This Cracker Needs A Rulebook

I've been watching the ongoing debate over the Imus controversy and I must say I'm damnned confused over who is allowed to say what. That what Imus said was wrong is a given. What he said was a double no no. Offensive to both blacks and women. I think we can all agree on that point. But after that nobody seems to be able to agree on anything. Ganster rappers use the same kind of language and worse and nobody gets fired for that. I understand the argument that blacks should be able to use the N word and whites can't even though I'm not sure that I agree with it. But taking that argument further then only women should be allowed to use the terms bitches and ho's, right? And what if someone if half black and half white, what's the rules for them? And transexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals, what are the rules for them?  

I'm damned confused. If I refer to myself to a possum eaten', Nascar watchin' hillbilly cracker, can I get fired for that? If a Hispanic calls me that, can I fire him/her? I need me a rulebook. Anybody know where I can get one? I also need to make sure that it's the right one as there seems to be different rules for different folks. Until I can find me one, I think I just better play it safe and not call nobody nothing.

•  Rule 1

  Don't make personal attacks.  Imus personally attacked a small group of young women.  

  by deepsouthdoug on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:14:25 PM PDT

  •  I mus

    t not read another diary about Imust not read another diary about Imust not read another diary about Imust not read another diary about Imust not read another diary about Imus...

    by dnta on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:45:35 PM PDT

  •  rule One A

    no means no, take a freaking hint. If people look sour and don't laugh at some 'joke' then stop and try to figure out why. Don't get mad that they don't 'get' it, everyone 'gets' it.

    by tony the American Mutt on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:53:44 PM PDT

  •  Here's your rule:

    Be polite.

    by oklacoma dem on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:56:49 PM PDT

•  Here's a thought

  stop labeling groups of people.

  by MLDB on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:15:35 PM PDT

  •  Like we do Republicans on this blog?

    Anyone remember generalizing them in not so nice terms?

    Does this rule apply to everyone?

    by NoBigGovernment on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:18:07 PM PDT

    •  Can only speak for me...

      I enjoy ripping individuals when they deserve it, but try very hard not to paint w/ the big "R" brush.

      So yes, in my mind the rule applies to everyone.

      by MLDB on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:20:55 PM PDT

•  Rule 1. The only rule.

  You'll know bigotry like Imus's when you hear it. If you don't, then there's no hope for you anyway.

  by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:17:49 PM PDT

  •  The bizzare thing about crackers

    is that they're always trying to rationalize this issue. They want to equate things, to try to equate white racism with black racism; in my opinion they do this in order to negate the seriousness of their own bigotries.

    In the end, that's just straight up racism. Nobody does that with the Jews. Nobody expects Jews not to have problems with Germans, or even with Muslims. Everybody goes out of their way to be understanding.

    But a heck of a lot more blacks were murdered, and yet nobody seems to realize that here's another minority that's earned every right in the world to be racist against white Americans. They're still in the ghetto, and nobody lends them any understanding. The Jews have been out of the ghetto for about half a Century, and everyone still gives them the benefit of the doubt on some of their racist tendancies.

    But white crackers here in America refuse to aknowledge that racism amongst minorities is a totally different animal than racism amongst a dominant culture like the Germans or white Americans now.

    It's totally different, and they refuse to see that.
    
    Crackers just don't have any empathy, they don't get it. And they never will apparently.

    by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:36:20 PM PDT

    •  Wow.

      When I read your comment, in my head I hear your 'Rule 1' being busted all over the place.

      by blueteam on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:48:38 PM PDT

      •  my thought too

        ...

        by tony the American Mutt on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:50:41 PM PDT

        •  me three...

          by kredwyn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:51:08 PM PDT

          •  make that four ;)> n/t

            by rogerdaddy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:57:45 PM PDT

    •  5

      by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:00:23 PM PDT

    •  I empathize with your points...but...

      calling whites crackers doesn't help make anyone empathize unless you're just spinning off the diarist's description of themselves or specifically talking about racist whites. I never heard the term "cracker" until I heard Chris Rock use it during one of his comedy skits. He talked about how an older black man was polite to whites in person and then called them a cracker behind their back. Perfectly understandable for the time given what would have happened to him had he said it to the guy's face and the prejudices the man grew up with.

      As a white woman who came into an environment that was almost all male and mostly white a long time ago in a power house, I can understand somewhat what the black men I worked with went through since I exerienced a lot of the same prejudices and bigotries. I can say also that a lot of the black men I've worked with over the years were also very sexist themselves. They also didn't always relate their experiences to the ones I was going through and to how they sometimes themselves treated me. I am not racist but have a racist father, and have grown up around a lot of it and still deal with white friends who are racist. I played on a softball team where I was the only white woman for some time and ran volleyball tournaments with a dear friend of mine for ages who is black.

      I think the bigger argument here is not the nasty ways that people can treat each other at times, but INSTITUTIONAL racism, or sexism. The type that says that blacks are not capable of the same place in society as whites are. Or that women cannot do a man's job. I've lived it, and I've got a lot of black co-workers that were pulled over constantly trying to go home from work because the neighborhood where the plant is located is white. It comes in a lot of forms and it happens out of all races and creeds and colors every day, and most of the time people don't even realize they're doing it because they get desensitized to it due to the circumstances they've grown up in, and the language they've become accustomed to.

      I think the line is when you're not trying to cut down another race or class or sex in mass. I have no problem calling out large groups of people who have bad behavior like say those who are willing to sell their soul for money for the corporatization of this country. Call them all the names you want since they've brought it on themselves. I do agree with your points that unless someone has experienced institutionalized racism, or sexism, they won't really get it. I'd just say give them a chance, and don't lower yourself to the same type of insults when trying to improve the situation for everyone out there. Getting angry doesn't do much good. I know. There's been times when I've been very angry about how I've been treated, or about how friends have been treated.

      I think this entire dialog is a step in the right direction to improve things. At least we're talking about it and not pretending it doesn't exist. Now, what to do to make it better?

      by uniongal on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:07:19 PM PDT

      •  I was referring to the diarist,

        and the brand of folk he seems to think he's like.

        My view is that life is a powerstruggle. And as we all know, our society is becoming more divided, and our middleclass is receding. We're going to have more impoverished groups, that will define themselves by culture (including these days, the ever so stylish "Suthun' Culta"), and there will be a struggle of "minorities" of all flavors against a ruling elite.

        That elite will invariably be white and male. We haven't come that far yet. That's the reality, the way it's set up.

        So all the racism and nonsense will stem from there. What crackers refuse to recognize is that they're just another minority; yet, they do think of themselves as whites primarily, and that's also the reality.

        Their racism is altogether different, and truly bizzare in my view. Black racism I understand. They're pissed off and they know who's keeping them poor. White crackers just don't even know the deal, they're just hating, rampantly.

        by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:16:46 PM PDT

        •  People like you,

          make me sick.

          You are the ultimate hypocrite.

          How that is lost on you is mind-boggling.

          by The Disenfranchised Voter on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:24:53 PM PDT

          •  Some people recommend, some people puke.

            Some would say that is the sign of a good writer. Some would probably argue.

            by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:31:20 PM PDT

        •  I figured you were which is why....

          I left that opening for you to respond to. I agree with you on what's happening to our middle class, and I think so much of it is divide and conquer. I agree that the elite will be white and male. I would not use the term cracker, but I know the kind of people you're talking about since I live around them. Don't have a pot to piss in but they hate blacks and don't see themselves as going through the same struggles or somehow "different". I think where you probably lost most of the people here is by using racist language to describe the dilema and it offended people. I understood what you were saying, but also understood why others got offended. We need to raise the bar and not lower it if the conversation is going to be taken seriously.

          by uniongal on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:25:12 PM PDT

          •  Talking about Jews is not inherently racist

            but lots of people still have a problem with it. Sarah Silverman is one end of the spectrum, and I'm well within that; that's my view on the boundaries anyway.

            I'm just being forthright.

            Cracker can include whites of middle class status too. It's not just the truly poor. And honestly, there are a lot of doctors and businessmen living in Ohio that are pulling in $100k+, and they're straight up crackers too. Big empty McManshions with huge teevees and pooltables, and lots of white carpet. Even a tap in the basement. And football pennants.

            by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:29:54 PM PDT

            •  Take what you just said

              and replace the word cracker with nigger and the word white, with black.

              Then maybe, just maybe, you'll see my point.

              by The Disenfranchised Voter on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:32:46 PM PDT

              •  Interesting, because my point was the entire

                concept of doing that was bogus.

                You can't just switch them out and pretend like the black experience equates with the white one.

                You're using very dated ways of thinking. You're not even up through Postmodernism yet.

                Do some reading and report back in a few years.

                by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:36:40 PM PDT

                •  You're still

                  a bigot.  Racism is racism.  Period.  Whether it comes from the mouth of a white person, a black person, or any other ethnicity.

                  Though you are the worst kind of bigot.  You are the cousin of the Klan member who can't stand racism solely against whites.

                  When hypocrisy and bigotry collide their is no telling how devastating the consequences are.

                  by The Disenfranchised Voter on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:40:23 PM PDT

                  •  You're not very good at reading.

                    I'm not the cousin of a Klanmember, for one.

                    And even if I were, I'm not sure being related to a racist makes you a racist.

                    I think you're drunk to be very honest about it. Cause you sure can't think straight.

                    by Mstrkrft on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:10:19 PM PDT

                •  touche for postmodernism

                  very well articulated

                  I mean, said.

                  by debedb on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:33:32 AM PDT

                •  Wrong ethical framework

                  I don't think other people are operating with your moral framework, in which one's socioeconomic status justifies or mitigates racism.  

                  No one's equating white and black experiences (to do so would be silly); they're (or "we're," since I'm in agreement here) claiming that experience as such is morally irrelevant.

                  by burrow owl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:41:04 AM PDT

                  •  Nonsense. Sounds like religious nonsense to me.

                    If you think experience is morally irrelevant, and that black racism and white racism are morally equivalent, then I suggest you go hang out with the Neocons, because you're a Straussian.

                    Things ARE morally relative, and that's just the reality, and that is so because the words we use to describe experiences are not accurate enough. They are somwhat arbitrary to be honest about it, and the product of our need to expedite our use of language.

                    A black man's "racism" (ie wisdom) wrt the whites he's known in his ghetto is totally different than a white person's racism against black people they've never really even associated with.

                    The black person has something to fear, and they should be warry. Their racism is no more unatural than a mouse who's warry of a cat.

                    A white person's racism is a racism that has no basis in reality, it's just hate, for the sake of hate.

                    Just because you arbitrarily use the same word to describe each experience ("racism"), that in no way makes them the same. You're being extremely dishonest when you do so.

                    by Mstrkrft on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:17:30 PM PDT

          •  I grew up among crackers

            including the Klan, I turned on them because one night they went after a black man who happenend also to be a friend. There was bloodshed. Theirs and mine. I lived among them but I was not one of them.

            by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:30:11 PM PDT

            •  Each midwestern state has a town

              where the Klan is centered around. Some have many more than one.

              All I know is that every town around where I grew up had a black side of town and a white one, and railroad tracks in between. The Klan was there. Can't say as I ever did actually meet any, but you hear things, and there's always barfights eventually that turn ugly and people end up in jail; somebody's racist cousin shot somebody or whatever.

              by Mstrkrft on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:35:22 PM PDT

              •  what started the trouble where I lived..

                was when a black man moved into a white neighborhood. Worse, he had a white girlfriend. There were cross burnings. They harrassed the couple's kids. One night there was a basketball game next door, blacks and whites. Here comes the Klan. One of the neighbors ran my house and said the Klan was outside and was after the blacks next door. I walked out into the street. The head Klanster walked up to me and said "I told you that no niggers are allowed in this neighborhood." I said "You're the only nigger I see around here" He hit me in the mouth. The war was on. The police arrived and broke the fight up. The Klan made death threats against me. I rallied the white anti Klan forces in the neighborhood. My black friend brought in the Panthers. Street fights all summer long. In the end we prevailed. Blacks could come into the neighbor without fear.

                by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:49:53 PM PDT

                •  Of course, the question would be

                  which side the cops were on in the end.

                  Which is made obvious by the fact that you needed to bring in outside forces to protect yourself.

                  Every one of those Klanmembers should have been in prison for 3 years for coming and attacking you people. But sadly, in towns like yours and mine, the cops are just white trash power hungry assholes, far too much of the time.

                  They're the losers who flunked out, and stuck around; and they want to prove something, 24/7.

                  by Mstrkrft on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:27:54 PM PDT

              •  A white friend of mine grew up in the projects

                And was beat up fairly routinely because of his race.  I don't see how that, or the persistence of the Klan, has any bearing on the moral judgments of racial and gender terms.

                by burrow owl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:43:07 AM PDT

                •  Moral Judgement

                  If you don't think reality has any impact on moral judgement, then we're at an impasse, and you're operating in a Faith-based world that I don't have any interest in.

                  Your friend's experience was a reaction against the racism that keeps blacks ghettoized. It was an opportunity for those blacks to take out their frustrations on a representative of a culture that has ghettoized them.

                  It was totally different than a bunch of white Aryans getting together and beating up some impoverished black kid.

                  For one, the Aryans aren't ghettoized as a culture, which would seem to me to be a pretty important factor in moral judgement.

                  You're probably the type of person that thinks the Palestinians should be judged equally and in the same way as the Israelis, despite the economic and social contrasts.

                  But you aren't operating in reality. Poverty will breed certain behavior, but that behavior is much less acceptable once a person has the means to avoid it. And always, and in any case of a hate crime, you've gotta ask why the hate exists. Is it a defense mechanism aimed at a represenative of a group that's been harmful to that person? Then the hate has a basis in reality. Or is the hate just arbitrary and improperly placed. That would be evidence of a different sort of mental problem.

                  by Mstrkrft on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:24:55 PM PDT

    •  Ok

      Mr. Black panther.

      I'm sick an tired of racist assholes thinking that it's okay to be a bigot because their ancestors were slaves.

      Fuck off you POS.

      by The Disenfranchised Voter on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:23:18 PM PDT

      •  Jesus loves you

        Everyone else thinks you're an ass.

        by Grannus on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:05:35 AM PDT

        •  Interesting

          you basically used that same lame one-liner twice in one day.

          Good for you, douchebag.

          by The Disenfranchised Voter on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 10:31:03 AM PDT

•  don't make any Fat jokes

  hell don't tell any jokes anymore unless you make sure they are about animals or inanimate objects cause you never know who will be offended.

  by OneCrankyDom on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:22:24 PM PDT

  •  inanimate objects that aren't Macs at least

    you're liable to get crucified for saying something bad about Apples around here.

    That said, follow the (paraphrased) harry shearer rule, pick on the rich and powerful, not on the small and weak.

    by dougymi on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:27:23 PM PDT

•  Do you work for MSNBC or CBS Radio?

  You can call yourself anything you want at home.  If you get a job in the news business, then you'll be subject to higher standards.  I don't know where you work, but racist, sexist, homophobic, etc... epithets, even self-directed ones, don't have a place in the workplace.

  by ortcutt on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:24:53 PM PDT

  •  I run a janitor crew..

    I have 3 blacks, and 3 whites, a woman, and a Jew on my crew. We don't use that type of language, and if anyone did I wouldn't allow it. We had some racial slurs on our restroom stalls and I called the campus police and reported it as a hate crime.

    by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:32:08 PM PDT

    •  So, why are you confused?

      Do you need a rulebook to not call a woman a c**t?
      Not to call the developmentally slow "retards"?

      Why would gangsta rappers provide any kind of standard by which you would be confused?

      by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:43:48 PM PDT

      •  I'm not confused over my own rules really

        I'm just confused over the rules other people use. I personally don't use slurs directed toward anyone but myself.

        by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:50:53 PM PDT

        •  Well, you might guess, then...

          that each person has an individual code of conduct :^)

          by Diaries on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:53:19 PM PDT

          •  yes,

            You, who are on the road, must have a code, that you can live by

            by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:56:18 PM PDT

            •  Teach your

              crackers well:)

              by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:59:06 PM PDT

            •  Aaaah C S N & Y....Too cool ;)> n/t

              by rogerdaddy on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:59:14 PM PDT

          •  Yes, and the problem arises when

            each of them expect the others to live by their individual code of conduct.

            by NoBigGovernment on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:05:11 PM PDT

        •  Well, if your rule is to not direct slurs

          at others, then you're fine. Why be confused by people who don't get common decency?

          by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:56:26 PM PDT

          •  I guess I just can't understan why..

            we can't all respect each other and get along

            by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM PDT

            •  Because some of us

              are assholes.

              by irishwitch on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:01:13 PM PDT

            •  Age-old question. n/t

              by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:05:11 PM PDT

            •  A respectful world is a boring world

              Making fun of people is amusing.  The proper issue is where to draw the line between funny and improper.

              by burrow owl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:45:50 AM PDT

        •  Pretty simple really

          I can call my brother a jerk, but you had better not.

          If you are a member of a particular identifiable group and say something derisive, etc..  It is less likely to cause offense because members of 'the group' will assume you come from a certain perspective with shared experience and understanding of the group and as a member of it that would automatically put your words in perspective/context and mitigate more inflammatory overtones if same words were said by someone 'outside' the group.

          Then there is the whole other discussion of groups 're-taking' and de-powering epithets once hurled at them by using them in everyday speech!  ;-)

          by coffeeinamrica on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:54:14 PM PDT

    •  So, you seem to understand

      The rulebooks differ not by person but by setting and the the nature of the relationship with the person.

      by ortcutt on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:36:37 PM PDT

•  No....that's it........

  I'm damned confused. If I refer to myself to a possum eaten', Nascar watchin' hillbilly cracker, can I get fired for that? If a Hispanic calls me that, can I fire him/her?

  What is so confusing about don't insult other people?

  You may insult yourself all you wish

  by buhdydharma on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:29:54 PM PDT

  •  Ummmm

    Do you read any of the diaries around here?

    don't insult other people

    If that is the rule, then they might as well shut this site down.

    by NoBigGovernment on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:33:03 PM PDT

    •  whose they?

      by buhdydharma on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:36:34 PM PDT

      •  The owners

        by NoBigGovernment on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:38:23 PM PDT

        •  kos doesn't OWN us!!!!

          :^)

          by Diaries on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:40:08 PM PDT

        •  kos?

          as lorelynn says below, if I am insulting you here it is fir a reason. Not because I saw a picture of you on tv and dcided you were a prostitute.

          by buhdydharma on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:41:33 PM PDT

          •  So it's ok to insult someone so long

            as you have a reason. I have to start writing these down.

            This whole, "don't insult people" rule seems to be full of holes. Which is the problem with rules like this.

            by NoBigGovernment on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:47:57 PM PDT

            •  first

              let's insult all the lawyers.

              I am dreadfully sorry you feel imposed upon by having to participate and interact with other people and thus the rules of doing so.

              The only penalty is having people not like you....so what is the problem? Say whatever you like and deal with the consequences. The only punishment will be what other people think of you and what they will say to you or about you. Big deal?

              Why does it matter what other people think?

              by buhdydharma on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:07:52 PM PDT

              •  Not liking what someone says and expressing it ..

                isn't intruding upon their Freedom of Speech...

                Anyone is free to be as big an asshole as they so desire... just as I'm free to say they're acting like the biggest asshole I've ever seen...

                They have the inherent right to say what the choose... they're just not guaranteed a living doing it...

                Is this a great country or what???

                by ThatSinger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 01:05:48 AM PDT

    •  We don't insult people here on immutable

      characteristics. We don't criticize for race, gender, or orientation. The criticism tends to focus entirely on morality and truthfulness issues.  And that's totally legitimate.

      by lorelynn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:37:32 PM PDT

      •  That's not what he said

        What is so confusing about don't insult other people?

        You may insult yourself all you wish

        This is what I replied to. I've heard this highhanded thought a lot on the Imus threads.

        by NoBigGovernment on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:44:28 PM PDT

        •  I'm clarifying. Yes, you can insult other

          people but it better for things they choose rather than immutable characteristics, such as race, gender and orientation.

          You can crticize and insult people for lying. You can criticize and insult people for hypocritical. You aren't gonna get away with criticizing people because of their race.

          by lorelynn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:11:04 PM PDT

          •  So it's OK to make cracks about Ann Coulter

            being transgender or some such? Who cares about Coulter's feelings, but is that insulting the immutable characteristics of transgender persons?

            by tigerdog on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:26:02 AM PDT

            •  No, it's not okay...

              ...to attack Coulter for being transgender, because a) she's not and b) you insult transgender people when you do so.

              by rserven on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 05:47:33 AM PDT

              •  That's my point. But lots of Kossacks

                do/have done that in their comments. In the "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" vein, we should be more careful ourselves about the language we use if we desire to be respected as a body.

                by tigerdog on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:19:24 AM PDT

                •  I'm just throwing out a general comment...

                  ...since there has been and is on-going disparagement of transgendered people over the past few days.

                  by rserven on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:18:16 AM PDT

      •  and political

        affiliation.

        by kredwyn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:54:23 PM PDT

•  Say whatever you want in your head...

  but once it comes out of your mouth, you're going to be held responsible for it.

  Even better if you get to the point where you aren't calling people names in your head.

  But if you don't make it to point 2, you'll be ahead of the game if you master point 1.

  by Diaries on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:30:56 PM PDT

•  You Can't Get Fired From Being A Gangster Rapper

  ...A label can drop you, of course.  Sometimes they do.  Usually it requires people not buying your records, but sometimes it happens due to threats to the pocketbook of the company that don't seem worth it.  But you can't get "fired" from rapping.

  Just as you can't get "fired" from telling ugly jokes.  You can get fired from a place if they pay you to tell jokes, and, to use a presidential term, you serve at their pleasure.

  And there aren't any rules either.  You can use whatever words you like.  You won't go to jail.  You might be unpopular.  Yes, partly depending on your workplace, you might even get fired.  Then again, you can get fired for untied shoelaces too.

  There aren't any rules, just conventions.  The conventional wisdom is, non-African Americans can't (more accurately though, shouldn't) use certain terms.  There are people who disagree that are both white and black.  The conventional wisdom is African Americans "are allowed to" (the wrong term, but I can't think of another) use certain nasty terms self-referencially.  There are people who disagree, both white and black.  Notable African Americans who seriously disagree with the latter "conventional wisdom" are Tavis Smiley, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Michael Eric Dyson, Cornell West, and apparently, Barack Obama.

  You're allowed to say whatever you want.  It's a court of public opinion thing.  A conventional wisdom thing.  Even an "accepted decorum" thing.

  People can spout racial insults until the cows come home and never worry about serving a minute in jail.  They might be unpopular, however.  And if enough people complain to their boss, and their boss just doesn't think it's worth it anymore, they can even be fired.

  So, I'm not sure what need there is for a rulebook.

  by dyrrachium on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:33:35 PM PDT

  •  Quibble with a smart comment

    he conventional wisdom is African Americans "are allowed to" (the wrong term, but I can't think of another) use certain nasty terms self-referencially.

    That's not the case - rappers aren't using degrading terms self-deprecatingly, as if they're really all Woody Allens under that bling.  Their slings are clearly directed outward at other people not themselves.  So the rapper isn't a specific instance of the general rule that we may deprecate ourselves; instead, the rapper is given a privileged position to break the social taboos that the rest of us must obey.

    They're akin to the clowns and jesters of the olde-timey days in that respect.  And the shock jock occupies a similar position, which is why it was inevitable that these two social roles would collide.  Ghetto slang can only be reserved for one of these groups, though, as once more than one social role tries to occupy the position as taboo-breaker, we're forced to universalize the rules of taboo-breaking, which is a structural no-no (the taboo breaker is to be something like a singularity, to whom special rules apply)

    by burrow owl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:52:57 AM PDT

•  Say what you want

  dont expect to get paid for it.

  by calipygian on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:34:25 PM PDT

•  Speaking solely for myself,

  I always ask myself if the term were used on or about me or someone I hold dear would it hurt, offend or insult?  If the answer is yes, then don't use it.  If it's in any way questionable, then I find it's best to never use it.  When in doubt, I keep my mouth shut.

  What others choose to do isn't my responsibility, it's theirs.  I have to accept the benefits and consequences of my thoughts, words and actions and so does everyone else.  IMO, it's just that simple.

  by Dreaming of Better Days on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:39:39 PM PDT

•  You can call yourself anything you want.

  It's whem you start calling other people names that it becomes inappropriate.  Why is name-calling even necessary?

  by rserven on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:43:45 PM PDT

•  Imus touched the third rail. m

  The whole country needs a shrink.

  by sylvien on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:00:38 PM PDT

  •  The whole world needs a shrink. n/t

    by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:07:14 PM PDT

  •  Third rail. That's a good way to put it. n/t

    by tigerdog on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:27:32 AM PDT

•  The rule is

  Say whatever you want, but don't expect to not suffer consequences when you know damn good and well what is appropriate.  

  by otto on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:02:05 PM PDT

•  The Golden Rule

  do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

  It is so simple, and yest so many seem confused.

  by tiponeill on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:10:12 PM PDT

•  I was wrong when I said I don't sling slurs...

  at anyone. I insult the Chimp on a daily basis.

  by rmonroe on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:11:42 PM PDT

  •  I've never called him "Chimp."

    I do insult his ability to lie with impunity, his supposed Christianity, his domestic policy which is a)warfare on wage earners and b) designed to destroy the underpinnings of democracy (see: rule of law, public education), his foreign policy, which is a disaster whose proportions will long outlive me.

    I also insult his faux "everyman", which has translated into idiocy.  I don't for a moment believe that Bush is even average intelligence, but he has an education in power, and the power of money that serves him well.  I'll laugh at his intelligence failings because he has no right to the presumption of reasonable intelligence, which is the dog and pony show we supposedly bought with Bush.  

    Who needs "Chimp" when you have all the rest of the failings?

    by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:26:17 PM PDT

    •  The point stands

      When someone calls the Decider something, no one rushes to articulate the alleged rule that we shouldn't call people names that x, y, z (where those variables stand in for the various inane formulations of why we can't use hilarious degrading terms m, n, or o).

      Because it's a bullshit rule.  It's trotted out when some ass like Imus needs to be checked, and then put back in storage until the next time we need to excoriate someone.

      by burrow owl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:56:25 AM PDT

•  All Such a Sideshow

  Imus has been a blowhard all along.  Occasionally funny, often boring, over-rated, over-paid, and overly impressed with himself.

  In context, his remarks were not hateful, albeit certainly in very poor taste.

  I'm not losing sleep over whether Imus is on the radio or not.

  It is awfully silly IMHO how us pious white folks, awash with guilt, think Imus is mega-bad for saying what he did, while our teenagers listen to black rap types (and young women too) laying on both the racial and the sexual stereotypes with an awfully thick brush, and in the crudest manner imaginable.

  Meantime, folks is dying, the dollar is tanking, Bush may be planning a new inside-job terror attack or a strike against Iran to take the heat off the Abu G and so, so many other scandals, andj other than contaminated dogfood, Imus's potty mouth is what we're sweating.

  I don't get it.

  by Oatmeal Porridge on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:25:30 PM PDT

  •  Very overblown, IMO.

    If only the lack of armor for our troops, which started in March, 2003 and continues to this day, could have lit a fire under anybody's ass, I'd feel better.  

    As it is, we got come-uppance for a long-term asshole, who really was cruel and nasty in a way that caught fire.  Why is the lack of armor not a matter of outrage?  At least Imus dogged that issue.

    BTW, I disagree on the issue being Imus' potty mouth.  That wasn't what pissed people off.  His point was to call the underdog team "ugly".  If you use your imagination, you could probably come up with the ways Imus could've insulted a white team that would have pissed off parents everywhere.  That's what Imus did here.  He trained his big guns on the underdog.  

    by 2lucky on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:36:06 PM PDT

•  The Rules

  There are only two sets of rules
  Rule 1 is thou shalt not say things at work that the boss will fire you for.
  Most of the time, this means you can't go around offending people.

  If, however, you make you money saying things most people find offensive (eg Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern, etc) your boss is the people you sell to, who listen in, etc. You can say anything that won't drive them away. When you drive them away, or cause them to give your advertisers grief, you are gone.

  by elvish1 on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:02:10 PM PDT

•  A Cowboy and a Rapper or country mouse city mouse

  Pretend the cowboy represents the "rural" population, and the "rapper" represents the "city" or "urban" population...

   There is this fight about this thing called the electoral college. Because some people thought that the urban poor were not capable of thinking for themselves, and, in order to avoid "mob politics" they created a system to favor the wealthy land-owner.  The opposition view held that there should be a true democracy, one man one vote.  But, the wealthy land-owners won.  This created a rift, which remains in American politics to this very day...  High-lighted by the out-come of the 2000 election, when many "city mice" were "disenfranchised" by crooked politiking.  
   It is the rural/urban split.
  The new elements in this debate (rise of the suburbs linked to "white flight," causing an enabling atmosphere for a xenophobic population, wealth inheritance, and the baby booms amazing numeric dominance) make it difficult to recognize because it is cloaked in racism, and because sub-urbanites have this unbelievable displacement problem, which makes them THINK they are urban, and map lines don't have anything to do with it.  As a result, they believe, like Imus, that they don't need a "Come to Jesus moment."  They believe "They are down wit' the "hood.'"
   In truth, they are the most isolated, advertised, homogenized, confused people on earth.  Terrified of the actual "urban" areas they imitate and jape, they destroy us with stereotypes and humliate our communities with disrespectful slurs, which perpetuate an environment of defensive aggression.  This is accentuated by the natural instinct of the cornered animal to fight.  Did you see that Katrina thing?  Pretty convincing argument for feeling "cornered" when your own country is running around on horse-back, like some overgrown Howdy-Doody puppet, screaming about a "Culture War" without mentioning who the enemy is...

   Those rappers look like they're comming out of war-zones...  Can you figure out where they live?  Maybe you just found the "Cultural Battlefield."  Welcome, we've been here since Ronald Reagan Closed our schools and declared the "War on Drugs" the same way.  "Compassionately."  We hate "Compassion," 'cause that means "Greed is Good" and "Corporate Self-Regulation" and Corporate Raiders, who turn every argument upside down to blame the victims, in scholarly works like "The Bell Curve."

  I thought if the media put the opposing "Actors" in costumes that were flambouyant enough, maybe the suburbanites would be able to see it through the blinding color of blackness...  But, alas.  I appears we are foiled again.

  by hermitcrab on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:29:04 PM PDT

•  I haven't thought about Imus for years

  I didn't even know he had a show on TV - I don't have cable.  I've heard his radio show before, and it is messed up.  But you know what?  I'll bet you that he is on television again within 6 months.  I think the whole "firing" is a charade - just to appease the public.  Then when everything blows over, he'll be back.  Insults and apologies seem to be big in the news these days, and it doesn't seem like it is really hurting anyone's careers.  Look at Mel Gibson, and then look how much his racist/bigoted movies grossed.  People love a scandal (and they love to forgive - even the seemingly unforgivable acts), and in 6 months when Imus is back on television, he'll bring in a ton of ratings for whatever network hosts him, and a ton of money.  And you know what?  I really hope I am wrong.

  by political girl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:08:31 AM PDT

  •  he's like a proxy for the Culture Warriors

     I think that when Imus made his blunder, the right capitalized on it to advance their "Culture War" agenda.
     
     It's a replay of what they did to urban area in the eighties.  close the public schools and vilify the culture.  

     It'll make it easier for the burbs to justify sending in the brute squads on us, while they mow their lawns and go shop patriotically.  

    by hermitcrab on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:43:21 AM PDT

    •  It's a vile culture

      Accepting that doesn't make me a conservative; accepting that there are socioeconomic causes and cures makes me a liberal, though.

      by burrow owl on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 05:00:17 AM PDT

      •  Which one?

         The cowboy, or the indians and everyone else?

        I remember the childhood era, when my dad was teaching hippies on one of the larges campuses in the US.  
         Back then, the movers were called "Bleeding heart Liberals," (they weren't hippies, they were very heavily populated by the wives of Professors...  Older community matriarchs who worked as volunteers for parks and elementary schools and housing projects) and they were successful in uniting urban centers because they went through urban churches...  Liberals used to be teased for being TOO religious...  but it wasn't religion, it was philosophy.  We believed in the teachings...  The philosophy...  the "Golden Rule."  The "Good Samaritan."  The "Blessed meek."
          Without urban culture, we'd still have segregated schools and waterfountains.  It was the biggest change of the last how many generations?
         If you are liberal, then you should now, your base is the urban vote...

        by hermitcrab on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 01:02:32 PM PDT

•  Old Miss Manners rule

  If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.  You may freely insult public figures in high office for sins and failings that can be avoided.

  "Redneck" started as a negative-neutral description of southern whites who worked under the sun.  In the 1950s and 1960s it acquired a truly perjorative sense.  Jeff Foxworthy is redeeming the word, though its use is best avoided unless you are Jeff Foxworthy.  The first time I read "cracker" was from Charley Reese's column, where he used it to refer to inland Floridians before air conditioning -- its other perjorative use seems new to me (but perhaps not to African-Americans).

  The Michael Richards/Chris Rock rule is that you may no longer refer to yourself or whatever group you are a member of with a racial slur -- Chris Rock got fined $200 and a three-month suspension from the same comedy club where Michael Richard offended his audience.  An exception is made for gangsta rappers; but be advised that it is then de rigeur to accuse yourself and your friends of violent crimes, drug use and trafficking, homophobia and misogyny.  

  Myself, on the one occasion that a black person referred to himself with the N word in a conversation with me, I was embarrassed and insulted;  I can't extend this reaction to all white people, but am not sure that I'd want to meet a white person who enjoys that sort of thing.  

  by Yamaneko2 on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:12:25 AM PDT

  •  it is then de rigeur to accuse yourself

    :)

    by debedb on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:29:28 AM PDT

•  The "Cancer Kids"...

  The bleating from some quarters about "now the Cancer Kids are gonna suffer" is truly one of the most revolting components of this whole sordid affair...

  Frankly, if Imus is truly desirous of rehabilitating his image, pulling the plug on his charity ranch is probably not the best place to start...

  by ThatSinger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 01:09:42 AM PDT

•  It breaks down like this:

  1. Watch Reno 911!

  2. If any of the people on the show said it, it's racist or otherwise not ok to say while on the job.

  by ew73 on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:21:01 AM PDT

•  There's Only One Rule

  Treat everyone with the respect they deserve; address them and make remarks about them the way they would wish to be addressed and referred to.

  It's no skin off your ass.

  by Limelite on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 01:41:34 PM PDT

•  there are only the rules that we agree to....

  and it would appear we are not even sure what we are trying to form agreement around.....

  by theevolutionarysieve on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:52:39 PM PDT

•  race is complicated and should not be trivialized

  by gailwax on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:17:29 PM PDT