- 29,901
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
If those old, dyed-in-the-wool bigots are so likely to change, why haven't they yet? One isn't likely to do what one isn't inclined to do.
Political Correctness
- Thread starter lbsf1
- 2,922 comments
- 175,416 views
- 13,889
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I think she worded it extremely poorly, but the general sentiment that it's easier to simply wait for that generation to pass on rather than to bring them all around to a new way of thinking is probably fairly on point. Any individual can learn and grow in their lifetime, but there's few examples of entire populations overturning deeply held beliefs within a single generation.
However, the way she said it you could well interpret as a call to go out and shoot all the racists.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 29,901
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
The only problem is everyone knows that isn't Oprah. If the words were written and there were no indication as to who wrote them, then sure, the intent would be open to consideration. There's nothing substantive being discussed regarding the clip, just the picking of nits.
Those aren't the ones I have an issue with. I'm sure such bigots exist, though I have nothing to back that assumption up because they're not spitting acid in public.
The racists I have an issue with are those who assert their right to speak and demonstrate freely. That right should not--and likely will not--be revoked, but therein lies my issue. If freedom remains, the belief is what has to diminish.
- 29,901
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I'm sure he would. Hell, I'd be willing to build the pillory.
As I said, everyone knows that Oprah isn't that sort of hateful, despicable individual.
Trump doesn't have the reputation she has. Of course he wouldn't be referring to racists either, as he hasn't shown an inclination to condemn their actions, even when presented with a situation where the President would be expected to do so.
- 6,293
- Canada
19 most insane things from the James Damore lawsuit against Google
At this point I can't help but laugh. It's a hysterical, losing my mind sort of laughing, but laughing none the less.
I've also started using DuckDuckGo as my search engine, liking it so far.
At this point I can't help but laugh. It's a hysterical, losing my mind sort of laughing, but laughing none the less.
I've also started using DuckDuckGo as my search engine, liking it so far.
- 1,489
- Up North
- bl23ub
I don't know Oprah personally, as a kid I used to love watching shows featuring Rolf Harris, I said 'NO WAY' when the investigations started, I didn't know him personally either.
Oprah is a smart cookie who knows that the older generations lay foundations for the younger generations, any clarification (which may have been given at some other point in the interview) would need to be from Oprah herself.
- 29,901
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I have the nagging suspicion it was, but making that clear isn't in the interest of those wishing to use the clip to cast a shadow on her.
I suspect she'll address it at some point, and she'll have to if she wishes to run...then again, I thought the same thing early on regarding Trump's taxes.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Thank you for illustrating my point.
1) Everyone?? You've polled the entire population of the world? Or can point to someone who has?
2) So if she's not that sort of hateful, despicable individual (whoever that is) then just what sort of hateful, despicable individual is she?
I thought she was moving to Canada, anyway.
- 13,889
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Trump would be vilified if he were to say something like that largely because it would be unclear whether it was a mistake, a poorly worded exaggeration, or announcement of The Holocaust 2: The Trumpire Strikes Blacks. There's also the fact that the President of the US (regardless of whether it's Trump or anyone else) cannot make statements to the effect that "this group has to die" without there being the question of whether this will become policy. The President is held to a higher standard in terms of expressing opinions, it must be very clear what is personal opinion and what is not (hence why casual Twitter is such a terrible idea for a president).
Personally, I don't agree that Oprah gets a pass simply because she's Oprah. Given the history of this planet, and given the history of the US, it basically qualifies as hate speech until she clarifies what was actually meant. I'm disappointed that in the four years since there's not much evidence of any reporters or media having held her feet to the fire about it.
I disagree. She's a media personality with a crafted image. She's shown belief for all sorts of wacky things in the past. It's entirely within the realms of possibility that what you think of as Oprah is a sham, and that this was a rare slip where she showed her true beliefs. Namely, that racists should be rounded up and shot.
I think that unlikely, but given the severity of the statement and that certain interpretations are straight up hate speech from a person with influence over millions, I think she should have just as much criticism leveled at her as anyone else until she chooses to clarify. It is not OK to call for the death of a group of people, and given the tension in the US at the moment something like that could easily become the call to action for violence even if she didn't intend it as such.
Still, I think it's another example of why having media personalities as political leaders isn't a great idea. People will ignore things that they do just because they like that show that they were in or whatever. Media has gotten so good at depicting "reality" that I think a lot of viewers forget that what's on the telly isn't necessarily real.
- 24,625
- Anoka, MN
People probably said similar things about Bill Cosby prior to 2014. Of all the people that have been accused of stuff lately, he was probably the least likely, but it turned out he was one of the worst going by the allegations.
People can be very good at putting on nice faces for the public, but some have a Hyde in them. Just look at the numbers of serial killers who seemed "completely normal" according to their neighbors.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I've been thinking about him and the allegations and everyone else recently.
All of these allegations happened when people don't agree with them.
Cosby after his black motivational speech.
Winestine when they got tired of him in Hollywood.
Trump when he ran for President.
One other thing they have in common is the allegations and accusers disappear after they get them out of the limelight.
I don't think they are true. If they were they would continue to peruse charges after destroying their lives.
It's a publicity stunt to destroy someone you don't agree with.
As you know everyone believes everything on the news with no evidence...
- 24,625
- Anoka, MN
Both Cosby and Trump have been accused of doing stuff since the 80's. Weinstein only faced accusations this year, but there certainly were clues that he was a bit of a sleezeball dating back to 1998.
Neither of those are true, Cosby is still facing criminal charges and will be in court April 2nd and Trump was sued in the 90's (settled out of court).
Now, are some of the accusations false? Probably. But it's not like Hollywood has had an image of being squeaky clean in this area, in fact it's quite the opposite (where do you think the casting couch came from?), which makes me believe most claims are legitimate. And also makes me wonder why people are only getting their panties in a bunch about it now.
- 13,889
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Before Trump's political campaign he was viewed as a bit of a joke to most, I think. He was an entitled rich boy with some hilariously abusive scams like Trump University to his name and a reality show that was largely amusing for watching how big a knob he was. Even during the campaign, it was a bit of a joke.
The joke is less funny when he's running the US and commands the largest military in the world. People get scared, fear leads anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to becoming short, green and bald.
That's actually incorrect. All three have had allegations against them for various things for decades. It's simply that in our society it's not that hard for people in power to bully victims into silence, or legal settlements and binding agreements not to speak. Money buys you immunity from a lot of crimes. However with the recent push towards trial by media, helped along in no small part by Mr. Trump, it's become clear that actually simply speaking out can get you a long way.
They're all publicity stunts? Every single one?
Some, perhaps. I'm not a fan of the idea of trial by media. I'm also not a massive fan of the fact that accusers seem to be getting significant protections over the accused, and there aren't really that many repercussions in a lot of cases for false accusations. On the other hand, that seems to be in response to the fact that in a lot of cases that would seem to be a slam dunk for the victim the perpetrator walks free or gets a slap on the wrist. See Brock Turner.
I think for a lot of people the justice system is essentially broken, and so they resort to the media to try and do what they can. That unfortunately opens the door for false claims as well. But I don't buy that every single claim against Cosby, Weinstein and Trump are faked publicity stunts. It's been too consistent over too long a period for that to be credible.
As @Northstar says, I find it more interesting that people think that this stuff doesn't happen in Hollywood. Of course it does. It's like being shocked that Catholic priests are being accused of sexual molestation. Anyone paying attention has known about it for years, it's simply that the powers that be had enough control to stifle it.
The internet being a seething cesspool is a mixed blessing. Anyone can say anything but it's also almost impossible to remove information once it gets out there and very difficult to control what the zeitgeist chooses to throw to the top of Twitter on any given day. There are organisations who are employed to try and bury negative information on their clients on the internet. But major stuff like the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape is going to be impossible to suppress short of pulling the plug on every major internet backbone node in the US. This is not like fifty years ago where national media was largely controlled by a relatively small group of individuals.
- 6,293
- Canada
I thought in the US, pretty much all major media outlets, especially national ones, were owned by a handful of corperations/billionaires? Disney, AOL Time Warner, Clearchannel, Viacom, News Corp, and a few others.Before Trump's political campaign he was viewed as a bit of a joke to most, I think. He was an entitled rich boy with some hilariously abusive scams like Trump University to his name and a reality show that was largely amusing for watching how big a knob he was. Even during the campaign, it was a bit of a joke.
The joke is less funny when he's running the US and commands the largest military in the world. People get scared, fear leads anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to becoming short, green and bald.
That's actually incorrect. All three have had allegations against them for various things for decades. It's simply that in our society it's not that hard for people in power to bully victims into silence, or legal settlements and binding agreements not to speak. Money buys you immunity from a lot of crimes. However with the recent push towards trial by media, helped along in no small part by Mr. Trump, it's become clear that actually simply speaking out can get you a long way.
They're all publicity stunts? Every single one?
Some, perhaps. I'm not a fan of the idea of trial by media. I'm also not a massive fan of the fact that accusers seem to be getting significant protections over the accused, and there aren't really that many repercussions in a lot of cases for false accusations. On the other hand, that seems to be in response to the fact that in a lot of cases that would seem to be a slam dunk for the victim the perpetrator walks free or gets a slap on the wrist. See Brock Turner.
I think for a lot of people the justice system is essentially broken, and so they resort to the media to try and do what they can. That unfortunately opens the door for false claims as well. But I don't buy that every single claim against Cosby, Weinstein and Trump are faked publicity stunts. It's been too consistent over too long a period for that to be credible.
As @Northstar says, I find it more interesting that people think that this stuff doesn't happen in Hollywood. Of course it does. It's like being shocked that Catholic priests are being accused of sexual molestation. Anyone paying attention has known about it for years, it's simply that the powers that be had enough control to stifle it.
The internet being a seething cesspool is a mixed blessing. Anyone can say anything but it's also almost impossible to remove information once it gets out there and very difficult to control what the zeitgeist chooses to throw to the top of Twitter on any given day. There are organisations who are employed to try and bury negative information on their clients on the internet. But major stuff like the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape is going to be impossible to suppress short of pulling the plug on every major internet backbone node in the US. This is not like fifty years ago where national media was largely controlled by a relatively small group of individuals.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?op=1
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevi...n-americas-news-media-companies/#5a591f8e660a
- 13,889
- Adelaide
- Neomone
They are, but those media outlets are no longer the only real means of information dissemination. Prior to the coming of the internet, those handful of corporations had incredible control over what information actually got disseminated nationally. They still do to a certain extent, but the rise of the internet and the ability for truly independent journalists to self-publish to a significant audience has changed that.
As noted, this also comes with the ability to flood the audience with dribble (*cough*AlexJones*cough*) but currently it's about information management rather than information denial. Previously you might not have heard any more than rumours about Weinstein and his wandering weinstein, but now a victim can broadcast their own story if they choose.
I think that the USA Gymnastics thing is one of the more illustrative examples of how those in power attempted to use legal tactics and pressure to minimise the damage to their position, but a truly free media has allowed more people to speak out on the matter. Or perhaps I'm reading too much into the media control angle and we're simply in an age now where people are more comfortable coming forward about abuse knowing that they're not going to be blamed or have their assaults minimised. As a culture we tend not to accept the "she was asking for it" mentality any more.
- 6,293
- Canada
I think that's a fair point, that social media and alternative media sources like YouTube are changing the way people get news. That said, and I'm just speculating here, but I think most people get most of their "alternative media" through Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. The first three are the same thing....so to me, although there's all this "new media", it's kind of just adding 2 names to the list of 6.
Forgot to add. Has anyone seen coverage of #:censored:hole, with pundents going back and forth between saying :censored:hole and ess-hole...which makes it sound like they're saying :censored:hole
what a time to be alive, eh 
. If ever there was a sign the media was 🤬 with us, this has to be it
Last edited:
- 1,489
- Up North
- bl23ub
A clip from a show aired by the BBC recently, sadly one of the funniest things I have heard all year . . .
To show this behaviour isn't exclusive to one group, the show later featured a woman who refused to allow a caucasion mother of a mixed race child to march with 'her' group, labeling the mother and the inquisitive journalist as 'cracker's'.
To show this behaviour isn't exclusive to one group, the show later featured a woman who refused to allow a caucasion mother of a mixed race child to march with 'her' group, labeling the mother and the inquisitive journalist as 'cracker's'.
- 1,489
- Up North
- bl23ub
Exactly the same, then I saw and heard the young child and didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Again though, the above clip is maybe one-sided, but I find 'all' of the differing hate groups have one thing in common, 'People'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42682612
Last edited:
- 6,293
- Canada
This "debate" between CH4's Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson has been making its rounds on social media. It's like a 1/2 hour Shakespeare play - it's funny, sad, insightful, bewilidering, enlightening. Definitely going to spawn a few memes at the very least.
Who owns CH4? I just DuckDuckGo'd it (they're going to have to work on their verbage), and it said it's a publicly traded company, but a subsidiary of the BBC.
between CH4's Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson has been making its rounds on social media. It's like a 1/2 hour Shakespeare play - it's funny, sad, insightful, bewilidering, enlightening. Definitely going to spawn a few memes at the very least.Who owns CH4? I just DuckDuckGo'd it (they're going to have to work on their verbage), and it said it's a publicly traded company, but a subsidiary of the BBC.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
This "debate"
Who owns CH4? I just DuckDuckGo'd it (they're going to have to work on their verbage), and it said it's a publicly traded company, but a subsidiary of the BBC.
I watched the first half of this earlier today. It was painful to watch quite frankly, every time she opened her mouth to ask a question. It's strawman after strawman after strawman on the the interviewer's part and Professor Peterson does a wonderful job of knocking them down one after the other. He's absolutely brilliant. He has a breadth of knowledge that's hard to match and makes compelling, fact based arguments for his positions at every turn. I'll give her credit for actually letting him talk most of the time and not interrupting like a lot of interviewers do these days.
EDIT: Gotta love the Youtubez. Someone has already put together a synopsis of all the strawmen
:
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
C4 is a standalone public broadcasting corporation under the Department of Digital Culture, Media and Sport, not part of the BBC although it's owned by the same public.
I got the feeling she was just trying to pin down what his own stance and opinion was, something which he constantly (and very competently) avoided.
Last edited:
Whitestar
Premium
- 2,079
- Norway
- Whitestar127
Just curious, could you elaborate a bit on that? To me he answered intelligently and clear enough.
