Skip to main content

A vegetarian friend came to my house. I made her a vegetarian meal. A friend asked to stop to pray on a long bike ride, I stopped and waited for him.  Some Jewish friends wanted to eat outside due to Sukkot, we ate outside in a booth.  I thought my joke that used the word "gay" was funny--- but friend said "no that's offensive" --I listened and I'll never tell that kind of joke again! I get it now. Once I put up a poll where the only options were "man" and "woman" for gender-- I found out that --um that's not as inclusive as I thought. I think I could make a better poll next time.

I'm not trying to say I'm saintly. These kinds of things are basic ideas for interacting with other human beings.  Try to be polite and accommodate other people.  Try to learn from your mistakes.  Don't be a dick. If you area dick say you're sorry, mean it, and don't do it again.

If I ran a newspaper in a city like New York I'd want my staff to be as diverse as the city. I'd want to publish a paper that was informative and accurate, and I want the entertainment aspects of the paper to be funny and not offensive to my readers.  I'd want readers of all races and religions and backgrounds to enjoy my paper. So, If I had an idea for a cartoon I'd run it by a lot of different people and if it was VERY offensive to some readers (even if that was not the intention of the artist) I'd just not run it-- I'd find something funny and run that instead.

Now if there were some people that I just didn't give a shit about-- well, I might just run something that was hurtful to them anyway. If they complained I'd say "stop being so hypersensitive"  --I'd issue a non-apology that made it seem like the complaints about the cartoon were only coming from the most controversial and least popular members of that community-- I'd make no attempt to understand why people were angry-- I'd insist that they "need to me more rational."  

In short, part of what disgusts me about the events surrounding the cartoon is the need for a "rational debate" before anyone has even stopped to listen to the reasons why the cartoon is offensive. The reasons are rational and well justified. A newspaper with sensitivity to its multiethnic audience would not publish such a cartoon because they wouldcare enough but their audience to KNOW them and to KNOW how it would be received and they'd care about how these things make people feel.

Now what do we call people who just didn't give a shit about whole groups of people based on race? What's the word for that?

Originally posted to futurebird on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:39 AM PST.

Poll

What's the word for people who just didn't give a shit about whole groups of people based on race?

5%5 votes
3%3 votes
0%0 votes
5%5 votes
85%79 votes

| 92 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips (14+ / 0-)

    I don't want to hear it about how people have already wrote about this enough... this is a larger issue. It's about what racism is. Too many people on this site are saying that this isn't racist-- and I don't think they know how that sounds.

  •  It's the New York Post.... (5+ / 0-)

    this is like asking FOX News Channel to be fair and balanced.

    Oh wait....

    also, like such as. also.

    by ghostlawns on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 05:41:19 AM PST

  •  The Post got what it wanted (4+ / 0-)

    attention.  It became relevant for a news cycle.  Now it gets to play the martyr to "the free press" a la Denmark's Jyllands-Posten with its Muhammad cartoons.

  •  I like this take, (5+ / 0-)

    from Eric Deggans of the Tampa Bay Times:

    And if you really don't mean to be racist, do you really want some people thinking that you might be?

    if we can't accept change, things will never be the same again

    by le sequoit on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:03:21 AM PST

  •  I'm guessing a lot of people, religious and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Giles Goat Boy

    otherwise, could take offense to your blue language.  

    The proper response to that, I think, is that they're just being unreasonable.  And if we think that's the correct response, then it undercuts your thesis that we should always attenuate our conduct based on the requests of others.  Rather, the politeness calculus has to be performed concomitantly with a reasonableness calculus.  It's a two-step calculation:  '(1) Are you offended?  Should you be offended?'  If the answer to (1) and (2) is Y, then we correct our conduct; if the answer to either is N, we generally don't have to. (and the "you" in that scenario doesn't have to be present to be germane)

    We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

    by burrow owl on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:22:24 AM PST

  •  My sentiments exactly! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, emsprater, futurebird

    Since I didn't get a chance to visit the site yesterday, this was the first diary I read on the subject, and it was well worth the time to read it through.
    As far as the cartoon is concerned, it makes me wonder sometimes just how stupid does a person have to be to publish something that offensive that does nothing to support the point (sic) but mostly pisses people off?

  •  Since the cartoon wasn't attacking Obama (0+ / 0-)

    it was not racist. Attacking Congress is perfectly acceptable any time by anyone.

    Saying that angrily disagreeing with the President was unacceptable and the person in the press should apologize, is the first step to tyranny.

    Considering what many here called Bush when he was in office (most of which was dead on), it's kind of hypocritical.

    The problem is that soon it might be declared that any criticism of Obama might be deemed racist and unacceptable. Once a person is elected President, he or she loses the right to be treated with respect by the press.

  •  an Andrew Vachss quote springs to mind... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, Hastur, emsprater, futurebird

    I'm a big fan of crime writer Andrew Vachss (and considering the work this guy does, everybody should be, whether they read his books or not), and he had a quote that sprung to mind when I saw the Post's defense of their indefensible cartoon:

    "You know why we hate you?  Not because you don't know what we know, but because, if you did, you wouldn't give a damn."

    That's why I hate the Post.  It's not because they're ignorant, because everybody's ignorant about some things, and ignorance can be fixed.  I hate 'em because not only are they unwilling to fix their ignorance, they're not even willing to acknowledge it.  They obviously did something hateful and stupid, and instead of saying "Okay, we screwed up" they're trying to defend it and act like everybody else just "doesn't get it."

    Even with their "explanation," the cartoon makes no sense, other than as a racist statement.

    "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:54 AM PST

  •  Even on this diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, emsprater, futurebird

    people still do not want to discuss RACISM.
    Goes beyond the cartoon....

    My disappointment is in the people here....on this site. The so called Progressive that does not want to progress concerning race relations.
    Rather blow off by using big words and repeating the same lame ass excuse the NYP used. They agree it was disgraceful because of the dead chimp.

    No, my issue is not the "racist people out there"
    It is those that are here (on this site) that either do not know they are racist or think because they voted for an AA and have black associates in their circle they understand racism fully. But, when racist incidents accrue...they don't get it.

    Just because you wrote it...does not make it true.

    by Sapphire1 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:14:21 AM PST

  •  Change the title (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, emsprater, futurebird

    to:" The Daily Kos does not care"
    look how many recs you got...I am not suprised.
    We know the NYP does not. ;)

    Just because you wrote it...does not make it true.

    by Sapphire1 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:28:00 AM PST

  •  In the interest of open discussion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    social liberal, Giles Goat Boy

    if "your" reaction to the position that 'the cartoon is not racist' is to label the commentator as a phony progressive who ignores racism, then how are we supposed to have a conversation.  It's a 2-way street.

    •  i suspect he/she doesnt want a real conversation (0+ / 0-)

      notice the prescription was not to run the cartoon and then talk about it. the prescription was to censor the cartoon so as to not offend anyone. that's the goal. to censor unwanted opinions out of the media altogether.

      of course this is a two way street. the price we pay for the media being hyper-pc is that they also censor stuff we would like them to talk about, such as rational drug policy or anti war views. the range of "acceptable" opinion gets narrower every day. this is why american media sucks.

      •  censorship? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza

        Really? LOL!

        That's what editors do they decide what to put in the paper and what to keep out. If you want to call that "censorship" as if it's the same as state sponsored or corporate censorship be my guest-- but it's not.

        Making your paper responsive to your readers isn't "censorship" it's called running a good paper.

        •  you think i dont know what editors do? (0+ / 0-)

          a straw man indeed.

          use whatever word you want... if its not censorship, then find a better one.... but the bottom line is you want american media, even more than it already does, to limit itself in the range of acceptable opinion that it publishes. that has been DISASTROUS for our political debate. i can literally put half of our national problems on our crappy media and its self-whatevertermyoulikebutitscensorhip. now you want newspapers to literally go around, find the most sensitive person they can, and let that person have veto power over what gets published?

          pretty soon we will only have cookie recipes.

          •  I would like media (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emsprater

            that speak to me like I'm in the room. That's not to much to ask.

            I don't want racist or homophobic media. I want to be the target audience or at least a part of it.

            That would improve the quality of media for everyone not make it worse.

            •  how about anti-christian media? (0+ / 0-)

              because everyone can play the same game, you know?

              in your world, the panel of hypersensitive whiners the media would be forced to consult prior to publishing anything would also include a christian wingnut, right?

              so no offensive talk about gay rights, abortion, sex, drugs, rock and roll, or science.... you ok with all that??

              •  being anti-christian isn't the same as being (0+ / 0-)

                anti-black.

                I can't change the fact that I'm black. Bad comparison.

                •  so you make the rules then? (0+ / 0-)

                  because it seems to me that you can create some neat little lines for yourself... but thats not how the real world works.

                  your panel of whiners is only going to have people of all ethnicities and genders, but you will also have a test of some sort to make sure none of them get offended by stuff you dont find offensive? even assuming you were made media dictator, some of those people in the panel are going to have a hard time separating their hispanic self from their catholic self.

                  •  We all make the rules. (0+ / 0-)

                    We can decide together what is news and what isn't what is offensive and what's funny. That's why I love the internet. I make the rules-- I can go to sites where people mostly agree with some core ideas and where I can be exposed to new ones.

                    So yes-- I do make the rules. That's the whole point. I don't read or buy the post because they don't give a shit about people like me. Their editors are racist, sexist homophobes. I'm not a whiner I'm making a choice about what I want to see or hear. Sitting around being offended doesn't make me "open minded" it just makes me stupid... and offended. I want media that speaks to me. That is not too much to ask.

                    I told my local deli to stop carrying the paper and they agreed. Awesome.

                    •  we dont all agree (0+ / 0-)

                      and it sounds to me like what you really want is for opinions you disagree with to have no avenue for expression. you could have just asked your deli to stop paying someone to read the post aloud to everyone that walked in. instead, you asked them to make it so that nobody can even buy it. you are what is wrong with this country. you and the people like you, on the left and the right, who are comfortable shutting down opinions that they dont like. its sad.

                      enjoy your little victory. when the fascists come and shave your head and put you on the trenches to fight eh eurasians (we have always been at war with them), you will wish you had followed my advice and been a little less "sensitive".

  •  I'm a person of .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    futurebird

    caucasian ancestry, and I've been called 'racist' at times because folks didn't understand what I was talking about or referring to.

    I saw the cartoon in question, and my first thought was 'WTF'?.  These cretins at the post who published this sorry commentary surely knew it was absolutly racist, and not only that, it should be actually taken as an overt threat to the POTUS.

    It was racist, plain and simple, and those who can't se that need to readjut their spectacles.

    Now if you want to talk about Holder's gaffe in calling us a 'nation of cowards' and saying we're still the same 'as we were 50 years ago', that's completely a different story.

    The person who has lost the ability to trust based on the actions of the party no longer trusted is not the one who has to do the work for restoration.

    by emsprater on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:50:12 AM PST

    •  overt threat? (0+ / 0-)

      you want the cartoonist to be investigated? maybe even jailed? just making sure i am hearing you right...

      •  It is the kind of ... (0+ / 0-)

        commentary  (in this case, visual) designed to incite those who are on the fringe and incitable.
        It's 'Rush' to the nth degree, and yes, there should be an investigation.  If Hoover could investigate the sexuality of anyone, anytime, anywhere, then surely it is appropriate to determine whether this was done by someone with an agenda to incite.

        Surely you have heard by now that there is great concern over the safety of POTUS Obama.  This cartoon isn't a benign scribble, posed in some barely viewed rural rag.

        The person who has lost the ability to trust based on the actions of the party no longer trusted is not the one who has to do the work for restoration.

        by emsprater on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 12:03:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so you think hoover was doing the right thing?? (0+ / 0-)

          i thought we had all agreed that what they did back then was wrong. amazing to see someone in 2009 citing him as a valid precedent on which to build. just amazing.

          •  No .... (0+ / 0-)

            Hoover was doing the wrong thing then for the wrong reasons.  If that could prevail, then surely we can do the right thing for the right reasons this time with the motivation being to investigate all threats against a sitting POTUS.

            The person who has lost the ability to trust based on the actions of the party no longer trusted is not the one who has to do the work for restoration.

            by emsprater on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 03:24:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  let me try to unwrap that (0+ / 0-)

              so... hoover was doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons... thus, that provides justification for doing what YOU think is the right thing, which is to investigate a freaking cartoonist as a threat on the most well protected person on earth, which is think is ridculous.

              essentially, you want the guy intimidated for saying something you dont like. why not just say that and avoid the mental gymnastics.

              •  So you think this was ... (0+ / 0-)

                just 'the guy' (ie, the cartoonist) who is implicitly involved in the bruhaha.  This 'cartoon' went through editors (one now backpedaling and claiming it was done without her knowledge and approval, see what backlash can accomplish?) and ultimately is the responsibility of the entire Post organization.  Folks 'at the top' allowed this to go forth and therefore apparently endorsed the underlying message.

                The flippant remark about Hoover seems to have you tied in a knot: simply put, he accomplished evil deeds for his own purpose of evil during a time when he was allowed to do so legally, with the blessings of the POTUS.  My point is that if that kind of 'investigation' could have occurred in USA, then surely we can investigate an implied threat to the current POTUS.  And that's not just 'the guy', it's the entire Post.  Our POTUS may well be the 'most well protected person on earth', but that doesn't mean there is no need to remain aware and thoroughly informed of all the possible actions that might be made against him, from whatever sources.  This 'cartoon' was not just meant as political speech, it was meant to incite. It was allowed to be published as a means to incite.

                Stick your head in the sand an yell 'free speech' all you want, but frankly, I want this type of hate speech to be thoroughly investigated every time it rears it's ugly head.

                The person who has lost the ability to trust based on the actions of the party no longer trusted is not the one who has to do the work for restoration.

                by emsprater on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 07:04:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site