Paula Deen Allegedly Asked Black Staffers to Dress Like Aunt Jemima

[Tucker Case]

Blacks being good with food is not an insult, and people insulted by associating them with good cooking should go back to their bowls of organic granola.

Being dressed up like a human stereotype could be construed as insulting to some, if not most, people.

 

[Zyphlin]

(Haven't gotten into a good long debate with you in a while, so I figured I'd take my stab at it here :2razz

Sadly won't get it here, I agree with much of what you said. My one disagreement would be with something you didn't even explicitely say, but more simply expanding upon something you said. People having a **** storm and attacking people for being upset about Paula Deen and urging Food Network to fire her (be it directly or through claims of boycotts of sponsors) are a wonderful example of why it may not be best to leave it up just to the free market. But at the same time, the fact someone like Paula Deen CAN lose her job because controversy, once things come to light, can become so huge in such a quick bit of time is a wonderful example of why it also may not be necessary to leave it largely up to significant and sizable government intervention.

The Market is not the same today as it was 50 years ago, societ yis not the same as it was 50 years ago, I don't think that if laws built around the context of the market and society of 50 years ago were tweaked a bit we'd suddenly descended into a maddening mire of racism run amok and ciivl rights trampled upon all over.

To me, this is a situation that both simultaneously shows that the knee jerk reaction to any notion of reduction in government regulation of business regarding civil rights (even in the loosest forms) is a bit ridiculous AND that the farther right notion of a complete removal of government regulation of business regarding civil rights because the "market" will take care of it is ALSO a bit ridiculous.

 

[CanadaJohn]

We liberals forced the Food Network to fire her and Alec Baldwin, well, his thing hasn't really blown up yet. You remember the black guy from Grey's Anatomy a few years ago? He went on some homophobic rant and was fired. Mel Gibson? Cee-Lo? Roland Martin? Adam Carolla? Tracy Morgan? There's a huge list of celebrities who've gone down for their homophobic rants.

Roland Martin will be happy to know you consider him a celebrity and not just forgotten.

 

[shrubnose]

Mel Gibson's rants are just fantasic though. Hell, probably more entertaining then The Beaver or Edge of Darkness.

And really, Alec's recent little "queen" tirade isn't nearly as interesting of a story than the absolutely ****balls crazy rant on his daughter a few years back.

Though actor's going bat**** crazy starts going down a whole different alley that isn't just racist/homophobic (and immedietely brings us to Christian Bale's terminator tirade)

I am a strong supporter of everyone's 1st Amendment rights, and I oppose PC bull****.

But I do have a caveat: Anyone who says something that offends others must be ready for criticism.

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance;it only organizes hatred." ~ Jacques Barzun.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers

 

[Tucker Case]

Sadly won't get it here, I agree with much of what you said. My one disagreement would be with something you didn't even explicitely say, but more simply expanding upon something you said. People having a **** storm and attacking people for being upset about Paula Deen and urging Food Network to fire her (be it directly or through claims of boycotts of sponsors) are a wonderful example of why it may not be best to leave it up just to the free market. But at the same time, the fact someone like Paula Deen CAN lose her job because controversy, once things come to light, can become so huge in such a quick bit of time is a wonderful example of why it also may not be necessary to leave it largely up to significant and sizable government intervention.

The Market is not the same today as it was 50 years ago, societ yis not the same as it was 50 years ago, I don't think that if laws built around the context of the market and society of 50 years ago were tweaked a bit we'd suddenly descended into a maddening mire of racism run amok and ciivl rights trampled upon all over.

To me, this is a situation that both simultaneously shows that the knee jerk reaction to any notion of reduction in government regulation of business regarding civil rights (even in the loosest forms) is a bit ridiculous AND that the farther right notion of a complete removal of government regulation of business regarding civil rights because the "market" will take care of it is ALSO a bit ridiculous.

Damnit, I wanted a big wall o' text debate. :lol: We'll just have to agree to agree, I guess.

On a side note, I bet that dumpy bitch makes some really good pie.

 

[Strucker]

I am a strong supporter of everyone's 1st Amendment rights, and I oppose PC bull****.

But I do have a caveat: Anyone who says something that offends others must be ready for criticism.

Just so. I have seen more than a few people on political forums like this one complaining that other posters are "attacking my right to free speech"....because they disagree with them. (Sarah Palin took a similar, monumentally-ignorant stance once or twice.)

The fact is that criticizing other's speech is the point where the ideals of free speech become crystal clear.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Have the allegations been corroborated by other workers yet? It's not a story I have been following, but I remember something to the effect there was so far only one lone accuser.

PS I also agree that her past use of "nigger" totally missing the alleged issue, and found myself perplexed on why the public decided to focus on that

 

[Redress]

But here's the catch: The people who claim the free market will take care of these things are often the one's most outraged when the market actually does it. The people who claim that the market alone will not be enough see these people outraged over the free market making it's "correction" and realize that they are the reason that the free market cannot, on it's own, fix the problem.

Case in point: The Zimmerman thing. That's an example of the free market exploiting the **** out of racial animosity for profit. The controversy generates ratings and ratings generate revenue. "But black people alone are too small of a demographic to really generate serious revenue, so let's piss off white people to make them interested in the case. How can that be done? Appeal to their feelings of victimization with regard to race (victimization that is evidenced by the outrage over the market dealing with racist comments and behaviors, such as those committed by Paula Dean)." The free market formula in effect with regard to race: Exploit racial tensions, generate those ratings, collect all that advertising cash, rinse and repeat when the next major thing happens that can be exploited for financial gain.

Even this Paula Deen thing is an example of racial tensions being exploited and even promoted for financial gain, just at a smaller level. Most people didn't give a flying **** about who Paula Deen was before this. She's just some dumpy hillbilly broad who makes pie. She's not the first dumpy hillbilly broad who makes pie to say something stupid, and she won't be the last dumpy hillbilly broad who makes pie to say something stupid. Ironically, her "defenders" are the reason why she gets so much play time, though. A rational person would hear what she did and say "Wow, that dumpy hillbilly broad who makes pie sure is a ****ing idiot." and that's the end of it. Bitch loses her job and the world is unharmed in any way. But her defenders nee dot make it about something more than what it is. It's apparently some vast media conspiracy against freedom and ****, so we have to defend this dumb **** before she gets what she deserves for being a ****ing moron.

Nonsense. It's a vast media conspiracy to make ****ing money. Controversy = profits. The media will do their damnedest to keep racial tensions strong because it's a ****ing cash cow for them. If people do not want it to happen, then they need to stop making it profitable to generate controversy. They shouldn't blame the media for it, they need to blame their own fat asses for planting themselves in front of the TV and generating revenue for the people exploiting the issue for profits. And planting their fat asses in front of FOX or Rush Limbaugh doesn't do it. I guarantee that Rush and Murdoch are ****ing ecstatic about these controversies. They certainly do their best to feed the flames, while talking out the side of their mouth over how horrible the exploitation is. They make a fortune on it.

And out culture is so ****ing stupid they suck it all in without once paying attention to the game of three-card-monty they are being duped by. "I'm not part of the problem!!! I only watch FOX, not the lamestream media!". That's the ultimate flaw in the free market. It would work perfectly if people weren't ****ing retarded, but unfortunately, since most people are dumber than a box of cat****, it often needs regulatory assistance.

(Haven't gotten into a good long debate with you in a while, so I figured I'd take my stab at it here :2razz

I can't give you the wall of text, but I do disagree on one point. I do not think the media causes the **** storm from the idiots on both sides, they just use it. That is, all they have to do is their job, report the news essentially(ok, so it is really to make profit, but they do it by reporting these things), and they can simply trust that people will create the controversy, then it is their job to report the controversy. There is not conspiricy, there is no effort made to keep racial tensions strong, they are not needed. Just report the story and let human nature do the rest.

Look at the Z/M thing. The media did not create the "whose the bigger racist" pissing contest. They did not need to. They just had to stand back and let people do it for themselves, then report on it in a fairly neutral way. Pundits may have thrown a little fuel on the fire, but it was already a raging ****ing inferno. I get really annoyed at the way people blame the media instead of standing up and taking repsonsibility for what we ourselves are doing.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

We liberals forced the Food Network to fire her and Alec Baldwin, well, his thing hasn't really blown up yet. You remember the black guy from Grey's Anatomy a few years ago? He went on some homophobic rant and was fired. Mel Gibson? Cee-Lo? Roland Martin? Adam Carolla? Tracy Morgan? There's a huge list of celebrities who've gone down for their homophobic rants.

then there are people like Roman Polanski that people actively defend. Let's face it, public reaction and disapproval is a rather finicky thing and doesn't usually follow any sense of real reason.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I was being facetious. Of course we didn't force the Food Network to fire her. The problem with the apologists is that they don't realize that free market environments tend to filter our their racism that the public reacts negatively to. Green reigns supreme over black & white.

Corrected that for you. If the food network thought they could turn a penny off of it, you would be seeing the PD plantation hour

 

[Zyphlin]

I am a strong supporter of everyone's 1st Amendment rights, and I oppose PC bull****.

But I do have a caveat: Anyone who says something that offends others must be ready for criticism.

Yep.

I'm not a huge "PC" fan myself. That said, when one is deciding to make their career by essentially selling oneself, selling ones image, then what you do and how you do it becomes fully open to criticism and over analysis. There are a LOT of perks that come from being someone who makes ones living by being in the public eye and by banking on your reputation; but there are costs as well. The fact that your words and actions may be treated far harsher, far less nuanced, and with much less benefit of the doubt is one of those.

Had Paula Deen been a random chef who contributed recipes to Cook Books we would've never heard about any of these things on a national level and this wouldn't be a huge national story. Then again, if Paula Deen was just a random chef who contributed recipes to Cook Books then she wouldn't have been a star of a television show, helped to provide her son the ability to get onto television as well, have an entire line of cookware branded with her name, and have a number of chain resturants buffetted by the fact their backed by the Deen name.

 

[shrubnose]

then there are people like Roman Polanski that people actively defend. Let's face it, public reaction and disapproval is a rather finicky thing and doesn't usually follow any sense of real reason.

True, some people are forgiven, or not even criticized and others are burned at the stake for similar offenses.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Paula Deen Allegedly Asked Black Staffers to Dress Like Aunt Jemima - Yahoo! TV

[cut for space]

The Food Network did what any business would and should do with people like this. Let them cater to racists if they want on their own platform, works for Glenn Beck.

Thinking more about this, one of the most troubling parts of this story is that the woman in question only made ~$10/hour after working with Deen for 22 years and helping found her restaurant. I think that speaks a great deal to Deen's character especially if she said that she considered this woman "family" as the woman claims she did. Given that the woman only had a 9th grade education and was originally made to feel like part of the family, it sounds like Deen took HUGE advantage of her. As stories come out, Deen just seems like a pretty skeevy person.

 

[Zyphlin]

Look at the Z/M thing. The media did not create the "whose the bigger racist" pissing contest. They did not need to. They just had to stand back and let people do it for themselves, then report on it in a fairly neutral way. Pundits may have thrown a little fuel on the fire, but it was already a raging ****ing inferno. I get really annoyed at the way people blame the media instead of standing up and taking repsonsibility for what we ourselves are doing.

It's a chicken and an egg thing though Redress. People will walk it all the way back to the notion of it being covered as a "national" story to begin with.

I think there's blame to go around. The public has a lot to bare as well. But I don't think the reason the Media begins to cover things like Casey Anthony or Zimmerman is becuase they're just desiring to "report news". They from the very onset signs that the public could easily take such a story and turn it into a controversy, which then creates an avenue to fill air waves. Where as things they don't think will cause a stir or a controversy they're more likely to ignore because it's not of a benefit to THEM...even if it may be JUST as worth while in terms of its "news" worthiness.

IE...they didn't have to manufacture the "controversy" with the Zimmerman case because, as you said, once it's presented to people then the public will create the controversy on your own. HOWEVER, I absolutely think that people deciding what to put on their news broadcasts or to write about on their papers/sites saw a situation that screamed "This case will cause some MAJOR controversy!" (Rather than "Wow! this is some MAJOR news that is important for people to know!) and they run with it.

The same situation happens black on black, white on white, with a knife instead of a gun, to two individuals of a similar age, etc and it probably never gets covered by national news agencies because it no longer has thet recipe for a controversy to potentially grow from it.

I don't think it's a "conspiracy"...I think it's common sense business. No, news organizatoins job is not to "report the news". Their job is to fill time / fill pages to spur viewership/readership and attract sponsors. "Reporting News" is the MEANS of filling that time. And when you have a lot of time and a lot of pages to fill, finding things to focus on that are likely to spawn stories and topics and conversations based on the likely response is the way to go because you essentially are able to "Steer" your way into easier content.

 

[Tucker Case]

I can't give you the wall of text, but I do disagree on one point. I do not think the media causes the **** storm from the idiots on both sides, they just use it. That is, all they have to do is their job, report the news essentially(ok, so it is really to make profit, but they do it by reporting these things), and they can simply trust that people will create the controversy, then it is their job to report the controversy. There is not conspiricy, there is no effort made to keep racial tensions strong, they are not needed. Just report the story and let human nature do the rest.

Look at the Z/M thing. The media did not create the "whose the bigger racist" pissing contest. They did not need to. They just had to stand back and let people do it for themselves, then report on it in a fairly neutral way. Pundits may have thrown a little fuel on the fire, but it was already a raging ****ing inferno. I get really annoyed at the way people blame the media instead of standing up and taking repsonsibility for what we ourselves are doing.

You don't really disagree insofar as we are both firmly in the "We do it ourselves" camp. The media is going to do what it does to get profits. We determine what they are going to do by using their product. If people didn't want to be a part of the controversy, they'd turn off the TV.

If we disagree on anything, it's that I think that the media can create controversy by making the decision to report something that is relatively inconsequential on a national level as though it's something of great import. Example: Aaron Hernandez. Really, aside from the person who was killed and their family, few people are affected by that story. But people everywhere want to know about it. The media could, in a fit of journalistic integrity, treat it like a relatively inconsequential story of little national import. But that won't get the ratings.

So while I believe that, ultimately, it's the consumers fault we're inundated with relatively meaningless **** passing for news, I do think that the media needs to be called out for it's lack of professional integrity.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Look at the Z/M thing. The media did not create the "whose the bigger racist" pissing contest. They did not need to. They just had to stand back and let people do it for themselves, then report on it in a fairly neutral way. Pundits may have thrown a little fuel on the fire, but it was already a raging ****ing inferno. I get really annoyed at the way people blame the media instead of standing up and taking repsonsibility for what we ourselves are doing.

Uh, "a little fuel on the fire"? Media outlets were broadcasting doctored 911 tapes that made it appear that Zimmerman was using racial slurs when talking about TM, and just the other day TMZ was reporting how the family involved in that car crash were white.

Surely the tension existed well before that, but to act as if the angle wasn't milked to create controversy is rather ridiculous

 

[shrubnose]

Otay!

Yeah you right!

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

True, some people are forgiven, or not even criticized and others are burned at the stake for similar offenses.

I like using polanski here because he drugged and ass raped a 13 year old girl. It's pretty hard to equate that to some unseemly rants

 

[shrubnose]

Sadly won't get it here, I agree with much of what you said. My one disagreement would be with something you didn't even explicitely say, but more simply expanding upon something you said. People having a **** storm and attacking people for being upset about Paula Deen and urging Food Network to fire her (be it directly or through claims of boycotts of sponsors) are a wonderful example of why it may not be best to leave it up just to the free market. But at the same time, the fact someone like Paula Deen CAN lose her job because controversy, once things come to light, can become so huge in such a quick bit of time is a wonderful example of why it also may not be necessary to leave it largely up to significant and sizable government intervention.

The Market is not the same today as it was 50 years ago, societ yis not the same as it was 50 years ago, I don't think that if laws built around the context of the market and society of 50 years ago were tweaked a bit we'd suddenly descended into a maddening mire of racism run amok and ciivl rights trampled upon all over.

To me, this is a situation that both simultaneously shows that the knee jerk reaction to any notion of reduction in government regulation of business regarding civil rights (even in the loosest forms) is a bit ridiculous AND that the farther right notion of a complete removal of government regulation of business regarding civil rights because the "market" will take care of it is ALSO a bit ridiculous.

This is probably the biggest problem that I have with a lot of Libertarians.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

And so many on the left argue that you can't trust the free market to do it, that there are too many people that tacitly condone racism or let it go on, and that it wouldn't really cause them enough greif to stop them from doing it so we need the government to keep these laws on the books forever and ever because without it we'll just wash away back into the dredges of horrible racism in the marketplace.

While I unapologetically believe that we need to keep 'these laws on the books forever' (we don't get rid of murder laws when murder rates decrease so why get rid of anti-racism laws when racism decreases?), I do see a lot of liberals who don't give the free market enough credit for taking out the trash. Those people tend to be unaware of the power that they hold in the free market and tend to be so immersed in the power that corporations and wealthy people hold that they do not appreciate what little - but meaningful - power they have. More than that, such liberals tend to focus more on the racist people than on the people criticizing them to the point that almost all they see is the former.

An example: While I tend to not be like the above liberals, I caught myself doing what I described above a few months ago. I was reading an article on avclub.com about some executive producer's tantrum at a panel where journalists questioned his use of racial stereotypes in his how. The main thing I drew from the story was that another media of the member is perpetuating racial stereotypes without any consideration that such behavior might be a problem. A little bit after I read the story, it dawned on me that I had given ZERO credit to the people who questioned him and continued to question him even after he threw his tantrum. That is huge progress given such problem stereotyping was often ignored in the past. Even so, I had pretty much ignored it initially.

That is the process of thinking that I think a lot of liberals are stuck in. They are so focused on the problem that they don't see how many people are working on solutions. More specific to your point, they are so focused on problems of the free market that they don't see how many people are actually taking advantage of it.

 

[Zyphlin]

If we disagree on anything, it's that I think that the media can create controversy by making the decision to report something that is relatively inconsequential on a national level as though it's something of great import. Example: Aaron Hernandez. Really, aside from the person who was killed and their family, few people are affected by that story. But people everywhere want to know about it. The media could, in a fit of journalistic integrity, treat it like a relatively inconsequential story of little national import. But that won't get the ratings. \

See, I kind of disagree with you on Aaron Hernandez, for the same reason I don't have an issue with the media reporting on Paul Deen. When you're a public figure who profitted largely based off the national populations interest in you and what you're doing (in Hernandez's case, as part of the larger "NFL entity) I don't necessarily have an issue with media covering you on a national level.

Whether or not the AMOUNT of coverage is needed, that's a whole differen tstory and I think could be applied to most news issues. But I don't actually fault the national media for grabbing ahold of an Aaron Hernandez or Paula Deen type story. Is it still being done because it'll create conversatoin and profits? Absolutely.But I think part of WHY it'll do that is because they're a national figure with national recognition and people across the nation will be interested to hear about it singularly because the person is well known.

The Hernandez situation is really weird all over. It's only a national story because of sports, so you'd think it should just be covered heavily on a national level by sports news. However, it's a freaking MURDER, which almosts feels weird for Sports writers to be writing about as you go there generally wanting the latest break down of the games last sunday and not legal expertise. The whole story situation is such a mess that I think it's a bad example concerning the mediaa in general.

 

[shrubnose]

I like using polanski here because he drugged and ass raped a 13 year old girl. It's pretty hard to equate that to some unseemly rants

The man has never really been held to account for his actions.

If he was Michelangelo, that wouldn't justify what hasn't happened to him.

 

[ChezC3]

and Hooters and Tilted Kilt and a dozen others ask women to dress like whores...so if so what of it? It's called theme... Unless of course people have pushed to have AJ rebranded, I don't recall any such efforts...

 

[tererun]

until you liberals make Alec Baldwin pay the same price for his Homophobic violent threats i don't want to hear a freaken dam thing about Paula Deen come out your hypocrite mouth

Yeah, because it totally isn't hypocritical of you to pretend to care about the gays when you do not so you can have an excuse to be racist against the blacks. Until you support gays do not use them as your excuse for your racism you hypocrite.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

You don't really disagree insofar as we are both firmly in the "We do it ourselves" camp. The media is going to do what it does to get profits. We determine what they are going to do by using their product. If people didn't want to be a part of the controversy, they'd turn off the TV.

If we disagree on anything, it's that I think that the media can create controversy by making the decision to report something that is relatively inconsequential on a national level as though it's something of great import. Example: Aaron Hernandez. Really, aside from the person who was killed and their family, few people are affected by that story. But people everywhere want to know about it. The media could, in a fit of journalistic integrity, treat it like a relatively inconsequential story of little national import. But that won't get the ratings.

So while I believe that, ultimately, it's the consumers fault we're inundated with relatively meaningless **** passing for news, I do think that the media needs to be called out for it's lack of professional integrity.

I think your definition of "inconsequential" is far too narrow. It looks like your defining the "national import" of a story primarily in terms of whether or not people are directly involved in it. The problem, however, is that stories can be of great national consequences even when something does not directly involve most of the people listening. For instance, the Hernandez story. He's a NFL player who murdered someone and threw away millions of dollars in the process. Even though I'm not that interested in the story, I can easily see how this story would be meaningful to certain number of the millions of sports fans in this country. People who admired him or hated him or who want to be him or whatever else. The story isn't "relatively meaningless" to them and they are, in fact, a significant part of this nation so the argument that the story is inconsequential from a national standpoint doesn't hold much water.