Dr. Laura is ending her radio show after 16 years. There was a caller who was black that is married to a white man. The white man's friends use racist words and slurs when referring to her, so she called Dr. Laura for help.
Here is a transcript:
quote:
Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO and listen to a black comic, and all you hear is n****, n*****, n*****. I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it’s a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it’s affectionate. It’s very confusing.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
DR. LAURA: It depends how it’s said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it’s ok.
CALLER: But you’re not black, they’re not black, my husband is white.
DR. LAURA: Oh, I see, so a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can’t do much about that.
CALLER: I can’t believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the n***** word, and I hope everybody heard it.
DR. LAURA: I didn’t spew out the n***** word!
CALLER: You said “n*****, n*****, n*****” and I hope everybody heard it.
DR. LAURA: Yes they did, and I’ll say it again: n*****, n*****, n***** is what you hear on HBO. [Crosstalk] DR. LAURA: Why don’t you let me finish a sentence? Don’t take things out of context. Don’t NAACP me, leave them in context.
I understand her point because I never understood why a word associated with racism is ok if said by someone of that race. That being said, I don't know what the hell was she thinking. From what I understand the girl was asking about what she could do about the situation. Dr. Laura instead takes the opportunity to go off on a sermon about the N word. Context or not, she used the word.
I've listened to Dr. Laura before and I don't always agree with her, but I enjoyed listening to her for the same reason I get a kick out of Judge Judy. Neither of them sugar coat anything. This however has caused me to lose all respect for her. She could have just helped the girl with her problem. If she did want to talk about the use of the N word that is fine, but to actually say the word on the radio and then basically tell the girl that it is ok that her husbands friends call her that is just stupid.
I'm glad she is stepping down from her show. She handled the situation poorly and I'm suprised she is being allowed to finish her contract.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I understand her point because I never understood why a word associated with racism is ok if said by someone of that race.
Really? It's pretty typical for a marginalized group to take on and "own" the language previously used by their oppressors as insults.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I saw an interview with her this morning and I think that this is a way for her to generate ratings towards the end of her contract before she makes the jump to satellite radio only where she can say whatever she wants
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yep, the problem would be the original attitude behind the slur, not anything inherent to the letters or sounds of the slur.
There's an interesting list on Wikipedia (insert usual caveat about Wikipedia) that lists words such as "Jesuit", "queer", "nerd" for example.
I've never understood the confusion. A class or group to whom a derogatory word refers often adapts the word themselves to help defuse it and because, coming from another member of the group, it's funny and bonding and a way to reaffirm your togetherness against the people outside the group. When the word is coming from someone inside the group, other members know without asking that the person using it is not prejudiced against the group.
If someone outside the group uses it, people inside the group have no way of knowing if it's being used ironically or as a slur.
Seriously, why is this difficult to understand? If a friend of mine gets out of his car and yells "Hey, a**hole!" at me while grinning, I know what he means to convey, which is: "Hey! We're friends, and as friends I have the freedom to call you an offensive name without concern that you will take offense because I know you know I don't mean it and we'll both get a kick out of publicly reaffirming our bond while possibly shocking others. How you doing?"
If a stranger gets out of his car, grins and calls me an a**hole, I'm immediately on the defensive and looking for a tire iron.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My favorite part is where Dr. Laura complains about her First Amendment rights being violated, because apparently the First Amendment guarantees air time and income.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
You and your friends call each other cuss words just to shock others? Sounds pretty childish...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And?
(Note I only mentioned the shock effect after stressing the mutual bonding part.)
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
That was my favorite part too, but somehow I think this is more about her going to satellite radio than anything else. I might be wrong but that is the feeling I am getting... it's a stupid stupid way to do it, but it does get her name out there
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anyone who thinks it's unfair or is upset that black people use the word to and about each other but white people can't is selling something. It's actually very easy to understand, and pretty straightforward: words do not just have one meaning.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
DarkKnight: I agree. Every time I hear that Ann Coulter has said something incredibly over-the-top offensive and then loudly claimed to be the victim, my first question is "When's her new book coming out again?"
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
My guess is that people who call each other derogatory terms only do it when others are around. An attention getting act. The "bonding" is being part of the group that is trying to shock others. Herd mentality. Stupid, in my opinion.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:My guess is that people who call each other derogatory terms only do it when others are around. An attention getting act. The "bonding" is being part of the group that is trying to shock others. Herd mentality. Stupid, in my opinion.
Your guess is wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure that her comments were racist. She pointed out that African Americans can call other African Americans a word that caucasians cannot use without being derogatory. If she's offended by that...well, that's not racism; that's ignorance.
We Americans have a long tradition of coopting insulting words and songs and making them part of a positive (or neutral) cultural identity. I don't think we should stop now.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:My guess is that people who call each other derogatory terms only do it when others are around. An attention getting act. The "bonding" is being part of the group that is trying to shock others. Herd mentality. Stupid, in my opinion.
Your guess is wrong.
QFT
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:My guess is that people who call each other derogatory terms only do it when others are around. An attention getting act. The "bonding" is being part of the group that is trying to shock others. Herd mentality. Stupid, in my opinion.
Your guess is wrong.
Yeah, agreed. My friends and I call each other derogatory terms regularly, and if anything, we are more likely to censor when surrounded by people who just "wouldn't get it".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote: If she's offended by that...well, that's not racism; that's ignorance.
I would argue that racist remarks that stem from ignorance are just as problematic (in fact, moreso because they are harder to address) than comments motivated by actual malice.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:My guess is that people who call each other derogatory terms only do it when others are around. An attention getting act. The "bonding" is being part of the group that is trying to shock others. Herd mentality. Stupid, in my opinion.
Nope, also happens in private, in e-mails, in texts... The bonding is being part of a group. Period. The shocking part is just a bonus And, as stated above, a large part of it is to remove some of the power of the word from the people who use it in a derogatory fashion.
I don't know if Dr. Laura is racist, and frankly don't care. What this does reveal to me is that Dr. Laura, for a personal adviser, has a shockingly bad grasp of how people and groups work. Also the Bill of Rights.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote: If she's offended by that...well, that's not racism; that's ignorance.
I would argue that racist remarks that stem from ignorance are just as problematic (in fact, moreso because they are harder to address) than comments motivated by actual malice.
I don't think it's a given that her remarks were racist. Here, I'm defining racism as something that is derogatory toward members of another race. While her comments had racial connotations-- in that they were highlighting differences between races-- I don't know that they were derogatory or insulting.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not sure that her comments were racist. She pointed out that African Americans can call other African Americans a word that caucasians cannot use without being derogatory.
I think I've got to agree with Scott. Linguists distinguish between the use and mention of a word. Technically, Dr. Laura was mentioning the n-word, not using it, and she essentially made this point in that last sentence of hers quoted in the original post.
Other parts of that transcript still manage to sound insensitive and offensive, though, without actually using the n-word.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Matt P, regardless of whether it is an endearing term or not when used between two people of the same group does not make it right.
If you are in your own home that is one thing. If your friend gets out of his car and calls you an A$$hole and there are other people around, I don't think it is ok. You may be fine with it because you understand the context. But what about someone walking down the street that hears your friend? Or a mother that is there with her child?
Lets say you have a child and you are in a parking lot. There is two black men calling each other the N-word. Is that appropriate? This happened to my mother and my youngest brother about 10 years ago. My brother was in Kindergarten at the time, and said the N word to a black child in his class. He was suspended and my little brother had no idea that he had said something wrong.
Just because you feel it is ok for you to say but not others doesn't make it right. If you want to get rid of the use of the word, don't use it yourself.
Scott R, Dr. Laura's comments may not have been racist in intent, but I think the N word is a racist term no matter who uses it, black or whtie alike.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well ... Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Whether to use the word at all is a different question. The question here is who can use the word, and why.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you want to get rid of the use of the word, don't use it yourself.
But who wants to get rid of words?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you want to get rid of the use of the word, don't use it yourself.
But who wants to get rid of words?
Where did I state the desire to get rid of a word? Pretty sure I said the USE of the word. There is a difference.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Everyone focuses on the derogatory words, but there are a lot of words that can only be safely used in context between certain groups of people.
My wife enjoys it when I call her by certain affectionate terms. They remind us both of our bond and shared experiences and the level of intimacy we share. If someone else were to call her any of them she would have no idea what they would mean by it and would be defensive. But by Dr. Laura's logic, anyone should be able to call her by such terms and she would be ridiculous to take offense.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Where did I state the desire to get rid of a word? Pretty sure I said the USE of the word. There is a difference.
*shrug* Very zen. If a word is used in the forest ...
Anyways, if you insist, who wants to get rid of use of the word?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Everyone focuses on the derogatory words, but there are a lot of words that can only be safely used in context between certain groups of people.
My wife enjoys it when I call her by certain affectionate terms but would be very annoyed were she called any of them by a stranger. Those terms remind us both of our bond and shared experiences and the level of intimacy we share. If someone else uses them for her she has no idea what they would mean by it and would be defensive. But Dr. Laura's logic would state that anyone should be able to call her by those terms and she's silly for taking offense.
Excellent point - hadn't thought of this context...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Easy example, with no racial overtones whatsoever: If I slide into a seat next to Teresa and murmur, "Hey, lover," she's likely to smile. If a random guy in a restaurant walks by her and says, "Hey, lover," she's likely to give him a bewildered, annoyed look and reach not-so-subtly into her purse for her pepper spray. Why? Exact same word, and not even a derogatory one.
It's not the word. It's the context, and the impossibility of knowing the intent of the word.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If use of the N-word here is the only thing considered a sin, I think she may have made a bad choice, but I don't think it was racist. I agree with Scott and Jon Boy about the difference between use and mention. I don't think society should be at the point where we can't even say a word, so long as we are fully cognizant of what that word means and the baggage that goes with it.
I suspect she may have been stirring the pot with her other comments a little bit, but I don't think she was being racist. I think there's a fine line between being insensitive/acting in poor taste, and being racist. I don't think she crossed that line, but I think she was walking near it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But in her use of it, she was still offensive. Not because she was attacking any specific person, but because she was going on at some length to question why people are offended by it, in effect trivializing the harm done to blacks by people who did use the term in a derogatory manner and the harm still being perpetuated by such people. She demonstrated that she was oblivious to the harm words can do, that she was unaware of group dynamics -- especially minimalized groups -- and that she clearly does not think that racial jokes or condescension is a serious thing because she didn't address the caller's problem at all, other than as a springboard for her own pet peeve rant.
People who are treated poorly tend to get annoyed when someone else tells them why they shouldn't be bothered by it, and then why it's unfair that they get bothered by it in the first place.
Dr. Laura doesn't offend me at all because she might be racist. She does offend me because she's a short-sighted idiot with a microphone.
I still wouldn't force her off the air, though. I just wouldn't listen (and I don't) and will continue to tell people just why she's an idiot.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I've listened to her for awhile, and I don't always agree with her. But she demands that people take responsibility for themselves, make the right (if difficult) decision, and not play the victim.
She's also a strong advocate for children. In every situation, the safety and well-being of the child comes first and foremost.
An argument about who should and shouldn't use the N-word is hardly cause for throwing out accusations of racism. If we're going to be this particular about who is and isn't racist, then what IS safe to say or think about or argue about anymore?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lobo, you do it too, so you really ought to quit your vaguely prejudiced sneering. And I say you do it because everyone does it. The terms change, and the severity of the terms, and the company changes, but that's it. So it seems very likely that you're either very unaware of people in general and yourself in particular, or you're being deceptive in some measure as a political point.
quote: Scott R, Dr. Laura's comments may not have been racist in intent, but I think the N word is a racist term no matter who uses it, black or whtie alike.
Why is it a racist term if one black person uses it, carrying one meaning that is not racist?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: Scott R, Dr. Laura's comments may not have been racist in intent, but I think the N word is a racist term no matter who uses it, black or whtie alike.
Why is it a racist term if one black person uses it, carrying one meaning that is not racist?
Why is it a racist term if a white person uses it, carrying one meaning that is not racist?
If I walk up to a black guy and say "What's up N-word?" in a playful tone,am I a racist?
While intent matters, I think it is the history of the word as well as the connotations it entails that should discourage anyone from using it, regardless of skin color or social status.
I think it is equally inappropriate to call someone a "towel head." It is a duragatory term. You may just be joking around with a friend, but it doesn't change the fact that it is disrespectful.
I understand where most of you are coming from. I just feel that the use of the word in any situation just perpetuates the problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
They can have their bloody word, I sure as heck don't need it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Just curious Geraine: do you have an inherent problem with profanity in general or are you primarily concerned with racist overtones/history?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just listened to the transcript. I could care less about whitey using the N-word but she was just being ... stupid. Words have context. Racially charged words have very sensitive context. Understanding those contexts and how to use these words sensitively is obviously beyond some commentators.
However, Laura is something of a complete dingbat anyway, so I'm wholly unsurprised.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lobo, you do it too, so you really ought to quit your vaguely prejudiced sneering.
I do what too? Insult my friends as an act of bonding? Swear to get attention?
You really should provide some context...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
AFAIK, Rakeesh means that you probably also use words that at one point or another were pejorative but have been reclaimed at some point or another.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Specifically, I meant that lobo like every other human being, everywhere, uses words that in one context mean one thing but in others are quite offensive or even frightening. Chris gave an excellent, everyday example that ought to be easy to relate to. I am certain lobo does that, as I doubt he's a bot. I am less certain but think it likely that he uses words that are considered insulting when applied to some people, but in a given social setting are acceptable, like most everyone I've ever spoken with at length.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I think using derogatory terms (swear words, the N-word) to address friends and using terms like "hello lover" to address your spouse are different animals. The derogatory terms that have been discussed are almost universally offensive - even in the context of saying them to your friends.
I don't think that my frowning on one and my using the other is "prejudiced sneering".
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The fact of the matter is that most of the meaning of a label lies in the user's intent. There are degrees to Chris' a$$hole example, and I think he deliberately chose the one that sounded the most "offensive" to make a point in comparing it with the N-word. But there are other examples, such as two friendly women referring to each other as "hussies." It's generally a backhanded compliment based on what the women see as the positive aspects of the label, such as sauciness or the unwillingness to submit.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Or "you idiot" when your spouse does something sweet but goofy. As used in 101 Dalmations, "Oh Roger, you are an idiot." We had to have pretty much this same conversation with our 3 year old over that one -- it can be used affectionately, but usually it's not a nice word to call people. When in doubt, don't use it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*laugh* We had to tell our son that it's not nice to call people obese. This is how my husband and I refer to each other when we put on a little weight.
It should be noted that my husband says this to me in a tone of admiration while slapping my backside.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:On Wednesday, Palin leaped to defend radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who used the N word 11 times when a black woman called her advice hotline last week. After the furor broke, Dr. Laura apologized for a “horrible mistake.” She also announced she would end her radio show so she could “get her First Amendment rights back” away from the media glare—prompting a certain ex-governor in Wasilla to take to Twitter: "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence'isn't American,not fair')."
Later, Palin added: "Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, this will certainly serve as clear-cut ammunition against those who do anything but scorn Palin. The good old it violates the first amendment! BS argument.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not even sure what Palin is trying to say there. This does seem like one of those teachable moments that Obama likes to talk about though. Maybe it's a good time to have a national discussion about the difference between having the right to say whatever you want, and having the courtesy to say things that don't offend. And for that matter, that consequences can result from offensive language, whether you have the constitutional right to say it or not.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I am extremely disappointed in the choice of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. I will still vote for Senator McCain, because I am very concerned about having a fundamental leftist, especially one who is a marvelous orator, as President.
...
I’m stunned - couldn’t the Republican Party find one competent female with adult children to run for Vice President with McCain? I realize his advisors probably didn’t want a “mature” woman, as the Democrats keep harping on his age.
--j_k
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I want my first amendment rights! No one pays me to have a talk show or listens and respects what I say regardless of how offensive and stupid it is. It is not only unfair, but unconstitutional!
Oh- I generally agree with the principle that people are overly sensitive, but listening to the clip with the earlier setup, Laura is kinda a $#%#$, even if she had said "n-word" instead of the actual word, she was still offensive.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah, my comment about "racism from ignorance" had almost nothing to do with use of the n-word and everything to do with the actual content of the statement.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Although I agree that we ought to differentiate between mention and useof a word, the number of times she mentioned it was pretty gratuitous.
And, as others have said, the ignorance she displayed is the real issue.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
She didn't just quote the N-word a bunch of times; she also said, among other things,
"I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing."
and
"If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race."
So I can understand why anyone would be offended by what she said.
You know what makes me sad? That so many of the people (rightfully) criticizing her can't do it without calling her a "stupid cunt" or "dumb bitch"... like really, they can't think of a better way to combat racism than with sexism?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't know that using a gendered slur is necessarily a display of sexism. Most of the similar insults applied to men are also, generally speaking, applied *only* to men. She's a bitch. He's a dick. That's just convention.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Certainly, but female gendered slurs historically have much worse connotations than male gendered slurs. An example: I rarely see adjectives such as "stupid" "dumb" and etc attached to male gendered slurs, whereas it's almost a kneejerk reaction to dismiss the intelligence of any woman one dislikes, feeding into the trope that women in general are inherently more frivolous and foolish than men. In short: it is convention, but conventions weren't made in a vacuum.
On a less serious note, I'd just like to see people get more creative with their insults. A bigger vocabulary is always a good thing Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Or, if you look at it the other way, female slurs have to be qualified with terms like "stupid," whereas male slurs take that for granted. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence'isn't American,not fair')."
It's like the perfect storm of mental vapidity. Palinesque desperately condensed into a 140 character limit, creating a hybrid grammatical/logical abomination that hits you like a brick being thrown into the washing machine of your mind. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I want my first amendment rights! No one pays me to have a talk show or listens and respects what I say regardless of how offensive and stupid it is. It is not only unfair, but unconstitutional!
She's so oppressed! All she wanted was what every other American enjoys under the constitution; the right to say stupid things and never face any consequences from your fellow citizens!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Only one instance in which a white person may use the word.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Am I allowed to sing along to rap songs?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
My wife was making a similar point a few days ago and I knew something was not right.
Why can African American teens in her schools hallway us the n-word and the other kids can not.
Then, thank Card, it struck me what the situation was.
The N-Word is used to define a group of people. Historically, when a non-African-American group use it, they are defining a group of people as less than human, unworthy, basically--The Other.
When an African American group use it they are defining themselves as being part of the same group that has endured the unique travails of that particular minority experience.
When I say N it is associated with others that look and talk like me saying "they are Other." When they say it is is associated with their group saying "its hard out there, but together we can withstand it."
I've heard the bleeped version of her conversation. I find it 10 times more racist in that she suggested that only people willing to put up with abuse should marry outside their race, than in her attempt to comprehend the meanings of the N-word. The fact that she supposedly fights against the culture of victimization is opposed by her advice--which is, "Its not their fault they are calling you degrading names. Its your fault for not ignoring it, which is what all good people do when they dare to cross the race line. Its your fault so you deserve to suffer for it."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
When things like this happen, I tend to find myself thinking: "Why couldn't (x) have gotten hammered for any of their willful and intentional displays of abhorrent behavior rather than some stupid, off-the-cuff thing they said that happened to hit the right (wrong) button?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is particularly worth asking in the case of Dr. Laura, who has spent years dispensing probably the most fantastically terrible and offensive advice on her radio show imaginable. Years. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that despite the group dynamics, it is still wrong to give one group a pass on a term and another group such severe consequences. I am thinking about the current Jennifer Anniston controversy over calling herself a retard. I have never heard anyone in any the disabled community use the word they are trying to eliminate and frankly I think it makes their claims a lot stronger. I think by using it within the group, it will eventually return to being a universal word- like how there used to be that show "Queer eye for the straight guy" when at one time queer was considered a very offensive word. I think a word like retarded will instead fade and disappear.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The N-Word is used to define a group of people. Historically, when a non-African-American group use it, they are defining a group of people as less than human, unworthy, basically--The Other.
When an African American group use it they are defining themselves as being part of the same group that has endured the unique travails of that particular minority experience.
When I say N it is associated with others that look and talk like me saying "they are Other." When they say it is is associated with their group saying "its hard out there, but together we can withstand it."
If you look in the dictionary, it shows that the word is used to defined as follows:
"a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised. "
To me, that still doesn't make it right. If I called another member of the LDS faith the N-Word, it would not be ok, even though according to history and the dictionary term I would be perfectly justified in doing so.
quote:Just curious Geraine: do you have an inherent problem with profanity in general or are you primarily concerned with racist overtones/history?
It isn't a question of profanity to me, but with the racist overtones and history. I think the term "Uncle Tom" when referring to a black man is offensive due to history. I also have problems with terms such as "wetback," "chink," and "spick" are offensive.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, you had just mentioned a similar problem with Chris Bridge's use of profanity in public, so I wasn't sure whether the driving force was the racist element or the vulgarity in general.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is particularly worth asking in the case of Dr. Laura, who has spent years dispensing probably the most fantastically terrible and offensive advice on her radio show imaginable. Years.
I think that's a bit exaggerated. People wouldn't listen to her show if her advice had zero efficacy.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:People wouldn't listen to her show if her advice had zero efficacy.
People do all sorts of stuff irrespective of efficacy. People only need to *think* it's effective in order to keep doing it and in the case of Dr. Laura, I've known many people who have listened to her purely for entertainment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is particularly worth asking in the case of Dr. Laura, who has spent years dispensing probably the most fantastically terrible and offensive advice on her radio show imaginable. Years.
I think that's a bit exaggerated. People wouldn't listen to her show if her advice had zero efficacy.
People listen very intently to homeopaths. More people than watch Laura's show, in fact. That people listen to something doesn't mean that it's not possibly wrong and harmful, as Dr. Laura's advice often was.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Dr. Laura holds the opinion that if someone calls her show, the only person she can help is the person with whom she's speaking. So she's often very tough on the person in question.
She's not for everyone and has by no means given 100% perfect advice all the time, but I'll wager most people would do well to stop playing the victim, put their children first, and make the right and hard decisions. That's the crux of Dr. Laura's advice. Apart from hurting someone's feelings, I can't see how that's harmful.
Then again, Dr. Laura leans more right than left, so I imagine the opinions expressed here about her "wrong and harmful" advice might be based more off that than her actual show.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's the crux of Dr. Laura's advice.
And like a doctor who recommends a low-fat diet and jogging to all his patients, regardless of their aliment, Dr. Laura leans on that "crux" considerably harder than she needs to. To the point that she's practically cartoonish.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Then again, Dr. Laura leans more right than left, so I imagine the opinions expressed here about her "wrong and harmful" advice might be based more off that than her actual show.
No. It could not be more fantastically irrelevant to me. This even though what parts of her advice could easily be crudely implicated as being 'right wing' don't help her at all because those parts that are construed as 'right wing' involve her already bad advice becoming snakebitten with ignorant homophobia and culturally inquisitive demands that women juggling career and family immediately prostrate themselves to the traditional role of women, regardless of how appropriate this advice actually is. But I don't consider that inherently 'right wing' any more than I would consider it to be 'right wing' if she gave racist advice. If she represents 'right wing' therapy and life advice, then 'right wing' therapy and life advice sucks and is bogglingly shallow.
My opinion is based off of her actual show, because her actual show sucks and she's a terrible advisor.
Her advice is silly, she overuses a 'confrontational' style, and frequently prescribes bad advice fostering codependency and malignantly harmful parentage in the worst of cases. Just guess what she'll recommend if your son comes out to you as gay. Just guess. For the rest of the issue, I will wantonly paraphrase from the nameless.
Her show was popular because she was considered to be an unwavering moral champion of tough love. She has no patience with people who 'lie to themselves' and she 'tells it like it is even if it hurts.' If this was true, it would be somewhat commendable. It is difficult and sometimes risky to tell people things they don't want to admit to themselves. It is true providing, of course, you have a relationship with that person and some actual insight into their situation. It is not true if you do not. It is neither difficult nor risky to give advice to strangers. And that's the biggest problem with Dr. Laura.
Typically, her callers get an iota of impeded upon time to describe their situation. Any detail that seems extra is instantly discarded. Within that time Dr. Laura has already 'identified' the 'type' of person making the call, their problem, and selected the appropriate formulaic solution to solve it.
Unfortunately, Dr. Laura seems to only use about 4 different categories of people and problems. Since there are millions of people and problems which she's presented with other than the 4 she understands, only 4 in a million will fit into one of her categories. But since there are only 4, they're going to have to fit in somehow. So all the factual details of the problem that don't fit or contradict her categorization, she ignores.
That is probably why the caller gets so little time. Any more time would bring out all the troublesome facts of their situation that would make her advice look shallow and incomplete. The advice itself is designed more around palliating and gratifying her audience than actually being helpful. It's not advice which is particularly helpful to an individual, it's advice which her audience likes to gratify themselves on hearing someone else be told to do. Like many in the self help field she survives on public acceptance of the notion that there are easy answers and that she can dispense them to you and have them take hold in less than the time it takes to microwave bacon.
Other personalities that work off her same general formula are still typically leagues better than she is. For her popularity, Dr. Laura was in a fail-class of her own. Her advice was often fabulously poor and ruthlessly adopted to the single 'crux' you mentioned, to the extent where the odds of the advice actually being useful to the myriad of situations that were phoned into her was an absolute crap shoot.
It's not actually a surprise. Dr. Laura is in no way qualified. The PhD behind her being "Dr. Laura" is a PhD in physiology, not any of the fields relevant to psychological inquiry or therapy. Of all the people who are actually qualified, PhD holding psychotherapists, most would understand the problems with trying to immediately assess and assail someone based on the most cursory of data in the way Dr. Laura's style was so inclined to do. In lieu of being actually qualified to assess, she filled in the holes with gratuitous, presumptory moralizing. You don't have to be right wing to do that.
I'm sure we all recall my stance on therapy. Laura represented the most demagogic bastardization of pop-therapy in mainstream culture. She made Dr. Phil look like a saint.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really, I'm not sure why anyone credits Dr. Laura with, well, anything above neutral. She calls herself 'Dr' Laura and dispenses psychiatric- and medical-style advice, but she is not actually a doctor in either of those fields. The choice to call herself that professionally cannot possibly have been made unknowingly, therefore she is awfully sleazy and deceitful.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, she does have a PhD, and is certified as a marriage counsellor. From Wikipedia:
quote:She received a bachelor's degree from Stony Brook University. Moving to Columbia University for graduate studies, she earned a Master's and Ph.D. in physiology in 1974. Her doctoral thesis was on the effects of insulin in rats. After she began dispensing personal advice on the radio, she obtained training and certification in marriage and family counseling from the University of Southern California, and a therapist's license from the State of California. In addition, she opened up a part-time practice as a marriage and family counselor.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Well, she does have a PhD
As I mentioned, in physiology. I fully grant she would likely be fully qualified to be a nationally renown source on issues related to that field, but it's not a degree in anything remotely related to her field of promoted expertise.
The other licenses grant her more credibility than what she gets the Dr. moniker for. Though, like I had noted, it's easy for terrible therapists to get a therapists' license and in and of itself is little guarantee of quality. Fortunately, thanks to her show, I have little ambiguity on the matter: she sucks. She's a known quantity.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Dr. Laura bills herself as a Jewish mother who nags people to do what's right. That's it! Take it or leave it.
Her listeners have known for a long time that she's not a doctor of psychology or a licensed therapist. She's pointed this out herself many times and has advised people to seek professional help when the situation is beyond her.
You can dislike her show all you want. There are times I find her too confrontational for my taste and tune her out. But I take issue when you speak in absolutes. Not all of her advice is wrong or harmful. Many people have benefited from it. At her worst, she's noisy and argumentative, and people are turned off by her. At her best, she's on the phone finding a local women's shelter for someone who needs to get away from an abusive husband.
Edited to change "her" to "an."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But I take issue when you speak in absolutes. Not all of her advice is wrong or harmful.
quote:wrong and harmful, like Dr. Laura's advice often was.
quote:Her advice was often fabulously poor and ruthlessly adopted to the single 'crux' you mentioned
These are not absolutes. I'm not saying that Laura's advice is 'always' bad. If you are taking issue with people speaking in absolutes, you might want to wait for that to actually happen, at least in my case.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, she does have a PhD, and is certified as a marriage counsellor. From Wikipedia:
Yes, I know, Scott. She is technically accurate. But given the content of her show, calling herself Doctor Laura sends a pretty specific implied message. I can tolerate that kind of implied deception in, say, advertising. It's to be expected there. And the smart thing to do is to expect it in mass media in general, after all. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make her any less sleazy for doing it. If she called herself 'Counselor Laura', I would have no complaint, at least not any complaint not tied to her rhetoric. But she doesn't. 'Doctor' Laura-not, y'know, in the things I actually broadcast (preach) about, but am I mistaken or does she mention that at the beginning of her show, as a bit of helpful information to her listeners?
quote:Dr. Laura bills herself as a Jewish mother who nags people to do what's right. That's it! Take it or leave it.
No, she bills herself as a Doctor. It's right there in the name. My next door neighbor growing up had a phD in some mathematical field, maybe engineering, I forget. He was also very much involved in his church when I was a kid - I know this from many attempts to rope me in when I was a kid, only a couple of which were successful. But when he spoke to his fellow church-goers, he didn't say, "I'm Doctor ______," he just said, "I'm Stephen." I'm sure one of the reasons was, aside from it being silly and pretentious to refer to himself as 'Doctor' outside of conversations where it's relevant, he didn't want to convey a false image.
quote: Her listeners have known for a long time that she's not a doctor of psychology or a licensed therapist. She's pointed this out herself many times and has advised people to seek professional help when the situation is beyond her.
It sounds like you're a regular or at least a not-infrequent listener. How often, in a typical broadcast, does she point this out vs. the number of times she is referred to in that same span as 'Doctor Laura'? I would be very much shocked if the proportion was incredibly skewed towards the latter instead of the former.
quote: You can dislike her show all you want. There are times I find her too confrontational for my taste and tune her out. But I take issue when you speak in absolutes. Not all of her advice is wrong or harmful. Many people have benefited from it. At her worst, she's noisy and argumentative, and people are turned off by her. At her best, she's on the phone finding a local women's shelter for someone who needs to get away from an abusive husband.
Who is speaking in absolutes? Who has said all of her advice is wrong or harmful? You're speaking against arguments that haven't been made, FoolishTook.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Dr. Laura is interesting to listen to you if look at her advice as global standards instead of solutions to the specific problem of the caller.
I don't believe anyone can give really relevant advice to a complex problem in a 30-120 second phone call. However, Dr. Laura is a great defender of children, stresses honest communication, the need to stand up for yourself, goals, and values, and tries to get people to not be so selfish in relationships.
I think she is horribly wrong on gay issues. I think her directive to not marry or date once you are divorced is unrealistic and meaningless. Her specific advice might be toxic to the caller--but she is good at setting out a standard for other people to try and implement in their lives.
I tend to listen to talk radio. I don't have many cds, our music stations are aweful, and I travel a lot in my car.
I would rank our little towns line up as:
Dave Ramsey (I actually like him a lot)--Dr. Laura (tolerable, interesting to listen to, I am not a hater or a lover)--Rush Limbaugh (I agree on fiscal conservative issues BUT I DISLIKE him a lot. He can be funny but he is a master deceiver, manipulator, and he makes me mad)--Hannity (can't stomach him for more then 5 minutes--Levine (I honestly wonder how he has a successful show). I can't rate Beck or Savage. *shudder*
I don't know the other air personalities like Colmes or the satellite people like Stern. I don't listen to anyone a lot. I wish Ramsey had the 10-1 slot--that is when I am in my car the most.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Given that she renounced her conversion, I'm pretty sure she hasn't billed herself as "Jewish" anything in quite a long time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I tend to listen to talk radio.
This is a problem. You should call in and ask Doctor Laura how to stop. Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I'm pretty sure "Dr. Laura" was a marketing idea in the beginning, and it stuck.
She doesn't announce that she's not a licensed therapist or has a PHD in psychology at the beginning of every show--with the exception of the one show when she addressed criticism from people about this very subject--but if the subject is ever brought up, she doesn't hesitate to point this out.
quote:Samprimary: These are not absolutes. I'm not saying that Laura's advice is 'always' bad. If you are taking issue with people speaking in absolutes, you might want to wait for that to actually happen, at least in my case.
The statement itself, that her advice is wrong and harmful is what I'm getting at. You don't know that any of her advice has ever been harmful. You're assuming it is and stating with confidence that, most of the time, her advice is wrong and harmful.
Does it hurt people's feelings sometimes? Yes. But so do a lot of things--positive and negative.
quote:I tend to listen to talk radio. I don't have many cds, our music stations are aweful, and I travel a lot in my car.
Same here. If it's not an audiobook, I go for talk radio, news, whatever I can get a hold of.
I don't care much for Hannity. I like Glenn Beck the most. I dislike Savage. Limbaugh is okay.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You don't know that any of her advice has ever been harmful.
All I would have to do here is insert a quote of her giving advice recommending reparative therapy for homosexuals, or 'keep your children away from gay relatives! don't you know that gays are predatory biological errors!'
It's a gimme.
yes, I can be sure that she has given harmful advice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You like Glenn Beck the most, hm? Well, I can see why. It was people like him who 'did' the Civil Rights Movement in the first place, and thank goodness he's gone to Washington to reclaim it.
Different strokes for different folks and all that, FoolishTook, but I cannot understand how anyone can appreciate Beck or Limbaugh for that matter as anything serious. They're hacks in a thousand and one ways.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You don't know that any of her advice has ever been harmful.
All I would have to do here is insert a quote of her giving advice recommending reparative therapy for homosexuals, or 'keep your children away from gay relatives! don't you know that gays are predatory biological errors!'
If you could find such a quote I'd be interested, it doesn't mesh with advice I've heard her give on the subject.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Huh, that seems so different from what I've heard her say, but then again, those quotes all seem to stem from 1998-2000. I didn't listen to her show at all until this past year.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
As far as I know, Dr. Laura she supports gay people as long as they are monogamous and committed to one another.
So it sounds like she had a change of heart. Or maybe she just stopped fighting the issue. It's a giant can of worms.
quote:Different strokes for different folks and all that, FoolishTook, but I cannot understand how anyone can appreciate Beck or Limbaugh for that matter as anything serious. They're hacks in a thousand and one ways.
*Shrug* I don't understand how people can watch Rachel Maddow and take her seriously. But I also think her show has value as a counterpoint, and it's obvious where she stands.
Every time I hear something from Glenn Beck or Limbaugh that seems irrefutable, I want to hear the other side's view of it. Usually, the circumstances are far more complicated and less cut and dry as either side presents it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Huh, that seems so different from what I've heard her say, but then again, those quotes all seem to stem from 1998-2000. I didn't listen to her show at all until this past year.
She had been hammered into keeping mum on the subject of homosexuality, for the most part, because of advertising pressure, but that hadn't kept her from saying dumb things about homosexuality on occasion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Every time I hear something from Glenn Beck or Limbaugh that seems irrefutable, I want to hear the other side's view of it. Usually, the circumstances are far more complicated and less cut and dry as either side presents it.
Example? Maybe about how people like Beck were the ones who did the Civil Rights Movement?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:*Shrug* I don't understand how people can watch Rachel Maddow and take her seriously. But I also think her show has value as a counterpoint, and it's obvious where she stands.
I don't believe shows have value as counterpoints. Aping the obnoxious, imperious format of serial misinformers on the other side doesn't give you value as an informer, only a demographic niche. I think that Maddow, Olbermann, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, should primarily be viewed in terms of whether or not they are actively informing or misinforming, and whether or not they improve the public discourse.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I want my news to actually be news. I don't want partisan rhetoric. Baring that, I want humor, which is why I am one of those Americans who counts the Daily Show as their news source. At least they know that it isn't like real news.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I used to listen to "Dr." Laura back when she was one of the few voices supporting my lifestyle choice (which, as it turns out, was also the lowest period of my life to date) but I stopped listening for a couple of reasons.
One day I heard her badger a woman with children into not taking a class to better her life because it would 'take too much time away from her kids.' Basically, she said if this woman wanted a life of her own, she should not have had children, because when you have kids you're not allowed to do anything for yourself.
It bummed me out so badly (I was fighting post-partum depression at the time) that my husband (who hated Dr. Laura anyway) begged me never to listen to her again.
It seemed to me that if she had followed her own advice, she wouldn't have a freaking radio show. That was ten years ago, or more. I feel no particular enmity toward her, but sometimes you have to cut things and people that hurt out of your life. So I did.
On the original topic of this thread, it wasn't her point about the n word that was offensive to me. She's right. It's not okay for whites to say that word, and it is a double standard (for very understandable reasons as Darth _Mauve pointed out). To hear her chanting the n word was shocking, but what was <I>offensive </I> was the idea that if you marry out of your race and your spouse's friends use racial slurs, you should just suck it up because you have no sense of humor. (I wonder if the caller had been Jewish and her spouse's friends used the k word, or if it had been a white couple and the friends had used the c word, if her response would have been different.
Here is a video that is circulating as a part of a movement among African Americans to persuade other African Americans not to use the N word:
So the word is not without controversy among people of color, either.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's not about having a sense of humor or not, it's clear from context that the friends were being abnoxious and almost certainly refused to stop.
If it's used in a funny context then any comedian will tell you that part of the rules is that if its offensive, and someone actually personally gets offended then you have to apologize and stop. (On a personal level, there's no helping it if your doing it on a stage and 1 out of 100 gets offended)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One day I heard her badger a woman with children into not taking a class to better her life because it would 'take too much time away from her kids.' Basically, she said if this woman wanted a life of her own, she should not have had children, because when you have kids you're not allowed to do anything for yourself.
I have no idea which, overall, was her worst angle: her stuff about gays, or this whole deal where families are always supposed to work this way and if you a mom, you get back in the kitchen right the heck now.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the in group argument is nonsense, but she also shouldn't have repeated the word. Do people do the in group thing? Yes. Does that make it good and something educated people should defend? No.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Example? Maybe about how people like Beck were the ones who did the Civil Rights Movement?
This comes the closest to providing context, and yet there are still those pesky little dots that leave questions:
quote:“This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement. We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties and, damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights movement … we will take that movement because we were the people who did it in the first place.”
For either republicans or democrats to claim the movement for themselves is a bit silly. I don't agree with Glenn Beck. But I also take issue with the notion that only liberals can support Martin Luther King's ideas.
quote:I don't believe shows have value as counterpoints. Aping the obnoxious, imperious format of serial misinformers on the other side doesn't give you value as an informer, only a demographic niche. I think that Maddow, Olbermann, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, should primarily be viewed in terms of whether or not they are actively informing or misinforming, and whether or not they improve the public discourse.
It seems that the public discourse is getting more and more extreme. Both sides have a tendency to misinform, to jump to conclusions, and assume the worst of their opponent, but I feel that's endemic in this culture. Did the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly create this, or is it the natural consequence of solipsism?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For either republicans or democrats to claim the movement for themselves is a bit silly. I don't agree with Glenn Beck. But I also take issue with the notion that only liberals can support Martin Luther King's ideas.
I agree that it's silly, though it's less silly for liberal democrats to do so than it is for conservative republicans by a not inconsiderable margin. But in any event, this is neither here nor there. Glenn Beck said 'people like him' 'did' the civil rights movement in the first place. Now, FoolishTook, take what you know of Beck's politics now, and imagine him back in the 50s-60s. Do you really think he would have been anything north of neutral on the matter?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:It seems that the public discourse is getting more and more extreme. Both sides have a tendency to misinform, to jump to conclusions, and assume the worst of their opponent, but I feel that's endemic in this culture.
Since you like talk radio, I strongly recommend that you try out NPR. Personally, I find it to be the best source to get both sides of an issue. They also fact check and steer away from "sound bite" stories. Independent studies have also found that listeners of NPR are more likely to have the facts on a story correct than listeners of any other news source.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But I also take issue with the notion that only liberals can support Martin Luther King's ideas.
I think many conservatives support Martin Luther King's ideals. But I don't think that Glenn Beck is one of them. King was pro-labor, anti-war, pro-affirmative action, in favor of federal assistance to the poor, in favor of health care, and generally a supporter of the very types of social action Beck famously called on Christians to denounce, asking them to leave their churches if the words "social justice" were used since apparently those are super secret code words for big-C Communism. (He's since backed off a bit from that last after many of his Christian supporters objected.)
I agree that there are extremists in media on both sides of the political spectrum, and idiots willing to follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear. But I submit that the right wing nutjobs are better at it, with larger followings of people willing to ignore facts if they contradict what they've been told, and their ratings prove it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Now, FoolishTook, take what you know of Beck's politics now, and imagine him back in the 50s-60s. Do you really think he would have been anything north of neutral on the matter?
I'm curious, Rakeesh, if there is anything specific Beck has said or done that make you confident you know what side he would have been on? Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're pretty sure you know how he would have behaved, had he been around back then.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I would answer that question, but Chris did a pretty good job.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think the real loser in this whole mess is the musician Beck, because every time someone quotes Glenn Beck and says, "Beck said..." I think "I can't believe Beck would say that, he seems pretty cool... OH!"
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think that Affirmative Action is a positive thing, but it is not working the way it should.
Affirmative Action should be used to help the disadvantaged. It is primarily being used to promote diversity. This hardly promotes a "Color-Blind" community.
An interesting article on Affirmative Action on Stanford:
The fundamental unfairness and arbitrariness of preferences -- why should the under-qualified son of a black doctor displace the qualified daughter of a Vietnamese boat refugee? -- has led supporters to shift rationales in recent years. Instead of a remedy for disadvantage, many supporters now claim that preferences promote "diversity." This same push for "diversity" also has led Stanford to create racially segregated dormitories, racially segregated freshman orientation programs, racially segregated graduation ceremonies and curricular requirements in race theory and gender studies.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Affirmative action for racial minorities is a pretty awful thing. It can only make other racial groups resentful AND the group that's supposedly benefiting resentful as well. After all, if you have a good reason to suspect that the only reason you have a job/are attending a particular school is because of your ethnic identity and not because of your qualifications, wouldn't you feel bad? In flagship state universities and elite schools, the grade and standardized test scores of non-asian minority students are lower than those of other groups. This leads to the issue of self-segregation: after all, if the minority kids just hang out only with each other, they can avoid contact with those who would make them feel ashamed about how they got in...
Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray made a point in "The Bell Curve" about something creepy that's happening in our society: cognitive stratification. This is why "class based" affirmative action can't really ever work too. Upper class people are smarter than upper middle class people, who are smarter than just middle class people and so on, due to the meritocracy. I mean how would it work -- would elite colleges select kids from working class backgrounds with high test scores -- i.e, the sort of people who probably would have been most likely to rise above their background anyway or are they going to select the sort of person who inherited the behavioral qualities (short sightedness, low conscientiousness, perhaps low IQ) that lead to being stuck in the working class/being poor?
Here's an alternative solution to affirmative action: we offer free housing/food stamps/health care to ANY woman who would have needed Affirmative Action to just to make a living. In return, SHE GETS HER TUBES TIED AFTER HAVING ONE KID. By the same token we make a deal with any male who would need affirmative action in order to find a job: You will get free health care, food stamps and housing so long as you get a VASECTOMY after fathering one child. This would be fair for everyone. Society would avoid being burdened with further people who are a net drain and those who need help just to live a decent live would get all the help they need. By the way, it seems that in the future a greater number of people will need to be receiving welfare:
Wouldn't it be fair of those citizens who are paying for this to demand from those receiving this help not to breed too much?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:In flagship state universities and elite schools, the grade and standardized test scores of non-asian minority students are lower than those of other groups. This leads to the issue of self-segregation: after all, if the minority kids just hang out only with each other, they can avoid contact with those who would make them feel ashamed about how they got in...
This is absurd. Yes, there are a lot of Asian students here (I'm at Cornell), and (for a large portion of them) they are here because they worked really hard, are motivated, have excellent work skills, and are excellent students. And while some of them hang out in cliques, they are typically organized by language. It helps to have someone to talk to who speaks your native tongue, I'm sure.
But for the most part (vast majority) the Asian students mingle with everyone else. We talk often about the (growing) percentage of them and how their experiences are different from Americans or Europeans. It is absurd to state that they "self-segregate" because they want to "avoid contact." It is not the case at all.
Ah, and then you go crazy. I don't know why I try.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I was speaking of non-asian minorities(hispanics/blacks.)
At the elite universities, there's actually discrimination against Asian students. There's an unofficial quota against them. On the other hand, those types of schools tend to be something like 20% Jewish. It's okay to say "too many Asians" but it's not politically correct to say "too many Jews." (Going by merit alone would lead to more Asians/christian whites, less hispanics and blacks and Jews down to about 6%.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with the meritocracy is often people aren't rewarded based on merit. I went to college with a lot of rich kids. One did a crappy job and his dad donated money to the professor's research. I am sure that kid so deserved his grades so much more than the black kid who got in to "fill the quota." Also, even looking at success, I currently tutor kids. I would like to think that their parents paying $50 an hour are getting something for it. With some kids, I have seen huge improvements (Cs move up to As) with kids who still aren't that smart, but with that extra boost are able to handle the work. But a kid in the inner city whose parents can't afford that help, well, they would probably be sitting at Cs or even Ds, despite same intelligence level and same motivation on their parts. We also have some students who are brilliant- absolute undeniable geniuses so if you go with IQ genetic argument, they should be breeding tons except they are so lazy and have such bad behavior, they are getting horrible grades and frankly I have no pity for them.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Oops. Well, the same goes for non-Asian minorities. The ones that are here deserve to be here. And, from my experience (I can't find a break-down by race/religion), non-Asian minorities make up a fairly small percentage of the total student body.
At Cornell, minorities (self-declared African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans and Native Americans) make up 30% of the undergraduates and %16 of the graduates (link)
Have a link on that Jewish number? Because it sounds paranoid.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It would be interesting to see education practices among Asians compared to those from other groups. A lot of the asian friends I had in middle and high school had very strict parents when it came to education, especially if those parents immigrated here from another country.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm amused by the assertion that we live in a "meritocracy," when very clearly nothing of the sort is remotely true -- for any meaningful definition of the word "merit."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Tom, if I am lucky enough to be born to rich parents, I have merited all the advantages I get. And if I am born to poor, uneducated parents, I clearly did something to merit that as well.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Tom, if I am lucky enough to be born to rich parents, I have merited all the advantages I get. And if I am born to poor, uneducated parents, I clearly did something to merit that as well.
It is sad that this is true.
I can't think of a good way to even the playing field. When it comes to school, there will always be those with less merit, money, and opportunity. Is this the childs fault? I don't think it is.
Likewise, I don't think the poor student with less opportunity is at fault for their condition.
And this is the problem with Affirmative Action. It is always going to be unfair to SOMEBODY.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, we need to take a look at the veil of ignorance. What world would you design if you didn't know which child you would be?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The other problem with eliminating affirmative action is that proving you weren't hired for being a woman or black is almost impossible. I once went to a meeting (where my voice meant nothing) discussing who to hire. An equal number of males and females had been invited to interview and all the applicants had pretty similar resumes. But in the interview portion, the women had somehow all managed to fail to impress. Things like too nice, not enough determination, not enough backbone, etc were cited. Some just missed the special something that was needed. My response at the end of this- I think the special something was a Y chromosome. Until that meeting I had always thought that the soft sexism didn't exist, that people were being overly sensitive. When I mentioned it to someone else, I was told women were one the hiring committee so it couldn't possibly have been sexist. So what if in the end, 6 of the 7 jobs were filled by men. Pure coincidence- after all at the resume stage, it was 50/50. If there had been an anti-female bias, it would have shown up there since the names were pretty gendered. I was pretty convinced after that meeting that the gender bias existed, the numbers look like a bias exists, but could you take them to court and prove it? I doubt it. Which is why sometimes quotas are the easiest thing to combat bias.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Scholarette,
That is an interesting experience you had. I have been involved in hiring as well, and I believe there is gender bias as well.
I worked for a big box computer store, and 90% of the positions we hired for in the computer hardware, software, networking, and home entertainment positions were male, while 90% of the people we hired for store greeters and cashiers were female. Granted there were more males applying for those positions that female, but still. I was the HR manager and performed all of the first interviews, but the decision on what department the person was to work in was determined by the sales manager.
I did have the final say in who was hired as cashiers. Again, almost all of those that applied for a cashier position were female.
We always had a good mix of minorities at our store as well now that I think about it. We never really gave it much thought though. We never determined who got hired based on skin color. It seemed to work out.
There are no Affirmative Action quotas though. That would be illegal. The only exception would be if it was ordered by a judge because the company had been guilty of discrimination. Now there are goals based ont he percentage of minorities living in the area. If a company does not reach their goal but makes a good faith search in order to reach that goal, they aren't penalized.
I sent out letters every month to about six local minority publications announcing that we had job positions open as part of our outreach program. I think in the three years I worked there we had only one person that came in due to those postings. She turned out to be an awesome employee and actually became our business sales manager after a year.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Because it sounds paranoid.
Both do, actually. The 20% and the 6%.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The other problem with eliminating affirmative action is that proving you weren't hired for being a woman or black is almost impossible. I once went to a meeting (where my voice meant nothing) discussing who to hire. An equal number of males and females had been invited to interview and all the applicants had pretty similar resumes. But in the interview portion, the women had somehow all managed to fail to impress. Things like too nice, not enough determination, not enough backbone, etc were cited. Some just missed the special something that was needed. My response at the end of this- I think the special something was a Y chromosome. Until that meeting I had always thought that the soft sexism didn't exist, that people were being overly sensitive. When I mentioned it to someone else, I was told women were one the hiring committee so it couldn't possibly have been sexist.
This sort of phenomenon is psychologically pretty well recognized (see Why So Slow?, can't remember the author). Both men and women consistently, and subconsciously, rate men higher than women in situations where their performance has been carefully set up to be equivalent. The same resume with a man's name instead of a woman's will be consistently more successful at gaining notice.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I was speaking of non-asian minorities(hispanics/blacks.)
At the elite universities, there's actually discrimination against Asian students. There's an unofficial quota against them. On the other hand, those types of schools tend to be something like 20% Jewish. It's okay to say "too many Asians" but it's not politically correct to say "too many Jews." (Going by merit alone would lead to more Asians/christian whites, less hispanics and blacks and Jews down to about 6%.)
Bullshit. Where are you getting this crap?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Haa, whoops, I pulled a necro by proxy =)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Good timing, though. As Sa'eed ramps up the provocative topic generation phase of his operational lifespan, it's important to remember things like these (and the 'gay and female ghettos') to remind us, ultimately, who we are 'conversing' with.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Bullshit. Where are you getting this crap?
Oh I can see the thought process- I suspect you understand it as well. Aside from addressing the complete and utter-bogiocity of his statements of fact, you can't reason with this character about the idea that "merit" insofar as it exists within his conception is not an adequate measure of academic performance to provide useful tools for actually choosing entering undergraduates for admission. There are enough 4.0+ students with excellent references and extracurricular work to comprise manyfold more entering classes than any of the ivy leagues have room for. People like him don't want to accept the idea that a state could possibly exist in which making all the right decisions for all the right reasons is pretty much right out the window- but even more, he needs to believe that the reason why it's not possible is because those pesky Jews are just getting him and his people down. He sees a number like "28% of Ivy Leaguers are Jewish," and looks at the number of Jews in the US, 2.2%, and his head explodes. Never mind that the 28% is part of a really small number, and that the 2.2% is a really big one, and that a number of really powerful social, economic, and geographic factors are in play. I'm sure his head doesn't explode with thoughts of a NY/CA conspiracy when he finds out that 30% plus of the student populations are probably from those states- (along with 30 percent of the US population.)
And, for the record, through the much of the 20th century Ivy League schools *had* an anti-Jewish quota system, which quite naturally furthered the corruption in the admissions process, and also led to increased attention to non-discriminatory institutions like NYU.
What I find interesting here is that essentially, the anti-Jewish quota system seemed to do nothing but make the Ivy Leagues a prized target for Jewish hopefuls, who obviously must work harder and in greater numbers to get admitted- thus the high numbers. So, good job buddy, your anti-semetic forbears can be proud to have made the Ivy League a bastion of brilliant Jewish students.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And, as stated above, a large part of it is to remove some of the power of the word from the people who use it in a derogatory fashion.![[Wink]](wink.gif)