha Bee's angry name calling was for some of us, the very expression of the words we would like to shout at this Marie Antoinette of the White House.

I'd rather see Ivanka lose her show than SB.

ml1 said:

tjohn said:

ml1 said:
I'd tend to agree that it was a tactical error from Bee.  Because it's actually a good example of why liberals always lose.  Conservatives would NEVER have apologized for something like Samantha Bee said.  NEVER.  No excuses.  No retreat, no surrender.
Liberals rush to grovel and apologize.  That more than anything is what people love about Trump.  He sticks it to the liberals and NEVER apologizes.  Liberal tears are what drives him and his base.

 That's very true and this is why Trump cannot be battled in the wagon rut where he dwells.

 I'd prefer the liberals try.  It's better than "going high" and being punching bags. What do they have to lose at this point?  Taking the high road got them nothing.

I get that Dems need to roll their sleeves up and be willing to get their hands dirty more like Republicans, if they are to win more elections. But I don't like the idea that libs shouldn't practice what we preach. Don't we value inclusion, civility, respect? Aren't we saddened and maddened by the current social and interpersonal climate in our country? Don't we denounce bigotry and hate? I, for one, think "YOU FECKLESS C***!!" is a shout of hate, plain and simple. And Samantha Bee, while a commentator of sorts, is not running for office, so I'm not sure SHE needs to be one of the sleeve-roller-uppers. She can do her commenting and make her political points strongly and emphatically without abandoning the values that we libs strive for more Americans to exhibit, if we're really going to make progress where needed. Just my two cents, respectfully.

mjc said:
Does it matter whether the (very offensive) language is about a person's behavior/policies (Bee on Ivanka) vs. appearance/ancestry (Barr on V. Jarret)

 Thank You.  This is exactly the difference.  Ivanka can choose her behavior.  Valerie cannot choose her heritage / race.  

Imagine that a man said this.

terp said:
Imagine that a man said this.

 Imagine that a white man said the n-word.

ridski said:

terp said:
Imagine that a man said this.

 Imagine that a white man said the n-word.

 Ah yes.  The virtue signalling would be sublime.

terp said:

ridski said:

terp said:
Imagine that a man said this.

 Imagine that a white man said the n-word.

 Ah yes.  The virtue signalling would be sublime.

 Well, anyway. I'm just going to leave this here. If you don't like the word, FFS, don't click on it.

https://twitter.com/jefferiesshow/status/1002349710407954433

terp said:

ridski said:

terp said:
Imagine that a man said this.

 Imagine that a white man said the n-word.

 Ah yes.  The virtue signalling would be sublime.

 Imagine that a Black Actress said what Roseanne said. 

To me there is a major difference between a member of a group using a slur pertaining to that group against another member of the group and a non-member using the slur.

There is also a difference between attacking a Public Official or a person of considerable power and attacking an ordinary citizen or, perhaps, even an ex-official like Jarrett.

My view of this is probably colored by my general view of the current Administration.  To me they are totally evil.

Ha. I didn't realize Jim Jeffries had a show on Comedy Central.  I have absolutely no problem with that word or any other word. 

What is interesting is how tribal we've become.  If someone in "the other tribe" says something seen as untoward, people come out with the proverbial pitchforks and torches.   They must be silenced!  

On the right, if you say something about the military or the flag, man you are the worst.  On the left, if you say something politically incorrect or disagree with some of the newer policies(some that Obama came into office opposing) you are labelled racist, misogynist, trans-phobic, crazy, what have you.  Thoughtcrimes will definitely be punished today. 

People talk about the 1st amendment.  I'm probably more opposed to 1st amendment infringements than anyone on this board.  Recently, I've come around to thinking we might just silence each other socially.  These are very interesting times.  

I'm sure many here will be outraged by my lack of outrage.  Have fun raging!    

I agree 100% with the distinction made by Red_Barchetta (I could never disagree with someone named for one of the greatest songs ever!). But I don't think that just because the Roseanne and Samantha Bee instances are distinguishable means that only one is wrong.

I also agree with Terp's First Amendment regard. I just wish that its exercise would not so often be used and defended for mean-spirited, if not hateful purposes. I confess I'm an idealist -- it hurts me that people hate on fellow citizens merely because they have the right to.

And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.

and then there is this....

Joy Reid apologizes after more controversial blog posts surface

By CRISTIANO LIMA | 06/01/2018 02:26 PM EDT | Updated: 06/01/2018 02:42 PM EDT

MSNBC host Joy Reid apologized Friday “for the collateral damage and pain” caused by recently unearthed posts from her old blog that stoked conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and depicted the head of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on the body of the Virginia Tech shooter.

“While I published my blog, starting in 2005, I wrote thousands of posts in real time on the issues of the day,” Reid said in a statement provided by an MSNBC spokesperson. “There are things I deeply regret and am embarrassed by, things I would have said differently and issues where my position has changed. Today I’m sincerely apologizing again.”

In a separate statement, the network broke its silence on the controversy, which has lingered since the host claimed without evidence in April that anti-gay posts on her now-defunct blog were planted by a hacker.

“Some of the things written by Joy on her old blog are obviously hateful and hurtful,” an MSNBC spokesperson said in the statement. “They are not reflective of the colleague and friend we have known at MSNBC for the past seven years.”

They added: “Joy has apologized publicly and privately and said she has grown and evolved in the many years since, and we know this to be true.”

Reid came under increased scrutiny earlier this week when BuzzFeed surfaced old posts from the Reid Report Blog in which she promoted conspiracy theories that Sept. 11 was an inside job. BuzzFeed reported that in a separate post, Reid appeared to photoshop McCain’s head over an image of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The revelations prompted additional calls for MSNBC, which had yet to issue its own statement on the controversy surrounding her old blog posts, and Reid to further address the matter. Neither Reid nor MSNBC, however, mentioned her original claim that hackers infiltrated her blog to insert anti-gay posts, an allegation the host has failed to substantiate.

Reid directly addressed the McCain post, saying, “I have the highest respect for Sen. McCain as a public servant and patriot and wish him and his family the best.” The host added that she had reached out to Meghan McCain, the senator’s daughter and a fellow TV host, “and will continue to do so.”

The host added, “There is no question in my mind that Al Qaeda perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.”

Reid apologized in December “to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago” for posts critical of former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, which were widely panned as homophobic.

But in April when news outlets surfaced more anti-gay posts from the mid-to-late 2000s, Reid claimed that her blog had been hacked.

Despite the controversy, Reid has remained on the air for MSNBC, continuing to host her weekend program, “AM Joy."

On Tuesday, Reid co-hosted a high-profile town hall style event on race for the network, during which she chided Roseanne Barr over her racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett, an African-American aide to former President Barack Obama, that led to the cancellation of her popular ABC sitcom.

“If you’re able to think of people as somehow less a person than me, it makes it a lot easier to then take that next step and say this person shouldn’t be in this space,” Reid said at the event.

The analysis drew backlash from conservative commentators, who accused the left-leaning host of not being held to the same standard as the Donald Trump-supporting Barr.

I'm a big fan of Bill Maher and often wonder how he gets away with saying some of the things he does about Trump et. al. But given the current climate, I guess nothing is surprising.

One other thing that strikes me: Calling a woman a c- is always viewed as much worse than calling a man a pr*ck. It's interesting how the c- word has stronger connotations than the p- word. Most people don't bat an eye when the p- word is used in conversation (as in, "my boss can be a real p-"), but the c- word used similarly tends to elicit big reactions.

Train_of_Thought said:
Respectfully disagree. When are you gonna do something about your father's immigration policy is a political statement. You feckless c-word is a gratuitous insult, imho.

But it also happens to be true, in this case. That's what makes it tricky.

dave23 said:

Train_of_Thought said:
Respectfully disagree. When are you gonna do something about your father's immigration policy is a political statement. You feckless c-word is a gratuitous insult, imho.

But it also happens to be true, in this case. That's what makes it tricky.

When and how did the c-word become a "[letter]-word" anyway? I never quite understood that. It's not even close to being as offensive as the other "[letter]-word".

terp said:
Ha. I didn't realize Jim Jeffries had a show on Comedy Central.  I have absolutely no problem with that word or any other word. 
What is interesting is how tribal we've become.  If someone in "the other tribe" says something seen as untoward, people come out with the proverbial pitchforks and torches.   They must be silenced!  
On the right, if you say something about the military or the flag, man you are the worst.  On the left, if you say something politically incorrect or disagree with some of the newer policies(some that Obama came into office opposing) you are labelled racist, misogynist, trans-phobic, crazy, what have you.  Thoughtcrimes will definitely be punished today. 
People talk about the 1st amendment.  I'm probably more opposed to 1st amendment infringements than anyone on this board.  Recently, I've come around to thinking we might just silence each other socially.  These are very interesting times.  
I'm sure many here will be outraged by my lack of outrage.  Have fun raging!    

I agree that it is essential that even offensive speech be allowed unless it involves a direct threat or a clear call for violence.  However, I find that many of the students in the graduate courses I teach are shocked to find that the Supreme Court has not carved out a category of hate or offensive speech that is prohibited.  That is consistent with a recent Gallup survey which found "29% of students now, up from 22% in 2016, would rather campuses be "positive learning environments for all students" by prohibiting certain speech that is offensive or biased."   http://news.gallup.com/poll/229085/college-students-say-campus-climate-deters-speech.aspx   And, I suspect, that may also be the sentiment of the general public.  

     Ah, but what is acceptable - or what must be tolerated - has become quite complicated in recent years.  Naturally, the impossible question (and the one I deviously pose to students) to answer is to define what is offensive and, in particular, whether there should be policies to prevent or sanctions to punish anything that anyone might find offensive or only in regard to certain things on which there is general social consensus that it is offensive.  Most find this exercise to be quite challenging.  Is the public expression of controversial points of view or certain words always offensive?  Which ones are those and who gets to decide?  For example, is the use of the N-word always offensive or does it depend on the context?   Ah, but should it be the standards of the offended person that determines whether something is objectionable and should be prohibited or punished regardless of the intent of the speaker?  If so, would you be okay being punished because someone found something you said objectionable?  To what extent should the intent of the speaker matter and how does that apply?   I find that students begin with the assumption that everyone shares their personal standard because it is so "obvious" but they quickly become frustrated when they realize how difficult it can be to answer these questions to everyone's satisfaction.

      In my opinion, on MOL there have been some interesting discussions about these issues. In those discussions, I assume everyone is relying on their own values and standards and - I also tend to assume - everyone strives to be consistent in their position.  I posed the question because I'm intrigued by how we each reach our own conclusions about what is acceptable and what is not and the standards we each may be using to assess these situations.  Have we each taken the time to think about what our personal standards may be?  Can these be articulated?  And while we might be satisfied with our own standards, would we be surprised to find that others have different standards?  Can these be reconciled?    

     Once I've resolved these questions, I'll work on bringing peace to the Korean peninsula and to the middle east!  How long can that take?

People love to be outraged just as they love to be outraged about the outrage just as they love to be "above" the outrage.

I think Samantha Bee had a point and I was sad to see her apologize for making it.

We are in a war here folks.  The time for making sure the other side doesn't get an ouch on their fee fees is long past.  We need to burn these scum bags to the ground and then salt their fields to make sure that they never rise again.

We are not in a war.

Do people really not see the difference between bad taste and offensive (Bee) and racist (Barr)?

I don't particularly like either woman's product, but there is a significant qualitative difference between what was said in terms of both context and meaning.

dave23 said:
People love to be outraged just as they love to be outraged about the outrage just as they love to be "above" the outrage.

 That's outrageous!

kmt said:
We are not in a war.

 We have been in one for years the problem has always been that one side didn't realize it.

Norman_Bates said:

terp said:
Ha. I didn't realize Jim Jeffries had a show on Comedy Central.  I have absolutely no problem with that word or any other word. 
What is interesting is how tribal we've become.  If someone in "the other tribe" says something seen as untoward, people come out with the proverbial pitchforks and torches.   They must be silenced!  
On the right, if you say something about the military or the flag, man you are the worst.  On the left, if you say something politically incorrect or disagree with some of the newer policies(some that Obama came into office opposing) you are labelled racist, misogynist, trans-phobic, crazy, what have you.  Thoughtcrimes will definitely be punished today. 
People talk about the 1st amendment.  I'm probably more opposed to 1st amendment infringements than anyone on this board.  Recently, I've come around to thinking we might just silence each other socially.  These are very interesting times.  
I'm sure many here will be outraged by my lack of outrage.  Have fun raging!    

I agree that it is essential that even offensive speech be allowed unless it involves a direct threat or a clear call for violence.  However, I find that many of the students in the graduate courses I teach are shocked to find that the Supreme Court has not carved out a category of hate or offensive speech that is prohibited.  That is consistent with a recent Gallup survey which found "29% of students now, up from 22% in 2016, would rather campuses be "positive learning environments for all students" by prohibiting certain speech that is offensive or biased."   http://news.gallup.com/poll/229085/college-students-say-campus-climate-deters-speech.aspx   And, I suspect, that may also be the sentiment of the general public.  
     Ah, but what is acceptable - or what must be tolerated - has become quite complicated in recent years.  Naturally, the impossible question (and the one I deviously pose to students) to answer is to define what is offensive and, in particular, whether there should be policies to prevent or sanctions to punish anything that anyone might find offensive or only in regard to certain things on which there is general social consensus that it is offensive.  Most find this exercise to be quite challenging.  Is the public expression of controversial points of view or certain words always offensive?  Which ones are those and who gets to decide?  For example, is the use of the N-word always offensive or does it depend on the context?   Ah, but should it be the standards of the offended person that determines whether something is objectionable and should be prohibited or punished regardless of the intent of the speaker?  If so, would you be okay being punished because someone found something you said objectionable?  To what extent should the intent of the speaker matter and how does that apply?   I find that students begin with the assumption that everyone shares their personal standard because it is so "obvious" but they quickly become frustrated when they realize how difficult it can be to answer these questions to everyone's satisfaction.
      In my opinion, on MOL there have been some interesting discussions about these issues. In those discussions, I assume everyone is relying on their own values and standards and - I also tend to assume - everyone strives to be consistent in their position.  I posed the question because I'm intrigued by how we each reach our own conclusions about what is acceptable and what is not and the standards we each may be using to assess these situations.  Have we each taken the time to think about what our personal standards may be?  Can these be articulated?  And while we might be satisfied with our own standards, would we be surprised to find that others have different standards?  Can these be reconciled?    
     Once I've resolved these questions, I'll work on bringing peace to the Korean peninsula and to the middle east!  How long can that take?

 It sounds to me like your students are lucky to have you.  Those are all great questions, and there are personal answers.  

I appreciate the fact that we have free speech in this country to the level that we do(where the government is concerned).   We stand out in that way, even in the west. 

Whenever we say something we are at risk of offending someone; Even if most of the time that is not what we are aiming for.   

Oddly, even Fahrenheit 451 has been expurgated.   

Klinker said:
I think Samantha Bee had a point and I was sad to see her apologize for making it.
We are in a war here folks.  The time for making sure the other side doesn't get an ouch on their fee fees is long past.  We need to burn these scum bags to the ground and then salt their fields to make sure that they never rise again.

 This is the attitude I was speaking about in an earlier post, but perhaps a bit more extreme of an example than I was thinking of. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Freedom of Speech and any limitations on it is a complicated subject. This is a fairly good summary.

Klinker said:
I think Samantha Bee had a point and I was sad to see her apologize for making it.
We are in a war here folks.  The time for making sure the other side doesn't get an ouch on their fee fees is long past.  We need to burn these scum bags to the ground and then salt their fields to make sure that they never rise again.

When you say scum bags, are you including those of our fellow Americans who voted for Obama once or twice and those who would've voted for Bernie if that had been an option?

tjohn said:

Klinker said:
I think Samantha Bee had a point and I was sad to see her apologize for making it.
We are in a war here folks.  The time for making sure the other side doesn't get an ouch on their fee fees is long past.  We need to burn these scum bags to the ground and then salt their fields to make sure that they never rise again.

When you say scum bags, are you including those of our fellow Americans who voted for Obama once or twice and those who would've voted for Bernie if that had been an option?

 I was thinking more about Trump Administration officials and the folks behind the super PACs  that have facilitated the downward spiral of the GOP.