And American "We see racism in EVERYTHING" hits a new low

[BulletMagnet]

Back on topic or else.

[njiska]

For those just joining us, we were having a reasonable discussion about PC culture

and Elixir showed up to try to see if he could find any soft targets for slimy insults to get his rocks off. Too bad he can't frame a proper insult without tripping over his own fingers.

That's the basic difference between us. I'm trying to be helpful, whereas from the outset Elixir has been abusive and generally useless. Pretty common behavior for a narcissist. I vote him off the island.

Elixir, really, you're about one step up (down?) from saying "Nyeah nyeah!" Just as I said, all your "arguments" are basically "I am going to just pretend I'm being logical, that surely will infuriate people!"

Could we avoid provoking Elixir? It never get's anyone anywhere and it's best if we just ignore him and continue our civil, albeit occasionally passionate, debate in peace.

As for you Ed, I've been reading your comments, but i've been too busy (guests over) to write a proper response. When I have time tonight I'll write a proper response to address some of your comments in a civil manner.

[Ed Oscuro]

Back on topic or else.

Oh, I forgot - all Elixir wants is to be able to insult people in peace. (But he has a blog for that...a Japanese one, at that.)

Could we avoid provoking Elixir?

I must protest at your apportionment of blame. Elixir is the person who riles up other people, and then plays dumb so as not to be caught doing it.

As for you Ed, I've been reading your comments, but i've been too busy (guests over) to write a proper response. When I have time tonight I'll write a proper response to address some of your comments in a civil manner.

Please do! I am hoping that I have misunderstood something about what you've been saying, or that my memory is wrong (or both).

[Vexorg]

ESPN has already fired the headline writer, and suspended an ESPNEWS anchor for 30 days for another apparently offensive comment:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7591 ... n-comments

[Ed Oscuro]

Whoa, that's definitely too much, print or otherwise. What the hell happened to "sensitivity training?"

I hope this doesn't derail the average American's respect for Jeremy Lin. He hasn't called for this, and probably wouldn't want the headline writers to be fired. So glad I stayed away from a career in media.

[njiska]

Could we avoid provoking Elixir?

I must protest at your apportionment of blame. Elixir is the person who riles up other people, and then plays dumb so as not to be caught doing it.

I didn't mean to call you out specifically, nor was i referring to this thread alone. Every time Elixir joins one of these threads a big nasty argument happens. I don't care if he starts it or if we start it; I just don't think we should be engaging in conversation with him in general since it always goes badly for the thread and then we have to have mod commentary. I think it's time we just avoided the shit storm to begin with.

Please do! I am hoping that I have misunderstood something about what you've been saying, or that my memory is wrong (or both).

[/quote]

I guess we shall find out. I know that my general personality is a bit abrasive and may give off a different message than what I mean to convey.

[Elixir]

It would be nice if people listened to moderators. I'm not even going to bother, feel free to misinterpret my original response as "insulting", or whatever, as much as you like. It's literally all you.

[Ed Oscuro]

I had a couple amazing revelations as a result of this thread! I wanted to call attention to this response:

Please do! I am hoping that I have misunderstood something about what you've been saying, or that my memory is wrong (or both).

I guess we shall find out. I know that my general personality is a bit abrasive and may give off a different message than what I mean to convey.[/quote]
So, as we have found out, being simply abrasive doesn't make you a terrible person. By trying to reconcile your approach with those of others, you are fundamentally a reasonable person, and that is actually going beyond what I think many people feel they have to do.

This discussion is really a discussion about a democratic society. People say they agree with the theory that a democratic society is full of all kinds of different people, and so eventually a "moderate" position should win out. So, even if I can say that I think that you are biased towards paying attention to only one side of the issue, what kind of problem is this really? Lobbies, or interest groups, and political parties aren't a problem in the theoretical framework.

In practice, I think that many people actually believe in something like the ancient call to be a "better rounded" person; more understanding of all sides. So a lot of us (myself included, definitely) hold to some belief that we should try our best to be the most informed on issues, and spend a lot of time on these things - arguably, more than we actually need to. Even the most extreme case, somebody focusing their entire life on one issue, isn't a problem - we specialize at work on one task, too, and sometimes it's needed for one person to be an issue's champion. (I've known some people who spend their entire lives on issues that would strike most people as being the fringest of the fringe, in terms of their consequences for society at large, but even here they are forcing other people to think about what they believe.)

So my initial argument was this: The theory starts not to work if the best or most persistent champions of an argument aren't aware of the other side's arguments or their concerns; this doesn't make their argument stronger. The goal here is not to make everybody cosmopolitan or whatever; it's to put the debate on a higher footing.

Obviously this is too simplistic to fit to a whole person so I don't mean that as a sweeping condemnation or whatever.

Elixir: OK, reading over your point, I see where you're coming from, I think. I still don't exactly appreciate the characterization of Americans as slow speakers, but I can let that one slide. Obviously you're right that many people would be unhappy to hear a word they associate a certain way.

[Ganelon]

Whoa, that's definitely too much, print or otherwise. What the hell happened to "sensitivity training?"

I think that's a very fair punishment on ESPN's part, even though it's quite unjust. Just looking at the string of news faux pas in the past few years, cool off periods don't happen anymore in media, at least not for replaceable guys. As I said, recent responses to discrimination have all been firings so this case wasn't any better or worse.

If a person makes a speech and uses the word "niggardly" to describe something related to a black member of the audience, then even though the word has no direct relation to the n-word, you have to question his tolerance or intelligence. I have no idea what Max Bretos (the anchor) was thinking when he made the comment—and you don't either—but it looks like his Asian wife saved him.

As an aside, I don't know any Asians who get offended at fortune cookie references. And I've always thought it strange that the word "fob" never reached the extreme derogatory levels of other racist terms. I believe it's because many Asians either don't care or don't know about these words. But I think the reaction here, although yet another pointless example of our PC culture, has been great at showing that the east Asian community in the US has a backbone.

[njiska]

For Ed:

On Me:

Point 1: This is my Pet Issue

I'm not exactly sure this is what I'd call a pet issue. While this is a subject I do care about and will debate if the issue comes up, it's also not an issue that I usually go out of my way to find. The main reason I chose to post about this particular case was because I found it to be far more absurd and far more of a stretch than what usually comes up. If a friend hadn't linked me to the article this morning i'd probably have never noticed and if it was less absurd i'd have probably not posted about it here. If someone here posted about it I would probably comment however.

If you want an example of something that is a "Pet Issue" of mine it would be circumcision, specifically of newborns.

Point 2: Banging on this issue the whole time I was a member of Digital Press

There are only three specific times when I can recall discussing this issue at DP. The first was when Sony launched it's White PSP campaign in the Netherlands and I still to this day believe that it was a complete over-reaction because the people complaining were not in the target country, not in a country with a similar cultural background and not directly affected by it.

The second was Clerks II over Randal's comments about taking Porch Monkey back and that's too an complicated argument to make here.

The third was RE5 and while I still believe that the reaction to the trailer was completely uncalled for and sensationalist, I will admit that Capcom definitely had issues when they surrounded the player with grass-skirted spear chuckers. I defended that game and in the end i admit i was wrong. While it may still not have crossed the line of social norms in Japan, Capcom USA should probably have realized the later game elements were going to be a major problem when it released in America.

(Please note: That was not an ethnic slur against the blacks. They were actually chucking spears at you.)

Point 3: This is primarily a philosophical debate

Let's be honest. There is no right or wrong answer to this debate. Deciding what is offensive and what isn't always boils down to one opinion clashing with another. I think there's great room here for a debate and exchange of ideas, but regardless of how the discussions goes we're still just talking about opinions.

Point 4: Culture plays a role in affecting our points of view

I come from a country without a particularly racially charged past. We didn't have a big problem with civil rights. We exploited the chinese for railroad construction and while we did formally apologize for it, but it's not something we regularly think about. For a Canadian these types of issues surround not race, but language. This gives me a different perspective on the issue than an average American. Not a better prespective, just a different one. Does it make me right and him wrong or vice versa? No, but it does mean that we're looking at one issue in two very different ways and that is undoubtedly going to a cause of tension in this debate.

On Jeremy Lin stuff

Point 1: Why this is a big issue for me

I honestly do not care if people were offended by the "Chink in the Armour" comment or not. I think it's a stupid thing to get worked up over, but everyone has the right to be offended and if this offended then ltimately that's you're opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree whole heartedly with you, but I acknowledge your right to think and feel that way. What I do not acknowledge is your right to believe that everyone else must be thinking exactly the same as you do. It's ok to say, "I think this is racist", but it's not ok to say, "This is clearly racist. Everyone knows it's racist. No one could see it as anything but racist. Therefore it was something that should never have made it out and someone should be punished." This is the problem I have with the ESPN story.

A chink in the armour is a 500 year old expression, a common english idiom often associated with sports journalism and predates the use of the word chink as an ethnic slur by as much as 400 years. It's very likely that the guy's working for ESPN used the expression, just like they had countless times before and never even considered that it could be construed as racist at any stage of production/approval. It's also entirely possible that someone decided this would be a good, innocent racial joke, but based on the way it was used (in context, especially with the verbal usage on air) it's not what I would call likely.

Regardless of whether or not anyone at ESPN thought this was racist, it does not give the public the right to rise up and say that they clearly knew this was wrong. Worse still someone lost their job over this and they probably didn't even know they did something wrong. If you really were offended by it and you were a reasonable human being, then the right thing to do is approach them and say, "Hey, this might not be a good idea. People could take it the wrong way. I'm offended so you may want to change the headline." Not, "This is clearly racist. They knew it was racist. There's nothing else they could have thought. Hang em!" This is where sensationalism comes into play and blows everything out of proportion; often demonizing innocent people and potentially ruining actual lives. The reaction can in essence cause more damage then the original statement. You may be offended, but he doesn't have a source of income.

Point 2: The problem with an apology.

I have no problem with ESPN apologizing if the apology were:

"Dear ESPN readers,

We've received a lot of feedback surrounding our headline, "A chink in the armor" and it's possible racial connotations. This was not our intention. It's is an old expression, commonly used in sports reporting to refer to a weakness in an otherwise strong line of defence. We didn't see this as a race issue and we are surprised by your response. However you, our readers, have made it clear that this concerns you, so we're going to go ahead and change the title to something that's less likely to offend."

Instead we got:
"Last night, ESPN.com's mobile website posted an offensive headline referencing Jeremy Lin at 2:30 a.m. ET. The headline was removed at 3:05 a.m. We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again. We regret and apologize for this mistake."

The difference between the two? One acknowledge's that people were offended, but maintains it was an innocent mistake (which I believe it was), while the other basically cedes that chink in the armor is a racial statement, was posted by an employee with the intent of being racist and we're going to punish him.

Point 3: Intent matters

Again a big issue I have with issues like this one is that nobody takes intent into account. I could type six random words here and end up offending someone, but if I didn't intend to offend did I really do anything wrong? If we follow the rules applied in ESPN's case, then yes and worse still I deserve to lose my job for it.

That's all i can write at the moment. It's been a long day. Hopefully this clarifies my stance a little better than I had previously done.

[Jockel]

Is it too late to post this?

[Ed Oscuro]

No, it's never too late. In totally unrelated news, I just finished off an orange soda. Mmm, orange soda.

[Estebang]

The soda was to wash down that meal of watermelon, KFC and yellow cake, right?

Thanks to Kenan & Kel, that news was more related than you think.

[louisg]

Whoa, that's definitely too much, print or otherwise. What the hell happened to "sensitivity training?"

I hope this doesn't derail the average American's respect for Jeremy Lin. He hasn't called for this, and probably wouldn't want the headline writers to be fired. So glad I stayed away from a career in media.

I totally agree. The only way as a society we can deal with delicate issues involving race is to have a dialog about it. When you get into a cycle of just reaction and more reaction, I think it doesn't do much but create a lot of resentment. This isn't going to solve anything.

[brentsg]

Back on topic or else.

This was the funniest post of the thread.

Or else what?

You'll split the off topic content to a different thread?

Elixir is involved in at least half of the forum's confrontations. You haven't done anything except reinstate him to the forum and grant him the ability to represent the forum on Twitter.

So, or else what?

[Ganelon]

It's ok to say, "I think this is racist", but it's not ok to say, "This is clearly racist. Everyone knows it's racist. No one could see it as anything but racist. Therefore it was something that should never have made it out and someone should be punished." This is the problem I have with the ESPN story.

Then why do you also say Capcom "definitely had issues" for setting Biohazard 5 in Africa and populating it with faux Maasai warriors?

"We've received a lot of feedback surrounding our headline, "A chink in the armor" and it's possible racial connotations. This was not our intention. It's is an old expression, commonly used in sports reporting to refer to a weakness in an otherwise strong line of defence. We didn't see this as a race issue and we are surprised by your response. However you, our readers, have made it clear that this concerns you, so we're going to go ahead and change the title to something that's less likely to offend."

The reason this apology wouldn't work is because ESPN, by explaining in this manner, would be assuming that its audience is comprised of idiots who weren't already aware of this idiom. At the same time, by not seeing the headline as a potential race issue, ESPN would be showing an appalling lack of awareness or intelligence. The overall tone used sounds belittling and the text mentions nothing about preventing future issues. This isn't even an apology; it's an "OK, since you readers blew something out of proportion, we'll change it. You're welcome" excuse.

I much prefer ESPN's apology. Rather than lecture the audience and admit that ESPN has clueless editorial oversight, the apology accepts full responsibility for a mistake. It mentions the quick response time and promises to remedy this type of situation in the future. Then, it actually gives the explicit apology. Case closed. The apology doesn't say that the employee is racist, only that he wrote an offensive headline (true since somebody did take offense) and that action would be taken to remedy this issue going forward.

Ultimately, the media controls what words have weight. Whether or not you regard a phrase as offensive or not is irrelevant. Whether the phrase was written with maliciousness or careless is also irrelevant. When news outlets went into a frenzy over this perceived racism, then there was clearly societal acceptance that the phrase had problems. At that point, the headline turned into a battleground for racism. And in this age where groups will organize boycotts on the drop of a dime, ESPN took the smartest approach in an unfortunate situation.

[Skykid]

Back on topic or else.

This was the funniest post of the thread.

Or else what?

You'll split the off topic content to a different thread?

Elixir is involved in at least half of the forum's confrontations. You haven't done anything except reinstate him to the forum and grant him the ability to represent the forum on Twitter.

So, or else what?

This is the best post of the thread.

[TonK]

Need a tl;dr summary.

[Ed Oscuro]

Need a tl;dr summary.

Whoa, haven't seen you in a while! What's up?

[Friendly]

Summary: Only 1.2 in 10 Americans are black. Obvious racism.

[Never_Scurred]

Back on topic or else.

This was the funniest post of the thread.

Or else what?

You'll split the off topic content to a different thread?

Elixir is involved in at least half of the forum's confrontations. You haven't done anything except reinstate him to the forum and grant him the ability to represent the forum on Twitter.

So, or else what?

ST. LOUIS run this motherfucker, what?!

[undamned]

Even if it wasn't intentional, someone there should have been awake enough to say "maybe we ought to reword this a bit, just in case."

This.
-ud

[Elixir]

BM didn't reinstate anything. @shmups didn't even touch the mods, is shared with three other people, and originally wasn't even my idea. spadgy likes it though. If you'd like, I could post the log of bloodflowers saying it's okay to link to @shmups here, providing the text is included, and vice-versa (providing bf is ok with this).

I think it's pretty ironic how a thread about over-sensitive American reactions is filled with exactly that.

If you don't like my posts, don't reply! It's not like anyone is forcing you to respond/read/misinterpret/exaggerate them. I've said this before but no one listens. Funny it's only when it suits.

[Ex-Cyber]

Even if it wasn't intentional, someone there should have been awake enough to say "maybe we ought to reword this a bit, just in case."

This.
-ud

Pretty much. I wonder whether the guy who got fired was actually supposed to be responsible for that kind of review, took pains to avoid it, or is just being scapegoated for stumbling upon a flaw in the system. I could understand firing him if it was clearly his responsibility to uphold an existing editorial standard/policy and he failed to do it, but it would be pretty shitty to fire him if he was just the guy who wrote the headline while the review process that failed was above his station.

[alastair jack]

lol journalists.

[Ed Oscuro]

Even if it wasn't intentional, someone there should have been awake enough to say "maybe we ought to reword this a bit, just in case."

This.
-ud

Pretty much. I wonder whether the guy who got fired was actually supposed to be responsible for that kind of review, took pains to avoid it, or is just being scapegoated for stumbling upon a flaw in the system. I could understand firing him if it was clearly his responsibility to uphold an existing editorial standard/policy and he failed to do it, but it would be pretty shitty to fire him if he was just the guy who wrote the headline while the review process that failed was above his station.

My impression was that it was one of those rush to press immediate post-game things. You don't hear about people getting fired for rush transcript and breaking news typos. So yeah, it's possible the writer was "on notice," but I didn't see any reason to expect that was the case.

[Blade]

The "art" of being a Nazi: http://twentiethman.wordpress.com/2012/ ... nazi-past/

[mrsmiley381]

I mean, if I had a quarter for everytime I heard "THEY can say the N word but we can't! That's reverse racism! Isn't that racist?", I'd be rich!

Is dis nigga serious?

[Ed Oscuro]

The "art" of being a Nazi: http://twentiethman.wordpress.com/2012/ ... nazi-past/

It sounds funny, but what if the kid was in the process of getting indoctrinated?

The funny thing, of course, that we believe there is a right to have your children educated as you see fit. So the Principal can glower and express his disapprobation all he wants, but if the parents are OK with it, I don't know if there's anything concrete that they can do. But I think it's legitimate pressure anyway. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to be really heavy-handed about it and so kids don't understand enough of the story (and that usually holds true while they're adults as well).

[Damocles]

The funny thing, of course, that we believe there is a right to have your children educated as you see fit. So the Principal can glower and express his disapprobation all he wants, but if the parents are OK with it, I don't know if there's anything concrete that they can do. But I think it's legitimate pressure anyway. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to be really heavy-handed about it and so kids don't understand enough of the story (and that usually holds true while they're adults as well).

Apparently it is at least temporarily legal, at least if you name your son Adolf Hitler.