• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets

It’s liberal hypocrisy! The liberal media isn’t paying much attention to what Baldwin says today, but they can’t resist an opportunity to destroy a conservative woman for what she said 30 years ago. You racist, homophobic liberals should be ashamed of yourselves and you should ask yourselves why skin color matters in every situation other than situations where another liberal shows his/her bigotry.

No, it's that Paula Deen's ratings were down and the Food Network wanted to change its programming focus. See my earlier post -- the source is Fox, so you won't even get to bitch about the source. Liberals weren't clamoring for her firing before they did it. Besides which, she wasn't "fired." Her contract was not renewed. That's a different thing altogether.

To make it easy to understand, I'll reiterate: Her ratings were down. The Food Network wanted to change the focus of their programming. Ergo, they didn't re-up with her. It's called free enterprise.

Why is it that the same group that says blacks shouldn't play the victim anymore, the same group that talks about personal responsibility, are the same group who don't miss a chance to play the victim?
 
How on earth can someone post an article where people are calling for someone to be dropped by a business and then claim that this person is "getting a pass?"

I mean, what?

P.S. Paula Deen wasn't just fired for saying words 30 years ago. You should really read up more on what she actually did, OP.
 
I’m right there with you. Most speech, including “hate speech” only has the power you give it to harm you. As long as it is just words you are free to respond in many different ways, none of which necessitate silencing the idiot. Better to hear it and identify a foe, than not and get stabbed in the back.



In fairness? Well we have movies being made all the time (Django unchained comes to mind) where black people "pretend to be slaves." As long as the pay was good and it was an "acting" job at a theme party, what is the big deal????

Don't get me wrong, just because I support free speech does not mean people who mouth off should not face consequences. That's what courts of civil law are for, and also why voting with your feet or your pocketbooks also works wonders.

The free market gives a business the right to disassociate themselves with someone they feel hurts their image or their profit margin. Paula Deen's contract not being renewed was exactly that - the results of the "pocketbook vote."
 
Capital One should fire his ass. People getting paid millions of dollars to be spokespersons for companies who presumably would disavow remarks such as he made have no business being rewarded with a continuing relationship. Period.
 
The free market gives a business the right to disassociate themselves with someone they feel hurts their image or their profit margin. Paula Deen's contract not being renewed was exactly that - the results of the "pocketbook vote."

I agree with the first sentence. I don't agree with the presumption made in the second that her action actually hurt their pocketbooks at the time. I believe it was just a pre-emptive response due to the "threat" of action by a special interest group. I completely understand the motivations of the business organization, faced with the old example of Anita Bryant and the boycott of orange juice.

Still, it's the knee-jerk reaction to a "threat" that bothers me. There might not have been any reduction in their sales or viewership at all. There might even have been a possible increase as looky-loos tuned in to see what all the fuss was about. Censorship brought about as the result of fear rather than proven harm is my main concern whenever I see free expression being "punished" in such ways.

(Note: I just saw post #51 by Rocket88. I'll check prior posts for the links he mentioned regarding lower viewership to be certain it can be tied to this issue. If so I might correct part of my response in a follow-on post. Current server problems are causing some difficulties.)
 
Last edited:
Except the only hypocrisy and bias is going on in your imagination. The left is the one jumping on Baldwin, asking that he be dropped from his contract for his comments.

And the media isn't showing bias in itself. It is showing sensationalism, which is something they do all the time. They can sensationalize certain people and events much more than they can others.

post a link where one liberal organization has condemned Baldwin and or asked Capitol One to drop him. The organization that is asking for Capitol One to drop him is GOProud a gay conservative organization
where is GLAAD why have they been silent? why haven't they spoken out against Baldwin vile homophobic violence threatening tweet?

its not that the press can or can not they will or will not sensationalize certain people and events
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was a "theme party." They happen all the time and people are hired to portray all sorts of roles at a "theme party." Often actors are hired to portray such roles, just like waiters, bartenders and caterers are hired. I've seen whites dressed up as roman slaves, east indians dressed up as thuggees, asian women dressed up as concubines, etc., all potrayiing roles to support the theme. If the ban is absolute, there should be NO time when a black actor can portray a slave including Django, Gone With The Wind, or Roots.
1. Around the time I went to the University of Chicago, one of the frats had a "theme party" where they wore black face, pretended to be rappers and generally mocked black people and what's generally considered "black culture". That "theme party" was also considered a problem by many because it perpetuated racism and racial ignorance. This year at Duke, a sorority had an "Asian themed" party where they portrayed themselves as stereotypically Asian and made a mockery of what is typically considered "Asian culture." The claim that what Paula said was okay because she just wanted a "theme party" doesn't hold water. The problem with her "theme party" is that theme included a racist, barbaric institution meant to make an old white lady feel good.

2. When it comes to films, they are also not immune to criticism. Have you missed all of the criticism that Django, Gone With the Wind and other films have received? Much of that criticism takes issue with how black people were portrayed or treated in the films and with whether or not the films subvert or perpetuate racism and other racial issues. Beyond that, films that use black actors as slaves, such as in the case of films like Roots, are often used to CRITIQUE slavery and condemn it. A white woman having a party where black people play her slaves is NOT a critique of slavery. It's a sick fantasy that endorses slavery as something to be made light of BY WHITE PEOPLE.

Sorry, your exception is based upon emotion due to the fact this woman is considered a racist
.
I'm not making an exception for anything. It's the rule - in my world - that when you behave in a racist manner, you're probably a racist piece of ****. Paula fits that rule. Also, you seem to be suggesting that I have a problem with the party Deen proposed because other people consider her a racist. LOL, no. I - like most other people - came to conclusion that she's probably a racist based on her desire to have black people play slaves to her. You're getting the order wrong.

Note, throughout the period in Hollywood when films like "Gone With the Wind" were being made, racism was rampant. We still watch the movies today though. Or should we burn them for failing a "political correctness" test?
I don't believe in "political correctness". It's a BS term used by fools to minimize, simplify and dismiss - without critical thought - positions with which they disagree, but do not want to engage. If you would like to try that again without simplifying my perspective, you may. Otherwise, no need to reply with anymore of racist apologist bull****.
 
post a link where one liberal organization has condemned Baldwin and or asked Capitol One to drop him. The organization that is asking for Capitol One to drop him is GOProud a gay conservative organization
where is GLAAD why have they been silent? why haven't they spoken out against Baldwin vile homophobic violence threatening tweet?

its not that the press can or can not they will or will not sensationalize certain people and events

Because Baldwin went immediately to GLAAD and apologized and explained exactly like I said, he made the comment out of anger and it was directed toward a single person out of anger, not out of homophobia or hate toward a group.
 
...- in my world -...

Say no more...and why I consider the rest of your post irrelevant to the point I originally made in reply.

You were not "being fair" in your "to be fair" statement. You were expressing an opinion based upon your (now quite obvious) highly emotional world-view of racism in relation to the incident.

Fully entitled to do so though, no argument there. In MY opinion, theme parties can be as racist, sexist, or any other "ist" you can think of as part of free expression.

I, of course, am free not to attend.
 
Its different when an actor uses homophobic slurs, just like its different when a black man (or gangs of blacks) beat someone (or murder them) for being gay.

In other news, Baldwins press agent released a statement to all the gays. "**** you you butt hurt faggots and queens. I treat my daughter like a pig. If I treated you any different THEN I would be homophobic. Now **** off or Ill come down to where you are and put my boot up your ass. Oh. And...whats in YOUR wallet?"
 
There's a problem with what you are saying here though, her popularity and book sales increased after the controversy was released.

Her popularity did not increase, it is just some racists decided to give her money and even the publisher decided that was too sleazy for them. It is pretty bad when money grubbing publishers say no way. It is the same reason why people sent money to zimmerman despite not even knowing him, and that people went to the chik-fil-a anti-gay weekend. It doesn't calculate into permanent sales as her sponsors have figured out.
If it was about affecting her sale quality, then they screwed up because her ability to sale went up a lot after her deposition was released. It didn't go down, nor were there really a lot of people calling for her to be fired.

Paula Deen's Book Sales Increase Following N-Word Controversy - The Hollywood Reporter

Again, temporary popularity due to hatred is not an increase in audience. Not to mention some of those sponsors had a brand that certainly was not going to benefit from a single book sale with no advertisements. What is in it for Walmart or Target when the only thing she can sell is her last book? Considering it would probably be her last book it may have been a bunch of collectors looking to cash in on the last bit of deen memorabilia. There will be another bigot next week or month for people to back, and they know it. Paula does not have any staying power. hell, she was only 4th biggest TV chef which is not much of an accomplishment considering they are not huge stars to begin with. Being the latest nigger guy/girl is not a marketable position, just ask Micheal Richards. Hey, maybe faux news will want to give her a racist cooking show? I am sure they could market her. She could be there with Mark Fuhrman. Hell, for nigger guy mark it was probably a step up from LAPD to guy who occasionally gets to speak on fix noise. It wont get her any of her sponsors back, but at least she can get paid and be one with her prejudiced audience.

Sorry dude, but temporary popularity due to BS is fickle and people move on very quickly. Without her TV show and her spots on store shelves she is just some wrinkly old nigger woman with a restaurant somewhere. She better find a publisher quick because that wave of bigot popularity will quickly crash and wash away anything she has left.
 
Because Baldwin went immediately to GLAAD and apologized and explained exactly like I said, he made the comment out of anger and it was directed toward a single person out of anger, not out of homophobia or hate toward a group.
Bwahahaha!!! :lamo

Yeah...how exactly do you 'apologize' for that? I mean...I know it is routine for a lot of folks on this site to attack conservative posters with the most vile insinuation they can muster...suggesting homosexual ideation and tendencies...but we arent talking about a guy that was angry, irate and let 1 word slip out. This was a verbal vomit from guy entirely comfortable with using the slurs, indicating it isnt the first time...just the first time he was stupid enough to send it out into the twittersphere. Its not unlike his 30 Rock costar Tracy Morgan and his regular use of anti gay rhetoric...right up until someone filmed it. The nit was...ooooopsie. Sorry! My bad!

Meh...I dont really care about this. I dont use Capital One, 30 Rock was played out after the second season, and I think people ought to develop a bit of a thicker skin when it comes to being buttuirt over 'insults'.
 
Read more: Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets | Fox News

so tell me liberals how is it that Paula Deen has her career decimated for something she said 30 years ago, but Baldwin gets a pass for saying something much worse. he just didn't use a homophobic slur he threatened violence against the gay reporter that is a hate crime at least it would be if a conservative did so. the hypocrisy never seams to end with the left

For the millionth time, it's not over something she said 30 years ago. Do a little research on this.
 
There's a problem with what you are saying here though, her popularity and book sales increased after the controversy was released. If it was about affecting her sale quality, then they screwed up because her ability to sale went up a lot after her deposition was released. It didn't go down, nor were there really a lot of people calling for her to be fired.

Paula Deen's Book Sales Increase Following N-Word Controversy - The Hollywood Reporter

Doesn't really matter how much her book sales went up, because her publisher dumped her.
 
Read more: Activists call for Capital One to drop Alec Baldwin over homophobic tweets | Fox News

so tell me liberals how is it that Paula Deen has her career decimated for something she said 30 years ago, but Baldwin gets a pass for saying something much worse. he just didn't use a homophobic slur he threatened violence against the gay reporter that is a hate crime at least it would be if a conservative did so. the hypocrisy never seams to end with the left

He has no career, and what he said wasn't worse.

Also Dean was fired for making a hostil work environment not something she said. 30 years ago. Also she said it in 2007.
 
...- in my world -...

In my experience, “to be fair” is most often used to indicate recognition that some part of an opposing view may possibly be valid, then explaining why you think it is not. For example’ “To be fair, it’s possible that Ms. Dean was merely trying to enhance the theme by including Blacks playing slave roles during the party, BUT/HOWEVER/STILL….”

Your use of the phrase (something I’ve seen from time to time), is a naked appeal to our sense of fair play; for us to understand and agree with your position simply because it’s the “right thing to do.” In logic, that is an appeal to emotion.

In reality, how is it “fair” for us to simply agree when we clearly see things differently from you? You might think it is self-evidently “fair,” but we think it is a “crock.” Hence, grounds for my use of the term “emotional exception” in my first reply. I am willing to concede that it should have said "emotional appeal" but the forum kicked me before I could edit it. :(

Sorry for the double post. I would have explained this in my last reply but the Forum’s system problems prevented it.

(Duece, I haven't been able to get to Rocket88's Fox citation either yet, I keep getting kicked as I try to find it.)
 
First off, according to your own article Alec is not getting a pass. Being the rightie stooge you are you might want to look at your own idealogy for why anti-gay sentiments are not taken as seriously as racist ones as it would be the right who keeps insisting homophobia is an acceptable prejudice. Finally, I am pretty sure the reporter wasn't gay. At any rate, Alec did not threaten the reporter because he was gay, he threatened him because he went way overboard. This is not to mention the fact Alec has participated in pro-gay programs before. So his remarks are insensitive but not representative of his actions.

Oh, and thank you for the feigned concern. We know how big of a pro-gay rights to be beaten and left for dead tied to a fence person you are. As a member of the community we appreciate your concern in this matter and we will get right on that for you as i am sure that it truly bothers you greatly that gays were subject to collateral insult damage from Alec's comments. Oh, and no you still cannot use nigger as a term for black people unless you want to offend people. We all know where your motivations truly lie, and it seems a tad sneaky and deceptive to play this silly game just so you might have a chance of one day being openly racist again.

Would you apply this same logic to the Zimmerman case

He mentored black youth so he couldn't posible have stalked and killed Martin because he was black, like is so often reported.
 
They are not homophobic rants, honestly, they're barely straight up rants.

Well you referred to him as Alec, like he was one of your friends.
 
So you're actually more interested in being a victim. Ratings were down, and so they cancelled her show. It ain't rocket science.

Paula Deen's show ratings down before Food Network dismissal | Fox News

It's really pretty basic. But I guess those reasons won't let you play the victim.

No, it's that Paula Deen's ratings were down and the Food Network wanted to change its programming focus. See my earlier post -- the source is Fox, so you won't even get to bitch about the source. Liberals weren't clamoring for her firing before they did it. Besides which, she wasn't "fired." Her contract was not renewed. That's a different thing altogether.

The free market gives a business the right to disassociate themselves with someone they feel hurts their image or their profit margin. Paula Deen's contract not being renewed was exactly that - the results of the "pocketbook vote."

I guess I can stand by my original post. It's clear from reading the article that her ratings were already down, with no particular relationship to the uproar caused by her alleged racism. The network was just cutting their losses by not renewing her contract, choosing to go with more popular cooking competitions and reality shows. Seems this network wants to attract more younger viewers who are indoctrinated, rabid consumers so as to get more advertising options and income. Perfectly reasonable business decision.

Soooo, I can stick to my basic concerns regarding free speech censorship in response to boycott threats from special interest groups, even though it appears Ms. Deen may not have been "canned" as a result of it.
 
Last edited:
Would you apply this same logic to the Zimmerman case

He mentored black youth so he couldn't posible have stalked and killed Martin because he was black, like is so often reported.

No because the zimmerman case is a case about murder and is not a civil suit or the termination of contracts. There is a huge difference in the evidence able to be presented in a criminal trial and the burden on the prosecution. Past actions are often left out of criminal trials unless by very limited circumstances. I would say in the mind of the public had zimmerman been active in racial issues and protesting it would probably be useful for him in some of the public's eye as Alec can claim, but in a trial it would really only apply to a hate crime statute which he is not being charged with as far as i am aware. The reality is that race should mean very little to the charges zimmerman faces as you could replace treyvon with another race and it would still be the same case. The public sees things much differently than the courts, and zimmerman would probably not have as much racially charged disgust coming his way had it been a white kid.

The reality is the public can take it's own stance on these types of things. As we see with paula Deen and Zimmerman the prejudiced elements have really fired things up, where with Alec the public doesn't seem to have latched onto the prejudiced nature of his words. The public does not have guidelines and courts limiting their decisions regarding guilt so you pretty much have much different things that happen over criminal trials. There are probably reasons for this like Alec's noted rep for being a supporter of gay rights, and the reality that homophobia is still much more acceptable in the public's eye than racism, but this is why Paula's sponsors have decided she is poison in the long run despite the reality she did make some good sales on her book in the immediate sense. It is about perception and reputation in the public court where the legal courts have much stricter standards for guilt.
 
I guess I can stand by my original post. It's clear from reading the article that her ratings were already down, with no particular relationship to the uproar caused by her alleged racism. The network was just cutting their losses by not renewing her contract, choosing to go with more popular cooking competitions and reality shows. Seems this network wants to attract more younger viewers who are indoctrinated, rabid consumers so as to get more advertising options and income. Perfectly reasonable business decision.

Soooo, I can stick to my basic concerns regarding free speech censorship in response to boycott threats from special interest groups, even though it appears Ms. Deen may not have been "canned" as a result of it.

paula had a very defined schtick which was cooking the most unhealthy and indulgent things. When she got hammered on her diabetes problems was where her doom actually started. It is one thing to like those foods, but when your star becomes seriously ill because of her own cooking that is bad news. Plus I heard paula shifted her shopw to more healthy cooking which probably turned off her fans. They watched her to see her slam a burger patty in between 2 donuts, not to make a healthy salad. Her cooking show was probably killed because it was just a good time to dump her given her audience problems. Without the cooking show her merchandise lost it's appeal. The reality with paula is this all may have very little to do with her lawsuit deposition. They may not even have cared that much that it was racist. For them terminating her when she is facing racist accusations was just a convenient time to pretend they were doing the right thing in the public's eyes, and had this been at her prime they may not have terminated her contract.

i may feel it is a good message to let old southern racism die, but I am under no real delusion that her contract was not renewed over the racial issue. It is all about profit and she simply was failing like you said. In the end i do not really feel too sorry for her. She has made millions, had fun cooking on TV, and been a relatively famous star. She is older and if she has saved her money she can retire in comfort and live her retirement years much better than most people can. She even has her restaurant to help keep her busy while she relaxes and enjoys her wealth. If she runs out of money she can release a few books that will sell after this whole thing blows over. Paula Deen is not hurting because of this. Paula Deen is hurting because she gave herself diabetes with her terrible eating and who knows how long she has left to enjoy her wealth given what she has done to herself over the years. She should retire and enjoy things while she still can.
 
Back
Top Bottom