I like this definition:
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Trump supporter calls Black high school kids "f*cking n*iggers"
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
There you are actually antagonizing though (which fits your definition). Unlike that guy caught on a mic.
hate speech is still protected speech. Totally different than yelling fire in a theater where someone can get trampled to death in the commotion. Define "harm" when someone hears speech they don't like.
Last edited:
Anyone that does not understand the definition of "racism"...
It just a dumbass...intentionally for the purpose to debate or unintentionally because they're in an environment that doesn't have it. As for the latter, just because someone is an environment that doesn't have racism...it does not imply racism does not exist elsewhere nor does it imply there's no racism in their environment due to the fact they just have not seen it...yet.
At the minimum, it creates social economic disparities that can bring down an economy instead of strengthening the economy. Racism is a very selfish, egotistic attitude that begins at the individual level before it spreads quickly to the surrounding environment if it goes uncheck (not called out).
Yet, the ones you really need to be careful about are the racists that are intelligent manipulators on social media...they will defend another racist / protect under the freedom of speech.
Hate speech is protected differently in different countries. Reason why you need to be very careful about debating with someone that's anonymous on social media (there will never be a common ground) because you do not know what country they're from nor what laws are in place in their country about hate speech, discrimination and freedom of speech itself.
Just as important, there are many different ways of punishing someone (holding them accountable) for their hate speech even if it's protected (e.g. legal local boycotts). For example, I've seen stores go out of business (economic ruin) because the business was run by a racist that expressed his / her racist views publicly to an audience that did not share the same views...
An audience that decided to stop using the services of the business owner. Another example, calling them out in public (your freedom of speech) so that it impacts their careers / job opportunities / relationships.
wrbtrader
It just a dumbass...intentionally for the purpose to debate or unintentionally because they're in an environment that doesn't have it. As for the latter, just because someone is an environment that doesn't have racism...it does not imply racism does not exist elsewhere nor does it imply there's no racism in their environment due to the fact they just have not seen it...yet.
- All societies in the world have racists.
- Racism should never be downplayed nor excused...
At the minimum, it creates social economic disparities that can bring down an economy instead of strengthening the economy. Racism is a very selfish, egotistic attitude that begins at the individual level before it spreads quickly to the surrounding environment if it goes uncheck (not called out).
Yet, the ones you really need to be careful about are the racists that are intelligent manipulators on social media...they will defend another racist / protect under the freedom of speech.
Hate speech is protected differently in different countries. Reason why you need to be very careful about debating with someone that's anonymous on social media (there will never be a common ground) because you do not know what country they're from nor what laws are in place in their country about hate speech, discrimination and freedom of speech itself.
Just as important, there are many different ways of punishing someone (holding them accountable) for their hate speech even if it's protected (e.g. legal local boycotts). For example, I've seen stores go out of business (economic ruin) because the business was run by a racist that expressed his / her racist views publicly to an audience that did not share the same views...
An audience that decided to stop using the services of the business owner. Another example, calling them out in public (your freedom of speech) so that it impacts their careers / job opportunities / relationships.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
But you shouldn’t keep your politics to yourself.
Calling blacks ‘coons’ is ok, also, in the racist Leftard handbook.
More to the story because the story is now going nationwide via ESPN...
-------
The broadcaster who made the remarks later identified himself as Matt Rowan. In a statement in which he apologized, Rowan, who owns and operates the streaming service OSPN, said he is a diabetic and that his blood-sugar levels caused him to make the remarks.
"I will state that I suffer Type 1 Diabetes and during the game my sugar was spiking," Rowan said in a statement obtained by multiple media outlets. "While not excusing my remarks it is not unusual when my sugar spikes that I become disoriented and often say things that are not appropriate as well as hurtful. I do not believe that I would have made such horrible statements absent my sugar spiking."
-------
Coughing because I know someone that's diabetic (type 1)...never heard any racist commentary from him but he did once blame beating the hell out of his ex-girlfriend new boyfriend on his blood sugar levels being low.
Note - Research studies have found that high diabetes rates also had high violent crime rates. Not making any excuses for his behavior but it does make me wonder...
Seriously, what if he sees a young black / hispanic / asian / indigenous girl alone somewhere and his blood sugar level is low...what will he do to her ???
As I stated earlier, those that have a different view about freedom of speech...you must bare the consequences when others hear or read your hate speech expression.
wrbtrader
-------
The broadcaster who made the remarks later identified himself as Matt Rowan. In a statement in which he apologized, Rowan, who owns and operates the streaming service OSPN, said he is a diabetic and that his blood-sugar levels caused him to make the remarks.
"I will state that I suffer Type 1 Diabetes and during the game my sugar was spiking," Rowan said in a statement obtained by multiple media outlets. "While not excusing my remarks it is not unusual when my sugar spikes that I become disoriented and often say things that are not appropriate as well as hurtful. I do not believe that I would have made such horrible statements absent my sugar spiking."
-------
Coughing because I know someone that's diabetic (type 1)...never heard any racist commentary from him but he did once blame beating the hell out of his ex-girlfriend new boyfriend on his blood sugar levels being low.
Note - Research studies have found that high diabetes rates also had high violent crime rates. Not making any excuses for his behavior but it does make me wonder...
Seriously, what if he sees a young black / hispanic / asian / indigenous girl alone somewhere and his blood sugar level is low...what will he do to her ???
As I stated earlier, those that have a different view about freedom of speech...you must bare the consequences when others hear or read your hate speech expression.
That person may have just sent those in his company and himself to the unemployment line...in a Pandemic when people are already financially struggling. On the flip side, it does open the doorway to opportunities for another business that understands how to use freedom of speech to empower people to be better.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
politics???? Maybe you should keep your ignorance to yourself.
Last edited:
More to the story because the story is now going nationwide via ESPN...
-------
The broadcaster who made the remarks later identified himself as Matt Rowan. In a statement in which he apologized, Rowan, who owns and operates the streaming service OSPN, said he is a diabetic and that his blood-sugar levels caused him to make the remarks.
"I will state that I suffer Type 1 Diabetes and during the game my sugar was spiking," Rowan said in a statement obtained by multiple media outlets. "While not excusing my remarks it is not unusual when my sugar spikes that I become disoriented and often say things that are not appropriate as well as hurtful. I do not believe that I would have made such horrible statements absent my sugar spiking."
-------
Coughing because I know someone that's diabetic (type 1)...never heard any racist commentary from him but he did once blame beating the hell out of his ex-girlfriend new boyfriend on his blood sugar levels being low.
Note - Research studies have found that high diabetes rates also had high violent crime rates. Not making any excuses for his behavior but it does make me wonder...
Seriously, what if he sees a young black / hispanic / asian / indigenous girl alone somewhere and his blood sugar level is low...what will he do to her ???
As I stated earlier, those that have a different view about freedom of speech...you must bare the consequences when others hear or read your hate speech expression.
That person may have just sent those in his company and himself to the unemployment line...in a Pandemic when people are already financially struggling. On the flip side, it does open the doorway to opportunities for another business that understands how to use freedom of speech to empower people to be better.
wrbtrader
yeah low blood sugar did not make him a racist.... low blood sugar made him forget he was on air live when he said what he said... HUGE DIFFERENCE.
Yes, we agreed on that.
I'll agree as to the extent, and type of the harm; but I maintain that, directed against children, hate speech can cause harm.
For example
I'll use an extreme example to better illustrate the point.
A young girl, bussed into a White neighborhood, to attend a White school, who is regularly called ngr by groups of White boys, will, imo be mentally/psychologically/emotionally/etc. harmed.
Harm and Recourse
I believe racial slurs can cause harm.
Title VII laws allow for civil remedies for racial slurs in the workplace. Again, free speech can still have limits, even when it doesn't present an acute, deadly danger, as in the theater example.
While you are correct, that no crimes are committed if an adult White male says ngr multiple times to a Black girl; that girl may nevertheless suffer emotional distress, learning disorders, social/psychological disorders, etc. And may have civil recourse.
And that adult, if he yells the slurs, and depending on other factors, may be subject to disorderly conduct charges.
Solution
Decorum and decency do, and should, have a place in a civilized Democracy. Democracy doesn't have to mean that we must allow adults to barrage children with barbaric discharges; nor does it mean that the same must be allowed onto other adults.
And who gets to decide what is, and isn't proper? The People do. Just as we decide other laws.
Point: There is no divine red line in the sand that demands we allow each other to hurl racial slurs at one another--as we are programmed to believe.
Slippery Slopes
There is no slippery slope with respect to speech alone. Democracy itself, exists on a slippery slope. And as we have recently seen, is not as robust as once thought.
We, The People ought acknowledge, and use our power to decide for ourselves,
with each and every vote on the issue,
as often as we like and deem necessary,
what the red line is,
and where it gets drawn.
We already place limits on free speech and hate speech. Hate speech, if used during a crime, may enhance the criminal charges. I've already mentioned Title VII.
You see, the answer is not to allow 'the wild wild West' with regard to free speech. The answer is proper limitations, just as we already have when it comes to safety (the 'theater' example) and Title VII. It can be done. It is being done.
Closing
But regarding the current issue.
While we waxed philosophical, and I expounded generally, I do acknowledge that:
What the announcer did was likely not criminal, and was unintentional with respect to the open mic.
Current Bottom Line
Some employees will steal; others would never do such a thing.
Employees that steal and are caught and prosecuted; may not find choice employment going forward.
Employees that reveal that they have a mentality that believes it's OK to do what the announcer did, criminal or not, even if with a closed mic, may not find choice employment going forward.