- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,779
- Reaction score
- 1,477
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Reality and Blindness
while Monk Eye continues to make points about, ahem, me, ... and look at the individual quotes removed from the larger context, the larger pattern ... I resubmit my position: Imus was a complete dweeb whom uttered corny juvenile insults for years and years. Gee, no wonder he was fired. it only took this long because he was hardly a household word, until now. It went on and on for too long. he and other white elites repeated various slanders and grade-school insults on his show as if they were still living in pre-1964 America. Finally, somebody reacted to it. The advertisers didn't like the negative attention. Out came the plug. It was a combination of skiddish corporate ownership coupled with the actual content of the man's words.
was it fair? this is the wrong question. why don't others whom use tasteless hate-speak get fired also? this is the wrong question as well. Imus brought it upon himself. his career was built on insults. it backfired on him this time. it happens.
Monk Eye says, "Given prejudices, imagination, day to day dispositions, issues are bound to arise." This is to completely ignore, to whitewash, the contents of what Imus regularly said, as well as the weakness of Imus' character. not to mention his poor judgement. or the limits of taste.
Monk Eye says, "The sponsors pander to the audiences." Nothing could be further from the truth, in this specific case. Look at what the sponsors did. They withdrew. There are limits to good taste, and a context to everything.
within the thread, Monk Eye says, "It was trivialized language. Most of the derogatory source was from the person with which he was conversing. Imus appears coaxed and seemingly declines and diverts from the overextenuation." this again is to deny reality. Imus agreed with the cohort, Imus added his own phrase. Imus engaged. to say that Imus was "coaxed" removes personal responsibility and is essentially apologist spin.
Bottom line, Imus engaged in tasteless humor. he did it constantly for years. Imus is not a serious human being. others pointed this out. the advertisers withdrew. Imus lost his job. if Imus had been more serious and less tasteless with his insults, he'd still be in there. the decision is up to the network, not you and me. they decide how they wish to make money. Imus was not coaxed. Imus was complicit. Imus spouted hurtful speech constantly, he embodied it. my quotes demonstrate it.
some pundits speak with substance, and avoid schoolboy potty humor. those pundits still have shows, for the most part.
Imus did it.
I have never strayed from it. open that monk eye.Monk Eye said:
yup. I had given clarification already. if I point out that you belabor the point, which, btw, is a point you have not belabored with anyone else, it means I have a golden commode? ah, the things one will say rather than admit one was wrong.Monk Eye said:
while Monk Eye continues to make points about, ahem, me, ... and look at the individual quotes removed from the larger context, the larger pattern ... I resubmit my position: Imus was a complete dweeb whom uttered corny juvenile insults for years and years. Gee, no wonder he was fired. it only took this long because he was hardly a household word, until now. It went on and on for too long. he and other white elites repeated various slanders and grade-school insults on his show as if they were still living in pre-1964 America. Finally, somebody reacted to it. The advertisers didn't like the negative attention. Out came the plug. It was a combination of skiddish corporate ownership coupled with the actual content of the man's words.
was it fair? this is the wrong question. why don't others whom use tasteless hate-speak get fired also? this is the wrong question as well. Imus brought it upon himself. his career was built on insults. it backfired on him this time. it happens.
Monk Eye says, "Given prejudices, imagination, day to day dispositions, issues are bound to arise." This is to completely ignore, to whitewash, the contents of what Imus regularly said, as well as the weakness of Imus' character. not to mention his poor judgement. or the limits of taste.
Monk Eye says, "The sponsors pander to the audiences." Nothing could be further from the truth, in this specific case. Look at what the sponsors did. They withdrew. There are limits to good taste, and a context to everything.
within the thread, Monk Eye says, "It was trivialized language. Most of the derogatory source was from the person with which he was conversing. Imus appears coaxed and seemingly declines and diverts from the overextenuation." this again is to deny reality. Imus agreed with the cohort, Imus added his own phrase. Imus engaged. to say that Imus was "coaxed" removes personal responsibility and is essentially apologist spin.
Bottom line, Imus engaged in tasteless humor. he did it constantly for years. Imus is not a serious human being. others pointed this out. the advertisers withdrew. Imus lost his job. if Imus had been more serious and less tasteless with his insults, he'd still be in there. the decision is up to the network, not you and me. they decide how they wish to make money. Imus was not coaxed. Imus was complicit. Imus spouted hurtful speech constantly, he embodied it. my quotes demonstrate it.
some pundits speak with substance, and avoid schoolboy potty humor. those pundits still have shows, for the most part.
Imus did it.
