Actually, I have crap knees due to a car accident. I'd have to drop- headbutt or something or bearhug someone to death.

"hey bro, get out of bed!"
[img][369:500]http://www.autographsonline.com/Scans/snukasuperflyjimmy18648.jpg[/img]

What the hell's wrong with his right nip?

dude, he's been elbowed many a time!

Good morning!!

OH YEAHH!!!!!!!!!!

Actually chase is right. I do come across as self-righteous. Which is why I need to use less words and fart more often.

Can you define 'reverse racism?'

It fucking blows my mind to think that people use this term to say that racism only means discrimination against black people. It's one of the most ignorant, illogical terms in use today. Racism is racism no matter what races are involved.

and I don't mean to sound self-righteous. I just want to squelch the epidemic use of that term 'reverse racism'.

One petition is approaching 9,000 names already.

Does anyone actually listen to this show? Morning radio and reality shows... when will we learn??

agreed.

That's why I added the second statement. I agree with you. Racism is racism.

I wasn't using "reverse racism" to clarify race. But one would assume that as the victims of discriminatory ordinances, mores and practices, certain races would be a little more sensitive and aware of how words and actions can be perceived, hence the comparison to vigilantism. It numbs me to think that the parent of a murdered child thinks that causing the same grief on another parent is acceptable and just. It's not.

I may have been more offended by the painful lack of vocal ability than the message, but seriously, how can any commercial DJ be so stupid?

But by adding the second sentence claiming both are equally deplorable, you're in a way condoning the use of the term. I'm totally lost with what you're trying to say in the second paragraph. It sounds like you're saying that you have to choose your words wisely in order to avoid some vigilante retaliation...but I'll let you clarify.

Okay, that didn't work. I guess what I'm saying is "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you" not "Do unto others as has been done to you."

Understood, but my point here was about clarifying the definition of racism, not about the practice of racism.

loads of people listen to hot 97. its in competition with the other big hip-hop/r&b station in nyc, power 105. hot 97 hired a really "controversial" and "edgy" morning team like these doofuses because star & buc wild (who are also well known for their racist and racial humor) are back in town on 105 as of last week. it seems to be a competition for who can be the most offensive (which is no big surprise). just before s/bw came back to nyc, they had a show where star called a company in india and reamed out the woman who answered the phone, calling her a bitch and a "dirty rat eater."

while switching the channel is an easy solution, chase, i have to disagree with your sentiment. people are allowed to be outraged because the repeated broadcast of racist epithets and attitudes is unacceptable -- not just because it makes a few people and organizations mad, but because repeated use of this "humor" makes it seem acceptible and tolerated. broadcasters are granted the limited space of the public's airwaves and the public therefore has the right to say if they're outraged -- and have the power to speak out against it, through the fcc, petition, complaint and boycott. there are laws against decency, which currently are dangling on a very fine line, and there are also laws against hate crime (and some various laws on hate speech). this is to say that just because its a free country, you aren't allowed to just say anything, due to the harm you can cause. changing the channel is easy, but it doesn't mean you are without a voice to speak out against a clearly tasteless action. the government has spoken on its views on broadcasters: that they have a responsibility to the public (and yes, this is a fast and loose rule of thumb for all those who sit under the fcc's jurisdiction). hot 97 has 4.7% listenership in a city of 5 million. that's an awful lot of people who have been exposed to a racist attitude toward a tragedy (can you imagine the ire they'd draw if it was the world trade center?). i think that qualifies the station being in a position where they have a responsibility to its public.


more info on all this stuff:
http://www.billboardradiomonitor.com/ra ... 1000771200

http://www.billboardradiomonitor.com/ra ... 1000770520

http://www.billboardradiomonitor.com/ra ... 1000770505

Damn you. I knew when I wrote that someone would latch on to it, but I decided not to edit it. I'm in agreement with you. I like you. Hell, I'll let you come over and fuck my sister.

but if a radio station is offensive and people stop listening, they'll change. claiming "i'm offended" requires that you feel that you have some better understanding of what is and is not acceptable on a moral and philosophical level, which is something that i'd consider the source of most of the world's man-made turmoil and oppression. i have no faith in the law or society to affect real changes. the fcc cracked down on obscenity afer janet's titty popped out- and have you noticed that there aren't titties on tv now? me neither. when you start claiming personal injury when someone's behavior makes you uncomfortable, you're opening the door to their deciding how constrictive a code of conduct we have. i do, however, have faith in the power of the almighty dollar and her followers' devotion to affect these changes.

Philosophically I agree with you, but if steps hadn't been taken against racism in the past, if we'd just had a live and let live attitude, some very nasty individuals would never have had their actions against others stopped. I'm not for banning people from saying racist things over the air, but i'm certainly for condeming them for saying those things.

If you allow an environment of hate to foster, the hate will eventually translate to something physical against others. They've got the right to say it, but we've got the right to call them bastard hatemongers, too.

Word, katie.

Also, the way the market deals with that whole 'turn it off' approach is such that if they don't know why their listenership fell by the time they get the next statements in a few weeks or months it doesn't work. You need people to tell you that you were way out of line before you can connect that to the economics of your radio station.

I think you might be off by 3 million.

What spoon said, too: recall that the genocide in Rwanda was organised and incited over the radio.

That's kinda where I'm at with this, too. People have the right to express discontent, but I'm not sure what value that has in the long run.

ok, my problem is this: who draws that line? less than a week ago you were flipping out about some woman's sexuality being called in as evidence of her flawed character. do you draw the line? what makes your viewpoint more or less valid than that pastor who wants to boycott Spongebob for being gay? my point is that people cannot be trusted to determine what is right or appropriate for anyone else, period. it's easy to fight for this when it's working for you, but it's more important to remain cognizant (wtf? did i just make that spelling up) of it when it's inconvenient.