Another Example Of Stupid PC Outrage

Here’s another example of stupid PC outrage. I think the host of this show is spot on with his criticism, and at the end he says if this keeps up, you can look forward to eight long years of Trump.

I have to agree, and I could find stories like this every day. The Left is just becoming moronic with it’s faux outrage and PC nonsense. It reminds me of when the Religious Right used to act outraged because Christmas was supposedly under attack or something else equally stupid.

This bull is the new religious right.

Advertisements

115 Comments

  1. Seriously, I didn’t like the moderator. She should have pre interviewed to know what was going to be said. But I think the man in the black shirt at the beginning made good points. The other two men seemed to be extremists. But that’s nothing new in this election year, unfortunately, and more unveiling ahead.

  2. Brook Baldwin, the host is the big problem here. I see it all the time with these TV hosts who I believe are often given interviewer jobs because of their looks rather than their comprehension of the English Language, neutrality, respect for the interviewees or skills in conceptual issues.

    I understand the stigma attached to this word because it is derogatory and insulting. It appears this word has an untouchable status and I totally agree. However, it is not illegal to use the word, especially in the concept in which it was used in this case because we are all adults, we understand the concept and the English meanings and the debate underway so we do not need a host who treats the viewers like children because she wants to have a personal and emotional dig into a political debate.

    • “I understand the stigma attached to this word because it is derogatory and insulting. It appears this word has an untouchable status and I totally agree. However, it is not illegal to use the word, especially in the concept in which it was used in this case because we are all adults, we understand the concept and the English meanings and the debate underway so we do not need a host who treats the viewers like children because she wants to have a personal and emotional dig into a political debate.”

      Precisely!!!

      It’s as if we’re sliding into a culture where we have to be treated like children.

      Thanks for your thoughts, Steve!

  3. All this PC policing is a real damper on free speech and open dialog. Same thing with Facebook and the liberal media suddenly pouncing on this idea of “fake news”. Now they’re telling us they are going to try to eliminate things they deem to be “fake news” from our FB feeds. Ummm, that sound suspiciously like censorship.

  4. Pingback: Already Happening: The Normalization of Trumpism – via TDB | Just Merveilleux

  5. I just want to throw this out there that I think the video commentator (and the discussion here) has ignored one very relevant point: Ms. Baldwin is responsible for the content of her show. She’s bound by the Federal Communications Commission rules as well, and those rules prohibit certain images from being shown and things from being said at different times of the day. Her show, her network, and the anchor herself can get fined if they break those rules. Regardless of whether anyone thinks she’s being honest about not liking what was said by her guest, if use of words violates the FCC rules, she’s going to need to show that it wasn’t something she condoned in order to avoid the fine.

    Indeed, there was enough of a delay in her reaction which suggests this might actually be the case. If that’s true, criticism of what she’s doing is besides any meaningful point. Instead, criticism might fairly lie on broadcast censorship instead of some ephemeral “political correctness” standards.

    • Hi SB. Thanks for dropping in and I think you bring up some valid points.

      ” just want to throw this out there that I think the video commentator (and the discussion here) has ignored one very relevant point: Ms. Baldwin is responsible for the content of her show. ”

      Agreed. She could have just said what she originally said, which was she’d appreciate the guest not use the word on her show.

      “She’s bound by the Federal Communications Commission rules as well, and those rules prohibit certain images from being shown and things from being said at different times of the day.”

      I think this point is really interesting, because it calls into question whether it was legal. So I did some digging.

      Here’s a video where they say the word several times on CNN and no legal action was taken:

      As far as I can tell it isn’t illegal to use the word, but context matters. If someone were to go on that show and start calling someone that word, that would be racist and intentionally so. You can’t do that according to FCC guidelines.

      However, reporting on what someone else said in the context of condemning such behavior is something altogether different. That was the context used in this case.

      “if use of words violates the FCC rules, she’s going to need to show that it wasn’t something she condoned in order to avoid the fine.”

      Not really. They can censor someone even on live TV.

      “Censorship is a relatively simple process in modern control rooms. A censor views two separate video streams: the live action and the feed that is going out to viewers on a delay, typically of between 5 and 10 seconds. If the producer sees or hears something objectionable in the live feed, he or she calls out “dump” or a similar command. (Other personnel in the control room may play this role if the producer misses the incident, or a censor might be completely autonomous.) The censor then switches attention to the delayed feed. When the expletive, nudity, or moment of violence is about to occur, he or she presses the so-called “dump” button, which can suppress the audio, pixellate the video, or black out the entire feed. In live news broadcasts, the producer sometimes bypasses the dump button, switching the broadcast away from the incident and back to the anchor in the studio with an urgent command like “get off this.”

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/fox_news_live_suicide_how_do_you_censor_live_television_.html

      • Actually, use of the word might be illegal. The standard is exceptionally vague. Indeed, in legal circles, it’s often joked that the standard for obscenity is “I know it when I see it.” Additionally, I am aware of how television channels try to censor live television; that still doesn’t stop the occasional prohibited utterance from making its way onto the air.

        That’s what I’m getting at here. You have an image of a white guy using a racial slur in front of a black guy. The FCC, according to its administrative rules, can actually go after CNN for that. That they haven’t done so in the past is no defense to future actions. So it’s irrelevant that CNN (or any other network) has gotten away with it elsewhere. If someone files a complaint, the FCC can do something about it.

        • Here’s another example and no charges by the FCC.

          “The standard is exceptionally vague. Indeed, in legal circles, it’s often joked that the standard for obscenity is “I know it when I see it.”

          It’s not an obscenity. It’s a racial slur. It’s not that vague about what constitutes a racial slur.

          “What makes material profane? Profane language includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a nuisance. In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the F-Word and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the F-Word to be profane language that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.”

          So they’re talking about actual obscenities.

          “I am aware of how television channels try to censor live television; that still doesn’t stop the occasional prohibited utterance from making its way onto the air.”

          No but it usually does and I’ve now provided numerous examples of where they didn’t even attempt to censor it.

          “ou have an image of a white guy using a racial slur in front of a black guy”

          Yes. But he didn’t directly call him that. Describing someone using that word is not the same and intent matters.

          ” The FCC, according to its administrative rules, can actually go after CNN for that.”

          You’ve yet to demonstrate that or show any evidence that CNN is particularly worried about it, since they’ve done it numerous times.

          “That they haven’t done so in the past is no defense to future actions. ”

          It sets a precedent. So it matters.

          “If someone files a complaint, the FCC can do something about it.”

          So you think in none of those cases I showed you that made national headlines, that no one complained?

          I’m betting people complained.

          Here’s a few more examples of the word being used on CNN with no FCC problems.

          Here’s another:

          But by all means, if you can provide evidence that the FCC does take action when the word is not being used to racially slur someone else on a major news network, then I’d love to hear or see it.

        • “ou have an image of a white guy using a racial slur in front of a black guy. The FCC, according to its administrative rules, can actually go after CNN for that. ”

          Just wanted to add this.

          So because it was a white guy, that’s what matters here?

          What about when Don Lemon used ‘cracker’ on CNN? It’s the last example I gave you here in video form.

          Should or did the FCC go after him for that or is it only racist if a white guy does it?

          Personally, I think context matters and we need to have adult conversations about these things, just like the original broadcaster (Secular Talk host) said. Obviously, calling someone a racial slur shouldn’t be tolerated.

        • Oh, and last but not least, I found this article that talks about people filing complaints to the FCC over CNN airing the word ‘pussy’ in those Trump tapes.

          The word pussy would potentially fall within the obscenity range of FCC rules, since it’s a derogatory term for a sex organ.

          But they can’t do anything:

          “Even if FCC officials agree that Trump’s comments are unfit for cable news, there’s nothing they can do. While the agency sets rules on obscenities for broadcast networks, it has no control over cable channels.

          Regardless, the complaints do show that parents get pretty riled up about the prospect of kids repeating awful things Trump says. Someone should make a campaign ad about that.”

          http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/americans-wanted-fcc-to-punish-cnn-for-airing-trump-video.html

          I think that should put the nail in the coffin about the legal angle of your objection.

          • Actually, you’ve missed on all counts.

            Once again, just because the FCC hasn’t punished a station in the past doesn’t mean they can’t go after a station in the future. What you’re doing is ignoring my points again. I’m not saying that what happened definitively has to be obscenity or actionable by the FCC; I am saying that the people on the show could have been thinking about that at the time.

            Essentially, you have whiffed on my overall point: that is, you have arbitrarily designated what happened as “stupid PC outrage.” There’s no discussion in your article, comments, or video as to: (1) what “PC” means; (2) what in the segment applies to that definition; and (3) what about it is stupid.

            Until you actually justify your position, I can’t even disagree with it. All I did was provide one reasonable alternative hypothesis (and yes, networks actually do worry about the n-word, even when President Obama uses it). It doesn’t even matter if I’m right; the onus is on you to make your own points.

            • “Actually, you’ve missed on all counts.”

              Do tell.

              “Once again, just because the FCC hasn’t punished a station in the past doesn’t mean they can’t go after a station in the future.”

              It means there is a precedent and I also provide a link below that shows they can’t do anything about it. CNN has repeatedly done it. Over, and over again. Do you really think they would okay whole segments of using that word if they thought they’d get fined by the FCC?

              “I am saying that the people on the show could have been thinking about that at the time.”

              Since the FCC is powerless to do anything, that likely isn’t the case.

              “Essentially, you have whiffed on my overall point:”

              I answered each and every point. You’ve yet to offer any evidence to back your point. At this point, I’m not even sure what your point is.

              ” It doesn’t even matter if I’m right; the onus is on you to make your own points.”

              I’ve made them and continually offered you mounds of evidence along the way.

              “(1) what “PC” means; ”

              Politically correct. False outrage. Shutting down conversation.

              “what “PC” means; (2) what in the segment applies to that definition; and (3) what about it is stupid.”

              The entire Secular Talk video is about that very thing. Not sure how you missed it if you watched the video.

              “No, actually, it doesn’t matter. And I would kindly thank you to not put words in my mouth or misconstrue what I write.”

              I didn’t put words in your mouth. That’s why there is a question mark at the end of the sentence. I asked you to clarify.

              “You could have asked me for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.”

              I did.

              “I’ve tried treating you with decency here, but if you can’t actually read what I’m writing without making stuff up, we can’t have a discussion.”

              So have I. Thanks for doing that. It’s something Pink seems incapable of doing.

              I’ve provided you with ample evidence. You have provided none. I have even showed you that your FCC concern is not a concern. And I’ve answered each point you’ve made.

              So no. I don’t agree with you. Saying I’m not reading what you’re writing is not going to cut it, when I specifically quote each part and respond.

              • Just because you can copy and paste doesn’t mean you’ve understood what I’m saying. For example, in item (2), I was actually referring to the quoted CNN segment, and not the commentary by the person. If you’d actually bother to stop and ask questions before making assumptions, I could have helped you out.

                The reason why I’m being direct is because I’m actually trying to get what your reasoning is instead of just hopping in and saying I disagree. Instead, you’ve just given flippant responses to the three items I asked for. While being indirect is my fault, it is equally your fault for just going off half-cocked and video spamming on a tangent point.

                You keep claiming that you’re about having a discussion, but when one presents itself, I keep getting asshattery from you. If this discussion bothers you, or if explaining your point in more concrete terms bothers you, let me know. I will gladly drop the point, because it’s not more important than your overall well-being.

                But please, please, please, do not condescend. I’m asking you to at least consider the possibility that maybe as the person who is making my own points, I might actually be able to tell when someone is not getting them.

                • “I was actually referring to the quoted CNN segment, and not the commentary by the person. If you’d actually bother to stop and ask questions before making assumptions”

                  What are you talking about? What item 2?

                  “You keep claiming that you’re about having a discussion, but when one presents itself, I keep getting asshattery from you. ”

                  I’ve been discussing it with you. You just don’t like my conclusion so you’ve begun to slide towards using the victim card.

                  -I’m not listening
                  -I’m misunderstanding what your saying
                  -I’m asshaterrying you etc

                  ” If this discussion bothers you, or if explaining your point in more concrete terms bothers you, let me know.”

                  It doesn’t bother me in the least.

                  I’ve also debunked each of your talking points. The FCC can’t do anything about using that word. That was your main point. It was an interesting angle until it was thoroughly debunked. Clinging to it is a waste of time.

                  “But please, please, please, do not condescend.”

                  I’m not trying to be condescending. I wish you could hear my voice instead of just reading the letters on the screen. I think you’d quickly realize I’m not upset, angry or trying to be condescending. I tried to engage each of your points. That’s all.

                  ” I’m asking you to at least consider the possibility that maybe as the person who is making my own points, I might actually be able to tell when someone is not getting them.”

                  I’m considering the possibility. I just don’t see how so far.

                  Your entire thrust (main point) was that you believed they may have been worried about a fine from the FCC.

                  I’ve now showed with multiple videos and a link that explains the FCC can’t do anything about the word being used on cable, that your idea that it may have been an FCC matter is flat out wrong.

                • By the way, if you just said it’s your opinion that the N word should never be uttered on television because (choose a reason) then that’s fine. You’re perfectly entitled to that opinion, and I’d thank you for adding your thoughts. You and I disagreeing on this doesn’t mean I think less of you. I think you’re a very smart person and I value your contribution.

                  • My goal wasn’t to share my opinion on the merits of any censorship because I didn’t want to go down that rabbit hole. I actually shared the hypothetical situation in my original comment because the CNN segment reminded me of an anecdote a former law professor of mine used to explain obscenity law. When she worked as lead counsel for a news station in NYC, she was constantly having to worry about what could and couldn’t be said on the air. It’s really a gut call made by the people in the room at the time, and if someone even imagines that a statement might be trouble, you’ll see an anchor do silly stuff to walk it back.

                    Really, my point just relies on the fact that it’s speculative to suggest an anchor does one thing for one reason. There’s a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that nobody is privy to. And that’s why I think it’s important for you to explain what you think in greater detail. There could have been points you made that Pink might have agreed with, and you might have gotten more people to actually find ways to agree with you.

                    I fully understand that I can be really subtle when trying to make a point, but I think that you can at least agree that based on the discussion above, it’s good cause for me to want to tread lightly.

                    • Fair enough. 🙂

                      I think it was a well-made point, which caused me to go look up more information. For that I thank you.

                      “And that’s why I think it’s important for you to explain what you think in greater detail.”

                      Perhaps I will in a later post. I more put the video up to have people comment more on what he was saying than what I think. It was just a talk motivator.

                      “. There could have been points you made that Pink might have agreed with, and you might have gotten more people to actually find ways to agree with you.”

                      I don’t think Pink really wanted to discuss anything. He attacked my children, my children’s mother, me personally, my GF and anything else he could think of.

                      I did not do anything like that to him.

                      “but I think that you can at least agree that based on the discussion above, it’s good cause for me to want to tread lightly. ”

                      Only around Pink. You can tread heavily around me. lol

  6. Put it down to a couple of dick heads who may have had an issue with you before about something else because the world is in the shit with tons of problems and therefore I cannot believe the crap they spewed about a single bloody word.

  7. Ok, I’ve finished the video. 🙂

    This whole N word conversation Kyle was talking about reminds me of that game “Telephone” in a way….and I missed a lot of this stuff because I’ve been in new puppy bliss (in my defense, haha!).

    She did get a little too weird, in my opinion. Visceral, knee-jerk reaction to the N word? Fair enough.

    But the voice cracking, on the verge of tears? Nah, toooooooooooo much, too ridiculous.

    I get Kyle’s points at the end, too. He did a great job of clarifying and deconstructing everything and it made sense.

    Again, I still don’t see you (or Kyle) as an angry, white, racist, white beta fat failure man with a white micro penis.

    Did I say white too many times? Wait, ARE you white?

    And, GC, even if you WERE all of that, you’d still be hot! Hehe, tell your honey bunny to forgive me! 😉

    I gotta get back to work. My boss is looking at me funny!

    Bye for now, you. This was fun!

    ~J

      • Well, I’m Native American Indian, so’s ain’t none dis got sheeit ta do wit me, anyways! Word! 😀

        Seriously though, I love all people. Blacks, whites, all colors. In my opinion, color just makes everything more beautiful. I love learning about different cultures, different foods, customs, etc.

        And, finally, while I am diametrically opposed to the N word as a racial slur, I am never against the more affectionate term “nigga.” Does that make me a hypocrite? Methinks not. In my opinion, they are two different words.

        I love rap and hip/hop music, as well as just about every other genre out there except showtunes.

        I think I’m done talking about this, haha! Peace out, brotha!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s