The hero returns
28/7/13 16:15![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFirst, just as a tasty hors d'oeuvre, here's a cool-story-bro. Looks like the prodigal son of street justice is back:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/22/us/florida-zimmerman-vehicle
Btw, some responses from around these very Interwebz...
"Ah, well. That changes everything, then!"
"Guess he hasn't left the state, after all."
"Would the truck have overturned if Zimmerman had not been following it, mhmmm?"
"He must've profiled the truck as the type that would overturn. Shameful!"
"Was it a Skittles delivery truck, or maybe ice-cream this time?"
"May not have done it if the people in the truck were black and wearing hoodies. Guess we'll never know."
Yeah, yeah. I know. Beating a dead horse, and all that. Let's move on (if we ever can).
So meanwhile...
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/paula-deen-allegedly-asked-black-staffers-dress-aunt-143022874.html
"The profile of Deen's cook Dora Charles overflows with allegations of racist behavior. Deen allegedly paid black employees less than white ones and used racial slurs.
"But it is Deen's idea of Confederate-tinged dinner theater that may be the most unseemly element of the story. Charles tells the Times that she refused Deen's requests to ring a dinner bell in front of her Savannah, Ga. restaurant The Lady and Sons and, in the words of the paper, holler for "people to come and get it.
...
"The article seems likely to tarnish Deen's already damaged reputation following her admission last month that she had used the N-word. The chef was forced to open up about her use of slurs during a deposition related to allegations of racism and sexual harassment brought against Deen by a former employee, Lisa T. Jackson.
"In the wake of Deen's admission, the celebrity chef was dropped by Food Network and dumped by retailers like Walmart and Target and the drug maker Novo Nordisk, with whom she had endorsement deals."
First of all, may I venture with a prediction on the reactions on this one?
Conservatives: She ain't no racist!
Liberals: She sure as hell is!
Libertarians: You don't have to work for her if she's racist.
Independents (leaning conservative): This ain't racist 'cos she asked nicely.
Independents (leaning liberal): R U fuckin' kiddin' me!?
Other/Undecided: The fuck do I know! / Not givin' a friggin' piece of poop about this shit.
Certain die-hard politics junkies on the Interwebz (on either side): 10,000-word treatise.
Btw, I found the following Fox piece surprisingly interesting (no, no, I swear I don't watch Fox that often). All in all, the commentary of some of those guys differed quite a bit from what we could expect from the general conservatives.
[Error: unknown template video]
One or two of them do have a point, in that the deeper problem isn't that much that some eccentric TV personality regularly used some racial epithets, and only started apologizing for it after people found out. It's that the whole culture that she fostered at her workplace was allowed to thrive for quite a while: porn at the workplace, racial verbal abuse, homophobia... If your employer has no problem with using racial slurs, organizing plantation-styled weddings, and dressing their employees as Aunt Jemima, it's a thing that didn't just start happening a few days ago, it's something Paula Deen seems to have been doing for quite a while, while relying that no one would ever detect it and say a word about it. 'Cause she's such a cool personality, you know.
So yeah, the issue is not so much about the words she used (although words have meaning and they do matter) - it's about the attitude, and the mindset behind them. Apparently, she believes these are still the "good times of old", and that is the problem.
And don't tell me the Food Network were totally in the dark about all this. In fact what Deen'd been doing all that time was to cater to a certain base of viewers, and they must've been just fine with all that - the same way the likes of Glenn Beck and Hannity have catered to certain segments quite purposefully. And they only decided to do something about it as soon as people actually started to pay attention and called Paula out on her shit, and in fact, when the public started withdrawing from her show and boycotting the network in general - i.e., when the market had its heavy final word on the matter.
And before someone jumps in to say "but where's the outrage about Alec Baldwin's homophobic violent threats, you biased liburlz!", let me just point out that all perceived or (as is in this case) actual hypocrisy aside, the fact that people tend to act (or not act) selectively whenever a hero of their ideological side does something wrong, is irrelevant to whether or not what someone does is worthy of condemnation and/or action (including public boycott and social marginalization as a form of response). And neither does it negate the wrongness of someone else's deeds. Just because there's more outrage on one case compared to another, doesn't mean the Food Network were any less right to give the boot to Paula Deen eventually, as a means of damage control (how un-hypocritical of them). It doesn't mean for a minute that what she did was not the stupidest thing imaginable, especially for someone making her living by selling themselves in the public eye. It doesn't change the validity of the complaints against her, as many of them are actually justified, even if you believe the one complaining is a damn hypocrite. So be it. People picking and choosing who and what to condemn and why, doesn't change the core matter at hand, and doesn't make it any less wrong or right.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/22/us/florida-zimmerman-vehicle
Btw, some responses from around these very Interwebz...
"Ah, well. That changes everything, then!"
"Guess he hasn't left the state, after all."
"Would the truck have overturned if Zimmerman had not been following it, mhmmm?"
"He must've profiled the truck as the type that would overturn. Shameful!"
"Was it a Skittles delivery truck, or maybe ice-cream this time?"
"May not have done it if the people in the truck were black and wearing hoodies. Guess we'll never know."
Yeah, yeah. I know. Beating a dead horse, and all that. Let's move on (if we ever can).
So meanwhile...
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/paula-deen-allegedly-asked-black-staffers-dress-aunt-143022874.html
"The profile of Deen's cook Dora Charles overflows with allegations of racist behavior. Deen allegedly paid black employees less than white ones and used racial slurs.
"But it is Deen's idea of Confederate-tinged dinner theater that may be the most unseemly element of the story. Charles tells the Times that she refused Deen's requests to ring a dinner bell in front of her Savannah, Ga. restaurant The Lady and Sons and, in the words of the paper, holler for "people to come and get it.
...
"The article seems likely to tarnish Deen's already damaged reputation following her admission last month that she had used the N-word. The chef was forced to open up about her use of slurs during a deposition related to allegations of racism and sexual harassment brought against Deen by a former employee, Lisa T. Jackson.
"In the wake of Deen's admission, the celebrity chef was dropped by Food Network and dumped by retailers like Walmart and Target and the drug maker Novo Nordisk, with whom she had endorsement deals."
First of all, may I venture with a prediction on the reactions on this one?
Conservatives: She ain't no racist!
Liberals: She sure as hell is!
Libertarians: You don't have to work for her if she's racist.
Independents (leaning conservative): This ain't racist 'cos she asked nicely.
Independents (leaning liberal): R U fuckin' kiddin' me!?
Other/Undecided: The fuck do I know! / Not givin' a friggin' piece of poop about this shit.
Certain die-hard politics junkies on the Interwebz (on either side): 10,000-word treatise.
Btw, I found the following Fox piece surprisingly interesting (no, no, I swear I don't watch Fox that often). All in all, the commentary of some of those guys differed quite a bit from what we could expect from the general conservatives.
[Error: unknown template video]
One or two of them do have a point, in that the deeper problem isn't that much that some eccentric TV personality regularly used some racial epithets, and only started apologizing for it after people found out. It's that the whole culture that she fostered at her workplace was allowed to thrive for quite a while: porn at the workplace, racial verbal abuse, homophobia... If your employer has no problem with using racial slurs, organizing plantation-styled weddings, and dressing their employees as Aunt Jemima, it's a thing that didn't just start happening a few days ago, it's something Paula Deen seems to have been doing for quite a while, while relying that no one would ever detect it and say a word about it. 'Cause she's such a cool personality, you know.
So yeah, the issue is not so much about the words she used (although words have meaning and they do matter) - it's about the attitude, and the mindset behind them. Apparently, she believes these are still the "good times of old", and that is the problem.
And don't tell me the Food Network were totally in the dark about all this. In fact what Deen'd been doing all that time was to cater to a certain base of viewers, and they must've been just fine with all that - the same way the likes of Glenn Beck and Hannity have catered to certain segments quite purposefully. And they only decided to do something about it as soon as people actually started to pay attention and called Paula out on her shit, and in fact, when the public started withdrawing from her show and boycotting the network in general - i.e., when the market had its heavy final word on the matter.
And before someone jumps in to say "but where's the outrage about Alec Baldwin's homophobic violent threats, you biased liburlz!", let me just point out that all perceived or (as is in this case) actual hypocrisy aside, the fact that people tend to act (or not act) selectively whenever a hero of their ideological side does something wrong, is irrelevant to whether or not what someone does is worthy of condemnation and/or action (including public boycott and social marginalization as a form of response). And neither does it negate the wrongness of someone else's deeds. Just because there's more outrage on one case compared to another, doesn't mean the Food Network were any less right to give the boot to Paula Deen eventually, as a means of damage control (how un-hypocritical of them). It doesn't mean for a minute that what she did was not the stupidest thing imaginable, especially for someone making her living by selling themselves in the public eye. It doesn't change the validity of the complaints against her, as many of them are actually justified, even if you believe the one complaining is a damn hypocrite. So be it. People picking and choosing who and what to condemn and why, doesn't change the core matter at hand, and doesn't make it any less wrong or right.
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 13:31 (UTC)Pure Internet Perfection. How can anyone ever top this post?
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 13:37 (UTC)You know: humor. The perfect disclaimer. Especially when it's of the special kind.
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 13:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 14:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 16:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 14:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 14:47 (UTC)Hmm, I don't think changing her was the point. Obviously we cannot just change people by telling them to be someone else. That does not mean they should remain criticism-proof.
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 17:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 18:40 (UTC)It was inevitable that all his further exploits would be so thoroughly vetted that even if someone casually reported that he bought a Coca Cola, there'd be instantly someone to refute that claim and specify that it had actually been a Pepsi.
(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 18:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 19:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/7/13 21:02 (UTC)http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/adams-morgan-hate-crime-was-motivated-by-zimmerman-verdict-police-say/2013/07/27/377a49ae-f702-11e2-a2f1-a7acf9bd5d3a_story.html?tid=pm_pop
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 00:51 (UTC)NOW THIS!
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 04:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 06:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 00:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 06:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 10:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 11:11 (UTC)Conversely, what if she started doing that 20 years ago but someone spoke up about it 15 years ago? Wouldn't your question still be valid: "But why did they have to wait for 5 years?" What if they had waited for, say, 6 months? 2 months? A week? The question would still be valid: what made them wait that long?
But the bottom line is, is all that somehow supposed to negate the fact that she did do those things?
(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 16:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 29/7/13 16:10 (UTC)Marist-Leninists: Arm the people!
(no subject)
Date: 30/7/13 05:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/7/13 15:29 (UTC)