• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets

That is not a hate crime. There is no legitimate threat of violence. It has to be something that actually reasonably can be considered to be a true threat, not just a statement made in anger.

It is still wrong, but it in itself, does not prove homophobia. It requires more than just angry words about one specific person to prove hate of the whole group that person belongs to.

For a threat to be a crime, it must be a threat to do physical harm. Threats to murder or cause serious injury to a person are specific enough to be the basis of a crime.

Read more: Legal Definition of a Verbal Threat | eHow

wouldn't forcing you foot up some ones ass cause serious injury

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters

Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The official GOP platform discriminates against gays. That's the GOP's official policy.



No, you can't find anything racist against blacks in the current GOP 2012 official party platform, you can however find discriminatory material in there against gays, genius.

The President thought held the same views up until 5 minutes ago, so I guess you didn't vote for him either. Not to mention Clinton who signed DOMA. Are you looking at the people pulling your leash?
 
Read more: Legal Definition of a Verbal Threat | eHow

wouldnt forceing you foot up some ones ass cause serious injury



Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is much more than what is listed in the laws themselves though. It has to be a legitimate threat. It cannot be something that to a reasonable person looks like an angry rant, as it appears to be in this case. People say "I'll put my foot up your ass" all the time, even to specific people. But there are few times such threats are ever considered serious threats because they are almost always just a person venting anger.

Using online media is relatively new, but it still falls under protections of speech. And that includes protection from not being able to even talk about/threat violence as long as there is no reason to believe there is actual intent to act on that talk/threat.
 
It is much more than what is listed in the laws themselves though. It has to be a legitimate threat. It cannot be something that to a reasonable person looks like an angry rant, as it appears to be in this case. People say "I'll put my foot up your ass" all the time, even to specific people. But there are few times such threats are ever considered serious threats because they are almost always just a person venting anger.

Using online media is relatively new, but it still falls under protections of speech. And that includes protection from not being able to even talk about/threat violence as long as there is no reason to believe there is actual intent to act on that talk/threat.

with Baldwin's history of violence against reporters i would take it serious. he threatened violence twice once by saying i will f___ you up and i will but a foot up your ass

did Rush, Deen or Imus get a pass? neither of them made a threat of violence and Rush and Imus was making a joke. just a text book example of the lefts selective outrage and media bias
 
I can't consider wanting black people to play slaves as they serve you to simply be "bad judgment." While I can't say for certain that she is a racist, I certainly believe that such behavior could be an indicator of racism. A woman her age from the South is certainly aware of what slavery was and all the implications around it. Therefore, this is not just a case of "bad judgment." That explanation might suffice for a child, but Paula Deen is an adult. I mean, would you consider it "bad judgment" if a German adult wanted to reenact the Holocaust or if a white person wanted to reenact the Trail of Tears? Probably not. Slavery is no different.

As far as people just taking the word of the woman, I don't think that's the case. Most people seem to be going by the transcripts that have Paula Deen's own words on them.

I just disagree. Maybe it is from the viewpoint that I have known a lot of older Southern people who truly do not believe that they are doing something wrong when they talk about the past in a way that could be viewed by others, and normally is, as offensive. Even younger Southerners sometimes talk about "the South will rise again" or display the Confederate flag, but to many of them this isn't a statement that they think black people are less than white people or even that they approve of slavery. For many, it is part of their heritage, that they may not approve of all aspects of, but to them it is still important. And adults can make bad judgements that are not based on hate or even prejudice but just them not thinking things completely through.

As for the Holocaust and Trail of Tears things, there is a difference. She isn't trying to reenact something where people were treated horribly as the main event. She was trying to have a themed wedding. Slavery wasn't itself being reenacted. And it wasn't being used to glorify slavery. Plus, it would be wrong to have a German 1940s wedding/party theme that included guests/staff with stars or other identifying emblems on them, but it would be still be a case of bad judgement in most cases, unless some other evidence comes up to state otherwise.

I think that most of the backlash came from the media information, which is still not enough. Look, even you went immediately to the "separate bathrooms" thing, despite that not being proven or supported as true by anyone else so far.

I just don't support firing someone just because they have done/said things in their past. They are free to do it, but it doesn't change my view on it. And I feel it is especially wrong to do it when we look at how many others have been treated with so much less animosity for doing things that should have been a hell of a lot worse. It appears more like "jumping on the bandwagon", than sticking with principles.

On a side note to this, I found it interesting that I can still buy her products at the NEX. I saw them just this past week.
 
with Baldwin's history of violence against reporters i would take it serious. he threatened violence twice once by saying i will f___ you up and i will but a foot up your ass

did Rush, Deen or Imus get a pass? neither of them made a threat of violence and Rush and Imus was making a joke. just a text book example of the lefts selective outrage and media bias

This proves that you are apparently set on your own selective outrage and bias because you seem to have missed my comments about Deen. I don't like either Imus or Rush, but I also don't support prosecution of them for anything I know of them saying. You are the one who is showing your selective outrage and bias here.
 
I just disagree. Maybe it is from the viewpoint that I have known a lot of older Southern people who truly do not believe that they are doing something wrong when they talk about the past in a way that could be viewed by others, and normally is, as offensive. Even younger Southerners sometimes talk about "the South will rise again" or display the Confederate flag, but to many of them this isn't a statement that they think black people are less than white people or even that they approve of slavery. For many, it is part of their heritage, that they may not approve of all aspects of, but to them it is still important. And adults can make bad judgements that are not based on hate or even prejudice but just them not thinking things completely through.

As for the Holocaust and Trail of Tears things, there is a difference. She isn't trying to reenact something where people were treated horribly as the main event. She was trying to have a themed wedding. Slavery wasn't itself being reenacted. And it wasn't being used to glorify slavery. Plus, it would be wrong to have a German 1940s wedding/party theme that included guests/staff with stars or other identifying emblems on them, but it would be still be a case of bad judgement in most cases, unless some other evidence comes up to state otherwise.

I think that most of the backlash came from the media information, which is still not enough. Look, even you went immediately to the "separate bathrooms" thing, despite that not being proven or supported as true by anyone else so far.

I just don't support firing someone just because they have done/said things in their past. They are free to do it, but it doesn't change my view on it. And I feel it is especially wrong to do it when we look at how many others have been treated with so much less animosity for doing things that should have been a hell of a lot worse. It appears more like "jumping on the bandwagon", than sticking with principles.

On a side note to this, I found it interesting that I can still buy her products at the NEX. I saw them just this past week.

It has nothing to do with sticking to principles. That's why we see Paula Deen's career going to down the toilet over anecdotal evidence of saying something offensive three decades ago and extreme indifference, even defense of a United States congressman referring to a justice of the Surpreme court as an Uncle Tom.

It all stems from a sub-culture in this country where some discrimination is evil and some discrimination is acceptable, even encouraged.
 
This proves that you are apparently set on your own selective outrage and bias because you seem to have missed my comments about Deen. I don't like either Imus or Rush, but I also don't support prosecution of them for anything I know of them saying. You are the one who is showing your selective outrage and bias here.



nope. just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy of the left and the blatant media bias
 
Read more: Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets | Fox News

so tell me liberals how is it that Paula Deen has her career decimated for something she said 30 years ago, but Baldwin gets a pass for saying something much worse. he just didn't use a homophobic slur he threatened violence against the gay reporter that is a hate crime at least it would be if a conservative did so. the hypocrisy never seams to end with the left

Deen's career wasn't destroyed for what she said 30 years ago. It was the work environment. God only knows why people have focused so intently on her choice of slurs rather than the overwhelming inappropriateness of the workplace.

Should Baldwin lose support? Sure.
 
The President thought held the same views up until 5 minutes ago, so I guess you didn't vote for him either. Not to mention Clinton who signed DOMA. Are you looking at the people pulling your leash?

I vote libertarian. It's a party that doesn't discriminate.
 
I vote libertarian. It's a party that doesn't discriminate.

yeah, its a win-win situation, because you have to defend nothing your party does(since your party holds no real power) and you can attack all sides without being called to question. perfect way to skate through these proceedings. Unfortunately, those of us who's parties have a say in making law and policy have to pick a side and defend it.

congrats
 
This victim card thread delivers the lulz.
 
yeah, its a win-win situation, because you have to defend nothing your party does(since your party holds no real power) and you can attack all sides without being called to question. perfect way to skate through these proceedings. Unfortunately, those of us who's parties have a say in making law and policy have to pick a side and defend it.

congrats

If you want to openly support gay bashing, that's your decision.

I vote for exactly what I believe in. If more people did that instead of "picking the lesser evil", we'd have a libertarian party. Your two parties have a 10% approval rate, yet you continue to vote for them because they're the "lesser evil". Then you want to talk smack to me? Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I don't care for anyone getting fired over comments that they make/have made that have no bearing on how they do their job. Paula Deen shouldn't have been fired for what she has said…and Alec Baldwin shouldn't be fired because he made "homophobic tweets" (which I honestly think was him just being mad at someone and he shouldn't be condemned for the "homophobia" as much as for just being a frackin jerk).

I’m right there with you. Most speech, including “hate speech” only has the power you give it to harm you. As long as it is just words you are free to respond in many different ways, none of which necessitate silencing the idiot. Better to hear it and identify a foe, than not and get stabbed in the back.

Well, in all fairness, Paula Deen also apparently said in ~2007 that she wanted to have a "Civil War era" party where black people would pretend to be slaves. She's also accused of creating a hostile environment for black workers by doing things like having them use separate bathrooms.

In fairness? Well we have movies being made all the time (Django unchained comes to mind) where black people "pretend to be slaves." As long as the pay was good and it was an "acting" job at a theme party, what is the big deal????

Don't get me wrong, just because I support free speech does not mean people who mouth off should not face consequences. That's what courts of civil law are for, and also why voting with your feet or your pocketbooks also works wonders.
 
I was shocked when I read the headline of the thread. Why would the gay activists go after one of their own. Baldwin lives in New York/LA, appears to hate religion, no southern accent, and is a loud mouth liberal. Then I see that it was a right wing organization going after him and it made sense.

I thought the hypocrites stopped being hypocrites for a sec. danger over
 
Read more: Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets | Fox News

so tell me liberals how is it that Paula Deen has her career decimated for something she said 30 years ago, but Baldwin gets a pass for saying something much worse. he just didn't use a homophobic slur he threatened violence against the gay reporter that is a hate crime at least it would be if a conservative did so. the hypocrisy never seams to end with the left

First off, according to your own article Alec is not getting a pass. Being the rightie stooge you are you might want to look at your own idealogy for why anti-gay sentiments are not taken as seriously as racist ones as it would be the right who keeps insisting homophobia is an acceptable prejudice. Finally, I am pretty sure the reporter wasn't gay. At any rate, Alec did not threaten the reporter because he was gay, he threatened him because he went way overboard. This is not to mention the fact Alec has participated in pro-gay programs before. So his remarks are insensitive but not representative of his actions.

Oh, and thank you for the feigned concern. We know how big of a pro-gay rights to be beaten and left for dead tied to a fence person you are. As a member of the community we appreciate your concern in this matter and we will get right on that for you as i am sure that it truly bothers you greatly that gays were subject to collateral insult damage from Alec's comments. Oh, and no you still cannot use nigger as a term for black people unless you want to offend people. We all know where your motivations truly lie, and it seems a tad sneaky and deceptive to play this silly game just so you might have a chance of one day being openly racist again.
 
I don't care for anyone getting fired over comments that they make/have made that have no bearing on how they do their job. Paula Deen shouldn't have been fired for what she has said in the past,

Paula deen is not a typical employee. She was not fired, her contracts were terminated. Contracted employees are a bit different. these are also showbiz contracts. In the media your name becomes a brand that is marketable for entertainment purposes. It is a lot like politics, if you tarnish your brand then you cannot get viewers. your job is to bring an audience in to sell advertisements or a product. The other companies who contract out to use her name have a product she damaged. So yes she actually screwed up how well she did her job in some of those cases considering her attractiveness to an audience was damaged. Had she been in a different area like a faux news person she probably would not have had too much trouble as her statements would have not damaged her audience.

I do agree that for regular people if you do use those terms in private outside of work that is your choice. Still you leave them at home due to professionalism and having to work with other people. Business owners have a different standard as they have to abide by equal protection laws which cover racism, but do not always cover homophobia yet. She might have been completely fine for calling people faggot at her restaurant. Still, doing it in the workplace is a bad idea, and as a business owner she should really have been aware of her obligations under the law (civil law) an acted in a much more professional manner.

and Alec Baldwin shouldn't be fired because he made "homophobic tweets" (which I honestly think was him just being mad at someone and he shouldn't be condemned for the "homophobia" as much as for just being a frackin jerk). But in reality, someone else hit it, it is really just business. There are many more people that are against perceived racism than there are those against perceived homophobia.

If they make enough of a stink about it Alec could be released from his contract. it is doubtful as his reputation and image along with his audience are much different than Paula Deen's. Still, if because of this it is recognized his brand is damaged he will find himself making less money in contracts or losing them as paula did.
 
It’s liberal hypocrisy! The liberal media isn’t paying much attention to what Baldwin says today, but they can’t resist an opportunity to destroy a conservative woman for what she said 30 years ago. You racist, homophobic liberals should be ashamed of yourselves and you should ask yourselves why skin color matters in every situation other than situations where another liberal shows his/her bigotry.
 
In fairness? Well we have movies being made all the time (Django unchained comes to mind) where black people "pretend to be slaves." As long as the pay was good and it was an "acting" job at a theme party, what is the big deal?
I'm not talking about good pay. I'm talking about a Southern white woman wanting black people to act like her slaves in her real life. That is a problem. If you don't understand why a white person wanting to treat black people like slaves in 2013 is a problem, God help you.
 
I just disagree. Maybe it is from the viewpoint that I have known a lot of older Southern people who truly do not believe that they are doing something wrong when they talk about the past in a way that could be viewed by others, and normally is, as offensive. Even younger Southerners sometimes talk about "the South will rise again" or display the Confederate flag, but to many of them this isn't a statement that they think black people are less than white people or even that they approve of slavery. For many, it is part of their heritage, that they may not approve of all aspects of, but to them it is still important. And adults can make bad judgements that are not based on hate or even prejudice but just them not thinking things completely through.
I don't think it has much to do with knowing a lot of older Southern people. I've read comments from Southerners around the Web and they are just as diverse as those from Northerners. As far as your comparison to the Confederate flag and phrases like "the South will rise again", while I ultimately consider things like problematic, they can be divorced from treating black people as inferior. However, treating black people like slaves at a dinner or wedding party cannot be divorced from that. When you treat people like slaves, you are inherently treating them as inferior. When you are a white person in the United States treating black people slaves, the message of inferiority is even more obvious.

As for the Holocaust and Trail of Tears things, there is a difference. She isn't trying to reenact something where people were treated horribly as the main event. She was trying to have a themed wedding. Slavery wasn't itself being reenacted. And it wasn't being used to glorify slavery. Plus, it would be wrong to have a German 1940s wedding/party theme that included guests/staff with stars or other identifying emblems on them, but it would be still be a case of bad judgement in most cases, unless some other evidence comes up to state otherwise.
No, wanting black people to play your slaves is, by definition, a reenactment of slavery so yes, she was advocating a reenactment of slavery. She also said that such a reenactment reminded her of a great time in American history which means that she was, in fact, glorifying slavery. It sounds like you haven't read the deposition.

I think that most of the backlash came from the media information, which is still not enough. Look, even you went immediately to the "separate bathrooms" thing, despite that not being proven or supported as true by anyone else so far.
Most of the media has focused on her use of the n-word which she admits in the deposition. I'm one of the few people bringing up the bathroom accusation which is that white employees were allowed to use bathrooms in the front of the restaurant while black employees were not. I'm inclined to believe it.

I just don't support firing someone just because they have done/said things in their past. They are free to do it, but it doesn't change my view on it. And I feel it is especially wrong to do it when we look at how many others have been treated with so much less animosity for doing things that should have been a hell of a lot worse. It appears more like "jumping on the bandwagon", than sticking with principles.
Well, I'm sick of this country giving white people a pass for their racist or racially insensitive bull**** like you're doing here. I'm glad that's not happening as much anymore. Also, the lawsuit filed against her is not just about her past; it makes accusations about her current behavior. It's likely that the people who fired her took that into consideration and it's possible that they had experienced their own problems with her that caused them to want to distance themselves from Deen.
 
I'm not talking about good pay. I'm talking about a Southern white woman wanting black people to act like her slaves in her real life. That is a problem. If you don't understand why a white person wanting to treat black people like slaves in 2013 is a problem, God help you.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was a "theme party." They happen all the time and people are hired to portray all sorts of roles at a "theme party." Often actors are hired to portray such roles, just like waiters, bartenders and caterers are hired. I've seen whites dressed up as roman slaves, east indians dressed up as thuggees, asian women dressed up as concubines, etc., all potrayiing roles to support the theme. If the ban is absolute, there should be NO time when a black actor can portray a slave including Django, Gone With The Wind, or Roots.

Sorry, your exception is based upon emotion due to the fact this woman is considered a racist. Note, throughout the period in Hollywood when films like "Gone With the Wind" were being made, racism was rampant. We still watch the movies today though. Or should we burn them for failing a "political correctness" test?
 
Last edited:
nope. just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy of the left and the blatant media bias

Except the only hypocrisy and bias is going on in your imagination. The left is the one jumping on Baldwin, asking that he be dropped from his contract for his comments.

And the media isn't showing bias in itself. It is showing sensationalism, which is something they do all the time. They can sensationalize certain people and events much more than they can others.
 
Paula deen is not a typical employee. She was not fired, her contracts were terminated. Contracted employees are a bit different. these are also showbiz contracts. In the media your name becomes a brand that is marketable for entertainment purposes. It is a lot like politics, if you tarnish your brand then you cannot get viewers. your job is to bring an audience in to sell advertisements or a product. The other companies who contract out to use her name have a product she damaged. So yes she actually screwed up how well she did her job in some of those cases considering her attractiveness to an audience was damaged. Had she been in a different area like a faux news person she probably would not have had too much trouble as her statements would have not damaged her audience.

I do agree that for regular people if you do use those terms in private outside of work that is your choice. Still you leave them at home due to professionalism and having to work with other people. Business owners have a different standard as they have to abide by equal protection laws which cover racism, but do not always cover homophobia yet. She might have been completely fine for calling people faggot at her restaurant. Still, doing it in the workplace is a bad idea, and as a business owner she should really have been aware of her obligations under the law (civil law) an acted in a much more professional manner.

If they make enough of a stink about it Alec could be released from his contract. it is doubtful as his reputation and image along with his audience are much different than Paula Deen's. Still, if because of this it is recognized his brand is damaged he will find himself making less money in contracts or losing them as paula did.

There's a problem with what you are saying here though, her popularity and book sales increased after the controversy was released. If it was about affecting her sale quality, then they screwed up because her ability to sale went up a lot after her deposition was released. It didn't go down, nor were there really a lot of people calling for her to be fired.

Paula Deen's Book Sales Increase Following N-Word Controversy - The Hollywood Reporter
 
Back
Top Bottom