Limpbaugh wants to own an NFL team :0) - Won't happen

Damocles said:
Pointing out the rationalization does not assign motivation. They rationalized it would be considered okay, apparently correctly, by their listeners because it was "just a parody" and therefore that was why they could do it, and get away with it. It doesn't speak to their motivation, the motivation doesn't matter. IMO, they clearly knew that it would be considered as it is by those who do not or would not listen usually, but it didn't matter to them because their regular listeners (the target audience) would find it okay "because."

It is my opinion that each and every person who heard it laughed a bit and then had a reaction like "oh boy, this isn't going to look good at all"... and instead of saying something to the people who crossed that line about maybe being a bit more considered before publishing they decided to start digging trenches to build the defensive line that would be necessary in the future. It is my argument that they should instead have said something rather than deciding to go ahead and start defending. That it is time to start being the color blind party that so many say we are when talking about something like Affirmative Action.

Just like my child in my analogy thought it would be "okay" if they were just making fun of the other kid to do what they knew was wrong when the other did it. Whatever their motivation "to make the other kid feel bad" maybe, or "to make other people know what they did and why it was bad"... It is the action she'll be in trouble for regardless of the motive. Saying that when I got her home, if she used the excuse that it was okay because she was mocking the other child, it wouldn't fly and it doesn't here... it doesn't assign motive, nor would I care what the motive was.
Click to expand...

He didn't do it to make the "other kid feel bad" either Damo. FCOL- he did it to SHOW the hatred racism and hypocrisy on the left. He did NOT fucking care if it was insensitive or if marshmellow fucks like you thought it distasteful...quit fucking assigning YOUR feelings into HIS motives! Did I personally like the parody? NO, but at least I am not fucking assigning my dislike or my feelings onto why he fucking palyed the song...jeeeeeeeeeeesh!
 
Ice Dancer said:
He didn't do it to make the "other kid feel bad" either Damo. FCOL- he did it to SHOW the hatred racism and hypocrisy on the left. He did NOT fucking care if it was insensitive or if marshmellow fucks like you thought it distasteful...quit fucking assigning YOUR feelings into HIS motives! Did I personally like the parody? NO, but at least I am not fucking assigning my dislike or my gfeelings onto why he fucking palyed the song...jeeeeeeeeeeesh!
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Whatever rationalization he used, it was insufficient.
 
Damocles said:
Nice "argument", retread.

Again, even if I have "assigned motive" (I don't believe that I have) it doesn't matter. What was done was wrong regardless of motive.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Nothing was WRONG about it. He was poking fun at liberals who thought barak was the magic negro.

You're just trying to be cool by jumping on the bandwagon against rush.

It's popular, so you do it. Even if it's an intellectually bankrupt position, which it is.
 
For SM, this is a quote of the first time I started using the analogy:

Let me put it this way, if my child is shouting the "F-bomb" in the street while making fun of a friend who shouted it she will still be in trouble, even though it was a parody. It wouldn't matter that she was on her way to tell on that other person, it wouldn't matter that the other kid did it first and she was just mocking... none of that would matter.
Click to expand...
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yeah, it TOTALLY isn't applicable. It's not an apt analogy.
Click to expand...
Explain rather than just declare.

It is apt. In both scenarios somebody is doing something that is unacceptable in one, one is race baiting, the other is my child cursing. In both cases there isn't a motivation that makes it good to do, even one of parody.

Yeah, it's apt. You only "declare" it inapt because you desperately want there to be some reason it is okay to race bait in a parody song...

The moral of the story: Point out the hypocrisy of others without participating in hypocrisy of your own.
 
Damocles said:
*sigh*

Whatever rationalization he used, it was insufficient.
Click to expand...

Only according to some, to others he hit the proverbial nail. The racisim and hatered the left spew, the hypocrisy they display, is fair game to personalities like Limbaugh who earn a living doing JUST what he did by playing the song.

He is not an elected politician or a paid leader of the republican party. He is a commentator, a talking head personality...period.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Only according to some, to others he hit the proverbial nail. The racisim and hatered the left spew, the hypocrisy they display, is fair game to personalities like Limbaugh who earn a living doing JUST what he did by playing the song.

He is not an elected politician or a paid leader of the republican party. He is a commentator, a talking head personality...period.
Click to expand...
Successfully race baiting to point out the race baiting of others doesn't make it better.

That he didn't "hit the nail on the head" or missed it somehow has never been part of my argument. I am being very clear, race baiting in response to race baiting shouldn't be defended by a party who is considered racist whatever the motivation.

Point out the hypocrisy of others without participating in hypocrisy of your own. That's pretty much all that I ask.
 
Damocles said:
Right, and my daughter in my analogy shouldn't be in trouble because she was only saying it to underline how wrong the other girl was.

Again, the motivation doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...
I read back before I asked the question. I'm sorry if my life doesn't hang on your every word, Oh God Of The Board.

Your analogy doesn't fit at all. The black liberal writer who coined the phrase didn't do anything wrong, yet your daughter's friend did. You can't fault Limbaugh for repeating "magic negro" but you can fault your daughter for repeating the F bomb.
 
Damocles said:
Successfully race baiting to point out the race baiting of others doesn't make it better.

That he didn't "hit the nail on the head" or missed it somehow has never been part of my argument. I am being very clear, race baiting in response to race baiting shouldn't be defended by a party who is considered racist whatever the motivation.

Point out the hypocrisy of others without participating in hypocrisy of your own. That's pretty much all that I ask.
Click to expand...

It's not RACE BAITING. I don't even know what that term means.


It's "Making fun of".
 
Ice Dancer said:
Only according to some, to others he hit the proverbial nail. The racisim and hatered the left spew, the hypocrisy they display, is fair game to personalities like Limbaugh who earn a living doing JUST what he did by playing the song.

He is not an elected politician or a paid leader of the republican party. He is a commentator, a talking head personality...period.
Click to expand...

Most of the quotes about him weren't sourced. Rush has a good case for libel.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not RACE BAITING. I don't even know what that term means.


It's "Making fun of".
Click to expand...
Was the song meant to make people pause because of the crude mentions of race?

The story also was.

By entitling his story "Barack the Magic Negro" he drew attention because the phrase is meant to be "shocking".

The analogy is apt, repeating the race baiting of others is not appropriate even in parody.
 
Southern Man said:
m-w.com

Damo = wrong.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiting

SM = Wrong.

Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting." Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.
Click to expand...
 
AssHatZombie said:
That definition has no relation to this.
Click to expand...
It does. In both the article and in the song the goal was to get people to react, the language is specifically chosen to be racially insensitive and cause a negative reaction, even ID can see that it was something that people would react to and I fully believe that you too can.

Whatever "noble" reason they have, it is what was being done. The ends do not, IMO, justify the means.
 
Damocles said:
It does. In both the article and in the song the goal was to get people to react, the language is specifically chosen to be racially derisive, even ID can see that it was something that people would react to and I fully believe that you too can.

Whatever "noble" reason they have, it is what was being done. The ends do not, IMO, justify the means.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. You're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.

You think you're adult and mature, but you're just moronic, and you're reaching.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It doesn't. You're trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.

You think you're adult and mature, but you're just moronic, and you're reaching.
Click to expand...
Yet it does, you are again "declaring" with nothing at all to back it up again, that fails as an argument. There is a very large difference between a post of mine where I explain in what way it fits the definition with precise terminology and your "nuh-uh".

You can say things like 2+2=5 many times, but it is still just as wrong as you are in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top