Imus has been fired. But first, he made things worse. He issued a statement saying that the Rutgers basketball team shouldn't feel too bad because, after all, most n****** are "hos." Barak Obama again called for him to be fired.
Ah ... no. I'm wrong. It wasn't Imus, it was Ludicris and Sen. Obama did not call for him to be shunned, but met with him to discuss "empowering youth" - presumably by calling on them to embrace their inner Ho.
H/T: NRO's Media Blog.
You oversimplifying a very complex set of issues. Yeah, there is a serious difference about the use of this language in hip-hop/rap on one hand and by someone like Imus, on the other.
ReplyDeleteThere are good arguments that it is wrong in both instances and some arguments otherwise. But, your simplistic equivocation doesn't begin to do the issue justice.
I can imagine all sorts of distinctions but I don't think they matter that much right now. You could, for example, make the argument that condemning this stuff when it is said by white people is more important because white racism is potentially more dangerous because whites are the majority. But I think that's yesterday's argument as the destruction of Imus illustrates.
ReplyDeleteIt's not exactly clear what Counsellor Esenberg is attempting to impute on Senator Obama -- hypocrisy, perhaps -- but his presumption is unnecessary, because Ludacris and Obama met to discuss AIDS awareness with students at Northwestern University last November.
ReplyDeleteAssuming their intentions were sincere, it seems like a pretty cheap shot trying to equate safe sex with contacting one's "inner ho."
Furthermore, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, it was Ludacris that characterized the discussions as "empowering youth," not Obama.
The point was that the Senator thinks - not unreasonably - that Imus should be ostracized but Ludicris is apparently someone that you treat with respect and with whom you have a dialogue.
ReplyDeleteRick, you simply say that you see possible distinctions and then simply ignore them, claiming some profundity in the contrast between imus and ludacris.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. If you wanna compare and contrast, it requires a lot more careful consideration that its recieved.
Well then, I guess I just don't see the point, unless perhaps in the one instance, Senator Obama was engaging in "strict constructionism" while on the other simply performing a "gut check."
ReplyDeleteI can understand how that might be viewed as inconsistent to his detractors, yet perfectly coherent to his supporters.
I think Rick's point is valid. Either you're for it or you're against it, you can't have it both ways as Obama is attempting.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, FDR worked closely with Joe Stalin.
ReplyDeleteSpelling the candidate's name correctly might make you a more credible source for saying something.
ReplyDelete2 points. First, the Imus decision was a business decision, not a moral decision.
ReplyDeleteMore important - and what Rick wilfully ignores - is that all language is context dependent. Context gives meaning. Rick's attempt to hold up some words outside of any context is childish and nothing more that the cheap political theater he normally avoids.
So, Anony, you claim that "HO" means one thing in one context, and another thing outside of it?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting.
You would assign legitimacy to use of that term for ONE group of people, but not another group?
That "tower of Babel" story actually meant something, you know. It wasn't merely a fable...
Gwendolyn
ReplyDeleteOf course, I think they are victims of an insult. Nothing more. But nothing less. I'm not sure what you read that suggests otherwise.