Terrible disease rips through BBC staff »« Friday Cephalopod: Do not taunt Happy Fun Cephalopod

I will not call on you to demand Anthony Cumia be fired

Anthony Cumia of the Opie & Anthony show has a long history of public awfulness. He’s a sexist pig and a creep.

But I don’t think you should call Sirius XM and complain.

His latest episode was a flamingly racist tirade against a black woman (only he didn’t restrain himself to merely call her a “black woman”). He wanted to shoot her because she slapped his camera away when he was taking creepshots.

He’s an appalling human being. But why bother demanding his dismissal?

Many media outlets are howling about his violent racist fantasies. He’s scum.

But he’s just the erupting pimple of the problem. The real issue is that somewhere in the corporate headquarters for Sirius XM, there is a nest of verminous, amoral, soulless corporate drones who saw a racist misogynist loudmouth as a pile of dollar signs. Fire Anthony Cumia, they’ll still be there. Fire Cumia, his audience of sympathetic racist misogynist cowards will still be there. Treating the repugnant excrescences without digging deep to the root of the disease is not enough.

If you want to do anything, cancel your Sirius XM account. Not conditionally, not if they don’t fire Cumia, but just plainly and simply cut them off. Punish the executives. Do you know anyone who listens to that Opie & Anthony crap? Repudiate them, publicly and unabashedly. Let them know that they are also terrible human beings for giving an audience to racists.

Firing Anthony Cumia is just the icing on the cake. Demand more.

Comments

  1. Pen says

    So she was ‘preying on’ poor innocent little white men by not letting complete strangers take pictures of her? Yeah.. I get it…

    BTW I’ve never heard of Sirius XM but and now I wish I still hadn’t.

  2. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    He’s already been fired. No need to demand anything.

    Did you read the actual post? Firing the asshole is not a solution. The people (and I will bet dollars to donuts that they are rich white men) who hired him are still there and still making decisions! And they will most likely fill his time slot with another racist misogynist asshole who thinks that insulting down the power curve is funny. This is like going to an emergency room with a compound evulsed fracture and the doctor wants to clean up the scrape on your other arm.

  3. microraptor says

    Well, this is making me really not regret my decision to not renew the 6 mont XM subscription that came free with my car after it expired.

  4. says

    So anyone you disagree with should be silenced?

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    It’s a sad day when the left sicken me more than the right.

  5. marcmagus says

    Peter Dunleavy @5

    Oh, he has every right to say it. He and Sirius XM have every right to profit off his saying it.

    We have every right to point out that what he’s saying is vile and repulsive, refuse to be an eager and paying audience for his filth, and encourage others to join us in expecting better and refusing to support those who side with him.

    What is unclear about this?

  6. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Peter Dunleavy @5:

    Did you read the post? The part where PZ states that the real problem is with the people who think that making lots of money selling racism and misogyny and hate is a good marketing strategy?

  7. says

    What’s wrong with demanding that vile people be fired for harmful or dishonest behavior? That is, after all, what happened to certain vile assholes on FTB, and we’re all better off for it. This guy wasn’t just expressing unpopular opinions, he was spouting pure racial hatred, hinting at actual violence, and harassing an innocent person to boot. There need to be consequences for such behavior, and such consequences need to fall squarely on the perpetrators.

  8. giabread . says

    Peter Dunleavy @5

    You will fight to the death to defend the right of an abusive bigot to be an abusive bigot? Wow. That really says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

  9. says

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    What about everyone else’s right to be free of persistent hatred, lies and harassment? What about our NEED to hold people accountable for bad public behavior?

    This guy didn’t just talk, he harassed an innocent person and then tried to profit from it.

  10. says

    It seems like you guys havc never listened to the show and are very misinformned about what actually happened that night, but why let that stop you.

  11. giabread . says

    Not to mention that his right to be a bigot extends only as far as government persecution is concerned. Just because you have the right and ability to say something doesn’t mean that you have the right to be protected from the reaction of society. Actions have consequences, your right to run your mouth does not protect you from these consequences.

  12. omnicrom says

    Peter Dunleavy @5

    It should a sad day when the left sickens you more than the right. But chin up! If you had actually read PZ’s blog post you’d have realized that he’s not calling on anyone to be silenced at all! So there’s no problem, and it isn’t a sad day at all. Unless of course you’re being disingenuous, standing for freedom from response instead of freedom of speech and attempting to score points with an equivalence fallacy. If that’s case I will request you fuck off.

  13. schmeer says

    I’ve never listened to Opie and Anthony on Sirius, but I do listen to Pete Dominick who’s a feminist and host of a talk show with pretty good content. There is good and bad available on Sirius. I pay for some content that I find worthwhile even if they offer Fox News, country music and religious channels. I never listen to those.

  14. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    It seems like you guys havc never listened to the show and are very misinformned about what actually happened that night, but why let that stop you.

    What is your take on what happened? In what way am I, or anyone else here, wrong? Please be specific. As in, actual citations. With links.

  15. giabread . says

    Peter Dunleavy @11

    I don’t give a fuck about his show and absolutely nothing that could’ve happened that night justifies that racist rant. Even if the woman assaulted him without reason, she didn’t assault him because she was black.

  16. omnicrom says

    Peter Dunleavy @11

    Well if we’re misinformed than perhaps you can enlighten us? You can use your freedom of speech to explain what was really going on when he photographed a woman without her permission, or what he meant when he said blacks “Weren’t really people”.

  17. Matrim says

    @5, Peter

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    You have a right to free speech, you don’t have a right to a commercial platform. Sirius is a business, it is our right to address problems we have with that business. If Anthony wants to wander down the street spewing slurs he’s absolutely welcome to, but he doesn’t have a constitutional right to a radio show, nor does his freedom of speech somehow make ours invalid.

    It’s a sad day when the left sicken me more than the right.

    It might help if you actually paid attention to what the “left” is saying rather than some straw man of your own imagining.

  18. says

    Something about the “free speech for bigots” argument finally twigged for me. It’s the political speech equivalent of “But I’m a nice guy…”

  19. Anthony K says

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    I’d actually like to see this. I’d like to watch Peter Dunleavy die defending Anthony Cumia’s right to speech.

    Saying ‘I’d die to defend’ is the cheapest fucking plagiarism ever. Costs nothing. I’m calling bullshit on you Peter. I don’t believe you’d die for Anthony Cumia’s speech. You’re full of shit.

  20. giabread . says

    One has to wonder whether Peter Dunleavy would defend to the death our right to criticise this guy.

  21. says

    @ keane 2
    Congratulations on missing the central point of the article.

    @ Peter Dunleavy 5

    So anyone you disagree with should be silenced?

    That is a complete misportrayal of what PZ is proposing. “The group choosing not to support and pay attention to” does not equal “silenced”. If you objectively agree that society should have a mechanism to put pressure on people who behave badly you need to offer up an effective counter solution. If you don’t I would be interested in hearing why.

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    No one is proposing violating his right to say something. At no point is is anyone suggesting active prevention of another from speaking. This is about pressure on a social system (which is what a business is) through lack of support through the choice of individuals.

    It’s a sad day when the left sicken me more than the right.

    You reasons are not outlined or do not reflect reality so far so I can’t take them seriously until they are.

    @ 11

    It seems like you guys havc never listened to the show and are very misinformned about what actually happened that night, but why let that stop you.

    If that were the case you would be explaining to us what really happened with links to a transcript or the show and outlining why we are incorrect in specifics.

  22. says

    As for SiriusXM… they’ve been pretty much the only game in town for a few years now, so like it or not they’re more or less obligated to be all things to all people. Their music programming is *incredibly* eclectic — last I checked upwards of 80 channels. They’ve got traffic and weather coverage for about twenty major metros, a ton of sports coverage, and an astonishing amount of CanCon (you know, if you’re into that north of the border thing, as I hear a lot of Canadians are).

    Unfortunately, they’re also rather like Reddit in the all-things-for-all-people regard — Fox News, EWTN, an entire channel called “SiriusXM Patriot” (go ahead, guess), and the XM side has Oprah Winfrey and all that comes with her, or at least used to. It would be incredibly not cost-effective (given how much it costs to operate two satellite constellations, operate all that music programming commercial-free, and pay talent like Howard Stern) to not put LCD drivel like O&A alongside the good stuff like music and NPR.

  23. Anthony K says

    One has to wonder whether Peter Dunleavy would defend to the death our right to criticise this guy.

    One really doesn’t.

    So words are worse than violence?

    You’re the one dying to defend them, right? They must be powerful then. More powerful than violence, perhaps.

  24. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    How terribly noble of you, dear.

    Things Peter Dunleavy won’t defend at all, let alone to the death:

    Criticism of slimy, racist speech and action.

    Making the personal decision to stop handing money to those who fund and profit from slimy, unethical, racist asswits.

  25. says

    but the guy shouldn’t be fired.

    He absolutely can and should be fired if the people paying him think he is no longer worth the money they are spending on him. And that includes when he uses the platform they provide him to say things they feel are damaging to their brand.

  26. Anthony K says

    Criticeize away, but the guy shouldn’t be fired.

    So, should everyone get a radio gig where they can never be fired for what they say? How come Anthony Cumia gets this job and all those black people don’t?

    What if he’s not entertaining? Should he be fired for his words then?

  27. raven says

    Pete Dunleavy:

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    Pete Dunleavy is a murderer!!! A serial killer of the utterly defenseless!!!

    Strawpeople. When he goes to hell, he will be repetitively set on fire by all the poor strawpeople he killed.

    Free Speech isn’t the issue. The Sirius XM creep can say whatever he wants. But we don’t have to listen to it. He doesn’t get to say it wherever he wants. And we don’t have to pay him or Sirius XM for it.

    It’s a free country. And we are free to do what we want too.

  28. Anthony K says

    Serious question: since we’re all dying for rights to speech then, when, if ever, and for what reasons, should a radio personality be fired? If I have a three hour show, and I don’t talk at all, just three hours of dead air, is my non-speech protected by Peter’s life? What if I just repeat “Number 9″ over and over again? Is that speech protected by Peter’s broken corpse, or do I have to call black people animals for my speech to be worthy of Peter’s spilled blood?

  29. raven says

    PS I’m sure the troll is also a routine hater. It bothers him when someone like him gets fired. It shouldn’t. They add nothing to our society but do noticeable harm.

    Peter, do us a favor. If you ever find yourself at death’s door, let us know.

    We will cheer you on as you depart the earth and make the world just a slight bit better.

  30. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    It seems like you guys havc never listened to the show and are very misinformned about what actually happened that night, but why let that stop you.

    I never have listened to the show, as I don’t have Sirius xm. However, in regard to the latest incident, I clicked the link and had an informative read. I don’t need you to tell me I’m misinformed after reading what he had to say about a woman who did not want her photo taken. There’s actually no way to be misinformed about all that, unless one is looking to be a fully fledged ignoranus* about it all.
     
    *Looking at you, Mr. Dunleavy.

  31. says

    Anthony K @29

    |He is only being fired because of groups putting pressure on the comnpany to silence him, because they disagree with what he says, but they don’t even listen to the show. If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. He should be fired if nobody wants to listen to him.

  32. omnicrom says

    Peter Dunleavy @24

    Criticeize away, but the guy shouldn’t be fired.

    Why? Seriously, why shouldn’t he have been fire?

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from response. Cumia said another thing offensive, this time he was fired for saying it. Why is this a problem? If a company is embarassed or unhappy with what a person associated with them says why shouldn’t they cut ties? Especially a particularly rancid bigot with a long history of hateful speech?

    Freedom of speech is not freedom to have a platform. Sirius is not mandated to keep this man if they don’t want him. The fact that Cumia was fired for what he said in no way takes away his right to continue to express himself. It’s Cumia’s right to be a horrible misogynist, it’s not his right to have a platform to spew horrible misogyny.

    In your first comment Dunleavy you suggested that Cumia was, or had been, “silenced”. This is untrue and dishonest. Cumia’s vocal chords have not been ripped out, he has not been blacklisted, he has not been sent to the FEMA concentration camps, he’s been fired from his job. There’s nothing to stop Cumia from continuing to spew hate on another platform. No one is stopping him from signing on with some other racist talk radio station, or signing on with some other retrograde “news” organization. Depressingly there are many places for a man who call black people “savages” who “prey on white people.”

    I’m honestly not sure why you’ve come up to the bat to defend this man for his hatred and bigotry. It’s not because of a breach of his civil rights, that hasn’t happened, so I’m curious why you’re so dedicated to the defense of a horrible racist.

  33. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    So words are worse than violence?

    So…you have zero knowledge of history, eh? Prepare yourself for a shock here: words are used to incite violence.

  34. Anthony K says

    He should be fired if nobody wants to listen to him.

    So you don’t defend his right to be boring, but you do defend his right to cause harm to black people.

    You were better off plagiarising, Peter. On your own, you’re a fucking repulsive idiot.

  35. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    Criticeize away, but the guy shouldn’t be fired.

    Oh, so now it’s okay to criticize. It’s going to be backpedal festival up in here!

  36. says

    Anthony K:

    On your own, you’re a fucking repulsive idiot.

    The sort of person who would claim Cumia was just misunderstood.

  37. says

    Peter Dunleavy @5:

    So anyone you disagree with should be silenced?

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    So what? A lot of us do too. Doesn’t mean he has the right to be free of criticism. He expressed his views. People expressed their opposition.

    It’s a sad day when the left sicken me more than the right.

    In what way has “the left” sickened you?
    I suppose you think Cumia has been silenced. That’s an assertion that you’re going to need to prove. How has he been silenced?

    Cumia said this:

    Last night, Anthony Cumia, host of SirusXM’s The Opie & Show, went on an angry, bitter, violent, racist rant on Twitter for hours. At one point he literally said about African Americans: “They are not people.” But anybody who is at all familiar with Cumia wasn’t the least bit surprised by his vitriol.

    Cumia claims to have been assaulted by a black woman in Times Square last night. He says he was taking photos and the woman objected to being in the frame. She allegedly punched him, although when pressed by his Twitter followers, he said he “never felt [his] life was in imminent danger” and didn’t see a reason to “escalate the situation” by calling the police.

    He did, however, call the woman a “fucking cunt” and later took to Twitter to call black people “animals” and “savages” who “prey on white people” and are inherently violent. He also repeatedly discussed how “lucky” she was that he didn’t shoot her with the gun he was carrying and added that he hopes she gets killed or that “a home boy beats her to death.”

    Black people are animals? Savages? They prey on white people? Sure, he has the right to say these things, as vile and dehumanizing as such words are (pardon me, I need a puke bucket, bc he just called me, along with a fuckton of other human beings savage animals). Does it end there? Does freedom of speech mean that he can say whatever he wants, and nothing else can happen? No, it doesn’t.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

    Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.
    Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.
    Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence.

    Nowhere in there is a guarantee that anyone must be given a platform for their words. Cumia has the right to say what he wants. He does not have the right to not be criticized. Freedom of speech =/= freedom from the consequences of your speech. Moreover, he is not guaranteed a platform to speak from. His employers gave him a platform, and they have the right to take it away from him. He’s not been silenced. He can still go on and spew his hatred. He can create a blog and be a racist shitstain. He can post on Facebook. He can Tweet his racist heart out. He has not been stopped from saying hateful things. He’s simply had his platform taken away. Is that what your problem is? Do you think he shouldn’t have been punished? Do you feel that free speech is so absolute that no one can be punished for saying hateful things?

    Let’s go back to what makes you sad. A bunch of sites (for the sake of argument we’ll assume they’re all left leaning or progressive sites) caught wind of what he said, and criticized him. Were they wrong to do so? Is freedom of speech just one way? If someone says something hateful, they have the right to do so, but no one has the right to criticize them?
    At a guess-having not read any of the multitude of sites that discussed Cumia’s racist tirade–I bet a few of them called for him to be fired. Is that wrong? Should he face no consequences for his words? Should he continue to be allowed to have a platform to shout his vile opinions? Are we all guaranteed such a platform for our views?
    If so, where’s mine? I’ve got a lot to say and none of it is hateful racist shit. I think the first thing I’d talk about is this ridiculous notion of free speech that people like you seem to have.

  38. says

    Anthony K:

    I’d actually like to see this. I’d like to watch Peter Dunleavy die defending Anthony Cumia’s right to speech.

    Me too. I’m skeptical of the claim.
    I think saying it is a cheap rhetorical trick.

  39. omnicrom says

    Peter Dunleavy @34

    |He is only being fired because of groups putting pressure on the comnpany to silence him,
    because they disagree with what he says, but they don’t even listen to the show.

    So? Why shouldn’t groups be able to exercise their free speech to try and achieve an end and put pressure on an organization? Why do you favor of free speech on behalf of a virulent racist over the people offended by his virulent racism? And why does it matter whether they listen to the show?

    If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. He should be fired if nobody wants to listen to him.

    Sorry cupcake, “don’t like don’t read” doesn’t even work in fanfic circles, and it surely doesn’t work on someone pushing a racist, retrograde narratives about those bestial, barbaric black people. Cumia is a racist, plain and simple. If Sirius doesn’t want to associate with a racist anymore that’s in their rights.

    Why are the only right you defend is the right of a racist to have a platform for their racism? You don’t endorse the rights of anti-racists to fight against racism, of organizations to choose their employees and spokespeople, or indeed the rights of anyone but vile racists. Why do you give racists so much leeway?

  40. Anthony K says

    The sort of person who would claim Cumia was just misunderstood.

    Comment #38, in other words.

    Look, he’s not crazy: Peter Dunleavy would be fine with Anthony Cumia being fired if, instead of shitting on black people, he were to bore Peter. As long as Peter’s not bored, Anthony’s speech is protectable.

  41. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    @21

    Criticeize away, but the guy shouldn’t be fired.

    Well you’re not in charge of Sirius.
    What actions would someone have to take to justify firing them in your eyes? Clearly you think he has a right to not only say racist shit, but also to continue having a platform to say that racist shit.

    (I bet you thought it was unfair that Thunderf00t was booted from FtB)

  42. omnicrom says

    Peter Dunleavy @38

    PZ’s article is very misonformed and biased so if that’s what your basing your opinion on the you are also misinformed.

    PZ’s Article? Inaji @33 was talking specifically about the Jezebel and Gawker article that PZ linked, which he didn’t write. Said articles contained a slew of videos and links to racism that Cumia has spewed over the years. Sorry, but there’s no “context” in which his extreme racism is justified.

    Oh also! The Gawker article has lots of people who are disapproving of Cumia’s show after listening to it, so by the right high holy standards of Peter Dunleavy that means that they’re opinions are justified right? I mean they listened to it and don’t like the show because it was racist and bad, and since that’s the requirement to say a show is bad in the Dunleavy-verse that means the show was racist and bad.

  43. says

    Peter:

    PZ’s article is very misonformed and biased so if that’s what your basing your opinion on the you are also misinformed.

    In what way is it misinformed?

    Last night, Anthony Cumia, host of SirusXM’s The Opie & Show, went on an angry, bitter, violent, racist rant on Twitter for hours. At one point he literally said about African Americans: “They are not people.” But anybody who is at all familiar with Cumia wasn’t the least bit surprised by his vitriol.

    Cumia claims to have been assaulted by a black woman in Times Square last night. He says he was taking photos and the woman objected to being in the frame. She allegedly punched him, although when pressed by his Twitter followers, he said he “never felt [his] life was in imminent danger” and didn’t see a reason to “escalate the situation” by calling the police.

    He did, however, call the woman a “fucking c$nt” and later took to Twitter to call black people “animals” and “savages” who “prey on white people” and are inherently violent. He also repeatedly discussed how “lucky” she was that he didn’t shoot her with the gun he was carrying and added that he hopes she gets killed or that “a home boy beats her to death.”

    (bolding and editing of the word done on my part)

    I look at this shit…this fucker just called me and a metric fuckton of people savage animals. He has the right to say that, but Sirius is under no obligation to continue giving him a platform to say these things. Why do you think Sirius has no right to fire an employee for saying things like this?
    You seem to think freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of your speech.
    You also seem to be unable to realize that Cumia has not been silenced. He can start his own blog. He can post to Facebook. He can Tweet his racist heart out. He’s just lost the platform he was given by a company (and they don’t want to pay him either).

  44. Anthony K says

    What actions would someone have to take to justify firing them in your eyes?

    Peter did answer this. in #34. Apparently, Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s famous aphorism has limits defined by popular opinion.

  45. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    He is only being fired because of groups putting pressure on the comnpany to silence him, because they disagree with what he says, but they don’t even listen to the show. If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. He should be fired if nobody wants to listen to him.

    So in your version of reality, companies do not retain the right to fire employees for hate speech?

  46. says

    Omnicrom:

    If Sirius doesn’t want to associate with a racist anymore that’s in their rights.

    Yes, it is. That said, Sirius needs to have their corporate feet held to fire in regard as to why they were just fine with hiring said racist scum in the first place. They should be held to account for paying attention to nothing except the dollar line, and it’s disturbing as hell that people like Cumia have happy, avid followers.

    Followers, I might add, who just might be more than happy to turn Cumia’s words into actions.

  47. says

    Tony:

    I look at this shit…this fucker just called me and a metric fuckton of people savage animals.

    Countdown to Hey, my black friend[s] gets it and thinks the show is funny!.

  48. says

    From PZs Jezebel link, more shit said by Cumia:

    “The press will coddle black people. It’s unbelievable the extent the press will go to to try not to offend and try this inclusion.”

    “The fucked up thing is people were getting upset that so many black people were being portrayed as criminals on the news. That’s it. And sorry, there’s a large percentage—it’s disproportionate to the population of this country of black people committing crimes.”

    “Do you understand that people have said that black people can’t be racist because to be racist you need a power base in order to oppress people? You’ve got it, black people! You have the power base. You have the ability with that R-word to fucking ruin people’s lives. Not mine. Haha.”

    “Most of the blacks here in the United States have less of an attachment to slavery than I have to fucking Italy.”

    “They hear slavery and racism and use it as an excuse to take the path of least resistance which is selling drugs and fucking rolling people for money.”

    None of that matter though. Peter Dunleavy says a company has no right to fire an employee for hateful speech. And he thinks there’s something wrong when teh liberals criticize a company for the hate speech of one of its employees.

    I wonder if he’d defend Dan Cathy and ChikFilA too…

  49. Anthony K says

    In see the insults have started. fair enough, I’ll leave, like I said you guys only want to hear opinions that agree with yours.

    Come back! Defend to the death my right to call you names! You can criticise my words, and I’ll criticise the words you rip off of other people much smarter than you! It’ll be a big ol’ fucking free speech orgy!

    The kind you said you’d die for.

  50. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    In see the insults have started. fair enough, I’ll leave, like I said you guys only want to hear opinions that agree with yours.

    But…you said you’d die to defend Cumia calling people c*nt, ni**ger, savage animals, etc.! You must have a most magical thesis about what insults are okay, depending on when they are said, where they are said, and who they are directed at!

    Seriously, Peter – all you did was moan about Cumia being okay, really. You didn’t present any sort of actual argument (I suspect because you don’t have one), or provide any sort of logical basis for your different opinion. Those things count, y’know.

  51. says

    Peter Dunleavy:

    He is only being fired because of groups putting pressure on the comnpany to silence him, because they disagree with what he says, but they don’t even listen to the show. If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. He should be fired if nobody wants to listen to him.

    Help!
    I’m being silenced!
    Nobody pays me handsome money for explaining my opinion about everything on the radio.

    In see the insults have started. fair enough, I’ll leave, like I said you guys only want to hear opinions that agree with yours.

    Wait, you are totally in favour of people being allowed to spew racist shit but you get your knickers in a twist over a few swearwords?

  52. says

    “I was taking pics of Times Square and this woman just happened to walk into my frame as I took the photo!” Yeah, right. Just taking a pic of very photogenic construction walkways, and this beautiful woman somehow leaped the construction barriers just as his shutter clicked. And just happened to be perfectly composed, too. Such a coincidence. And that horrible “bitch whore piece of cunt” had the audacity to not want to be photographed! And she reacted like all women complaining of being street harassed have been advised to do by people like him, and he gets his panties in a wad.

    Since his twitter account of the initial situation is full of shit, I’m quite happy to call him on it. I’ll take his word (the original word) on what he claims happened. He was creeping on a woman, she got mad, and he got all foamy mouthed sexist and racist about it. His right, sure. But it’s also my right to judge him by his actions and words, and my right to say to Sirius, “Hey, dudes, this guy is a creepy whack job. Do you want your brand associated with that kind of shit?” And it’s Sirius’s right to, after getting lots of comments like that, decide it does NOT want that kind of shit to be associated with its corporate image, and decide to fire him.

  53. raven says

    Peter Dunleavy

    …but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    and

    In see the insults have started. fair enough, I’ll leave, like I said you guys only want to hear opinions that agree with yours.

    Peter Dunleavy lied!!!

    He claims to be some brave warrior for freedom who will die for it and us.

    And then he runs away from a few anonymous commenters on a blog.

    What a coward!!! It’s all trash talk anyway. He is just a driveby and dump off some garbage troll.

  54. Alverant says

    Peter Dunleavy never did say how poor Cumia was misinterpreted.

    Interesting how this happened on July 4th a day when USA celebrates its freedom. I was going to celebrate by grilling as per my tradition. It fizzled. The coals never got hot enough and all I really cooked was an onion and a bundle of asparagus. I tried to use my grill pan for some brats and set off the smoke alarm.

    But right now I think we should take a moment and reflect what freedom is and how it exists inside a society. Everyone agrees Cumia has the right to say what he wants and we have the right to criticize him for what he said. But how far does that freedom go and who decides what’s unreasonable? If we’re not obligated to support things we don’t like, how can society function? All our freedoms are compromises when it comes to interacting with other people. It’s what separates free speech and disturbing the peace for example. (A person’s right to express themselves by singing heavy metal songs at 3am must be balanced against the neighborhood’s right not to hear it.) Should I get a break on my taxes because I don’t feel I should have to support FEMA fighting wildfires in Texas after the governor cut the fire department’s budget during a drought? How about not having to pay for the cops to patrol this one street where a guy I hate lives?

    Freedom, liberty, responsibility, they’re all part of a balancing act where we not only have to decide their limits, but their definitions as well.

    Just something to perhaps think about as you celebrate (or choose not to).

  55. Alverant says

    To clarify, I’m not saying we should be obligated to buy a service or not cancel a service if they support a view we detest, just that no system is perfect.

  56. says

    Oh, I’m very misinformed? So all those links I included, that lead to a great many direct quotes from Cumia, are not correct? He didn’t actually write:

    It’s a jungle out in our cities after midnight. Violent savages own the streets. They all came 2 defend this pig. I had to yell like at dogs

    The bit where he imagines raping Condoleeza Rice didn’t happen? He didn’t actually call the woman “CUNTRAG bitch fuck animal pig face worthless meat sack shit pile stink crotch ass stain rot bung”?

    It’s kind of hard to pretend that those are the words of a gentle egalitarian.

  57. Moggie says

    Anthony K:

    Come back! Defend to the death my right to call you names! You can criticise my words, and I’ll criticise the words you rip off of other people much smarter than you! It’ll be a big ol’ fucking free speech orgy!

    His work here is done. Dying for the free speech of bigots is a full-time job, and by detaining him here, you could be preventing him from dying on the Internet to defend some other racist douche. Do you want that on your conscience?

  58. says

    Moggie:

    His work here is done. Dying for the free speech of bigots is a full-time job, and by detaining him here, you could be preventing him from dying on the Internet to defend some other racist douche. Do you want that on your conscience?

    I’m certain that before Peter commented here, he criticized Cumia on the latter’s Twitter page or FB page or blog. I’m sure he ripped him a new one for all the racist shit he spewed. *Then* he came here to offer vague, unsupported criticisms of PZ and the commentariat. I’m sure he was fair and balanced with his criticisms.

    (nope, not a drop of snark in that)

  59. says

    Hyperdeath:

    Yeah right.

    I’m afraid our weak and paltry naughty words left Peter’s Internet Persona broken under his flag on the marble arch. There will be no noble death to save free speech now. Tsk.

  60. HappyNat says

    Peter @40

    In see the insults have started. fair enough, I’ll leave, like I said you guys only want to hear opinions that agree with yours.

    Stop silencing us, Peter! You must listen to everything we have to say or we don’t have free speech, or something.

  61. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    (nope, not a drop of snark in that)

    But enough for the grog starter. *corks up the fuming bottle*

  62. says

    Piling on is fun.
    @ Peter Dunleavy 24

    So words are worse than violence?

    We can condemn and socially fight both racist speech and violence. The relative “badness” does not count here.

    Criticeize away, but the guy shouldn’t be fired.

    He is not owed a job that pays him for racist speech.

    @ 34

    |He is only being fired because of groups putting pressure on the comnpany to silence him, because they disagree with what he says, but they don’t even listen to the show. If you don’t like what he says, don’t listen. He should be fired if nobody wants to listen to him.

    There’s that “silence” word again. As long as no one is physically stopping them from speaking they are not being silenced. Denial of support is not silencing. They can still speak. If they were actually supported by the company or other financial backers we can still organize to deny them public support. This is all through individual choice and lack of support. The only active action being taken is convincing others to pull support, and arguing with supporters of fans of racist speakers.

    @ 38

    PZ’s article is very misonformed and biased so if that’s what your basing your opinion on the you are also misinformed.

    If he is misinformed then you need to demonstrate it or we have no obligation to believe you. Everyone is biased and what matters is demonstrating that a particular bias is affecting judgment. You still need to back up your words.
    @ 40

    In see the insults have started. fair enough, I’ll leave, like I said you guys only want to hear opinions that agree with yours.

    Insults + arguments still mean that arguments are present. You can choose to let the arguments of others stand. At least you admit that you only have opinions though. No one here will be convinced by just an opinion so of course no one will agree with you.

    @ Anthony K 31

    Serious question: since we’re all dying for rights to speech then, when, if ever, and for what reasons, should a radio personality be fired?

    They should be fired if they can’t do their job. Sensitivity to public perception is as much of the job as the employer wants it to be. If the employers ended up being supporters of racist speech and we targeted the bunch of them for boycott attempts the political activity would be identically valid.

  63. says

    cumia is a weird one. on one hand he is the gun nut type. if you listen to his radio show he gives you the impression he will shoot you if you look at him the wrong way. on the other hand the only time in his life he was legally allowed to defend himself with a GUN he didn’t do it.theoretically he was allowed to kill his assailants. in his position i would have one so. i think the fact that he proved himself to not be able to defend himself with a gun is what will drive most of his listeners away.

    Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism is being ignored by most people. the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior creatures they can prey upon is overlooked by even those who study racism.And in general minorioties tend to be far more racist than white. i listen to a lot of black radio shows. the amount of times i heard racial stereotypes about white and jews is staggering. but no one is willing to tackle this due to the risks of being race baited.

  64. says

    So, in the hopes of finding some redeeming context for the frequently quoted tweets, I went through Anthoy’s twitter feed. It would have taken some astounding context to excuse what I had already seen, but hey, you could probably make just about any Twitter user look horribly racist if you carefully select which tweets to show.

    And if anything, the full context shows that the news went EASY on him. Holy shit. The woman that just happened to be caught in the frame? Unless he’s the worlds shittiest photographer, there’s no way that woman wasn’t the intended subject of the photo. While I don’t think violence was appropriate(and other photos do support his claim of an assault), he deliberately took her photo, without permission, and is surprised that she was pissed?

    And he’s a complete moron if he doesn’t see why his rant was racist. Her violence was “predictable”, she was lucky he was a “legal white gun owner”. Race was brought up multiple times, never even a token “not all blacks are like this” to show he has any sort of realistic view of the black community.

    I don’t remember him being this bad when I listened to the show a few years ago. Not sure if he’s gotten worse, or more comfortable with showing his asshole side, or I’ve gotten more aware of these things, or some combo of the above, but fuck him.

    He was apparently carrying a gun, and to be fair to him, had enough restraint to not pull it out. That’s about the only aspect of his behavior in this incident and the aftermath that was commendable or even acceptable.

  65. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Peter Dunleavy does not seem to understand one little detail. Anthony Cunia is free to say all of the things he did. But he lacks the right to the huge platform that was the radio network that employed him. And he lacks the right to get paid for saying what he did.

    But the sad fact is this, his former employer was fine with giving him a platform and paying him for it despite having a history of this shit. It was not until there was too much blowback from one incident that the company said enough.

    So, yeah Sirius XM is complicit in promoting such shit. And just because they fired one flaming gasbag of a misogynist racist does not mean they should be off the hook.

    That was PZ’s point. Sorry that you could not understand it.

    Now, defend my life to your death my right to say this.

  66. says

    @ Pazvante Chiorul 73

    <blockquote cite=""Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism is being ignored by most people. the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior creatures they can prey upon is overlooked by even those who study racism.And in general minorioties tend to be far more racist than white. i listen to a lot of black radio shows. the amount of times i heard racial stereotypes about white and jews is staggering. but no one is willing to tackle this due to the risks of being race baited.</blockquote cite=""
    Citation needed.
    Without a social structure in place that supports and magnifys it, the best that a minority group can manage is racially motivated bigotry and prejudice. For a white person to experience racism they would have to be living in a place where there is institutionalized prejudice and bigotry capable of producing racism (such as another country).

    So I would have to see those points and example situations.

  67. says

    Pazvante:

    Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism is being ignored by most people. the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior creatures they can prey upon is overlooked by even those who study racism.

    Black on white racism doesn’t exist. Not in the way people think it does. Racism is more than just discriminating against someone bc of their actual or perceived race. It’s more than prejudicial opinions of people based on their actual or perceived race.

    Racism is prejudice backed by power.
    Prejudice is unfavorable judgments about others based on race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, gender or other personal characteristics.

    One view holds that racism is best understood as ‘prejudice plus power’ because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon. Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include symbolic or institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of ethnic stereotypes through the media, and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component. Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][8] Some critics of the term argue that the term is applied differentially, with a focus on such prejudices by whites, and in ways that define mere observations of any possible differences between races as racism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

    Racism refers to a host of practices, beliefs, social relations and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yields superiority and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. Racism takes representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic forms. Despite its form, at its core, racism is constituted by essentialist racial categories that turn human subjects into stereotyped objects, and then uses those stereotypes to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race.
    http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm

    The people with the institutional and structural power, the people with the power to discriminate on a greater level than one one one, are white people. That doesn’t mean that individually, black people can’t hold prejudicial beliefs, or that black employers can’t discriminate. It means on the whole, black people (and people of Hispanic or Asian or First Nations background) lack the power that white people have.

  68. says

    also, Pazvante,

    And in general minorioties tend to be far more racist than white. i listen to a lot of black radio shows. the amount of times i heard racial stereotypes about white and jews is staggering. but no one is willing to tackle this due to the risks of being race baited.

    (emphasis mine)
    I need a citation for this. You’ve made a claim that needs to be backed up with evidence or no one is going to believe it. For all that you’re convinced of the truth of your personal experiences, anecdotes are not evidence.

  69. unclefrogy says

    My guess giving the best interpretation peter is the the fool just read part of the PZ’s post and reacted to the idea of censorship he interpreted it as posted a cliche response.
    He did not defend it regardless of what he said because he had not read much of any of it and when he did and read the responses he received saw that he was mistaken but he could not admit it. He just had not thought things out
    I think he might be one of those people who react to PZ out of resentment as against a father figure they are still rebelling against kind of a reverse blind follower.
    uncle frogy

  70. says

    Pazvante:

    Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism is being ignored by most people. the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior creatures they can prey upon is overlooked by even those who study racism.

    No, he didn’t make any good points. There is no such thing as ‘reverse racism’ or ‘reverse discrimination’, there is only racism or discrimination. The people you find hollering about ‘reverse racism/discrimination’ are almost always on top of the privilege pile, and don’t want anyone trying to level the playing field.

    As for “blacks see white as inferior creatures they can prey upon”, well, that’s a racist thing to say. You had best check those sources of yours, carefully. Also, Pazvante, don’t refer to people as ‘blacks’ (or ‘white’ for that matter) – if you must deposit your racist drivel here, use black people or white people, and so on.

  71. Pen says

    Racism is prejudice backed by power.

    That’s fine but it does leave you searching for a term to describe various antisocial behaviors practiced by people from all racial groups including abusive language that references a person’s race, choices not to associate with people of a certain race and discouraging others from doing so, expressing ignorant and derogatory stereotypes and so on. Also, although it’s a theory that can accommodate localized power arrangements that differ from the mainstream, there’s a tendency for it not to do so very easily in practice.

  72. says

    Pen:

    That’s fine but it does leave you searching for a term to describe various antisocial behaviors practiced by people from all racial groups including abusive language that references a person’s race, choices not to associate with people of a certain race and discouraging others from doing so, expressing ignorant and derogatory stereotypes and so on.

    The answer was in what you quoted:

    Racism is prejudice backed by power.

    Your answer is prejudice. Or call it bigotry if you wish.

  73. says

    Pen:

    That’s fine but it does leave you searching for a term to describe various antisocial behaviors practiced by people from all racial groups including abusive language that references a person’s race, choices not to associate with people of a certain race and discouraging others from doing so, expressing ignorant and derogatory stereotypes and so on.

    I should think either bigotry or prejudice both work.

    Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership.[1] Prejudice can also refer to unfounded beliefs[2] and may include “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence”.[3] Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a “feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

    Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person’s ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

  74. says

    @brony

    so your suggestion is to fight fire with fire. if some white people are racist towards blacks than obviously blacks have the right to be racist towads whites. lol. eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. lol. that’s like saying if someone enters your home and rapes your wife the punishment should be you entering his home and raping his wife

    can you give me an example of a racist institution in the usa? preferably a state one. you are sort of suggestion that racism is legally allowed in the usa justice system. i think you are lying.

    dumbest thing i ever heard. the southern poverty law center disagrees with you. you can find on their official website dozen of black supremacist movements all in the usa.

    lol. now i know you are one of those black racists. so stupid of me to even waste time on you. first off power is in many cases subjective. in this particular case the woman was also in the company of 5 male friends. 5 black people vs 1 white guy in a fist fight. the white guy isn;t in a position of power. second of all you are sort of implying that ALL white people control the state institutions and use them to repress the blacks. that ain’t true. most whites get judged by the same standards as blacks.the justice system mostly differentiates when it comes to financial power. rich white people tend to get better judgements. but this also works for blacks. kobe briant from the la lakers escaped a rape charge simply because he was rich. oj got away with murder. floyd mayweather beat his former wife in front of his children and got 6 months only despite being found guilty. no to mention all the rappers that get away with a lot of things.

    P.S. not to mention the fact that because of inability to publicly criticise the black community they developed one of the most mysoginistic and homophobic cultures in the usa. i can’t remember the last hip hop song where women aren’t called hoes,sluts,dots etc. also ask any gay black person how the majority of the black community perceives him.

  75. says

    Pazvante:

    so your suggestion is to fight fire with fire. if some white people are racist towards blacks than obviously blacks have the right to be racist towads whites. lol. eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. lol. that’s like saying if someone enters your home and rapes your wife the punishment should be you entering his home and raping his wife

    I think you misunderstood what Brony said.

    [Brony] Citation needed.
    Without a social structure in place that supports and magnifys it, the best that a minority group can manage is racially motivated bigotry and prejudice. For a white person to experience racism they would have to be living in a place where there is institutionalized prejudice and bigotry capable of producing racism (such as another country).

    So I would have to see those points and example situations.

    Nowhere, but nowhere in this comment does Brony state or imply that one has to fight fire with fire.
    Nothing about justifying racism of any sort from anyone.
    Xe is stating that the necessary conditions for black on white racism do not exist in the United States. Xe is saying that if you think black on white racism exists, you’ll need to provide evidence of a country without the institutional and structural racism of the United States.

    dumbest thing i ever heard. the southern poverty law center disagrees with you. you can find on their official website dozen of black supremacist movements all in the usa.

    Yes, but Brony isn’t talking about black supremacists. Xe is talking about institutional and structural racism. Those are not the same thing. Boy are they not. Yes, there are black supremacists in the United States:

    Thousands of black men and women who believe Jesus Christ is returning soon to kill or enslave white people, Jews, LGBT people and others have joined the racist fringe of the black Hebrew Israelite movement, according to the latest issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, released today.

    These black supremacist groups are growing more visible and militant, partly due to a magnetic young leader. In recent years, the movement, previously concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods on the East Coast, has spread to cities in Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Oregon.

    “These groups have used bizarre interpretations of the Bible to justify their racist beliefs in much the same way that white supremacist groups have,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right and racial extremism. “What is most worrying is that their talk has grown increasingly militant in recent years, with predictions of a bloody demise for white people and a whole host of other enemies.”

    Most black Hebrew Israelites, while seeing themselves as the descendants of the Hebrews of the Bible, are neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence. However, videos posted on the Internet show preachers from the extremist fringe of the movement engaging in what one former adherent describes as “evangelical terrorizing” — a form of street preaching that involves verbally violent confrontations with whites and Jews. “Every white person who doesn’t get killed by Christ when he returns is going into slavery!” General Mayakaahla Ka, an Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge preacher, says in one video.
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/intelligence-report-angry-black-supremacist-religious-movement-is-on-the-rise

    That’s neither here nor there, bc Brony’s point has nothing to do with the existence of black supremacist groups. You’re misunderstanding or misrepresenting hir point.

  76. says

    @tony-77

    actually most of the reponse were directed at you

    Black on white racism doesn’t exist.

    dumbest thing i ever heard. the southern poverty law center disagrees with you. you can find on their official website dozen of black supremacist movements all in the usa.

    The people with the institutional and structural power, the people with the power to discriminate on a greater level than one one one, are white people.

    lol. now i know you are one of those black racists. so stupid of me to even waste time on you. first off power is in many cases subjective. in this particular case the woman was also in the company of 5 male friends. 5 black people vs 1 white guy in a fist fight. the white guy isn;t in a position of power. second of all you are sort of implying that ALL white people control the state institutions and use them to repress the blacks. that ain’t true. most whites get judged by the same standards as blacks.the justice system mostly differentiates when it comes to financial power. rich white people tend to get better judgements. but this also works for blacks. kobe briant from the la lakers escaped a rape charge simply because he was rich. oj got away with murder. floyd mayweather beat his former wife in front of his children and got 6 months only despite being found guilty. no to mention all the rappers that get away with a lot of things.

    P.S. not to mention the fact that because of inability to publicly criticise the black community they developed one of the most mysoginistic and homophobic cultures in the usa. i can’t remember the last hip hop song where women aren’t called hoes,sluts,dots etc. also ask any gay black person how the majority of the black community perceives him.

  77. Pen says

    I should think either bigotry or prejudice both work.

    I am fine with racial prejudice or bigotry. Now to get the word out on the street! I say that because I note you did cherrypick your definition of racism, Terry. The wikipedia article begins:

    Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.

    No mention there of power. Or here in the OED online:

    The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

    and

    Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

    My personal view is that in practice (in the UK, mostly) the word ‘racism’ is used in a very general way to mean something pertaining to race that the speaker disapproves of. That can include a huge number of very disparate things and the best approach is to be as specific as possible, but I’m not sure you can so easily control how the whole of society uses these terms.

    Do you happen to know where and when your particular definition of ‘racism’ originates? I think in some relatively recent sociological theory, no?

  78. speed0spank says

    I used to listen to the O&A show years ago when I was younger and much more of an asshole. Anthony was always obsessed with guns and fucking underage girls. He dealt out racist dog whistles constantly. I was a huge fan of Jim Norton which was most of the reason I listened to the show and he was on a show versus Lindy West a while back defending rape jokes…shocker. This was while they were on FM radio and couldn’t be as crass as they can be now.
    I remember the incident that finally made me stop listening was when Anthony broke up with his girlfriend who was a prominent weather-woman in NYC. He had brought a young girl in from a different country and was cheating on his girlfriend while she was away. She came home out of the blue to find this poor girl hiding in his closet. Months after that break up he decided to just spill all his ex’s secrets. She had been taking that diet pill Alli that causes anal leakage and apparently it happened at inopportune times. He just went on and on and on in embarrassing detail to the thousands of listeners about his ex’s personal issues after HE ruined the relationship by flying in out of country women to cheat with.
    I would certainly hope people who do listen to the show aren’t pretending like they are shocked that he would say this racist garbage. He is clearly a bigoted asshole who thinks way way too highly of himself…and buys a ton of guns to cover up his insecurities.

  79. says

    @tony-91

    Nowhere, but nowhere in this comment does Brony state or imply that one has to fight fire with fire.

    he does. when he says that

    the best that a minority group can manage is racially motivated bigotry and prejudice.

    thats fighting fire with fire.

    Xe is talking about institutional and structural racism.

    a lot of rich blacks tend to get away with as many things as rich whites. economic factors play a far greater role than skin color factors. far greater. and i gave good examples

  80. Pen says

    Re my question @96 – Never mind, I found it:

    Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of categorical privilege. In Portraits of White Racism [1993], David Wellman has defined racism as “culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.[31] Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “…a highly organized system of ‘race’-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/’race’ supremacy.

  81. says

    Pen:

    I am fine with racial prejudice or bigotry. Now to get the word out on the street! I say that because I note you did cherrypick your definition of racism, Terry. The wikipedia article begins:

    My name is not Terry.
    I’m torn on the cherry picking thing bc what quoted stated up front that it was *one* definition of racism. I’m leaning towards agreeing with you though, so I’m sorry for that.

    One view holds that racism is best understood as ‘prejudice plus power’ because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.

    Do you happen to know where and when your particular definition of ‘racism’ originates? I think in some relatively recent sociological theory, no?

    Where and when it originated? No. I’m uncertain. The following link which supports the my definition of racism is from an abstract in 2006.
    http://diversity.umsl.edu/documents/W07_Guess_article_s6.pdf
    I can’t copy/paste from the page for some reason, but the pdf discusses the intersection of power and white in this country and how it’s tied into racism.

    My personal view is that in practice (in the UK, mostly) the word ‘racism’ is used in a very general way to mean something pertaining to race that the speaker disapproves of. That can include a huge number of very disparate things and the best approach is to be as specific as possible, but I’m not sure you can so easily control how the whole of society uses these terms.

    That’s the colloquial usage of racism. I get that. Perhaps I made the mistake of not stating that I’m using the sociological definition. That definition is broader, perhaps to account for institutional and structural racism. The colloquial definition cannot account for the structures of oppression that keep PoC marginalized.

  82. says

    @ Pazvante Chiorul 88

    Please break up your replies to each person you are replying to. There are quotes in there that are not mine.

    so your suggestion is to fight fire with fire.

    This makes no sense. “Fighting fire with fire” means you are using a similar thing against a thing. I was not suggesting action, I was pointing out that racism requires an institutional component.

    Racism is prejudice and bigotry + a group effects.

  83. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I see Pazvante Chiorul is back being as ignorant and incoherent as ever. Bless him.

  84. says

    @ Pazvante Chiorul 95

    the southern poverty law center disagrees with you. you can find on their official website dozen of black supremacist movements all in the usa.

    The SPLC tracks hate sites and groups. Check their definitions. You can still be a black hate group and be incapable of racism because you have no institutional power.

    You are all over the place when it comes to definitions.

    @ 98

    he does. when he says that

    “the best that a minority group can manage is racially motivated bigotry and prejudice.”

    That was an objective description of how racism relates to minorities. That was not a suggestion of action. Please show where I say minority groups should do anything.

  85. says

    Pazvante:
    In the future, if you’re going to address someone, use their nym, not someone else’s. You addressed Brony, but were responding to me. My nym is not Brony

    thats fighting fire with fire.

    You’re not understanding what Brony said.

    Without a social structure in place that supports and magnifys it, the best that a minority group can manage is racially motivated bigotry and prejudice. For a white person to experience racism they would have to be living in a place where there is institutionalized prejudice and bigotry capable of producing racism (such as another country).

    Xe is not talking about fighting anything. Xe is saying that without an underlying social structure, black on white racism in the US doesn’t exist. The most that *does* exist is racially motivated bigotry and prejudice. Brony is not advocating fighting anything. You’re completely misreading hir.

    a lot of rich blacks tend to get away with as many things as rich whites. economic factors play a far greater role than skin color factors. far greater. and i gave good examples

    You really need to read up on racism. You don’t understand what is meant by institutional and structural power. Overall, white people hold the power in the US. Social, political, economic…in all areas, white people are dominant. That doesn’t mean they literally hold every single seat of power. Obviously, bc we have a black president. It means that *overall*, the power in this country is held by white people. Which is how structurally, and institutionally, racism in this country can only be directed from whites to blacks.

    Bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination, however, can manifest from any race *to* any race. But that’s not the same thing as racism.

  86. says

    Oh and speaking of cherry picking…
    Pazvante @95:

    Black on white racism doesn’t exist.

    dumbest thing i ever heard. the southern poverty law center disagrees with you. you can find on their official website dozen of black supremacist movements all in the usa.

    What I said was:

    Black on white racism doesn’t exist. Not in the way people think it does.

    Pay attention to the second sentence. It modifies the first.
    And yes, I’m aware of what the SPLC states. I linked to them and quoted from them @91.

  87. Pen says

    Tony @ 100

    My name is not Terry.

    Ooops. I’m extremely sorry. It’s obviously getting too late for me. I hope Tony is okay for short?

  88. Great American Satan says

    Pazvante is being an openly racist scumbag here. Wasn’t that one of the few things that will get your ass banned on Pharyngula? Just… sending up the batsignal yo.

  89. says

    @108-tony

    no it doesn’t. it’s basicly the same thing. you made a false statement and a stupid one as a matter of fact and them to save face you added an ambiguous sentence. that’s like saying that white on black racism doesn’t exist. Not in the way people think it does. See how stupid that sounds? And yeah you linked to the southern poverty law center. after i mentioned them in post 77. After i caught you with a blatant false statement you started backtracking to save face. it doesn’t work.

  90. says

    In the future, if you’re going to address someone, use their nym, not someone else’s. You addressed Brony, but were responding to me. My nym is not Brony

    This is a person that seems to think that commonly used, standard HTML formatting tags is indicative of a problem with FTB, and not due to the problem that exists between the keyboard and chair. I do not think Pazvante quite gets how to use the internet.

  91. says

    Pazvante:

    lol. now you’re playing the misogyny card. where on earth did i presume the gender of the person i was replying to?

    You have reading comprehension problems. Consistently.
    I said:

    Another piece of advice: don’t assume you know the gender of the people you’re responding to. Male is not the default.

    I didn’t accuse you of misogyny. I said don’t assume you know the gender of the person you’re responding to. Why did I say that? Because you said this @98:

    he does. when he says that

    Note the he. Do you know which pronoun Brony prefers? I don’t, which is why I’ve used non-gendered pronouns when discussing hir (<—-see).

    ****
    Pen:
    Thank you. My name actually is Tony, so by all means.

  92. says

    @111-satan

    no i’m not. where was i racist? show me the evidence. oh i forgot playing the race card is a specialty among you little racists. continue to play the race card. that’s all you are capable off anyway.

  93. says

    @114-tony

    ….i’m sure that input added to the discussion and its not just a misogyny bait. this attitude of labeling anyone that disagrees with you as a misogynyst and racist is probably what keeps the problem where it is now. Oh and the misogyny baiting is practiced by the guy who claims and defends the fact that black on white racism doesn’t exist….facepalm

  94. says

    Pazvante:

    no it doesn’t. it’s basicly the same thing. you made a false statement and a stupid one as a matter of fact and them to save face you added an ambiguous sentence. that’s like saying that white on black racism doesn’t exist. Not in the way people think it does. See how stupid that sounds? And yeah you linked to the southern poverty law center. after i mentioned them in post 77. After i caught you with a blatant false statement you started backtracking to save face. it doesn’t work.

    So now you’re trying to tell me what I meant, when I know damned well what I meant, and anyone can scroll back up to see. You’re a goddamned fool.
    Black on white racism does not exist in the US in the way that people think. I linked to the SPLC, which you didn’t do, to prove my point that they’re not talking about institutional or structural racism. I acknowledged that they were talking about Black Supremacist groups, but that doesn’t prove your point that the existence of black supremacist groups means that black on white racism exists. If you’d actually read material, you’d fucking know that. Try reading my link @100. Oh hell, here you go, since you seem incapable of scrolling up the thread: http://diversity.umsl.edu/documents/W07_Guess_article_s6.pdf

    You’re using the colloquial definition of racism, which is not the sociological one. The colloquial definition is not expansive enough and does not explain the institutional racism in this country. This is fairly 101 level stuff and you haven’t even read the fucking Cliff’s Notes. You’re out of your depth.

  95. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Pazvante Chiorul @ 115

    You were racist when you sauntered in here and started reading from The Compendium of Racist Tropes. I got Racist Asshole Bingo twice over just from your comment at # 73.

  96. says

    Pazvante:

    ….i’m sure that input added to the discussion and its not just a misogyny bait. this attitude of labeling anyone that disagrees with you as a misogynyst and racist is probably what keeps the problem where it is now. Oh and the misogyny baiting is practiced by the guy who claims and defends the fact that black on white racism doesn’t exist….facepalm

    Do. You. Know. Which. Gendered. Pronoun. Brony. Prefers?
    If you don’t, don’t assume.
    That’s not misogynistic. And I’m not assuming you’re a misogynist. I never even accused you of misogyny. Dear Loki, read for comprehension. Although given how defensive you’re getting, I’m starting to rethink that.

  97. chigau (違う) says

    Pazvante Chiorul
    Whatever you… are trying to say, it’s not coming… across.
    Maybe… if you used upper case letters and the return key…
    lol…

  98. says

    Oh, and given that Pazvante doesn’t seem capable of scrolling up (and thinks others are incapable as well–MISOGYNY!!! ELEBENTY!!), here is what was they said @73:

    Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism is being ignored by most people. the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior creatures they can prey upon is overlooked by even those who study racism.And in general minorioties tend to be far more racist than white. i listen to a lot of black radio shows. the amount of times i heard racial stereotypes about white and jews is staggering. but no one is willing to tackle this due to the risks of being race baited.

    I see why Seven of Mine got a Racist bingo a few times…
    I also see Pazvante has not produced a link in support of the bolded sentence (which is a gigantic racist bingo flag).

  99. says

    Great American Satan @111:
    You’re right. Pazvante has given off a racist vibe. PZ is at CONvergence though, so he’s likely busy most of the weekend. We’ll probably have to deal with the fuckwitted troll for a while.

  100. says

    @117

    you are a liar and a dishonest individual. the first mention of the southern poverty law center is in comment 88. My comment. you mentioned it in comment 91 as a response to MY COMMENT 88. the fact that you clog the page with blocks of quotes is also not my problem. And the fact you try to use semantics to get out of a stupid statement that black on white racism doesn’t exist proves my point even further.

    P.S:Even if i accept your definition of institutionalized position of power etc i can find an exception of the top of my head right now without even googling. When eric holder and obama stopped the investigation into the new black party voter intimidation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

    @seven

    race card playing idiot. no examples, no arguments just the race card. plain and simple. you disagree with someone you play the race card like the dishonest scumbag you are. that’s all you can do play the race. i can do it too. you are a racist. end of discussion.

  101. says

    @122,121

    racist vibe. hahaah. race card playing idiot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy

    add with the southern poverty examples. like i said. there few institution that deal with all types of racism regardless of what you race baiting idiots think. and no you are not solving the problem. you are contributing to it. luckily your ilk is in the usa not in europe. one of the many reasons europe is less racist that the usa

  102. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Racist Fuckwit @ 123

    Here is your #73

    Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism(1) is being ignored by most people.(2)the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior(3) creatures they can prey upon(4)is overlooked by even those who study racism(5).And in general minorioties tend to be far more racist than white(6). i listen to a lot of black radio shows. the amount of times i heard racial stereotypes about white and jews is staggering. but no one is willing to tackle this(7) due to the risks of being race baited(8).

    By my count, that’s 8 distinct bald assertions in the space of 1 paragraph, none of which track with reality.

  103. says

    Pazvante the racist liar and bullshitter:

    you are a liar and a dishonest individual. the first mention of the southern poverty law center is in comment 88. My comment. you mentioned it in comment 91 as a response to MY COMMENT 88. the fact that you clog the page with blocks of quotes is also not my problem. And the fact you try to use semantics to get out of a stupid statement that black on white racism doesn’t exist proves my point even further.

    It’s a waste of time discussing anything with you. You refuse to comprehend the meaning of words. I don’t know why I’m continuing.
    But here, again is my comment @91, which was in direct response to you comment @88:

    Yes, but Brony isn’t talking about black supremacists. Xe is talking about institutional and structural racism. Those are not the same thing. Boy are they not. Yes, there are black supremacists in the United States:

    Thousands of black men and women who believe Jesus Christ is returning soon to kill or enslave white people, Jews, LGBT people and others have joined the racist fringe of the black Hebrew Israelite movement, according to the latest issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report, released today.[snip]
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/intelligence-report-angry-black-supremacist-religious-movement-is-on-the-rise

    I linked to the SPLC bc YOU brought them up. I linked to them to show that I acknowledge that YES, they mention black supremacist groups (I was agreeing with you Captain Contrarian). I included the material to demonstrate that even though they showcase those groups, that doesn’t mean black supremacist groups PROVE black on white racism exists.

    Fucking Fool.

    It’s not a semantic game to point out that institutionally white people in the US have the most power and as a result bigoted actions and prejudices take on a whole new level of awfulness–racism. I’ve even provided a link in support of that.
    You seem to believe you can spew your opinion over a thread and people should just accept it. I include links to back up my arguments, which is what *you* should be doing. For some reason you think I shouldn’t be doing this, but I really don’t give two shits what you think at this point you dishonest thundering fuckface.

  104. says

    @126-seven the race card player

    nope. that’s just your opinion. the fact that black on white racism is ignored is a fact. but that can not prevent you from playing the race card can it?

  105. says

    add with the southern poverty examples. like i said. there few institution that deal with all types of racism

    You’re aware that the SPLC itself would support the sociological definition of racism here, right?

    Even if i accept your definition of institutionalized position of power etc i can find an exception of the top of my head right now without even googling. When eric holder and obama stopped the investigation into the new black party voter intimidation

    Wow. If accepted (and I don’t think it should be), that’s one single, barely even significant example. Clearly that one infinitesimal anecdote is more significant than the entire weight of white racist institutional power in this country (and before you bring up class, the racial bias exists even when holding class constant; just because class privilege exists doesn’t mean white privilege doesn’t).

  106. says

    race card playing idiot. no examples, no arguments just the race card. plain and simple. you disagree with someone you play the race card like the dishonest scumbag you are. that’s all you can do play the race. i can do it too. you are a racist. end of discussion.

    The dishonest fucker who doesn’t even understand racism, and who couldn’t argue out of a bowl of cooked spaghetti is calling *us* racist.

    ::falls over laughing::

  107. says

    Pazvante:

    the fact that black on white racism is ignored is a fact.

    A fact that is found…where? It’s not like you’ve given a link to support this bald assertion.
    Oh I forgot, you think people should just believe your statements.

  108. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    nope. that’s just your opinion.

    Either you provide links that absolutely back up your assertions, or it is merely your opinion….Welcome to science/factual based reality…

  109. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Racist Fuckwit @ 129

    WORDS! HOW DO THEY WORK?!

    I quoted YOUR words you blithering fucking shitwit. I counted the number of claims you pulled out of your ass. You made the claims, YOU provide proof that they’re anything other than pure bullshit.

  110. says

    128-tony the racist scumbag

    buhhuuhuhu. please. the mean old pazvante is exposing my hypocrisy and lies and since i can not counter him i must have him banned. buhhuhhuhu. somebody please call pz. cry me a river oh. cry me a river oh. a dishonest race card playing racist. coward, and btw at 127 you are quote mining. give the full context to the comment i replied to so that everyone can see what a cowardly stupid racist piece of shiit you really are. go to pz. beg for mercy. coward. racist. lol black on white racism doesn’t exist. lol.

    “on’t give two shits what you think at this point you dishonest thundering fuckface. ”

    better than dumb,retarded,idiotic, race card playing idiot. lol. my shit probably contradicts itself less than you. the stupidity in your family is probably transmitted genetically. who do you resemble the most your mother or your father? honest question.

    p.s: don;t forget to call pz.

  111. says

    @130 shokna


    Wow. If accepted (and I don’t think it should be), that’s one single, barely even significant example. ”

    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. so its not “black on white racism doesn’t exist” like tony the race card player says. mmm. i may be on to something. even as someone that doesn’t follow us news that much i could still find an example to dismantle tony the race card player’s stupid racist quote. btw why isn’t it racist. if bush would have pardon some kkk members for black voter intimidation would you have said the same thing?

  112. says

    Pazvante:

    Nevertheless he does make good points about how black on white racism(1) is being ignored by most people.(2)

    What are these good points, and how do you know they’re being ignored by most people (given that the world population is 7+ billion, how many is “most” people)?

    the fact that a lot of blacks see white as inferior(3) creatures they can prey upon(4)is overlooked by even those who study racism(5).

    What evidence do you have to support your belief that a lot of black see whites as inferior?
    What evidence do you have that those who study racism ignore black on white bigotry?

    And in general minorioties tend to be far more racist than white(6).

    SInce you state this as fact, I’m sure you’ve got proof of it. Present it or STFU.

    i listen to a lot of black radio shows.

    Goody for you.
    But do you let black people use your bathroom?

    the amount of times i heard racial stereotypes about white and jews is staggering. but no one is willing to tackle this(7) due to the risks of being race baited(8).

    You’ve done some serious research if you know that no one is willing to tackle black on white (and jewish) bigotry. So where’s your evidence?

    Why is it you think you can clog up a comments thread with assertions pulled out of your ass and not be expected to provide evidence to support your assclaims?

  113. says

    give the full context to the comment i replied to so that everyone can see what a cowardly stupid racist piece of shiit you really are.

    The full context only makes you look even worse. As trolls go, you’re near the bottom of the barrel. But then, that’s always the case whenever someone uses the phrase “race card” (which seems to have no meaning other than to deny that racial problems primarily caused by whites exist).

  114. says

    Pazvante:

    better than dumb,retardedM,idiotic, race card playing idiot.

    That’s it! Fuck off you bigoted scumbag. You’ve crossed a line. Up until now, I was fine with your idiocy. Even dealing with your racism was somewhat entertaining. Now you’re crossing into ableism? I’m sure PZ will be really happy to read the shit you’ve said you vile shitstain.

  115. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    my shit probably contradicts itself less than you.

    Only probably? What the fuck are you eating?

    You are precious, aren’t you?

  116. says

    @137

    tony the racist-137

    ” Goody for you.
    But do you let black people use your bathroom?”

    again playing the race card. this disqualifies you from any response from me, you are literally just a race card player. nothing more. nothing less. you’ve been playing the race card for the past 20 comments. now go cry to pz. i don’t waste time with race baiters such as yourself. you started like you wanted to have a honest conversation but every single comment has been you playing the race card. you are defending your point very poorly.

  117. says

    Pazvante:

    again playing the race card. this disqualifies you from any response from me, you are literally just a race card player. nothing more. nothing less. you’ve been playing the race card for the past 20 comments. now go cry to pz. i don’t waste time with race baiters such as yourself. you started like you wanted to have a honest conversation but every single comment has been you playing the race card. you are defending your point very poorly.

    Sure. Can I have some of what you’re smoking?

  118. says

    And I gave up trying to defend my point around the time your racist opinion started spewing. Although in the interest of trying to treat you *somewhat* fairly, I half-heartedly made a few more attempts. Now though, you’re just a joke.
    Oh, and I never said I was going to call PZ. I’m not a monitor and don’t have that power. I do support PZ checking the thread out to see your ableism and racism though. You’re the only person who can’t see how horrible a person you’ve been in this thread.

  119. says

    139-tony the race card playing idiot

    lol. so idiot doesn’t bother you but retarded does. :)))))). despite the fact idiocy is also a disability. facepalm at the contradictions. you are the worst kind of human. you are the worst kind of human. a vile racist scumbag using the suffering of minorities he does not understand to further his image. bleah. you make me sick. you are a disgusting idiot. you care about retarded people just as much as you care about blacks. 0. you couldn’t care less about neither. you are just using them.lol. disgusting fool. crawl back troll.

    p.s: you haven’t answer which parent is responsible for your stupidity/

  120. says

    so tony starts with the misogyny card then he moves to the race card and now to the ableism card…

    P.S: i appologize to the retarded people for putting them in the same category as tony. tony is just a disgusting stupid perosn who uses discriminated social groups to push his image. shame on you tony.

    P.S2: hir. facepalm. thats not even an english word….tony is really the epithomy of stupidity

  121. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Pazvante Chiorul, now that you’ve abandoned all pretense of having anything coherent to say, could you just shut the fuck up and save us all the aggravation?

  122. chigau (違う) says

    Pazvante Chiorul
    You criticising someone else’s English is quite funny.

  123. Terska says

    It’s sad to say but this creep’s views on black people are pretty common still. Not so much with younger people. Cumia is treated like the creep he is not because he is white. It’s because he is a major asshole. He doesn’t get it.

  124. says

    Pazvante:

    so tony starts with the misogyny card then he moves to the race card and now to the ableism card…

    Advising you not to assume you know someone’s gender is not playing the misogyny card.

    As for ‘hir’-that’s a gender neutral pronoun that is used. Perhaps not widely, but it is still used. And boy you just love being an smugnoramus*:

    Pronoun
    hir (third-person singular, gender-neutral, objective case, reflexive hirself)
    (neologism) them (singular). Gender-neutral third-person singular object pronoun, coordinate with him and her.
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hir

    You don’t seem to like quoted material used to provide evidence for claims, but in case anyone lurking does:

    A gender-specific pronoun is a pronoun associated with a particular gender, such as a pronoun denoting female or male. Examples include the English third-person personal pronouns he and she.
    A gender-neutral pronoun, by contrast, is a pronoun that is not associated with a particular gender, and that does not imply male or female. Many English pronouns are gender-neutral, including they (in both plural and singular uses).
    Many of the world’s languages do not have gender-specific pronouns. Others, however – particularly those which have a pervasive system of grammatical gender (or have historically had such a system, as with English) – have gender-specificity in certain of their pronouns, particularly personal pronouns of the third person.
    Problems of usage arise in languages such as English, in contexts where a person of unspecified or unknown sex is being referred to, but the most natural available pronouns (he or she) are gender-specific. In such cases a gender-specific pronoun may be used with intended gender-neutral meaning, as he has been used traditionally in English, although she is now sometimes used instead. Use of singular they is another common alternative. Some attempts have been made, by proponents of gender-neutral language, to introduce invented gender-neutral pronouns.

    […]

    Some groups and individuals have invented, borrowed and used non-standard pronouns, hoping they will become standard. Various proposals for such changes have been around since at least the 19th century. For example, abbreviated pronouns have been proposed: ‘e (for he or she) or ‘s (for his/hers); h’ (for him/her in object case); “zhe” (also “ze”), “zher(s)” (also “zer” or “zir”), “shi”/”hir”, and “zhim” (also “mer”) for “he or she”, “his or her(s)”, and “him or her”, respectively; ‘self (for himself/herself); and hu, hus, hum, humself (for s/he, his/hers, him/her, himself/herself).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns

    ‘Hir’ and ‘xe’ are two words that were created to be gender neutral pronouns so that in discourse people do not have to assume the gender of the person they’re speaking with. If you don’t know that you’re talking to a man or a woman, it’s impolite to default to the male pronoun. It doesn’t mean you’re misogynistic. It means you’ve absorbed sexist attitudes propagated by society, but that occurs on a subconscious level. You’ve got to consciously decide to change. Which is what I’ve done by not assuming the gender of the person I’m speaking with.

    *a non bigoted slur I came up with that’s a portmanteau of smug and ignoramus. Pazvante is both.

  125. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    hir. facepalm. thats not even an english word….tony is really the epithomy of stupidity

    It’s rare a troll gets me to laugh out loud. Thanks Pazvante!

    Or: What chigau said.

  126. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Sigh, must remember to refresh before posting….

    Bye, Pazvante.

    Oh noes! PZed played the BANHAMMER CARD!!!11!!!1! Such unfairness, such oppression!

  127. cubist says

    The obligatory xkcd reference: http://xkcd.com/1357/

    The alt text for that strip is particularly apposite: I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.

  128. microraptor says

    The alt text for that strip is particularly apposite: I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.

    And that’s really the only counterargument necessary at that point.

  129. chigau (違う) says

    Tony!
    I’m not following the Molyneux thread.
    If someone needs attention give a shout.
    The contact a monitor button in the side-panel sends an email that PZ see.

  130. Rey Fox says

    As long as we’re flinging cards around willy-nilly, anyone wanna play poker?

  131. chigau (違う) says

    Rey Fox
    As long as it’s Real Poker.
    Not that texasholdem shite.

  132. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Tony!
    I’m not following the Molyneux thread.
    If someone needs attention give a shout.
    The contact a monitor button in the side-panel sends an email that PZ see.

    I think I’m the only one still posting over there at the moment, and I’ll be giving them a drive-by laugh-at shortly (pointing out how they are trying to teach their bullshit, but nobody is wanting to listen to it, and ask them to think about that). My skin is pretty thick, and I ignore their arrogant asshattery to ridicule them.

  133. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    As long as we’re flinging cards around willy-nilly, anyone wanna play poker?

    Can’t. Our dealer got flushed….
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    I’ll see myself out.

  134. anteprepro says

    Mentioning “the race card” definitely has to get a solid square in racist bingo. The recently banhammered troll was excessive in his mentioning the term, but I have found that when you have found someone whining about someone “playing the race card”, the safe bet is that they are a bigot. Just like someone whining about “political correctness”.

  135. PatrickG says

    A bit late to this party, but:

    i listen to a lot of black radio shows

    is one of the more original forms of but I have black friends I’ve seen in a while.

  136. says

    It’s amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid the idea of institutionalized bigotry and prejudice. I run into that one over and over. There is no “reverse racism”, there is just racism and it all depends on where the power to exercise the bigotry and prejudice lies.

  137. says

    Oh… those guys? Again? Meh.

    Now obviously, I’m not cool with racism.

    But I’m thinking, okay, let bigots be bigots, they’ll dig their own graves.

    They’ve every right to their opinions, and every right to voice them.

    Let them, and let their words have consequences resulting in loss of income, loss of respect, and, should their words result in violence, loss of freedom.

  138. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    I see Cumia’s little altercation took place in Times Square, isn’t New York one of the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the USA? With mandatory sentences for misuse, and basically making it almost impossible for those who aren’t cops to carry them around. Own them yes, but carrying them around requires a whole heap of permits and so forth. I suspect that if he had whipped out this gun he was supposedly carrying, that even if he had been carrying it legally, and he doesn’t strike me as the sort of person that worries about the fine details of law compliance, that would have gotten him into a whole heap of trouble. Never mind firing it.

  139. Louis says

    I’m going to play the “I came to this thread, read, and am sufficiently amazed at the fucking stupidity of now removed muppets that the pain involved has caused me to shoot heroin into my eyeball to numb it” card.

    Granted, it’s a card I play a lot on the internet. Hmmmm. Maybe there’s a connection? NAH! To the YouTube Comments! I need some edumification!

    Louis

    P.S. Patrick G, I’ve spoken to a lot of people who listen to a lot of black radio shows. Does that mean I’m not racist? ;-)

    P.P.S. I favour the “Freeze Peach” of bigots of all types. Let ‘em sspeak, then criticise/mock ‘em ’til they glow. I really don’t see why it comes up all the time though. It’s hardly a free speech issue. Muppet says something odious, muppet gets canned/criticised. Business as (hopefully) usual. All peaches remain frozen. When did “not wiping your arse for you” = “stopping you have a shit”? Cumia can shit as he pleases. I don’t know why he (or anyone) expects people to help him clean up his mess, praise him for his leavings, tell him it all smells of roses, or care that other people also shit. Bafflingly daft.

  140. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    In the grocery store and a black woman in front of me is on her phone, pushing a cart and walking along side it a bit, semi-blocking traffic. I don’t mind, I’m not in a hurry, she’s not hurting anybody, and I’m sure if I were to say ‘excuse me’ she would allow me past. Not everyone felt that way, apparently. A woman approaching was able to maneuver her cart past the lady in front of me. So an aisle-way large enough to fit the width of her cart, another cart, and a woman. But as she went past she literally pressed herself against the shelves, knocking an item off as she shuffled like a frightened crab near a broiler. As she rolled past me she gave me this sort of intended “knowing” glance back at the woman, still on her phone and putting the item back that the other had knocked down, then back at me, and an eye-roll, a relieved loud sight, followed by a smile.

    I don’t know why I’m telling this story. It’s not like minorities don’t already know that there are whites who seem to think that whiteness means solidarity in our struggle against the oppressive exaggerated interpretations of stereotypical behavior.

  141. says

    There is such a thing as a ‘race card’, I’ve seen it played. But like all false accusations, it occurs about 2% of the time and the assholes want to only focus on that 2% so they can ignore the rest.

    At least with the ‘race card’ sometimes it actually is an honest misunderstanding. I had someone accuse me of discriminating against me because they were black when circumstances conspired that I ran out of an item just as it happened she reached my checkout, but, as I said when the incident occurred:

    “The fact that for this particular set of circumstances she was wrong – it was an honest mistake that had nothing to do with her race – doesn’t mean her conclusion was irrational or illogical. And for all I knew, she could have been discriminated against 9 times that day already. Was I really justified in being upset because she concluded from the available evidence that this time was the 10th?”

    I’ve seen the race card played as a manipulative trump a couple times. But I’ve seen a lot more incidents where someone claimed that’s what happened but my observations said otherwise.

  142. Pen says

    I suppose everyone’s left by now? Anyway, I just wanted to take this point up with Tony.

    You’ve said a couple of times that the colloquial definition of racism isn’t broad enough to include sociological racism. I feel the problem is that it’s too broad. I think we agreed on a colloquial definition of racism as ‘anything pertaining to race the speaker disapproves of’? Well, it’s certainly possible to disapprove to the state of affairs described by sociological racism. I do it all the time. Colloquial racism does include the idea of sociological racism, in fact it’s so vague and general it includes just about everything. I try to avoid the word ‘racism’ altogether in many discussions, because I know that the only meaning it really conveys adequately to most people is disapproval.

    Sociological racism is quite a difficult model and the way I see it being used, I usually find it incomplete. Take this remark that caused all the trouble:

    black on white racism is being ignored by most people

    You’ve adopted the argument that black on white (sociological) racism can’t exist by definition because of the power dynamics of US society. Another option would be to point out that wherever black on white racial prejudice does look like becoming a socially active force, it is no longer ignored. I think exploring this more nuanced model actually reveals the white bias of society in a much more thorough and useful way – although it does have the disadvantage of not fitting in a sentence.

    It seems to me the consequences of spouting racialized abuse are visited on public and powerful figures, regardless of their race, because power depends on public support, or at least an absence of public antagonism. Powerful individuals are often white but not always. As examples of black figures who have been threatened by social sanctions, you can point to Shirley Sherrod (who was framed in a really disgraceful manner, leading to her resignation) or the controversy involving Obama’s ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright which was used to threaten Obama’s candidature for president – and perhaps would have done so successfully if Obama hadn’t distanced himself from Wright and his remarks. I’m well aware that both these examples were manipulated and driven by white interest groups which is in itself is very revealing about the power dynamics in US society, isn’t it? Still, they do show that consequences for presumed racial abuse and prejudice will befall black people in public and powerful positions, just as they’ve befallen Cumia.

    The public doing the supporting or sanctioning of the powerful or well-known is also white-dominated. It allocates rewards and imposes sanctions on the well-known and powerful according to whether they are gratifying, threatening, etc. There are certainly some people out there who absolutely can’t understand how someone like Cumia is threatening to white people. This really underestimates the power of white people who don’t have to have a gun to their heads before they start flexing their muscles. Cumia threatens the kind of society many of them (white Americans) want be part of, so they will act to sanction him. He also threatens the way they want to be perceived as white – so they will act to distance him from themselves, just as Obama did with Wright. Obviously, structural power puts a disproportionate amount of choosing power in the hands of white people – they could change their minds about what kind of society they want… I also think it likely they react much more strongly towards PoC whom they believe, rightly or wrongly, threaten their interests or well-being. It’s even likely that their over-reactions to perceived racial threats, even very minor, have quite a bit to do with maintaining the power dynamic in the US. One answer to Pazvante’s point is that black on white racial prejudice is dealt with so ruthlessly that it hardly gets to pop its head above the ramparts.

    So why are ‘we’ (white people) ignoring the alleged actions of the black woman in this incident? It’s simple – we don’t know who she is or what she does. Her social power, as far as we know is limited. It doesn’t affect us personally, or threaten us in any of the ways Cumia’s behaviour does. If we found out this woman was Chief Superintendent of the NYPD, we might suddenly think of quite a bit to say about how she handles conflict with white people. If she was Michelle Obama, does anyone think she could get away with calling people ‘white assholes’ and thumping them? I doubt it. Mrs Obama’s taken enough flak for far less than that.

  143. says

    Pen:

    I think we agreed on a colloquial definition of racism as ‘anything pertaining to race the speaker disapproves of’?

    I disagree with this. I’d say the colloquial definition of racism would be “prejudicial or bigoted beliefs or opinions held by an individual based on the actual or perceived race of another person or persons”.
    Would you agree to that?

  144. says

    Louis:

    Muppet says something odious, muppet gets canned/criticised.

    My god man, what did Kermit, Fozzie, or Mrs Piggy ever do to you? You’ve got some muppet issues my friend. Canned muppet is not tasty. SPAM tastes better.

  145. Pen says

    Tony:

    I disagree with this. I’d say the colloquial definition of racism would be “prejudicial or bigoted beliefs or opinions held by an individual based on the actual or perceived race of another person or persons”. – Would you agree to that?

    I agree this is a very nuanced thing. Your definition is what I would call a dictionary definition. It’s one idea about what racism *is* and it differs from the sociological definition. It assumes that we, the observers, can be objective. When I talk about a colloquial definition I’m looking for the common ground in what people *mean* when they use the word racism in everyday life. For example, I know people who sincerely hold the view that discussing race is racist and perpetuates racism and other people who sincerely hold the opposite view. I have an opinion that one group is right, but I recognise that they both think they are. What they have in common is disapproval of whatever it is they’re calling racism. Typically the only thing you can be sure of when someone walks into a discussion and says ‘that’s racist!’ is that they don’t like it.

    The rest of my post is about sociology anyway and has no bearing on whatever definition of colloquial racism we like. It largely engages with your definition of sociological racism. I made a point of not using the word racism in any other way. What I’m trying to do is explore the gap between the collective nature of sociological (or institutional) racism which has a tendency to present us with a ‘black box’ view of society, and the individual actions which necessarily underpin it. It does feel a bit like trying to reconcile relativity with quantum theory, but the point of the exercise, obviously, is to gain control over a situation we disapprove of (at least I’m assuming we agree about that).

  146. says

    Pen:

    I agree this is a very nuanced thing. Your definition is what I would call a dictionary definition.

    Is this a bad thing? The definition I offered @177 is not the same thing as my earlier sociological definition. I was specifically limiting it to see if we could agree on the definition as a starting ground to further conversation. How are we to discuss racism if we can’t agree on a definition first?

    It’s one idea about what racism *is* and it differs from the sociological definition. It assumes that we, the observers, can be objective. When I talk about a colloquial definition I’m looking for the common ground in what people *mean* when they use the word racism in everyday life. For example, I know people who sincerely hold the view that discussing race is racist and perpetuates racism and other people who sincerely hold the opposite view. I have an opinion that one group is right, but I recognise that they both think they are. What they have in common is disapproval of whatever it is they’re calling racism. Typically the only thing you can be sure of when someone walks into a discussion and says ‘that’s racist!’ is that they don’t like it.

    People “mean” different things when they speak of racism. Some people don’t have a coherent view of racism. Some people use a dictionary definition. Some people use the sociological definition. Shouldn’t a definition of racism incorporate all the ways in which is is meant?

    ****
    As I think about it, perhaps it would be best if I don’t comment further, as I lack the background and expertise on the subject to engage in a deeper discussion.

  147. twas brillig (stevem) says

    The “colloquial” use of “racism” I use is when a discussion icludes mention of race, either positive or negative, I’ll identify it as “racism”. I only tell you MY use cuz I see it done the same way, lots of places. I know it is just sarcasm about the word itself, but often saying something like, eg “japanese like haiku”, the snarks will shout, “that’s racist, tsk tsk tsk”.
    Sorry to interrupt the conversation about word usage with my particular use. I’m just an arrogant egotist that has to tell everybody everything I know. Cuz I’m me and you’re not! ^_^

  148. Pen says

    Tony: Is this a bad thing? (dictionary definitions of racism versus others)

    Not in the least. But in discussing racism we do always need to establish a shared definition, or perhaps drop the word altogether and say what we mean in other words. I get the sociological definition, but I’m aware that lots of people are at a complete loss with it.

    As I think about it, perhaps it would be best if I don’t comment further, as I lack the background and expertise on the subject to engage in a deeper discussion.

    Is that a polite way of saying this thread’s been going on for a while and you’d like to do something else? I think it would be a terrible thing if we really did need degrees to discuss social affairs that concern us all, so I hope that’s it. But anyway, see you around…

  149. says

    Pen:

    Is that a polite way of saying this thread’s been going on for a while and you’d like to do something else?

    No. I just don’t think I’m qualified to get too far into this subject. There are a lot of things I have a basic level of knowledge about, and this is one of those subjects. Any further and I’d feel out of my depth.

  150. says

    “Firing Anthony Cumia is just the icing on the cake. Demand more.”

    Yeah, that’s how you Liberal pricks try to silence those who you don’t agree with..

    You never listen to the show, you never read his tweets, you are just a lemming that follows the outrage committee, jumping in on topics that don’t affect you in the least.

    Just because you don’t like what some people have to say, you are not the thought police, you are nothing in this world. 7 billion people, and you are a speck. Just because you’re easily offended, and have such a fragile ego that mere words hurt you, don’t take it out on the rest of us who can handle adult topics.

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

    That quote is over 100 years old. It’s a shame that we’ve regressed in modern society

  151. says

    “omnicrom

    4 July 2014 at 12:10 pm (UTC -5)

    Peter Dunleavy @5

    It should a sad day when the left sickens you more than the right. But chin up! If you had actually read PZ’s blog post you’d have realized that he’s not calling on anyone to be silenced at all! So there’s no problem, and it isn’t a sad day at all. Unless of course you’re being disingenuous, standing for freedom from response instead of freedom of speech and attempting to score points with an equivalence fallacy. If that’s case I will request you fuck off.”

    He is silencing him by telling people to boycott a product. This is a known bullying practice of Liberal crybabies. People who never even use a product, flood the advertisers of said product. The advertisers are too stupid to realize that these morons never even bought the products.

    And since your last line had to include profanity, it shows your intelligence level is extremely low and you have no valid points to make.

    YOU LOSE!

  152. says

    Joe Ingram:
    Oh gee, another one of you fools.

    “Firing Anthony Cumia is just the icing on the cake. Demand more.”

    Yeah, that’s how you Liberal pricks try to silence those who you don’t agree with..

    I could probably just copy/paste the questions posed to your predecessor, but here goes…
    1. Cumia is not guaranteed a platform to spew his hatred. Sirius was fully within their rights to terminate him. If you think a company cannot fire an employee for hate speech, you’ll need to cite the laws that state that.
    2. Cumia has not been silenced. He has not been prevented from spewing his hatred. He has simply had his platform taken from him. Just bc we all have freedom of speech does not mean we have the right to have our voices heard. We are not guaranteed a platform to speak on. Not to mention, he is perfectly capable of starting a blog, a Twitter account, or a Facebook page, where he can continue spewing the racism that you apparently love.

    You never listen to the show, you never read his tweets, you are just a lemming that follows the outrage committee, jumping in on topics that don’t affect you in the least.

    Why would anyone who is not a racist fuckface want to listen to a guy who says this shit:

    He did, however, call the woman a “fucking c$nt” and later took to Twitter to call black people “animals” and “savages” who “prey on white people” and are inherently violent. He also repeatedly discussed how “lucky” she was that he didn’t shoot her with the gun he was carrying and added that he hopes she gets killed or that “a home boy beats her to death.”

    […]
    “The press will coddle black people. It’s unbelievable the extent the press will go to to try not to offend and try this inclusion.”

    “The fucked up thing is people were getting upset that so many black people were being portrayed as criminals on the news. That’s it. And sorry, there’s a large percentage—it’s disproportionate to the population of this country of black people committing crimes.”

    “Do you understand that people have said that black people can’t be racist because to be racist you need a power base in order to oppress people? You’ve got it, black people! You have the power base. You have the ability with that R-word to fucking ruin people’s lives. Not mine. Haha.”

    “Most of the blacks here in the United States have less of an attachment to slavery than I have to fucking Italy.”

    “They hear slavery and racism and use it as an excuse to take the path of least resistance which is selling drugs and fucking rolling people for money.”

    I don’t care what his show was about. He’s a racist asshole. That’s plenty enough reason to justify firing him. Apparently you don’t think so. That you see no problem with racism shows you to be a shitweasel.

    Just because you don’t like what some people have to say, you are not the thought police, you are nothing in this world.

    No one has expressed any wish to be “thought police”. See you Freeze Peach proponents love to rant and whine about the right of racist scumbags to speak their mind, but when people speak up in opposition, or boycott, or call for someone to be fired–then, all of a sudden, you’re opposed to free speech. Strange how that works. In any case, no one is denying his right to say horrible things. What you don’t understand is that freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to freedom from the consequences of that speech. Express your ideas and you open yourself to criticism. That criticism is free speech too y’know. He said hateful things. People criticized him. Some called for him to be fired. The decision was Sirius’. To be honest, you should be whining to them.

    7 billion people, and you are a speck.

    I know you are but what am I?

    Just because you’re easily offended, and have such a fragile ego that mere words hurt you, don’t take it out on the rest of us who can handle adult topics.

    Oh yes, treating black people as subhuman savages is such an adult topic. Perhaps in the KKK or another white supremacist group that constitutes an “adult topic”, but not for civilized people. Feel free to join the 21st century. You’ll need to take off the white pointy hat first.

    That quote is over 100 years old. It’s a shame that we’ve regressed in modern society

    It’s a shame that freedom of speech is a one way speech for your kind.

  153. says

    My right to free speech is being denied! I demand that Sirius give me a platform to talk about anything I want to. If they do not give me, and everyone else, a show they are obviously against free speech, and if anyone disagrees with this is also horrible, anti-free speech advocate.

  154. says

    Joe Ingram:

    And since your last line had to include profanity, it shows your intelligence level is extremely low and you have no valid points to make.

    People of varying levels of intelligence use harsh language. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, scientists…they use profanity. It has fuck all to do with intellect.
    If you can’t handle it perhaps you should toddle off.

    He is silencing him by telling people to boycott a product. This is a known bullying practice of Liberal crybabies. People who never even use a product, flood the advertisers of said product. The advertisers are too stupid to realize that these morons never even bought the products.

    That’s not silencing.
    Do you know what a dictionary is? Go check one out fool. Cumia is still free to say what he wants. He just can’t do it on Sirius’ dime. Again, if you have a problem with that, talk to them. They fired him. Justifiably. No reasonable company should want to have a racist asshole on their payroll.
    Also, it’s rich to hear a conservative whining about boycotting:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/conservatives-launch-boycott-mozilla-after-gays-pr/
    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/conservative_groups_call_for_national_boycott_of_girl_scout_cookies/
    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/08/24/5-corporations-that-should-be-blacklisted-by-conservatives-n1672317

    You fuckers love your boycotts. As long as it’s intended to pressure companies into discriminating against people. When progressives boycott companies to pressure them into NOT discriminating, you cry foul. That’s because you people despise equality. You hate progress. Black people, gay people, lesbians, transgender people, Hispanics, Muslims, immigrants, senior citizens, children, the poor, the middle class, scientists…oh, and of course women. Conservatives bleed hatred. Unless it’s god or guns. Then you love them.

    The 18th century called, they want you back. We certainly don’t want you.

  155. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @ The Latest Martyr in the Racist Fuckwit Brigade (AKA Joe Ingram)

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

    That quote is over 100 years old. It’s a shame that we’ve regressed in modern society

    I really should stop being impressed by the lack of self-awareness it takes to say shit like this. What do you think we’re doing here, if not exercising our own free speech, dipshit? Just like all the rest, your fervor to defend Freeze Peach only extends to bigots that decent people refuse to support.

  156. says

    Care for some popcorn?

    I am afraid I must get a little bit of work done and go to bed, so I will probably have to miss this and catch up over breakfast.

  157. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Just because you’re easily offended, and have such a fragile ego that mere words hurt you, don’t take it out on the rest of us who can handle adult topics.

    And since your last line had to include profanity, it shows your intelligence level is extremely low and you have no valid points to make.

    Racism and misogyny? Adult topics. Naughty words? QUICK!! WHERE’S THE FAINTING COUCH?!?!

  158. says

    What this fails to recognize is that freedom of unpopular speech must be protected regardless of your own views about that speech. Freedom of speech isn’t conditional to your viewpoint, otherwise we all lose out. Atheist speech is far more reviled by a large group of people and your speech could see the very same fate as what you’re calling for regarding Anthony’s racist remarks.

    You very much have the right to turn the channel and not subscribe to Anthony’s Twitter just as we all should have the right to turn it on if we choose. I think anyone should have a show on SiriusXM if the market demand supports them as an option. What you don’t know is that much of his over the top “racism” is tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek comedy and racial (not racist) commentary. Yes, he may very well be an actual racist underneath the facade but silencing whatever he tries to do as entertainment doesn’t directly deal with racism. It just silences one side of a potential discussion in a failed attempt to bury a problem that still exists in society.

    Why should you or anyone else advocate or demand for him to be silenced from a paid service or any other medium where you have control over what you see and hear? You actually want people to punish a company that has been fairly open with providing a very wide range of content from family friendly to mature adult content. What you advocate for could easily lead to the banning of any atheist friendly content they could broadcast since atheism counter to someone’s perceived norms for a decent American society.

    If I decide I don’t like what you’re saying… I simply won’t read your blog anymore. Following your example, I should advocate your blog to be cancelled and wiped off the Internet. Shame on you!

  159. says

    Racism and misogyny? Adult topics. Naughty words? QUICK!! WHERE’S THE FAINTING COUCH?!?!

    Joe Ingram would likely have wilted in James I court. Sure, James was known for his keen and penetrating mind, but since he swore and was sometimes vulgar during arguments, he must have been extremely unintelligent. “I give not a turd for your preaching.” *faints*

  160. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Jeff Sommers @ 196

    What you don’t know is that much of his over the top “racism” is tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek comedy and racial (not racist) commentary.

    There is no meaningful difference between thinking it’s funny to act like a racist and actually being racist. Sorry (not sorry) to rain on your parade.

    Yes, he may very well be an actual racist underneath the facade but silencing whatever he tries to do as entertainment doesn’t directly deal with racism.

    That would make it sort of not actually a facade, douchebro. Words! How do they work?!

    It just silences one side of a potential discussion in a failed attempt to bury a problem that still exists in society.

    So, we should stop having the discussion we’re having because it stops people having the discussion we’re having. Good thing we have people like you around to explain these things to us.

    Following your example, I should advocate your blog to be cancelled and wiped off the Internet. Shame on you!

    Advocate for whatever the fuck you want. That’s what free speech is. Whether your efforts turn out to be persuasive enough to actually convince anyone to take any action is another question altogether. As is whether your efforts will drown out the noise made by people who want Pharyngula to continue to exist. But go right the fuck ahead. Start a Committee for the Removal of Pharyngula from Teh Interwebs. Nobody will stop you.

  161. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Jeff Sommers

    I think anyone should have a show on SiriusXM if the market demand supports them as an option.

    See this thread?
    That’s market showing that demand for racist bullshit is dropping.

    Why should you or anyone else advocate or demand for him to be silenced from a paid service or any other medium where you have control over what you see and hear?

    Free speech versus free market!
    Who will win in this bullshit tirade?

    Shame on you!

    *hands PZ a box of tissues*
    Don’t cry, PZ! I’m sure he didn’t mean it like that.

  162. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I think anyone should have a show on SiriusXM if the market demand supports them as an option.

    We’re part of the market, shitwit. Expressing our lack of support for satellite radio shows hosted by virulently racist and misogynist shock jocks.

    I often wonder what the world would be like if people like you were actually able to follow your own reasoning farther than one fucking sentence.

  163. says

    Jeff Sommers

    What this fails to recognize is that freedom of unpopular speech must be protected regardless of your own views about that speech

    Look, the next person who doesn’t understand that freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences.
    You know, I have no duty to support people and companies whose vales are contrary to everything I believe in and stand for. And I am allowed to have that position even if every fuckwit thinks that I must unconditionally support each and every hateful racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe who has a platform. Why am I not allowed to enter the pulpit in a catholic church and tell the congregation how awesome abortions are? Help, my free speech is being denied!!!

  164. says

    I personally don’t like the racism but if Anthony is racist or not doesn’t actually matter regarding what’s advocated for here. I guess this “shitwit” needs to boil this down into a simpler point about how true free speech works in a free market.

    1. Advocate all you want for everyone else that thinks like you (minority or majority view) to turn the channel and diminish an audience to the point that a company won’t carry it. I see no issue with boycotts setup to simply reduce an audience through awareness and then people exercising a personal choice to tune in or not.

    2. DON’T advocate that a person is fired, a show is canceled, a company is boycotted, etc. where an entire channel, platform, or medium is under attack from a vocal minority or even a majority (how about that wonderful religious majority we all love so much?) with the goal of silencing anyone.

    Those tactics setup the precedence that a vocal minority can silence the majority or vice versa. A free market isn’t about one segment of society dictating what everyone has access to get. Obviously we can all express an opinion but our collective voice suffers every time personal choice is squashed by these kinds of tactics.

    I definitely want Pharyngula to continue and was using that as an example of why this type of advocacy is severely flawed if you’re the least bit interested in freedom of speech.

  165. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I guess this “shitwit” needs to boil this down into a simpler point about how true free speech works in a free market.

    DON’T advocate that…

    So free speech in a free market works via you telling people who aren’t you what they’re allowed to advocate for?

    I definitely want Pharyngula to continue and was using that as an example of why this type of advocacy is severely flawed if you’re the least bit interested in freedom of speech.

    You’re the one telling us to shut up so that the virulently racist and misogynist shock jock can keep being a virulently racist and misogynist shockjock, fuckwit.

  166. says

    A free market isn’t about one segment of society dictating what everyone has access to get.

    This is so much the opposite of what is actually happening that it’s actually funny.
    Do you even know what a media emporium is? Ever heard of some giy called Murdoch. Right now a very small minority IS dictating what everybody else has access to.
    Let me guess, jeff Summers, you’re libertarian, right?

  167. says

    Freedom of speech is definitely not freedom of consequences and that’s why I’m pointing out the long term consequences of this type of advocacy to silence speech. It’s shortsighted and sad whenever people jump on this bandwagon thinking it will actually do anything to squash “bad ideas” in our society. You haven’t even discussed the hardcore explicit rap channels on SiriusXM and the ideas they spread. What about the religious channels that most readers disagree with? There’s also an LGBT channel that plenty of people in society would want silenced. Maybe only the classical music channel would survive the purge many of you want in the interest of “good” speech…

  168. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    It’s shortsighted and sad whenever people jump on this bandwagon thinking it will actually do anything to squash “bad ideas” in our society.

    How does vocal disapproval of a harmful attitude not help make that attitude less socially acceptible?

    You haven’t even discussed the hardcore explicit rap channels on SiriusXM and the ideas they spread.

    In this thread? Of course we haven’t because that’s not what this thread is about. With regard to the bad ideas they spread, be a little more specific and then we can look at whether that’s ever been discussed in other threads.

    There’s also an LGBT channel that plenty of people in society would want silenced.

    And? I mean are you seriously saying that we should shut up so that people who disagree with us don’t get the idea in their heads that they could advocate for others not to support something they disapprove of? Leaving aside the fact that bigots hardly need anyone to tell them that, it’s sort of the exact fucking opposite of free speech.

  169. says

    Freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to your own radio show. This racist scumbag still enjoys full freedom of speech. He can still state his opinions on exactly the same footing as everyone else.

  170. says

    YES, this is just my advice and view on advocacy regarding free speech. I can’t tell you what to do or think anymore than the next guy can. Yes, I know this blog post has the same potential for lack of an impact and none of us are forcing anyone to do anything. I’m pointing out the potential consequences for the tactics PZ Myer’s put here. The responses about how I’m such a shitwit incapable of understanding how everything here is free speech is comical. I’m not telling anyone to shut up and am just saying these particular tactics to silence people are severely flawed and what the better tactics should be if you’re truly interested in preserving mine and your’s free speech.

    One consequence is that SiriusXM will censor themselves in the future and pay much more attention to what they broadcast. You think that’s great and I see the dark side of it. They’ll be more proactive about their corporate image and message is just like Murdoch instead of just being a distribution platform which is sort of what they’ve been. If they continue down this road then they’ll just cancel everything controversial or getting a little bad press and it’ll get reduced to whatever a bland generic society can best tolerate. My biggest worry is when they come after the unbelievers and nobody will be left to speak for us…

  171. Snoof says

    One consequence is that SiriusXM will censor themselves in the future and pay much more attention to what they broadcast.

    You think they don’t already?

  172. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    One consequence is that SiriusXM will censor themselves in the future and pay much more attention to what they broadcast.

    Um… yay!

    My biggest worry is when they come after the unbelievers and nobody will be left to speak for us…

    Yeah, you’ll totally get put into a concentration camp or beaten to death in prison. Fuck off.

  173. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    YES, this is just my advice and view on advocacy regarding free speech.

    It’s not free speech if everyone feels obligated to say NOTHING AT ALL because “OMG what if it occurs to someone who disagrees with me to speak up about it?”

    If they continue down this road then they’ll just cancel everything controversial or getting a little bad press and it’ll get reduced to whatever a bland generic society can best tolerate

    Citation needed.

    My biggest worry is when they come after the unbelievers and nobody will be left to speak for us…

    Ah, so you’re a bog standard concern troll. We’ll just feel free to ignore you altogether then, shall we?

  174. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    BLOCKQUOTES!!

    The 3rd to last line and the last line in #211 are me. The rest is Jeff Sommers.

  175. says

    I’m not saying anyone here should shut up. I’m saying you should really think through the tactics for your objections so free speech isn’t inadvertently harmed in the process. Please, vocally condemn the words, thoughts, and deeds. Definitely say people shouldn’t be listening to it or supporting such content. Plenty of religious people say all of these things about atheists.

    Firing the person and punishing the company or executives makes everyone think twice about even approaching a controversial subject, let alone talking openly about such things. Religious people could just as easily advocate for the firing and punishing of a company for allowing openly atheist content since they view it as highly offensive. Unfortunately we can’t pick and choose what should be protected as free speech. I can condemn the words and ideas without trying to yank a person from the public and a job. Fine, he’s fired, but it doesn’t solve anything other than continue the attack on free speech where everyone will eventually suffer.

  176. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I’m not saying anyone here should shut up.

    No, you just saying that we should only talk up to the point where someone might actually act on what we say and change their behavior for the better.

    Definitely say people shouldn’t be listening to it or supporting such content.

    So you really are this fucking dense, are you? What constitutes supporting, eh? Perhaps continuing to pay for a subscription to a service that hosts a racist broadcast? Perhaps continuing to allow a virulently racist and misogynist person to use the platform you provide to spew racist and misogynist ideas?

    Fine, he’s fired, but it doesn’t solve anything other than continue the attack on free speech where everyone will eventually suffer.

    Nobody’s free speech is being attacked. Jesus fuck. Free speech does not entitle anyone to a fucking radio show. Racist fuckwit’s speech is just as fucking free now as it was before he got fired.

  177. says

    You’re saying racism consumes the entirety of a person’s identity and that the only thing he had to contribute to a radio show was to spout racism with every word? Hmm, so if someone went on an atheist rant on Twitter and the majority says it’s unacceptable then they wouldn’t be entitled to a radio show regardless of what that show was about or what their non-atheist contributions might be?

    Free speech is under attack if you want to completely silence someone for some of the things they say. The host isn’t as free as he was. He lost his talk show job because of what he wrote on his personal Twitter. The company has the right to do it but there will be less free speech the more we see this response happen in an overly sensitive society. Enjoy your cussing now because this sort of thing will turn the country into a bunch of pussies that won’t tolerate that kind of language either since someone might get offended.

  178. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    Yes dear god, just don’t let t’the nation’ become women! Thats just not on.

    Lawks, the density of some.

  179. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    You’re saying racism consumes the entirety of a person’s identity and that the only thing he had to contribute to a radio show was to spout racism with every word?

    No.

    Hmm, so if someone went on an atheist rant on Twitter and the majority says it’s unacceptable then they wouldn’t be entitled to a radio show regardless of what that show was about or what their non-atheist contributions might be?

    1) Do you know what “entitled” means? I think you don’t. It means that, if something you’re not entitled to gets taken away, your rights have not been violated.

    2) If whoever hosted their show came to the conclusion that continuing to host it was not in their best interests based on the reaction people had to this hypothetical atheist rant then that host would be entirely within their rights to fire them. If I disapproved of that then I might stop watching or cancel my subscription or write them a letter or whatever. And so might others. And then the host would, in turn, respond however they saw fit. That’s how free speech works.

    3) If the host felt the benefit of their non-atheist contributions didn’t outweigh the damage caused by their atheist ones, then their non-atheist contributions wouldn’t be enough to justify keeping them employed. Similarly, SiriusXM apparently felt that Cumia’s non-racist contributions don’t outweigh the harm caused (whether to PoC or to their business) by his racist contributions. Hence they cut ties with him.

    Free speech is under attack if you want to completely silence someone for some of the things they say.

    Well, it’s a good thing that getting fired from a radio show doesn’t completely silence anyone, then.

    He lost his talk show job because of what he wrote on his personal Twitter. The company has the right to do it but there will be less free speech the more we see this response happen in an overly sensitive society.

    They didn’t stop him from saying a single gods damned thing. They stopped him from saying it as a member of their organization. Also, can the “overly sensitive” bullshit. Refusing to tolerate rabid bigotry is not “overly sensitive.”

    Enjoy your cussing now because this sort of thing will turn the country into a bunch of pussies that won’t tolerate that kind of language either since someone might get offended.

    1) Grab your fainting couch because I’m about to be overly sensitive: kindly don’t use words that refer to female body parts as synonyms for “weak.”

    2) It’s not about offense. It’s about not perpetuating bigotry.

  180. zenlike says

    202 Jeff Sommers

    2. DON’T advocate that a person is fired, a show is canceled, a company is boycotted, etc. where an entire channel, platform, or medium is under attack from a vocal minority or even a majority (how about that wonderful religious majority we all love so much?) with the goal of silencing anyone.

    213 Jeff Sommers

    I’m not saying anyone here should shut up.

    You really don’t understand words do you? Yes, in 202 you definitely are saying people should shut up, at least about certain things.

    I find it very curious that you would not only defend the right of free speech of a bigot, but even defend their right to a (paid!) platform, yet you are on the other hand trying to stipulate what the other side can say.

    Diagnosis: freez peach idiot who doesn’t understand free speech at all.

    Free speech is under attack if you want to completely silence someone for some of the things they say.

    Dishonest bullshit. Your favorit bigot can continue spouting his bullshit in real life to people, he can make a website shouting his bullshit, he can start his own podcast, he can write books. In no way was he ‘completely silenced’.

    Again, you don’t understand free speech at all.

  181. says

    Hmm, so if someone went on an atheist rant on Twitter and the majority says it’s unacceptable then they wouldn’t be entitled to a radio show…

    Nobody is ever entitled to a radio show. It doesn’t matter what people think or what opinions they espouse; having a radio show isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, a protected right.

    Until you understand this simple point, I don’t think you can expect to be taken seriously.

  182. says

    Don’t use the word “pussies” as meaning weak? Sure, “fuckwit.” LOL I don’t usually use the word pussies to refer to female body parts and you did understand the meaning I conveyed with it. I guess you’re all for people playing language police and dictating not only what people can say but apparently how we think as well.

    Congrats, you’re the judge and jury of bigotry as well as offensive language. Enjoy your lynch mob mentality until you’re on the receiving end of it. Hopefully none of you will ever have to understand the relationship between firing that host and what could happen to any of us in our jobs or lives whether it’s one misstep or a pattern of behavior. We may not like bigots but it isn’t illegal for someone to have those ideas as long as the person isn’t practicing illegal discrimination. There is a difference.

    Seven’s post 218 is a more reasonable sequence of actual events with personal choices to tune it out. However, the gist of this blog post was to not just get pitchforks and torches to pressure the company to fire the host but to also make sure the company suffers for hiring him in the first place. The host was apparently doing the job they hired him for, which was to be a controversial and shocking talk host. I guess he did that a little too well.

    The KKK is abhorrent but they still have a right to assemble and freedom of speech if we uphold the ideals of liberty. We only squash their activities and fire their members from jobs when they do something illegal. It may sound nicer to say we should jail them all just because they’re KKK and might do something illegal with their foul ideas but that’s not how a free society operates. SiriusXM could have just said the views of the host are his own and do not reflect the company. Period. That’s all that’s ever needed for a controversial talk show regardless of the subject.

    I guess there isn’t much reality around here in this Utopian view of good thoughts and sunshine…

  183. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    However, the gist of this blog post was to not just get pitchforks and torches to pressure the company to fire the host but to also make sure the company suffers for hiring him in the first place.

    By doing the exact same thing I described in 218 as reasonable.

    It may sound nicer to say we should jail them all just because they’re KKK and might do something illegal with their foul ideas but that’s not how a free society operates.

    And to whom do you think that sounds nicer?

    That’s all that’s ever needed for a controversial talk show regardless of the subject.

    SiriusXM clearly disagrees with you.

  184. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    By doing the exact same thing I described in 218 as reasonable.

    This from #222 should read: By doing the exact same thing I described in #218 which you (“you” being Jeff Sommers) said was reasonable.

  185. twas brillig (stevem) says

    “personal Twitter”
    Wha? Is Twitter (I don’t tweet) some kind of online diary that can be a personal repository of all of one’s thoughts, no matter how disgusting/racist/sexist/*ist??? And it is “silencing free speech” to tell, eg. FoxNews that BillO is a piece of crap and refuse to watch his show? Don’t the listeners have the free speech to talk back to the providers of the radio show and say, “I will not pay for your Radio Programs, anymore.” Don’t they have the free speech to say, “Please, don’t go away, we’ll fire that guy.We want your $$$” ?
    And notice, refusing to pay to listen to someone’s speech, means his speech ain’t free, by definition. You saying we have to pay for, and listen to, his tirades in order to protect free speech? That by not paying for his tirade broadcasts we will gag everyone from ever saying anything negative about anyone? What color is the sky on your planet?

  186. Al Dente says

    Free speech is under attack if you want to completely silence someone for some of the things they say. The host isn’t as free as he was.

    You’re trying to silence us because we’re objecting to a racist misogynist spewing his bigotry. What about our free speech? Or doesn’t that count?

    @221

    LOL I don’t usually use the word pussies to refer to female body parts and you did understand the meaning I conveyed with it.

    Sure we understand your meaning. You’re making a sexist slur, calling people a slang term for vagina because you think women ain’t shit. That’s the meaning you conveyed to us, you misogynist fuckwit.

  187. says

    We may not like bigots but it isn’t illegal for someone to have those ideas as long as the person isn’t practicing illegal discrimination.

    Nobody has said it was, nor proposed that it should be.

    You keep doing that; slipping in those dishonest accusations against people here; distorting what we’re plainly saying and refusing to acknowledge when you’re corrected on it. Makes me wonder if you’re really approaching this discussion in good faith.

  188. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If I decide I don’t like what you’re saying… I simply won’t read your blog anymore. Following your example, I should advocate your blog to be cancelled and wiped off the Internet. Shame on you!

    Did you even read the OP. PZ said he shouldn’t be fired. But SiriusXM need to have their feet held to the fire for allowing racist (and they are racist, not comedy) remarks go unnoticed by an employee on company time.
    Free speech means we can and will criticize speech by bigots. You appear to believe in Freeze Peach, where nobody can be criticized for what they say. In other words, we lose the free speech to criticize. That isn’t real freedom of speech, and you know that.

  189. Nick Gotts says

    Enjoy your lynch mob mentality – Jeff Somers

    To use that ludicrous metaphor in defending the organization broadcasting the filthy tirades of a racist sucmbag like Cumia takes a degree of oblivious stupidity and lack of self-awareness that is truly awesome.

  190. Louis says

    Tony, #179

    This may help understand the UK use of the term. (Which I’m betting you already understand, I just like the excuse to post it!)

    Link is NSFW and quality is poor.

    Louis

  191. Louis says

    There’s a lynch mob and I missed it?

    Oh for fuck’s sake!

    Every time I hear about a lynch mob I’m never in time. All I see are some negative comments and news stories on the internet, with varying degrees of intemperateness. You know, nothing like an actual lynch mob which, and the irony of the choice of that term should be lost on no one, kills people.

    Louis

  192. Lofty says

    As I understand it, PZ may just show up in this thread, and comprehensively lynch, destroy, immolate, emasculate and destroy the freezed peaches of Jeff Sommers by banning his sorry ‘nym from his blog. Will Jeffy ever be able to stand the pain? How will he cope with such violations of his roights? Or will he just go somewhere else to type his turds of right wing wisdom???

  193. Snoof says

    Jeff Sommers @ 202

    A free market isn’t about one segment of society dictating what everyone has access to get. Obviously we can all express an opinion but our collective voice suffers every time personal choice is squashed by these kinds of tactics.

    Are you even familiar with how the media works? The only people who are “dictating what everyone has access to” here are the management of Sirius XM. They’re the ones who’re making the decision as to whether Cumia gets a radio program. The power is, quite literally, theirs.

    The only thing other people are doing is saying (with their freedom of speech) that they will not continue to pay money to Sirius XM if Cumia keeps his show. This isn’t intimidation, this is exactly how the “free market” works. To argue otherwise is to suggest that people should be forced to pay money for a service they don’t want.

  194. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Jeff Sommers,
    So is my free speech being violated because I don’t have a radio show of my own? Does everyone require their own radio show to have free speech?

    Maybe you want to think this through a bit more. In actuality, giving a platform to irresponsible and reprehensible speech can cause great harm. It can give dimwits the mistaken impression that such speech is mainstream or worthy of respect. This is precisely what we have seen with racist and misogynist speech now again becoming mainstream.

    Yes, everyone can say whatever they want. No, I don’t have to listen to them, and I certainly don’t have to give them a platform to reach a wider audience. And I reserve the right to laugh them right out of the Overton Window.

  195. Rey Fox says

    This isn’t intimidation, this is exactly how the “free market” works.

    They love the Free Market, right up until they become the losers in it, then they whine for special protection from somewhere. Kinda shows how little they know about the market and how government control and regulations actually maintain and preserve what we think of as a “free” market.

  196. FossilFishy (NOBODY, and proud of it!) says

    Hey Jeff Sommers!
    Here.
    [hands Jeff a tub of lard]
    Thought you might need some lube for that slippery slope of yours.

  197. microraptor says

    I say we take all this Freeze Peach, dice it up, and put it on ice cream.

  198. says

    Yes, a “personal” twitter account which means it isn’t officially associated with SiriusXM or the person’s employment with that company. He wasn’t speaking for the company and it wasn’t on company time. Even if he were to spout off on the radio program itself, the company can state a disclaimer that the views aren’t the companies just like on any of the political channels, rap channels, etc. and let the show be whatever it is as long as there’s an audience.

    Targeting SiriusXM as a multi-channel pay radio service is like targeting your cable company because you really hate FoxNews, MSNBC, or a specific show on either. You may say it’s not your fault he got fired when it’s groups of people like this that causes people to be fired for LEGAL speech. Boycotting an entire platform because of one little channel can have an impact and it’s bigger than just getting rid of the things on it you don’t like. It perpetuates the power for others to get rid of the things you like. We could all be adults and just turn the channel if you don’t like it.

    Did you read the OP? It ends with “Firing Anthony Cumia is just the icing on the cake. Demand more.” This blog post calls for making the company suffer for selling shocking adult material to the people that want that kind of dark comedy. Where’s your free speech and free market if you’re trying to interfere with everyone else’s right to hear and read what they want? Turn the channel if you don’t like it!

    Why do any of you care if he’s on a pay radio service channel you don’t even listen to? If you’ve never listened and only know about this because of a news story, then why stick your noses in it? If this post and these comments hadn’t stuck their nose in a show that is mostly about a cringe inducing type of comedy (despite the occasional racial talk) then I wouldn’t need to write here about it. It’s really none of your damn business if you’re not a listener of the show.

    I’ve never said the criticism of the host and racism aren’t valid criticisms. Go for it. Rant about that all day. I’ve only ever said that SiriusXM shouldn’t be boycotted and he shouldn’t be fired because people that don’t even listen to the show don’t like a news story about one of the hosts. They don’t need any special protections in the free market. Just know that the same tactics can and will be used on content or people you think are acceptable. If you’re godless, then you should know morality can’t be policed like this and there is the real slippery slope you’re sliding down.

  199. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    This blog post calls for making the company suffer for selling shocking adult material to the people that want that kind of dark comedy.

    Racist material is adult. It is bigotry.

    Why do any of you care if he’s on a pay radio service channel you don’t even listen to?

    Non-squitur. The real question is should he have been on the air in the first place?

    I’ve only ever said that SiriusXM shouldn’t be boycotted and he shouldn’t be fired because people that don’t even listen to the show don’t like a news story about one of the hosts.

    Who gives a shit what a Freeze Peach fuckwit thinks? Since they obviously don’t. Nobody has to give bigots a platform. A company does it, and they can be taken to task for doing so. That is everybody engaging in their Free Speech. Just like you did with your inane and stupid apologetics.

  200. Nick Gotts says

    Why do any of you care if he’s on a pay radio service channel you don’t even listen to? – Jeff Somers

    Stone me, but you’re stupid. Bigot-speech has an effect dumbcluck. That’s the fucking point of it. It is intended to frighten and humiliate its targets, and to encourage fellow-bigots to act on their hatred.

    I’ve only ever said that SiriusXM shouldn’t be boycotted and he shouldn’t be fired because people that don’t even listen to the show don’t like a news story about one of the hosts. They don’t need any special protections in the free market.

    I know other people have pointed this out to you, but given your extreme stupidity, maybe one more repetition will get it through the concrete: calling for sackings is free speech, and boycotts are a market mechanism.

    Just know that the same tactics can and will be used on content or people you think are acceptable.

    You say that like there’s some possibility the same tactics won’t be used by others if we refrain from them. You have, of course, zero evidence for that.

    If you’re godless, then you should know morality can’t be policed like this

    Stupider and stupider. Given that there’s no divine finger-wagger, public opinion is the only way morality can be upheld, short of actually make something illegal. You may be content with polite expressions of disagreement with race hate diatribes, but other people actually care about the issue enough to try and do something more effective.

  201. says

    Who spilled all these frozen peaches? I’d suggest smoothies, but they smell a little off, and they’re probably sour.

    What is it about the concept that free speech works both ways that is so hard to comprehend?

  202. says

    I’ve never said the criticism of the host and racism aren’t valid criticisms. Go for it. Rant about that all day. I’ve only ever said that SiriusXM shouldn’t be boycotted…

    – Are we allowed to complain about his behavior?
    – Are we allowed to choose not to support the station financially as long as he’s working for them?
    – Are we allowed to inform the station of such a decision?
    – Are we allowed to express that opinion to other people and attempt to convince them to do the same?

    If you answered “no” to any of these, you’re the one trying to limit free speech.

    If you answered “yes” to all of them, then please explain the difference between doing these things and organizing a boycott.

  203. Snoof says

    Jeff Sommers @ 238

    It’s really none of your damn business if you’re not a listener of the show.

    Are we to infer that you are a listener of the show?

  204. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Targeting SiriusXM as a multi-channel pay radio service is like targeting your cable company because you really hate FoxNews, MSNBC, or a specific show on either.

    I cancelled my cable subscription because I don’t want to pay $90/mo for a gazillion channels worth of tripe when I can pay $15/mo for Netflix and still have more content than I could ever find time to watch. How would cancelling a cable subscription because you strongly disapprove of a particular channel be any different? People have the right to decide what to do with their own money for whatever reasons they see fit.

    Why do any of you care if he’s on a pay radio service channel you don’t even listen to? If you’ve never listened and only know about this because of a news story, then why stick your noses in it? If this post and these comments hadn’t stuck their nose in a show that is mostly about a cringe inducing type of comedy (despite the occasional racial talk) then I wouldn’t need to write here about it. It’s really none of your damn business if you’re not a listener of the show.

    This paragraph is so myopic it’s breathtaking.

    I’ve only ever said that SiriusXM shouldn’t be boycotted and he shouldn’t be fired because people that don’t even listen to the show don’t like a news story about one of the hosts.

    So don’t fucking boycott them. The rest of us will use our own judgement about what we do or don’t spend our money on and why. And you can fuck right the fuck off if you don’t like it.

    Just know that the same tactics can and will be used on content or people you think are acceptable.

    Are you actually laboring under the delusion that we don’t already know this OR that we care? People have the right to vote with their wallets. If people boycott content I approve of and get it canceled, there are actions I can then take to show my disapproval. That’s free speech in action. What you’re advocating is that nobody ever do anything that could actually result in change because “ohnoes the people who disagree with you might also exercise that right.”

  205. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    Those tactics setup the precedence that a vocal minority can silence the majority or vice versa. A free market isn’t about one segment of society dictating what everyone has access to get. Obviously we can all express an opinion but our collective voice suffers every time personal choice is squashed by these kinds of tactics.

    Where do you free speech advocates get your definition of silenced from? It’s the most bizarre definition I’ve heard of. Apparently, to you folks, silenced means “prevented from having a platform to speak from”. That’s NOT silencing. Cumia can still spew his bullshit from Twitter, Facebook, or he can start a blog. He can create YouTube videos if he wants. He has not, in any way been silenced.
    Wait, it’s about entitlement, isn’t it? You folks seem to think people are entitled to a platform to say what they want. That isn’t how free speech works. You can say what you want (within limits as determined by SCOTUS), but you don’t have a right to use a platform devised by other people. If you’re at a bbq at a friends house and drop the N* word & they don’t like it, they can kick you out. You’re not being silenced bc you can still say that word all you want. Their house, their rules. Just like here. When PZ bans someone for saying offensive shit, he’s not silencing them. He’s not preventing them from saying what they want. He’s simply not allowing them to say that shit *here*. Free speech carries no guarantee of being able to say what you want *wherever* you want.
    So no, Cumia is not guaranteed to have a place at Sirius to say what he wants. That’s what’s got you folks all pissed off. You think he does. You have this bizarre notion of free speech borne out of entitlement (oh, and it only works one way for so many of you; Cumia gets to say what he wants while we can’t criticize him).

    Also, as I’m sure people have pointed out, just bc you have free speech doesn’t mean there’s a guarantee that there won’t be consequences. The *government* cannot retaliate against critical speech directed their way (and even *that* isn’t absolute), but Sirius is not the government. Cumia said offensive shit, over and over again. People complained. Sirius chose to fire him. Absolutely nothing was done wrong in this situation.

    Don’t use the word “pussies” as meaning weak? Sure, “fuckwit.” LOL I don’t usually use the word pussies to refer to female body parts and you did understand the meaning I conveyed with it. I guess you’re all for people playing language police and dictating not only what people can say but apparently how we think as well.

    The word is a bigoted slur. Those are prohibited here.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/rules/
    I. Your post will be edited if:
    You use bigoted slurs.
    […]

    IV. You will be banned from the blog if:
    […]
    3. You use bigoted slurs.

    This is PZ’s space and he has the right to regulate it how he chooses. That includes prohibitions on the type of language used.

    Enjoy your lynch mob mentality until you’re on the receiving end of it.

    Vocally criticizing people = lynch mob? You’re a goddamned hyperbolic fool. Worse, actually, because that’s a disgusting comparison. Black people died from being lynched. No one has died because they were criticized.

    SiriusXM could have just said the views of the host are his own and do not reflect the company. Period. That’s all that’s ever needed for a controversial talk show regardless of the subject.

    Now you’re trying to tell us that you’re in charge of the circumstances under which Sirius can fire someone? FFS you’re deeply wrong.

    Did you read the OP? It ends with “Firing Anthony Cumia is just the icing on the cake. Demand more.” This blog post calls for making the company suffer for selling shocking adult material to the people that want that kind of dark comedy. Where’s your free speech and free market if you’re trying to interfere with everyone else’s right to hear and read what they want? Turn the channel if you don’t like it!

    What definition of free speech includes the right to be heard?

    The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

    The definition of free speech does not include “entitlement to be heard by others”, nor does it contain “the right of people to hear the speech of a particular individual or individuals”.

    Just know that the same tactics can and will be used on content or people you think are acceptable. If you’re godless, then you should know morality can’t be policed like this and there is the real slippery slope you’re sliding down.

    Thanks for the condescension ya idjit. We know that already. Conservatives employ this tactic frequently, as seen in all the whining about “don’t support this company bc they endorse marriage equality”.

    Next time you try educating people, know what you’re talking about first.

  206. says

    Back at #5, Peter Dunleavy said this:

    I disapprove of a lot of the things Anthony Cumia says but I defend to the death his right to say it.

    I wonder, would Peter go this far to protect the free speech of others?

    In June 1996 a branch of the Ku Klux Klan announced plans to hold a rally in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Several people in the Ann Arbor area planned to hold a protest against the Ku Klux Klan’s presence on the day of the rally. Thomas was one of several people that attended and protested from an area that had been fenced and set aside for the protesters. The protest proceeded until one protester announced over a megaphone that there was “a Klansman in the crowd”. The unnamed man was a middle-aged white male wearing a t-shirt depicting the Confederate flag and an “SS tattoo”. The man began to run but was knocked down, kicked, and beaten with placards. Thomas, who was at that time 18-years-old, shielded the man from the crowd and shouted for the attackers to stop. Shortly after that point the police arrived on the scene. A news report stated that seven anti-Klansmen protesters were arrested at the event and a large group of protesters were tear gassed after they attempted to enter the police station where fifteen Klansmen were being kept for their safety. The police later reported that the man was not a Klan member.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keshia_Thomas
    https://www.facebook.com/amightygirl/photos/a.360833590619627.72897.316489315054055/647802188589431/?type=1&fref=nf

    For anyone interested, there’s a powerful photo at either link showing this mighty girl protecting in action. Wow.

  207. neverjaunty says

    Just know that the same tactics can and will be used on content or people you think are acceptable.

    Oh, the veiled threats – as if those “same tactics” have not already been used by racists, bigots and reactionaries forever. Your complete ignorance about the history of boycotts and protests is as revealing as it is sad.

  208. says

    If you’re godless, then you should know morality can’t be policed like this

    Oh FFS. Of course behaviour can be policed, that’s beyond obvious. That’s why there are things called laws. There’s also societal consensus, where people decide certain behaviours are unacceptable, like spouting racism and/or funding racism.

    If you’re an atheist, here’s a little tip: you aren’t helping.

  209. says

    Jeff:

    Targeting SiriusXM as a multi-channel pay radio service is like targeting your cable company because you really hate FoxNews, MSNBC, or a specific show on either.

    Yes, and? Perhaps Sirius will get the idea that the majority of its listeners don’t think rabid racism and misogyny is funny, and act on that idea by hiring people who are actually funny and fun to listen to, which would be good. Sirius isn’t going to fold because people boycott, y’know, so just what is it you’re all worried about?

    I live rural, and was stuck with a certain satellite company for television. I didn’t much care for their practices, so I canceled it. A lot of other people have done the same, or switched to a different company. That’s the way it goes, Cupcake. People have the right to say where their money goes. I thought you were in favour of that sort of thing.

  210. kayden says

    @Jeff Sommers #238

    “It’s really none of your damn business if you’re not a listener of the show.”

    Actually as a Black woman, racist comments directed at Black women are my business whether I listen to the show or not.

    Very glad to hear that Cumia has been fired and if Sirius XM replaces him with another racist idiot, I would advocate boycotting their service until they get the message that racism is not a viable way to make money. I don’t care about the free speech rights of racists. Period.

  211. says

    It’s really none of your damn business if you’re not a listener of the show.

    It’s really none of your damn business who we choose to boycott or publicly excoriate either.

  212. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    It’s really none of your damn business if you’re not a listener of the show.

    Really? How does that work, exactly? Is it okely dokely for listeners or former listeners of that show to criticise, mock, and boycott? Or would you find some handy frozen peach reason to say no to that, too?

    The society I live in is my business, Jeff. I’ll speak out as I see fit, and I’ll take what actions I see fit as well. I don’t see how that’s any of your damn business.

  213. says

    PZ Myers
    ”Do you know anyone who listens to that Opie & Anthony crap? Repudiate them, publicly and unabashedly. Let them know that they are also terrible human beings for giving an audience to racists.” PZ… I have been listening for 20 years. You have some nerve! You are just as bad as any other racist! You have a lot of nerve categorizing All Opie and Anthony fans as terrible human beings, and racist. One thing I know about you, is YOU are a pile of shit! So I guess that would classify you as all of the above yourself.

  214. says

    David Slatton:

    PZ… I have been listening for 20 years.

    That says quite a lot about you, David. It’s not good.

    You have some nerve!

    Hmmm…you say, to PZ:

    One thing I know about you, is YOU are a pile of shit!

    Goodness, you have some nerve, David!

    Y’know, if you, as a listener of racist shite for 20 years isn’t ashamed of listening to racist shite for 20 years, why do you all react so badly when you are described accurately? (Oh, and before you say, I’m sure you’d let a black person use your bathroom. We know.)

  215. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    All Opie and Anthony fans as terrible human beings, and racist.

    And why should we take your obviously unbiased *snicker* opinion of that? Why do those engaging in mild bigotry hate to be called bigots? If you don’t like the label, don’t engage in the behavior, no matter how mild.

  216. zenlike says

    Wow, that’s already 5 Opie fans barging in here, all huffing and puffing, not understanding racism, free speech, logic or basic decency.

    And all 5 are proud to post under their own name linked to their Facebook account.

    What a nice post-racist society we live in, where the racists are few and ashamed to come out as such.

  217. says

    @David Slatton
    Before we get all up in each other’s faces, let’s make sure we know what we’re disagreeing about:

    – Are you denying the accusation of racism against the host?
    – If not, are you objecting to criticizing people for giving a racist an audience and excusing his racism?
    – If not, what exactly are you objecting to?

  218. zenlike says

    And David Slatton, since you accuse PZ of being racist, let me just say that you don’t know what that word means at all, and that, yes, it probably means you are one. Congratulations, asshole.

  219. zenlike says

    Well LykeX, since David said this doozy:

    You are just as bad as any other racist!

    I’m going to pretty much assume David is an idiot, and probably a bigoted piece of shit himself.

    And he is a fan of the idiotic movie Persecuted, he shares right-wing talking points likes links godhatesfags on his Facebook page, and is a christian and patriot.

    Yeah, I think I’m spot on with my analysis of David being a bigoted waste of skin.

  220. says

    LykeX:

    - If not, what exactly are you objecting to?

    That all faithful listeners of Opie and Anthony are characterized as terrible human beings for giving an audience to racists.

    David Slatton obviously objects to being called a terrible human being, even though he has supported a racist show for 20 years. (Of course, he might not think that show was racist either…)

  221. says

    Zenlike:

    I’m going to pretty much assume

    Well, since Mr. Slatton logged in through FB, someone with an account could go have a gander.

  222. says

    David Slatton:

    PZ… I have been listening for 20 years. You have some nerve! You are just as bad as any other racist! You have a lot of nerve categorizing All Opie and Anthony fans as terrible human beings, and racist. One thing I know about you, is YOU are a pile of shit! So I guess that would classify you as all of the above yourself.

    Why are you defending racist assholes? Are you a racist asshole, and feel the need to defend your tribe?

  223. zenlike says

    263 Inaji

    Well, since Mr. Slatton logged in through FB, someone with an account could go have a gander.

    Well, I have, and as I said: pretty much standard ‘true partriot’ christian right winger: loves idiotic propaganda movies like Persecuted, haters Obama, loves Reagan, loves guns, yadda yadda.

  224. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    David Slatton FB page is charming. He hit the racist, misogynist, homophobe trifecta within about 10 wall posts. I don’t recommend looking unless you have spare spoons.

  225. says

    @Inaji

    That all faithful listeners of Opie and Anthony are characterized as terrible human beings for giving an audience to racists.

    Right. Obviously, the next step is to ask him to justify that position. Seems to me that faithfully listening to a racist is a pretty good reason to criticizing someone.

    Well, since Mr. Slatton logged in through FB, someone with an account could go have a gander.

    A few days ago, he shared this photo. If anyone can’t see it, it’s showing Obama as “my little phony” with his cutie mark being a crossed out american flag.

    It’s not a single case, either. His feed also includes things like a link to a Westboro Baptist flier and various sexist memes. He’s a piece of work, alright.

  226. unclefrogy says

    check me if I.m mistaken. Are not the commentators who often show up here from out there, the one time voices , mostly complain about what PZ said and complain in similar ways with some variation of defending free speech. They seldom ever address the content or the issue involved.
    It’s like they know they do not have a leg to stand on with regards to the issue and just have a go at the critics and their right to criticize.
    very tiresome. and rather boooooring to read.
    uncle frogy

  227. says

    unclefrogy:
    Sometimes they’re hit and run commenters. Sometimes not. Peter Dunleavy commented several times in this thread, until people started using teh naughty words. Pazvante would probably have kept making inane comments (which he did a lot of all while failing to properly read responses) if PZ had not banned him. Jeff Sommers appears to have flounced, and David Slatton looks to be a 1-n-done.

    And yeah, there are some of them that don’t address the substance of the post. David Slatton is one of those. Just whining about free speech.

    Of course, one thing this crop all has in common-no matter how much or how little they post, they do not understand free speech.

  228. Rey Fox says

    You are just as bad as any other racist!

    Let’s review: Calling someone a terrible person for the hateful things they listen to and support is as bad as hating someone for their skin color. Got it.

    I call it the Towelie Defense, as in “You’re a towel!” When someone just regurgitates your words back at you even though they don’t come close to applying.

    You have a lot of nerve categorizing All Opie and Anthony fans as terrible human beings, and racist.

    You can always cry about it.

  229. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Heck, they can boycott PZ’s blog while they’re crying about it.

    Don’t give them ideas. [/snark]

  230. Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :) says

    Racism is prejudice backed by power.

    And only specific kinds of power, though of course the pithy phrasing doesn’t convey that. :/

    Adding to mine @ 83,

    More words: insularity, exclusivity, tribalism. Lotsa words.

    Err, Inaji, haven’t you objected to people using “tribalism” in this way in the past, being a member of a tribe yourself? Or am I misremembering? :/

  231. Anri says

    Jeff Sommers @ 221:

    The KKK is abhorrent but they still have a right to assemble and freedom of speech if we uphold the ideals of liberty. We only squash their activities and fire their members from jobs when they do something illegal. It may sound nicer to say we should jail them all just because they’re KKK and might do something illegal with their foul ideas but that’s not how a free society operates. SiriusXM could have just said the views of the host are his own and do not reflect the company. Period. That’s all that’s ever needed for a controversial talk show regardless of the subject.

    And if I don’t care to pay the KKK for their speeches?
    And if I suggest to my friends that they not pay the KKK for their speeches?
    And if I suggest to the general public they not pay the KKK for their speeches?

    Because that’s all that’s happening here – we’re stating that we don’t care to pay for racist screeds, and we’d like other people to not pay for it as well.

    Would you be supportive of someone who sponsored the show?

  232. says

    Anri, this isn’t about boycotting just that show or the channel they have. The host is the KKK in the analogy and SiriusXM would be more like a Convention Center where the KKK rents some space alongside a local church, a rock band, a gun show, a Home & Garden show etc. What I’ve been trying to point out is that this is like calling for a boycott of EVERYTHING at the Convention Center just because the KKK is there one day out of the month. Let’s say you only ever go to the Home & Garden show and you find out the KKK is there when you’re not. Why should you care? This is an attempt to pressure a larger entity to deny them to share in that Convention Center because you don’t like what they stand for.

    It doesn’t really matter though because nobody here can understand that pushing an agenda like this is harmful. Let’s just pretend that all people are perfect and good and nothing ever needs to be criticized in any context. If criticisms are raised at specific people (not a general group actually) then you can easily call a person a “racist” and silence any discussion about what really may have happened.

  233. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    What I’ve been trying to point out is that this is like calling for a boycott of EVERYTHING at the Convention Center just because the KKK is there one day out of the month.

    This is not news to us.

    Why should you care?

    Because racism is bad. And because we’re capable of giving a shit about people who aren’t us, you piece of shit.

    This is an attempt to pressure a larger entity to deny them to share in that Convention Center because you don’t like what they stand for.

    Yes, douchebro. It is. It’s telling them “Yo, Local Convention Center. I’m willing to drive to this other, slightly farther away Convention Center to get my Home and Garden Show fix because they don’t give a platform to a group of rabid racists.” Because it’s my fucking money and my fucking time and I can do with it what I please.

    It doesn’t really matter though because nobody here can understand that pushing an agenda like this is harmful.

    How is it harmful? So far all you’ve managed to come up with is a slippery slope “but what if people who disagree with you get the idea that they can advocate against things you approve of?” Which has been roundly scoffed at. Because it’s ridiculous.

    Let’s just pretend that all people are perfect and good and nothing ever needs to be criticized in any context.

    We exist in the real world here, diddums.

    If criticisms are raised at specific people (not a general group actually) then you can easily call a person a “racist” and silence any discussion about what really may have happened.

    The term “word salad” springs to mind for some reason. The fact that you’ve managed to string a bunch of words together in a syntactically correct manner doesn’t mean you’ve actually expressed a coherent thought.

  234. says

    If criticisms are raised at specific people (not a general group actually) then you can easily call a person a “racist” and silence any discussion about what really may have happened.

    Translation: You aren’t letting the privileged white men dominate the discussion! Look at my persecution card, look at it!

  235. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    It doesn’t really matter though because nobody here can understand that pushing an agenda like this is harmful.

    You’ve yet to explain how boycotts are harmful. You’ve asserted it, but it remains unproven. Can you demonstrate how and why boycotts are harmful? Once you do that, you’ve got to measure this harm against the right of consumers to spend their money where they choose and support the companies they choose.
    Were you likewise against the efforts to boycott Chik Fil A a few years ago?
    Were you against the Baptists that called for boycotts of Disneyworld bc of Gay Days?

  236. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    These are things that Cumia has said:

    Last night, Anthony Cumia, host of SirusXM’s The Opie & Show, went on an angry, bitter, violent, racist rant on Twitter for hours. At one point he literally said about African Americans: “They are not people.” But anybody who is at all familiar with Cumia wasn’t the least bit surprised by his vitriol.

    Cumia claims to have been assaulted by a black woman in Times Square last night. He says he was taking photos and the woman objected to being in the frame. She allegedly punched him, although when pressed by his Twitter followers, he said he “never felt [his] life was in imminent danger” and didn’t see a reason to “escalate the situation” by calling the police.

    He did, however, call the woman a “fucking cunt” and later took to Twitter to call black people “animals” and “savages” who “prey on white people” and are inherently violent. He also repeatedly discussed how “lucky” she was that he didn’t shoot her with the gun he was carrying and added that he hopes she gets killed or that “a home boy beats her to death.”

    These words are racist. Cumia holds racist beliefs.

    If criticisms are raised at specific people (not a general group actually) then you can easily call a person a “racist” and silence any discussion about what really may have happened.

    You need to demonstrate how calling Cumia a racist silences discussion. To be honest, you’re going to fail bc this entire thread has been dealing with Cumia’s racism, and the discussion continues. No silencing has occurred.

  237. says

    Tony:

    You’ve yet to explain how boycotts are harmful.

    Heh, I remember when Chavez and the UFW were boycotting table grapes. That wasn’t harmful, did a whole lot of good.

  238. says

    You’ve yet to explain how boycotts are harmful.

    I should mention I’m looking for an explanation other than “businesses may lose money”. Having a business doesn’t entitle one to make money.

  239. says

    You don’t know me and yet you keep calling me a piece of shit, douchebro, and other things. I guess you’re just following PZ’s orders to lump EVERY listener of a show into the category of being a “terrible human being” by association. How ironic, considering that’s exactly how a true racist thinks.

    Yes, I’ve listened to the show for quite some time and I’m not a racist, even though you can’t believe that since you lump me with every other listener you also don’t know. If the listeners were a race, then you’d be a racist. I avoided mentioning it because I know what comes next, a expletive laden response about how I’m a racist because I’ve listened to one.

    Some of the audience is most definitely racist and Anthony does cross the line into racism from time to time but that’s not what the show is about. It’s not enough content that I feel compelled to stop listening because a little of the show is “bad.” He often qualifies his racial discussion with “many” or even “most” do or are certain things. Fact, there are traits more specifically common to certain races. Asians are more intelligent. Black guys have big dicks. Nobody complains about those generalities. Racial distinctions so easily cross into racism when focusing on the negative and then saying “all” of that race has the trait regardless of the facts. Racism isn’t an easy thing to label unless someone mindlessly talks bad about a group without admitting any exceptions to “all” of the group having a bad trait.

    If there are facts to support that most of a race is a certain way then you’re called racist even if the facts support it. For example, we could talk about the violence and killings in Chicago with a disproportionate amount of it being attributed to one race. I don’t care enough to defend that view since I think violence should be addressed directly instead of focusing on the racial statistics. Those statistics don’t directly matter for the violence problem since race can’t be changed. I merely point it out because I’ve heard it on the show, so I’m sharing how Anthony would respond to the accusations of racism.

    I did read the tweets and Anthony was talking about that particular woman and the group of men taking her side in the altercation. A judgmental mind would easily see those comments as being directed at “all” in a race instead of “some” of that race he encountered that night. Anyone can extrapolate that sentiment of his out to an entire race even if he didn’t mean it that way. Maybe in anger he did feel truly racist for that moment. It doesn’t mean he’s always a racist and always hates all black people.

    I’m willing to bet you’ve had plenty of racist thoughts in your own life just like you now consider all listeners of the show to be pieces of shit. Keep profiling and condemning an entire group for what they listen to while ignoring your own generalities of other groups. Have you NEVER had a single racist or biased thought about a group? Really?

    OK, now it’s your turn to dismiss me as a racist piece of shit because I’ve continued to listen to someone that might be racist even though I don’t agree with that part of what he may have said. What I listen to doesn’t define me or compel me to think a certain way. I don’t need your nanny meddling to tell me or anyone like me what we should listen to. If I don’t like the stuff you like and I think it’s terrible for society at large… I’ll just turn the channel or look away. Chicken Little isn’t needed to “fix it” for everyone. I think individual freedoms work better that way.

    Respectfully Yours,
    a piece of shit douchebro

  240. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    You don’t know me and yet you keep calling me a piece of shit, douchebro, and other things. I guess you’re just following PZ’s orders to lump EVERY listener of a show into the category of being a “terrible human being” by association. How ironic, considering that’s exactly how a true racist thinks.

    You’re defending Cumia.
    You’re opposing our right to vote with our $$.
    You’re criticizing our right to boycott a company bc we don’t like the people they give a platform to.
    You’re being a shitty person right now.

    I guess you’re just following PZ’s orders to lump EVERY listener of a show into the category of being a “terrible human being” by association.

    Yes, I’ve listened to the show for quite some time and I’m not a racist, even though you can’t believe that since you lump me with every other listener you also don’t know.

    Hi, my name is Jeff Sommers. I’m not racist. I just don’t have a problem with people who are.
    Did you also spend the 4th of July at a KKK barbeque?

    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

  241. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    Asians are more intelligent. Black guys have big dicks. Nobody complains about those generalities.

    Oh fuck you, you asshole.
    Those are racist stereotypes and you’re embracing them just as you embraced Cumia. When you first started commenting in this thread, I thought you might actually be reasonable. You certainly engaged the commentariat in ways that your fellow douchebrobags failed to. But you’ve jumped the shark (yeah, it’s arguable that you did that in defending Cumia, but we all make mistakes, and I’d hoped that you’d see reason and realize you were wrong).
    Do stick the flounce you moronic assclam.

  242. says

    Jeff:

    Yes, I’ve listened to the show for quite some time and I’m not a racist

    You’re a faithful listener of racist talk, but oh no, you aren’t a racist. You just like that shit. How veddy interesting.

  243. says

    Asians are more intelligent. Black guys have big dicks. Nobody complains about those generalities.

    Those are stereotypes, they aren’t facts, and yes, decent people do complain about them. And you want to claim you aren’t a racist. I have news for you, Jeff – you’re a flaming, rancid doucheweasel of a racist.

  244. says

    Yes, I’m saying you shouldn’t vote with your $$ against a big company where your target is a small part of it. You whine whine whine that I criticize it. Yes, you can legitimately boycott and I’ve said that many times. I’m criticizing the tactic and saying you shouldn’t do it and not that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Duh!

    I disagree with organized boycotting of Chick-Fil-A, Disneyworld, etc. by groups that suddenly become aware of something that doesn’t involve them and their normal relationship with the business. I just think it’s stupid. If a company is doing something illegal then take it to the courts. If what they’re doing has some impact on me then I’ll look elsewhere, but I’m not jumping on any group’s bandwagon to boycott a company just because a group says I should. Very often I don’t have enough verifiable information to know if the company itself is really in the wrong or not. How much of “those bad people” is widespread in the company? Does the whole company with all of the good employees depending on it really need to suffer? I think it’s better to err on the side of not boycotting in most circumstances. You guys are apparently very different. Punish thousands for the wrongdoings of one!

    I told you I do have a problem when someone is being a racist. Nobody is 100% racist all of the time. Anthony is being bad when he talks like a racist but it’s not the only thing he does. I don’t call in and argue with him about it but some people do and I usually agree with their points. If he moves on to his own show and it’s full of racism then I won’t listen to that. I also won’t boycott anybody who advertises on it in protest and try to get a group up in arms over it. If he’s not doing anything illegal then what he SAYS is protected speech so I don’t care if other people can hear it. You apparently think he must be stopped by any means you have. Weird.

  245. chigau (違う) says

    Jeff Sommers
    I guess you’re just following PZ’s orders …
    Fuck you.
    (PZ told me to say that.)

  246. anteprepro says

    Jeff Sommers whitesplains:

    You don’t know me and yet you keep calling me a piece of shit, douchebro, and other things.

    Do you know anything about Pharyngula? Cry more.

    I guess you’re just following PZ’s orders to lump EVERY listener of a show into the category of being a “terrible human being” by association.

    I guess you are just a conspiracy theorist or something, because PZ said nothing of the sort.

    Yes, I’ve listened to the show for quite some time and I’m not a racist,

    And we have for evidence of this proposition….nothing. Just your word.
    Fucking. Yawn.

    Even if we were to grant your declaration that you are Definitely Not Racist, it doesn’t mean jackshit anyway because you are crying about a strawman. Get a fucking grip.

    If the listeners were a race, then you’d be a racist.

    If my keyboard was a person, I would be convicted of assault. What’s your point?

    I avoided mentioning it because I know what comes next, a expletive laden response about how I’m a racist because I’ve listened to one.

    Do you ever think that it also might be important to note that you are not just listening to him, but also going on at lengths to defend him/yourself from claims of racism? That we might look at you more positively if instead of trying to start your own whining #NotAllCumiaListeners campaign, you were less self-absorbed about your own petty, imagined offenses and showed more concern about, you know, the actual racism? But that would require to stop being an utter asshat.

    Some of the audience is most definitely racist and Anthony does cross the line into racism from time to time but that’s not what the show is about.

    Oh, it’s just a little racist. That’s great. Nothing to see here then.

    He often qualifies his racial discussion with “many” or even “most” do or are certain things.

    Wow, it is really that easy to satiate you, huh? Just avoid saying “all” and anything is acceptable! Well, might a say that you are then only 99% of a fucking horrible human being?

    Asians are more intelligent. Black guys have big dicks. Nobody complains about those generalities.

    Oh my fucking god. Nobody complains about those? Nobody? Go fuck yourself. And those are “facts” too? Not racist my ass.

    If there are facts to support that most of a race is a certain way then you’re called racist even if the facts support it. For example, we could talk about the violence and killings in Chicago with a disproportionate amount of it being attributed to one race. I don’t care enough to defend that view since I think violence should be addressed directly instead of focusing on the racial statistics.

    Way to fucking back pedal at the speed of fucking light.

    A judgmental mind would easily see those comments as being directed at “all” in a race instead of “some” of that race he encountered that night. Anyone can extrapolate that sentiment of his out to an entire race even if he didn’t mean it that way.

    Somehow this should be applied to Cumia and his racial diatribes. But for some reason, you seem unable to extend that same courtesy to PZ’s post and whine about him supposedly accusing all Opie and Anthony listeners of being racists (note: his actual point was that you were ENABLING racism by still listening to his shit). This is why we get the impression that you are a dissembling racism apologist, by the way.

    Maybe in anger he did feel truly racist for that moment. It doesn’t mean he’s always a racist and always hates all black people.

    Ha. That is the weakest defense ever.

    “Sure, maybe in anger he did say that women should not be allowed to work and should just stay in the kitchen. That doesn’t mean he is sexist all the time.”

    “Oh, yeah, he may have said that fags should burn in hell, but that was only because his sports team lost. You have no proof that he is homophobic all the time, you judger, you!”

    I’m willing to bet you’ve had plenty of racist thoughts in your own life just like you now consider all listeners of the show to be pieces of shit.

    Is this you, again, comparing judging racism enablers as itself a form of racism? Might as well be shrieking “WAAAH why are you so intolerant of intolerance”. Do you really think anyone but yourself is fooled by such obvious bullshit.

    Keep profiling and condemning an entire group for what they listen to while ignoring your own generalities of other groups.

    Keep on ignoring why you feel the need to come up with excuses and explanations for Anthony’s “generalities” while getting so incredibly offended at our “racism” against your listening habits.

    Have you NEVER had a single racist or biased thought about a group? Really?

    Weren’t you the one who claimed that you are Definitely Not Racist? And now you are pulling this shit, where anyone who ever even THOUGHT one racist-ish thing is a racist? Talk out of both sides of your mouth, much?

    OK, now it’s your turn to dismiss me as a racist piece of shit because I’ve continued to listen to someone that might be racist even though I don’t agree with that part of what he may have said. What I listen to doesn’t define me or compel me to think a certain way.

    The point is that you are supporting it by listening to it . Financially supporting it. You are speaking with your ears and the message is that “I don’t care that you sometimes say racist shit”. Either you are too lazy to make a trivial change to your life in order to oppose blatant racism or you actually do support this racist shit. Make your choice.

    I don’t need your nanny meddling to tell me or anyone like me what we should listen to.

    “Waaaah, I will do whatever I want and fuck the consequences!” Whiff of libertarian.

    I think individual freedoms work better that way.

    Definitely libertarian. Let me guess: you think that desegregation and anti-discrimination laws are a bad thing because they force business owners to treat minorities nice, right? Human decency and protection of minorities is ever such an affront to FREEEEEEEEEDDDOOOOOM!!!

    Respectfully Yours,
    a piece of shit douchebro

    Whine as much as you like, that diatribe of yours really didn’t help your case and really did help everyone else’s. Congrats.

  247. says

    I threw out some common stereotypes as examples of generalities but I never said I believed Asians are more intelligent and I don’t know about the average black penis size. Do you really know those to be true or false? It’s stuff I’ve heard. I’ve never heard an Asian complain about it and I’ve definitely heard many black comedians boast about that stereotype. They seem to love that one!

    The Opie & Anthony show is definitely a variety show and not a “racist show” any more than this is only an anti-racist blog. I keep saying I don’t like the racist content on the show but you can’t hear past the word RACIST. Does it strike a chord in you? Is it really something uncomfortable about yourself that resonates? It reminds me of the male religious preachers complaining loudest about homosexuality that are then caught having sexual relations with a man. How very interesting.

  248. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    Yes, I’m saying you shouldn’t vote with your $$ against a big company where your target is a small part of it. You whine whine whine that I criticize it. Yes, you can legitimately boycott and I’ve said that many times. I’m criticizing the tactic and saying you shouldn’t do it and not that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Duh!

    You are not giving a coherent or rationale reason WHY. Why should people not boycott? All you’ve said is “it’s bad”. You need to explain why it is bad and why that bad thing is worse than people exercising their right to spend their money where they choose.

    Did you expect us to simply think “Gosh, Jeff says we shouldn’t boycott bc reasons. That’s good enough for me.” You’re trying-and failing-to convince us not to boycott. If you want to even come close to being successful, put for an argument, dig up the evidence in support of it, and present it to us. Regurgitating an assertion over and over is not an argument. It’s not going to convince us.

    I disagree with organized boycotting of Chick-Fil-A, Disneyworld, etc. by groups that suddenly become aware of something that doesn’t involve them and their normal relationship with the business. I just think it’s stupid. If a company is doing something illegal then take it to the courts. If what they’re doing has some impact on me then I’ll look elsewhere, but I’m not jumping on any group’s bandwagon to boycott a company just because a group says I should. Very often I don’t have enough verifiable information to know if the company itself is really in the wrong or not. How much of “those bad people” is widespread in the company? Does the whole company with all of the good employees depending on it really need to suffer? I think it’s better to err on the side of not boycotting in most circumstances. You guys are apparently very different. Punish thousands for the wrongdoings of one!

    1- the actions a company may take can be immoral without being illegal. Chik Fil A gave mllions of dollars to anti-gay organizations. Once I found that out, I stopped patronizing the place. It’s been 8 years since I’ve eaten their food. As a gay man I’m not going to support an organization that’s working to keep me and other queers as second class citizens. Thankfully a great many people who are not queer, but possess empathy and compassion for others have chosen to boycott the company because of their actions. I applaud these actions. It sends a message to the company that this is shit they are not willing to support. It also sends a message to queer people like myself that there are people out there who are allies, and will stand up for our rights.

    2- Why does an action have to have an impact on you to…oh wait, are you a libertarian?

  249. says

    Jeff:

    I don’t need your nanny meddling to tell me or anyone like me what we should listen to.

    I don’t need your racist reasoning or nanny meddling to tell me or anyone like me what we should boycott, criticize, or mock. See how that individual freedom stuff works? Frozen Peaches for everyone!

  250. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    I told you I do have a problem when someone is being a racist. Nobody is 100% racist all of the time. Anthony is being bad when he talks like a racist but it’s not the only thing he does. I don’t call in and argue with him about it but some people do and I usually agree with their points. If he moves on to his own show and it’s full of racism then I won’t listen to that. I also won’t boycott anybody who advertises on it in protest and try to get a group up in arms over it. If he’s not doing anything illegal then what he SAYS is protected speech so I don’t care if other people can hear it. You apparently think he must be stopped by any means you have. Weird.

    You’re willing to ignore the times when Cumia was racist on the argument that no one is racist 100% of the time. That’s the standard you accept? That someone has to be racist 100% of the time for you to oppose them? Fuck that noise. Members of the KKK aren’t racist all the time. Should people not oppose them?
    Michelle Bachman isn’t always a raging homophobic asshole. Does that mean queer people and our allies shouldn’t criticize her? We should wait til she’s homophobic 100% of the time?

    Also, you raging asshole–no one in this thread has said he doesn’t have a right to express himself. He does. We know that. You’d know we know that if you’d read the thread. We oppose his words bc they’re racist. People pressured Sirius bc they don’t like racism, and they don’t want a company they give their $$ to provide a platform for a guy spewing racism. Cumia does not have a right to a platform to spew his racism.

    And stop being a hyperbolic assclam. No one is advocating “stopping Cumia by any means necessary”. People boycotted a company. It’s their right. That’s not using any means necessary to achieve a goal.

  251. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    I threw out some common stereotypes as examples of generalities but I never said I believed Asians are more intelligent and I don’t know about the average black penis size. Do you really know those to be true or false? It’s stuff I’ve heard. I’ve never heard an Asian complain about it and I’ve definitely heard many black comedians boast about that stereotype. They seem to love that one!

    Before you toss out “facts”, why not verify them first. You’re using a piece of technology. You have internet access. Look it up fool.
    Also, one does not have to be asian or black to complain about those racist stereotypes.

  252. says

    I see. You’re either with us or you’re against us. Complete black and white. Tag someone with a negative and everything about that person is complete shit. Burn the fields and all should be destroyed until the person is obliterated. Not publicly condemning all aspects of a person’s existence condones their bad behavior.

    I’m just a whacko to think RACISM is the thing that sucks and that a person isn’t always and completely defined as a racist. I’ll just step aside now so you can enjoy your public flogging since attacking a person or a company is more useful than addressing the ideas themselves.

  253. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    @ Jeff Sommers

    You don’t know me and yet you keep calling me a piece of shit, douchebro, and other things. I guess you’re just following PZ’s orders to lump EVERY listener of a show into the category of being a “terrible human being” by association. How ironic, considering that’s exactly how a true racist thinks.

    I’m calling you these things because of the things you’ve said here. I called you a piece of shit because you asked why I should care if a convention center was giving a platform to the KKK. I answered that I was capable of caring about people who aren’t me. This concept seems to be lost on you as evidenced by the fact that you can’t seem to understand why anyone would care about harm being cause if it’s not being cause to them personally. Hence “piece of shit” etc.

    Yes, I’ve listened to the show for quite some time and I’m not a racist, even though you can’t believe that since you lump me with every other listener you also don’t know. If the listeners were a race, then you’d be a racist. I avoided mentioning it because I know what comes next, a expletive laden response about how I’m a racist because I’ve listened to one.

    Welp. You’re defending the right of a racist to continue spewing racist bile and you’re helping to provide a market for his racist bile so… If the shoe fits, yo.

    Asians are more intelligent. Black guys have big dicks. Nobody complains about those generalities.

    No they’re not. No they don’t. Yes they do.

    If there are facts to support that most of a race is a certain way then you’re called racist even if the facts support it.

    Citation needed.

    Have you NEVER had a single racist or biased thought about a group? Really?

    Show me where I’ve claimed otherwise. We all live in a culture where bigotry of all kinds is baked right in. This country was founded on bigotry from the moment the first Europeans stepped foot on its shores. Humans are prone to bias and we’ve all had these biases drilled into us from birth. What I try to do is listen and learn and recognize my biases for what they are and unlearn them as best I can.

    I don’t need your nanny meddling to tell me or anyone like me what we should listen to.

    You’re the one who showed up here and invited yourself into the middle of this conversation to tell us how we’re allowed to show our disapproval of something. I didn’t seek you out.

    If I don’t like the stuff you like and I think it’s terrible for society at large… I’ll just turn the channel or look away.

    Assuming you’re correct about it being terrible for society at large, then you’d be complicit in the perpetuation of whatever it is. If you’re OK with that then coolio. Hooray for you. I’ll use my own judgement with regard to what I’m OK with. Is that OK with you?

    I’ve never heard an Asian complain about it and I’ve definitely heard many black comedians boast about that stereotype.

    Oh, well, if you’ve never heard them complain, I guess they don’t. Tell me, do you have Asian people lining up to tell you how they feel about the ways they’re stereotyped?

  254. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    I keep saying I don’t like the racist content on the show but you can’t hear past the word RACIST. Does it strike a chord in you? Is it really something uncomfortable about yourself that resonates? It reminds me of the male religious preachers complaining loudest about homosexuality that are then caught having sexual relations with a man. How very interesting.

    You don’t like the racist content, but you continue to support it by not opposing it. By continuing to give your $$, you show your approval. If you didn’t truly like the racism, you would oppose it.

  255. anteprepro says

    Yes, I’m saying you shouldn’t vote with your $$ against a big company where your target is a small part of it.

    Your evangelical levels of apathy have been noted, thanks.

    Yes, you can legitimately boycott and I’ve said that many times. I’m criticizing the tactic and saying you shouldn’t do it and not that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Duh

    “I’m just saying that you are wrong, not that you aren’t allowed to be wrong! Duh!”

    You are such a self-important shitweasel.

    I disagree with organized boycotting of Chick-Fil-A, Disneyworld, etc. by groups that suddenly become aware of something that doesn’t involve them and their normal relationship with the business.

    So you are just a self-centered, myopic, lazy fuck who wants everyone to be the same way. Again, why should WE care about your own selfishness?

    If a company is doing something illegal then take it to the courts.

    You do know that not everything bad, immoral, unethical, or wrong happens to be illegal, right? You do know that segregation was legal. That discrimination was legal. That child labor was legal. That even today, outsourcing and exploiting poorer countries and laxer laws is legal. It doesn’t make any of that right . And keeping quiet about it is tacit approval of it. It is acceptance of the status quo. Making noise and voicing disapproval is the only way to even have a chance of changing something that needs change.

    If what they’re doing has some impact on me then I’ll look elsewhere, but I’m not jumping on any group’s bandwagon to boycott a company just because a group says I should.

    Yeah. You’re not racist. You just don’t care about black people and their concerns. But not racist. Just completely, ridiculously low in empathy and concern for people who aren’t yourself.

    I think it’s better to err on the side of not boycotting in most circumstances.

    Congratulations, no-one gives a fuck.

    You guys are apparently very different. Punish thousands for the wrongdoings of one!

    I know. How dare we punish thousands for the actions of just one person, who happens to basically be the “product” that all of those thousands are working on and selling? I mean, my word, it just unfathomable. It is like boycotting a movie just because it stars a Nazi and glorifies Hitler. I mean, why punish the caterers, the best boy, the lead grip, the studio, and all of the dozens or hundreds who invested in the movie just because the writer/director/lead actor was a terrible human being? How could we dare to punish them for merely being part of a product that pushes forward the views of a terrible human being? I mean, what is this, America!? Freedom of speech means the obligation to listen to terrible human beings, the inability to speak back, and the fear of doing anything at all to people who supported that terrible human being, lest they happen to have been non-terrible.

    Nobody is 100% racist all of the time.

    So? Even if they aren’t, people of the races they are racist against will suffer . Just because not EVERY person of that race who meets them suffers, or just because they don’t suffer EVERY time,or just because he doesn’t shoot them in cold blood or lynch them or join the KKK doesn’t mean he isn’t racist. It doesn’t mean he deserves pity. It doesn’t mean he deserves a fucking medal.

    If he moves on to his own show and it’s full of racism then I won’t listen to that.

    Congratulations fuckwad: THAT IS A BOYCOTT.

    I also won’t boycott anybody who advertises on it in protest and try to get a group up in arms over it.

    Yes, we know, because you don’t give a fuck about other people or results or changing the world for the better. You are satisfied with your own little privileged life, you have no concern for the concerns of other people, and you are only willing to stop listening to a show if it becomes personally unpleasant for you and not because you know it is hurtful to other people who aren’t you. Because, again, in case you haven’t heard yet, you are a selfish fuck.

    If he’s not doing anything illegal then what he SAYS is protected speech so I don’t care if other people can hear it.

    What you apparently don’t get is that he is not ENTITLED to a platform. Hence why PZ wanted to focus on boycotting Sirius, i.e. the place that gave him a platform to speak. It is not illegal, just like reciting Mein Kampf isn’t legal. But you certainly wouldn’t want to be the person supporting that kind of bullshit, now would you? Again, just because it is legal, doesn’t make it good.

    Maybe if you grow some empathy or crawl out of your little pseudolibertarian, adolescent view of reality, you might be able to understand some of that. Until then, I doubt you will. I anticipate only further shrieks of “HE HAS THE RIGHT!!1!1!!” with no actual, further understanding of how being free to do something does not mean that you should do it and also does not mean that we are obliged to abstain from opposing it.

  256. says

    Jeff:

    Nobody is 100% racist all of the time.

    Bullshit. If someone has racist beliefs, yes, they are racist all of the time.

    Anthony is being bad when he talks like a racist

    Anthony Cumia is not a little boy behaving badly. He’s an adult who is an unashamed racist.

  257. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    I see. You’re either with us or you’re against us. Complete black and white. Tag someone with a negative and everything about that person is complete shit. Burn the fields and all should be destroyed until the person is obliterated. Not publicly condemning all aspects of a person’s existence condones their bad behavior.

    You continue to demonstrate an inability to read for comprehension. It would be a marvel to behold if we weren’t talking about the fact that you’re defending Cumia’s racism.
    No one has said that racism destroys anything Cumia has done good in his life. We’re saying that racism is harmful, he needs to not be provided a platform to spew it, and we’re voicing our opposition to it.
    You’re voicing your support for his racism.
    No one is talking about burning fields, or obliterating a person. Nor is anyone talking about condemning all aspects of a person. No one has said that Cumia’s racism is the sum of all he is.

    What comments are you fucking reading?

  258. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I’m just a whacko to think RACISM is the thing that sucks and that a person isn’t always and completely defined as a racist.

    If RACISM is the thing that sucks…

    WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE WHINING AT US?!

    Go tell Anthony fucking Cumia how much you think racism sucks, shitwit.

  259. anteprepro says

    I threw out some common stereotypes as examples of generalities but I never said I believed Asians are more intelligent and I don’t know about the average black penis size.

    Maybe you should have made that clear to begin with, instead of giving them as examples of “facts”.

    Do you really know those to be true or false? It’s stuff I’ve heard.

    Yeah, that great scientific journal “Stuff I’ve Heard”. With some great research by some guy you know, my friend’s aunt’s second cousin, and the great duo C.Hain E. Maille.

    I’ve never heard an Asian complain about it and I’ve definitely heard many black comedians boast about that stereotype. They seem to love that one!

    Oh my god. Sample size: A handful of comedians. Ever hear of biased samples, genius?

    The Opie & Anthony show is definitely a variety show and not a “racist show” any more than this is only an anti-racist blog.

    Jeff Sommers latest cutting edge research: Things can only be one thing at a time, can only possess one adjective.

    Jeff Sommers pioneering new research will change the English language and basic logic! It will rock the world to its core.

    Does it strike a chord in you? Is it really something uncomfortable about yourself that resonates? It reminds me of the male religious preachers complaining loudest about homosexuality that are then caught having sexual relations with a man. How very interesting.

    One, I have to say this is rather ironic coming from you. You are the one worked up into a lather over the “racism” accusation.

    Two, you are showing yet more bigotry. Please refrain from implying that homophobes are closeted gay people. It is inaccurate and it is not helpful. Doing so often amounts to continuing to use “gay” as an insult, it is dismissive of the real impact and nature of homophobia, and it also amounts to blaming the problems that the gay communities suffer on…other gay people. Just…don’t.

  260. A. Noyd says

    I’m guessing Jeff Sommers is confused about racism because he thinks the only real racism is feeling active hatred for a whole race (even whites). Not the reality which includes hate, but also a sense of contempt for people of color and a willingness to dehumanize them through stereotypes.

    Also, I see people speaking out against “positive” stereotypes all the time. They even criticize the people of their own race who look at those stereotypes as favorable for having internalized racism.

  261. says

    Among the stereotypes about Asian Americans, the model minority stereotype might be the most pervasive and dominant one today. The stereotype was constructed and popularized by mainstream media in the 1960s. Asian Americans are proclaimed as a model minority for academic excellence, affluence, strong work ethic, freedom from problems and crime, and family cohesion. They are typically represented as overachievers who are intelligent, industrious, technologically savvy, self-disciplined, self-sufficient, and law-abiding. For example, this stereotype can be seen in the characters portrayed by George Huang in Law & Order: SVU, Cristina Yang in Grey’s Anatomy, and Archie Kao in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

    Scholars have long been critical of the media’s motive in producing the seemingly benign model minority stereotype. For example, Stacey J. Lee argued that the ostensibly sterling stereotype was constructed to silence the charges of racial inequality and to delegitimize the protests of racial discrimination. Additionally, Bob H. Suzuki questioned the validity of the stereotype, contending that it is only media hype, more myth than reality. Suzuki further argued that, deceptively flattering and favorable on the surface, the model minority stereotype is inaccurate, overgeneralized, and a liability for Asian Americans. The commendation of Asian Americans as a model minority implicitly denigrates other racial groups. Thus, Asian Americans might be more susceptible to racial harassment, discrimination, and hate crime than other ethnic groups.

    The model minority stereotype could also have psychological, emotional, and social costs for Asian American students, such as studying harder and longer, foregoing social life, enduring loneliness and alienation, and experiencing extreme depression and stress. Unfortunately, these problems go largely unrecognized, and Asian American students receive little institutional support to cope with the problems. Educators and parents should recognize the liabilities and vulnerabilities of the seemingly positive model minority stereotype for Asian children, particularly their psychological, social, and relational costs.

    http://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=963

    It’s a harmful stereotype to perpetuate. Stop doing so.

  262. says

    You know what’s weird about Jeff Sommers? He clearly doesn’t see much that’s objectionable about racism, yet objects vehemently to being called one.

  263. says

    Thoughts on the stereotype of ‘black men have big dicks':

    Origin of the Big Black Dick Digressing: I realize that systemically speaking my desire for a larger cock rests at the intersection of racism and patriarchal socialization. That is to say, I have internalized the racist notion that Black men have big dicks, which has its roots in European racism, used to justify slavery and racial oppression. This particular brand of stereotyping has been called “sexual threat” or “sexual racism.” One author reports that fear of Black male sexuality in particular is said to be at the very heart of the subjugation of Black American men. Historically, Black men were described as sub-human, animalistic, and lust-driven. This reasoning concludes that Black men are a sexual threat to society and are prone to raping White women. This idea is vividly depicted within the D.W. Griffith film “Birth of a Nation.” In the film, the central Black character, Gus, aggressively pursues a White female, who ultimately jumps to her death to avoid his advances. Gus is then tried and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, who are heroically depicted in the film. Accusations of Black male impropriety towards White women were used to justify lynching of Black men. In one of the more notorious real life lynchings, 14-year-old African American Emmett Till, was kidnapped and brutally murdered for reportedly flirting with a White female. The porn industry plays upon sexual racism. Many of the adult movies with Black men in starring roles use racial themes in the title and often as the flick’s primary selling point. Titles such as “Big Black Dicks, Little White Chicks,” Black Cock Down,” and ‘There´s a Black Man in My Wife´s Ass,” are a microcosm of the porn industry´s perpetuation of Black male sexual stereotypes. Larry G. Morton II, in his article entitled: MSM, the Streets, and Lockdown: Sexual Threat and Social Dominance in America, reported that present day stereotypes such as ‘once you go black you never go back’ are examples of attempts to stigmatize Black male sexuality.
    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-average-size-for-a-black-man-penis-size-myths-racism-and-the-patriarchy/#sthash.AhBoJza3.dpuf

  264. says

    anteprepro:

    Two, you are showing yet more bigotry. Please refrain from implying that homophobes are closeted gay people. It is inaccurate and it is not helpful. Doing so often amounts to continuing to use “gay” as an insult, it is dismissive of the real impact and nature of homophobia, and it also amounts to blaming the problems that the gay communities suffer on…other gay people. Just…don’t.

    Thank you.

  265. anteprepro says

    You’re welcome Tony! And great job finding specific objections to those supposedly innocuous “positive” stereotypes that Jeff apparently approves of. I’ve never seen such range from someone talking out of their ass.

  266. says

    Tony:

    One author reports that fear of Black male sexuality in particular is said to be at the very heart of the subjugation of Black American men. Historically, Black men were described as sub-human, animalistic, and lust-driven. This reasoning concludes that Black men are a sexual threat to society and are prone to raping White women.

    Kimmel writes about this in Manhood in America. This persistent belief directly clashed with the idea that Black men were not intelligent, lazy, and easily subdued, yet people held both these beliefs for a very long time. Some people still do.

  267. says

    Perhaps I’m the voice of the apathetic majority. :-) I think more people should have a live and let live attitude. You’re obviously much more activist about what everyone thinks and says here instead of just worrying about their actions. Yes, I exercise individual choice and may do so based on the actions of others which is technically a boycott, but I don’t participate in or advocate for group boycotts. A group boycott of something you aren’t even a consumer of bugs me. I must be a libertarian then. You say it like it’s an evil thing to be. You guys seem to love labels and then dismissing people’s opinions and ideas with those labels. There can be no ounce of truth or value to anything I say because of my defense of a comedian who uses (and I think overuses) race in a comedy talk show.

    you are only willing to stop listening to a show if it becomes personally unpleasant for you and not because you know it is hurtful to other people who aren’t you.

    …and not because I know it is hurtful to other people who aren’t listening to it anyway because they think a dark cringe-inducing comedy talk show has real racism in it instead of an over-the-top parody of racism that most listeners understand it to be. Yes, the recent incident is making me think his racism is real but on the show it was presented as a parody. This is the wrong crowd to argue this with because you see comedy as something that must have limits instead of poking fun at and exposing the worst parts of society.

    Racism is an immoral thought that gave us illegal discrimination acts that can be punished. We already have the illegal side of racism so activism about thought crimes isn’t needed to correct a societal wrong. Child labor is immoral and gave us child labor laws. I could spout all day about how kids should work on a farm instead of going to school but there shouldn’t be consequences for my speech until I actually make one do it. I’ve thought this through some more and activism was needed for homosexuals to finally achieve some equality through the laws to protect them from discrimination and gain equal access.

    However, there is a point with each of these that I think we should rely on punishing illegal actions instead of trying to police each other’s thoughts and opinions. I understand that here you think thought police is needed to keep everyone in line to force a common view and mandatory acceptance of everyone being equal and the same. I think I just accept reality that I can’t force everyone to be tolerant of everyone else. I’m tolerant of intolerance. I’m also a kind of apathy you despise and wish you could change so we can all just get on board and “fix” society.

    I view society as a lose collection of individuals and I think it’s good there are flaws and warts and both tolerance and some intolerance. Everyone isn’t the same and we don’t all have to love each other and think the same way. In the end, you can’t fix everyone else and force people to love everything about everyone. You don’t really know for sure if you’re righteousness is correct. This may not be the one, but one of these public floggings will tear down an innocent person.

  268. microraptor says

    Jeff, I’d point out that your call for “live and let live” is in support for someone who very obviously does not want to live and let live, but it’s quite apparent by now that you’re completely incapable of understanding that.

  269. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    Perhaps I’m the voice of the apathetic majority. :-) I think more people should have a live and let live attitude. You’re obviously much more activist about what everyone thinks and says here instead of just worrying about their actions.

    Thoughts often lead to actions.
    Thoughts often result in words that affect others.

    If Cumia kept his thoughts to himself and didn’t spew them out for the world to hear, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    But really, I’m pretty fucking disgusted by you at this point. ‘Live and let live’ when it comes to expressing racist opinions. We wouldn’t have had a Civil Rights Movement if people thought that way. If no one ever tried to convince people that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, we wouldn’t be seeing a tidal wave of pro-marriage equality rulings in the US. If no one ever spoke up and criticized the treatment of women, Suffrage wouldn’t have happened. Social change doesn’t happen by sitting down and shutting up. It doesn’t happen by “living and let living”.

    You’re speaking from a goddamned position of privilege and you’re too fucking dense to realize it. Some of us appreciate when people stick up for our rights. Why? Because we can tell these people want to help make our lives better. All the heterosexual people out there advocating for marriage equality? They don’t gain directly from supporting it. They could do you like you and sit back on the sidelines and do nothing. They don’t have to criticize bigoted politicians that compare gay people like me to fucking pedophiles. They don’t have to get out there and march in Pride rallies to show their support. They don’t have to blog about LGBTQI issues. But you know what? There are a great many people who do. People who have empathy for others. People who have compassion for others. People who care that others are not treated as full human beings, with the rights that everyone should have.

    Cumia’s racist rantings probably aren’t a huge deal to you. It wouldn’t surprise me if you’re a privileged libertarian white male. Some of us see racism, and you see “no big deal”. You say “sit down and shut up”. You say “quit making such a fuss”. Fuck you. You aren’t continually denied basic human rights. You aren’t the one being called a subhuman animal by fucking scumbags like Cumia. You want to sit back and not protest that–your right. But I wish you could try to realize what it’s like to be part of a marginalized group of people. Then you might appreciate those that *do* speak up. You might look at people who don’t have any personal stake in the issue…people who stand up and support equality…you might look at them, and see people you’d like to emulate. Those people who do these things? They’re good people.

    You?
    You suck at life.

  270. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    Yes, I exercise individual choice and may do so based on the actions of others which is technically a boycott, but I don’t participate in or advocate for group boycotts. A group boycott of something you aren’t even a consumer of bugs me.

    Yet when asked, you continue to fail to give a coherent reason why. And you *still* haven’t explained why boycotts are a bad thing. You just keep asserting that they’re bad. You must think we’re as gullible as you are.

    I must be a libertarian then. You say it like it’s an evil thing to be. You guys seem to love labels and then dismissing people’s opinions and ideas with those labels.

    I’m dismissing your opinions because you’re an apathetic asshole who’s defending a racist scumbag on the grounds that he’s not *always* saying racist shit. That’s setting the bar pretty low.
    I’m also dismissing your opinions because you’ve offered precious little in the way of evidence to support them. I’ve asked you multiple times to elaborate on your opinions and you refuse to. Just because you have an opinion does not mean it’s worthy of respect. If you’re all pissed off that people are dismissing your poorly argued points, maybe it’s a sign that you should learn to argue better.

    There can be no ounce of truth or value to anything I say because of my defense of a comedian who uses (and I think overuses) race in a comedy talk show.

    Truth?
    Truth in what?
    Value in what?
    All you’ve done in this thread is defend a racist asshole. Oh, wait, you’ve also demonstrated that you’re a callous asshole who doesn’t care about oppressed people having their rights trampled over. You’re also an apathetic douchebag who thinks its a good idea NOT to speak up when someone says something racist.

    Yes, the recent incident is making me think his racism is real but on the show it was presented as a parody.

    Gee, was it *fake* before? Given that you don’t understand racism, I’m not certain your assessment of his words as parody is valid.

    We already have the illegal side of racism so activism about thought crimes isn’t needed to correct a societal wrong

    Nobody is trying to police thoughts you dunderheaded fuckwit!
    People are criticizing the words Cumia has said We don’t even know his thoughts, which should be obvious to you, unless you think we’re psychic.
    And, as was pointed out to you upthread, there are a great many immoral or unethical activities people engage in that are not illegal. Spreading his racist views is immoral. We’re speaking up and saying “that’s not cool.”
    That’s part of activism.
    And that’s where your problem is.
    You don’t want anyone speaking up.
    You don’t want people trying to make the world a better place.
    You don’t think this stuff is worth it.
    You want things just like they are because they’re comfortable for you.

    WELL YOU KNOW WHAT?
    For a great many of us, things aren’t so hunky fucking dory!
    Women in the US were just dealt a blow by the fucking Supreme Court. Contraception access is fundamental part of women’s healthcare, and access to that has been severely curtailed because the Catholic 5 sided with a religious corporation. Going by your philosophy, no one should speak up about this. No one should criticize the Supreme Court. No one should argue for a strengthening of the separation of church and state. No one should stand up for women’s rights.
    You advocate the world as it is.
    You have a standard that you accept and you walk past it.

    The rest of us want to help make the world better for all the people that are suffering. Of course you probably don’t see those people. Your narrow view of the world, with your fucking rose tinted, privilege laden glasses doesn’t allow you to see how people are being fucked over.

    I understand that here you think thought police is needed to keep everyone in line to force a common view and mandatory acceptance of everyone being equal and the same.

    Goddamit, think. You presumably have that organ between your ears. USE. IT.
    How the fuck can you police thoughts if you can’t read them?
    Cumia is being judge on what he has said you fuckbrained moronic shitweasel.

    I view society as a lose collection of individuals and I think it’s good there are flaws and warts and both tolerance and some intolerance. Everyone isn’t the same and we don’t all have to love each other and think the same way.

    Sorry, my bar is higher than that. I actually expect decency out of people. I expect people to treat others with the same base level of respect as everyone else. Part of this respect means treating people as human beings with rights. I’m not saying I want perfection. That would be ridiculous. I do want people to recognize their biases. I want people to see the ways they could be hurting others, whether by their actions or their words. I want people to accept that they can be wrong, and work to become better. I want to see people overcome their prejudices and hate.

    None of that will happen without activism. None of that will happen if people just continue to accept the status quo. You’re willing to accept that, for some unearthly reason. While you accept that, you also criticize those of us who want to see change happen in this world. Well you can ride off into the wilderness now, bc your poorly thought out criticisms don’t mean jack shit to the rest of us.

    In the end, you can’t fix everyone else and force people to love everything about everyone. You don’t really know for sure if you’re righteousness is correct. This may not be the one, but one of these public floggings will tear down an innocent person.

    No one is trying to “fix” anyone. No one is trying to “force” anyone. God, think about the words you’re using and what they mean.
    And yes, I am about as sure as I can be that speaking up against racism is justified righteousness.
    Fuck your hyperbolic “public floggings” bullshit.
    Cumia said racist shit.
    Cumia has been criticized for saying racist shit.

    Now kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP.

  271. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I think more people should have a live and let live attitude.

    So um…why are you still here then?

  272. Suido says

    Nice popcorn fodder, this.

    @Jeff Sommers #315

    This is the wrong crowd to argue this with because you see comedy as something that must have limits instead of poking fun at and exposing the worst parts of society.

    You? Who is you? Who are you? The whole crowd, or individual commenters within the crowd?

    I’ve seen many comment threads on pharyngula that have discussed comedy about offensive topics. Regulars have differences of opinion, and I think you’re making shit up that fits your own worldview.

    It’s almost like you don’t have a problem with false generalisations and assumptions about groups of people.

    PS Can you please answer LykeX’s questions in #242. I’ve posted them again here for your convenience (for context, Lykex was quoting Jeff’s comment #238):

    Jeff Sommers

    I’ve never said the criticism of the host and racism aren’t valid criticisms. Go for it. Rant about that all day. I’ve only ever said that SiriusXM shouldn’t be boycotted…

    – Are we allowed to complain about his behavior?
    – Are we allowed to choose not to support the station financially as long as he’s working for them?
    – Are we allowed to inform the station of such a decision?
    – Are we allowed to express that opinion to other people and attempt to convince them to do the same?

    If you answered “no” to any of these, you’re the one trying to limit free speech.

    If you answered “yes” to all of them, then please explain the difference between doing these things and organizing a boycott.

    Simple yes/no answers, please, followed by the explanation if necessary.

  273. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Suido @ 321

    Jeff sez @ 290:

    Yes, I’m saying you shouldn’t vote with your $$ against a big company where your target is a small part of it.

    The gist I’m getting from him is that you can talk about how much you don’t like something all you want but you should stop at the point where your words might actually instigate change.

  274. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    In other words, dearest Jeff is laboring under the delusion that the status quo is neutral.

  275. Anri says

    Jeff Sommers @ 278:

    Anri, this isn’t about boycotting just that show or the channel they have. The host is the KKK in the analogy and SiriusXM would be more like a Convention Center where the KKK rents some space alongside a local church, a rock band, a gun show, a Home & Garden show etc.

    Yes, that’s correct.
    Quick question: would you rent your venue to the KKK?
    If not, why not?
    If you wouldn’t, why would you support someone who would?

    What I’ve been trying to point out is that this is like calling for a boycott of EVERYTHING at the Convention Center just because the KKK is there one day out of the month. Let’s say you only ever go to the Home & Garden show and you find out the KKK is there when you’re not. Why should you care?

    You’re asking why I should care if someone decides to rent space to the KKK?
    I’m sorry, either that’s a disingenuous (read: dishonest) question, or you’re just plain too stupid to live.
    But I’ll play along: renting space to the KKK for a rally is not a morally neutral act, in any way, shape, or form. If a business wants to do that, they’re free to, but they will do so without any business of mine.
    If the business is willing to give up a little money to do the right thing, then my boycott worked and the world is a better place.
    If they are not, they are pandering assholes and I’m right in not supporting them.

    This is an attempt to pressure a larger entity to deny them to share in that Convention Center because you don’t like what they stand for.

    It is an attempt to demonstrate that renting space to racists to spread a racist message isn’t good, and that I am a good enough person to not be willing to let it pass unremarked. The company can make money off of racists. They can make money off of me. They don’t get to demand to do both.

    It doesn’t really matter though because nobody here can understand that pushing an agenda like this is harmful. Let’s just pretend that all people are perfect and good and nothing ever needs to be criticized in any context. If criticisms are raised at specific people (not a general group actually) then you can easily call a person a “racist” and silence any discussion about what really may have happened.

    …do you think this guy is not behaving in a racist manner?
    If not, what would he have to do to do so?
    If so, isn’t it accurate to say he is doing so?
    What ‘discussion’ were you assuming might occur?
    “You said something terribly racist.”
    “Well, yes, but you see (insert your rebuttal here)” Seriously, what should he say?
    What’s the discussion?

  276. says

    Sorry, my bar is higher than that. I actually expect decency out of people. I expect people to treat others with the same base level of respect as everyone else.

    Really? Hypocrite much? You apparently demand decency out of everyone else but yourself.

    you’re a callous asshole… You’re also an apathetic douchebag… you dunderheaded fuckwit! …you fuckbrained moronic shitweasel.

    I want people to see the ways they could be hurting others, whether by their actions or their words.

    You’re trying sooo hard to make words hurt but they just don’t.

    No one is trying to “fix” anyone. No one is trying to “force” anyone. God, think about the words you’re using and what they mean.

    I’m just having a discussion but you’re trying so hard and with so much passion to get me to agree with you about this decency and respect you keep YELLING AND CUSSING ABOUT AND TRYING SO HARD TO DENIGRATE ME AS MUCH AS YOU CAN… for simply being middle of road and apathetic. I should think about my words and what they mean? Have I once verbally assaulted any of you in the manner I’ve been treated here? You’re so worried about how people are talked about but then you don’t live up to your own ideals.

    Simple yes/no answer. Yes, you are allowed to all of those. A radio host is usually allowed to say whatever he wants that doesn’t violate FCC rules for broadcast or the company’s rules on satellite since FCC rules don’t apply there. A company can fire a person for things they say publicly on their own time. A company could probably get away with firing any of us for talking about atheism if they feel it hurts their public image, but you don’t see a relationship there. Racism is bad and apparently atheism is universally accepted as good so no worries there. Racist thoughts and words are just as bad as illegal discriminatory acts. Got it. Calling names hurts the same as sticks and stones. Got your message loud and clear along with all of the hateful name calling directed at me.

    All of this is allowed in a free society… well, except for my criticism of what was presented in this blog post. That isn’t allowed to exist as a civilized discourse. It must be responded to with indecency and a large amount of disrespect since not everyone deserves respect… except that people should treat others with the same base level of respect… well, except for me and how I’m treated here… yep, I’m very confused by your superior moral standing in society. :-(

    Sure, I’ll tell you what I think of Rosa Parks. She was a brave hero boycotting the discriminatory actions of segregated buses where she was being denied equal access. I do care that people were harmed by that and am perfectly fine with boycotts to counter immoral acts (just not words). I’m just libertarian like that. It helped make discrimination of minorities an illegal act so boycotts do work if used for the right reasons. I think boycotts can be and sometimes are overused. Boycotting people saying mean things is overkill. I think it stifles fr… ok, I won’t say it anymore. :-)

    Well, thank you all for such a wonderful and civilized discussion on this mostly unimportant topic of what some jerk may have said on Twitter who also happened to be a host on a subscriber based radio show. I’m sure his words and your words in return are having a tremendous impact on society. I know my words are having zero impact other than my own amusement. ;-) Good day sir!

  277. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Shorter Jeff Sommers: All immoral things are illegal. If it’s not illegal, it can’t be bad. If it was bad, it would be illegal. The real crime? Using course language in the presence of Jeff Sommers.

  278. says

    Of course Jeff doesnt engage my points. He just whines about naughty words.
    Jeff, I happen to think that being callous and apathetic is worse than using bad words. Clearly you dont but you are a tone troll.

  279. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Tony!:

    Odd. Jeff seems to be defending the right of Cumia to say anything he wants in any venue at any time. no matter how racist, misogynist, offensive, hateful, whatever. While at the same time complaining that you use naughty words to disagree. Very interesting.

  280. says

    I wasn’t complaining and don’t care what I’m called. I’m just highlighting the hypocrisy. I’ve had enough of this conversation so hopefully you have too. I’m listening to a good Youtube clip called Lionel Video Indictment: The Thought Vigilantes & Anthony Cumia that sounds pretty good. I’m also reading a Daily Beast article called Fans Rage Over Opie Minus Anthony where ironically for me it talks about fans boycotting SiriusXM for firing him. Of course, they’re actually customers of a show that was changed so there was an action directly impacting them….

  281. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Of course, they’re actually customers of a show that was changed so there was an action directly impacting them….

    See, Jeff…Shit like this? This is what confuses us. I mean, we get that you’re proud of how much you don’t give a shit about anyone who isn’t you but we’ve all made it abundantly clear that we do care. So, tell me Jeff. Who exactly are you trying to convince? Because statements like this quote? Could not be better calculated to not convince anyone who is a regular here.

  282. anteprepro says

    The “hypocrisy” is entirely of your own manufacturing, Jeffy. Insulting people for the shit that they say and do is entirely different from bigotry. If you don’t understand that, you should probably just leave the blog now because you are too stupid to even be effective at trolling. And far to thin-skinned to actually have dialog with too boot.

    It just endlessly entertains me how the people who go out of their way to show how little they care about others are suddenly so offended when they are personally insulted by us. Oh no, my word, how dare we. Again, selfishness. You are only concerned about yourself. Just fucking shut up and move on. You keep telling us how little you care, but it is high time you show us by finally stopping your obsessive, handwringing little shit show in defense of some radio show you kinda like. Speaking of fucking hypocrisy there. Practice the apathy that you preach, fucker.

  283. anteprepro says

    Boycotting a show because its host is racist: Unthinkable!
    Boycotting a show because its racist host is gone: Perfectly fine.

    Have you I suggested that you go fuck yourself yet, Jeff? It is like you are trying to be the worst possible human being that you could be.

  284. says

    Jeff Sommers:

    Really? Hypocrite much? You apparently demand decency out of everyone else but yourself.

    I treated you with the same respect I would accord others until you demonstrated that you were an apathetic asshole.

    My first response to you (which was respectful and civil) @281:

    You’ve yet to explain how boycotts are harmful. You’ve asserted it, but it remains unproven. Can you demonstrate how and why boycotts are harmful? Once you do that, you’ve got to measure this harm against the right of consumers to spend their money where they choose and support the companies they choose.
    Were you likewise against the efforts to boycott Chik Fil A a few years ago?
    Were you against the Baptists that called for boycotts of Disneyworld bc of Gay Days?

    In all your comments, while you have answered the last 2 questions, you have yet to answer the question of how boycotts are harmful. I’ve asked you what, 5 or 6 times now?

    My 2nd response to you (@282) was to point out the racist stuff Cumia has said. It too was civil and respectful.

    My third response to you was merely a clarification of my @282.

    My fourth response to you was @286. *That’s* when I started being less civil. You were not answering questions and you were defending a racist asshole. When you defend racism, you don’t deserve civility.

    And yes, you are whining about my use of coarse language. Because *that’s* your gauge of a civil conversation. One of my important gauges: is the person I’m responding to trampling over the rights of others or supporting those that do? You did that right out of the gate, so I really shouldn’t have treated you with *any* civility from the jump.

    You are one of the best examples of the problems with tone trolling. Your comment @326 did address some of my points, though you still have a poor understanding of free speech. But you began your comment about whining about my tone. As if that has any relevance to the points I was making.

    Some of the things you say show poor critical thinking on your part:

    Simple yes/no answer. Yes, you are allowed to all of those. A radio host is usually allowed to say whatever he wants that doesn’t violate FCC rules for broadcast or the company’s rules on satellite since FCC rules don’t apply there. A company can fire a person for things they say publicly on their own time. A company could probably get away with firing any of us for talking about atheism if they feel it hurts their public image, but you don’t see a relationship there. Racism is bad and apparently atheism is universally accepted as good so no worries there. Racist thoughts and words are just as bad as illegal discriminatory acts. Got it. Calling names hurts the same as sticks and stones. Got your message loud and clear along with all of the hateful name calling directed at me.

    Um, atheism is not anything like racism.
    Racism actively harms the people who are not in the privileged majority, which in the US is white people. Atheism is nothing more than ‘not believing in a god or gods’. Atheism isn’t a set of harmful ideas that lead to bigotry against marginalized people. FFS, atheist *are* discriminated against bc of their non belief. Atheists *are* marginalized by anti-atheist bigotry. But yes, a company could fire someone for being an atheist and probably get away with it. That’s hardly comparable to racism, but one of these things is not like the other. Again, you don’t understand what words mean, nor their impact on people.
    And quit throwing around so much straw. I never said words were as harmful as sticks and stones. Are you fucking 12? Scratch that. A 12 year old *can* understand how words are harmful. Can you not see how words *can* harm? I guess kids that are frequently called faggot and denigrated bc of their sexuality-which has no bearing on the quality of their character*-and who go on to commit suicide because of the verbal bullying weren’t really harmed in your book.
    Can you not see that-while that harm might not be as bad as, say, being punched in the face-words can be harmful? Do you understand the concept of psychological harm? Do you know what microaggressions are?

    Who am I kidding? You’re an apathetic asshole who doesn’t care about the suffering of people who are not you.

    *I point this out because you’re not arguing honestly here, and I can see you whining that my calling you bad names is the same as a bully targeting a queer teen. I’m using rude words and harsh language bc of the quality of your character. Not because of anything like sexuality, race, ethnicity, mental or physical disability, etc. I’m judging you and I’ve found you wanting. I express that by insulting you. If you can’t deal with that-which clearly you cannot-simply stop commenting.

  285. says

    Well, thank you all for such a wonderful and civilized discussion on this mostly unimportant topic…

    Funny how this guy spends shitloads of time talking about this topic, then changes his mind and calls it “unimportant” when he realizes he’s losing the argument. So apparently another thread is about to end with a clumsy flounce.

  286. says

    The person that article is dumb and ill informed. Anthony Cumia is not a racist but one of the few people actually trying to bring attention to a bigger problem. Everything in your article is wrong, Anthony was not taking a creepy picture just a picture like anyone else would in NYC. I would have to assume there was something funny about the black lady that’s why anyone would take a picture. That doesn’t give the right to punch someone repeatedly in the face and then scream “don’t touch me” to alert her thug friends to assault him. If Anthony was such a “racist” why didn’t he just shoot and kill them? It was perfectly legal for him to do so because we was threaten for his life. Instead he took a beating then went home and twitted about it. So a bunch of people that don’t know him or where there can make up there own side of the story and write an article with false information and demand to fire Anthony and “much more” from siriusxm when they had nothing to do with it. This innocentdent had nothing to do with the Opie and Anthony show. It’s people that wrote this article really should lose there jobs because we live in a free country where you are able to say what ever you want. If you don’t like Anthony then don’t listen but the person that wrote this article is technically provoking a riot under false pretenses and people could get hurt which that is illegal. Now do I really think the last sentence I wrote is a bit much to convict someone of illegal activity? Yes and do I think they really should be fired? No I don’t. So why was Anthony fired again?

  287. says

    Jonathan Preziose

    See my comments @42 and @49 for examples of the racist things Cumia said.
    See my comment @77 for the meaning of racism.
    See my comment @84 for an understanding of what bigotry and prejudice are.

    You’ve stormed into a thread where the participants have already discussed everything you’ve brought up. If you’re actually here to engage in conversation and/or debate, read the thread. If not, buzz off.

  288. says

    Also, this:

    It’s people that wrote this article really should lose there jobs because we live in a free country where you are able to say what ever you want.

    shows you don’t understand the 1st Amendment. If you choose to read through this thread, you’ll find this discussed as well.
    The First Amendment does not guarantee anyone a platform. It merely protects the citizens of this country from having their voices silenced-by the government. Sirius is not associated with the US government and can fire people for saying things they don’t approve of.

  289. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Jonathan Preziose, #336:

    the person that wrote this article is technically provoking a riot under false pretenses and people could get hurt which that is illegal.

    bwahahahahahahahaha.

    Oh, I so want to see that “provoking a riot under false pretenses” statute.

    Thank you so much for the laugh.