• 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!

S of L on Negative Actions

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We should probably have a statue of limitations on absolving folks for negative (but still legal) actions. On one hand, I feel like the U.S. is moving in a good direction that's more sensitive to treating each other with respect. On the other hand, some of us are so repulsed by the negative actions of others that we don't want to absolve them for a very long time, if ever. PC seems to be so out of hand in some instances that people are losing careers because of simple mistakes, like the weather guy who misspoke and said "Martin Luther Coon King....", so he misspoke, then quickly changed it and even apologized but still lost his job. What's worse, a man making a mistake on live t.v., or the person wanting to take away his career and brand him a racist for it?

But even those that do negative (but still legal) things seemingly unmistakenly, do they always have evil intent in their hearts? Some folks get really angry, frustrated, flustered, and say stupid and horrible things without meaning them...haven't we all? It's hard to tell unless someone has a pattern. Of course each case varies, but I feel like we should forgive those who are repentant with a goal of totally absolving them of any guilt after a certain period of time. What are your thoughts? :popcorn2:
 
Last edited:
...PC seems to be so out of hand in some instances that people are losing careers because of simple mistakes, like the weather guy who misspoke and said "Martin Luther Coon King....", so he misspoke, ... What's worse, a man making a mistake on live t.v., or the person wanting to take away his career and brand him a racist for it?

But even those that do negative (but still legal) things seemingly unmistakenly, do they always have evil intent in their hearts? Some folks get really angry, frustrated, flustered, and say stupid and horrible things without meaning them...haven't we all? It's hard to tell unless someone has a pattern. ...
What are your thoughts? :popcorn2:
What is the point of your including a "popcorn" emoticon?

Red:
The words folks utter are reflections of their thoughts. I don't know what exactly that meteorologist was thinking about when he called MLK "Martin Luther Coon," but I know that epithet is not new or uncommon among Southern racists.

We all misspeak. I do it plenty, and without exception it happens because (1) something was on my mind (subconsciously or consciously) other than what I intended to discuss/say, or (2) I spoke (or wrote) a word that's somewhat apropos to the idea I aimed to express but that is less apt than a different word/phrase I know, could have and should have used instead. Seen in that context, neither provides an exculpatory path for exchanging "King" for "Coon."

For each of us there are thoughts that are so odious that simply don't cross our minds. For that weatherman, that cannot be said of calling MKL "Martin Luther Coon." Sure, he had the sense to know he shouldn't have said that -- it's not as though he's the only racist/bigoted of some stripe who knows it's impolitic to say such things -- but that clearly wasn't enough to prevent him from thinking it.


Blue:
Well, therein lies the quandary. It's a dilemma borne, IMO, of misapplications and excesses of relativism, moral or otherwise.

Prior to about the 1970s or so, proportionately few folks would have looked askance at the panoply of racist remarks and actions one may have taken. In some instances, and for some individuals, that insouciance included the most heinous of acts right up to and including rape and homicide. It's not that such thoughts and the utterances and behaviors borne of them were morally/ethically right; it's that a huge share of the population, the white majority that held legal, social and political sway, (1) ascribed to racist notions, (2) allowed apathy to overcome their will to reject racist notions, and/or (3) selfishly acquiesced to applied racism (discrimination), and for some folks it was a mix of the three.

In the decades since the '70s, it became increasingly unacceptable socially to be seen in public as an overt racist, but "behind closed doors," the same forms of forbearance as before persisted. Thus evolved the period of "smiling faces," a time in which it become difficult to know who harbors racist/bigoted sentiments and, in turn, subtly acts on them. But that one isn't an overt racist/bigot as people used to be doesn't mean one isn't a racist on the "DL."

When minorities encounter white folks, they can and routinely do give the white guy the benefit of the doubt....until/unless that white person does or say something that shows s/he holds some sort of racist notions in his/her head. At that moment, one, minorities in particular, must ask themselves "was that white person just putting on o a show so as not to seem racist/bigoted because seeming so can cause them more bother than they want to face?" Obtaining an existentially accurate answer to that question is nigh impossible, especially if the person's full "story" hasn't been exposed. The person whom one just offended doesn't know one well enough to have that much info on one, and there's no way for them to obtain it; they know one just offended them.

There's also the matter of white folks deigning to tell minorities what is and isn't racist, what is/isn't racially offensive. Really? What 400+-year-long legacy of systemic, institutionalized racism, from overt or otherwise, have whites, individually and as a segment of society, been subjected to whereby they are well placed to know? In a word, none. Simply, one cannot hear literally millions of people say "X is a racial affront to us," respond to them by telling them they are mistaken, and proceed to keep doing/saying "X," thinking that "X" is okay to do or say, and in so doing expect also to be taken seriously when one claims to be not a racist.

When we stop expressly and tacitly teaching our kids that racist notions are in some way acceptable, racism will no longer exist in people's minds. But one must know what racism is in order to refrain from passing it on.
 
What is the point of your including a "popcorn" emoticon?

Red:
The words folks utter are reflections of their thoughts. I don't know what exactly that meteorologist was thinking about when he called MLK "Martin Luther Coon," but I know that epithet is not new or uncommon among Southern racists.

We all misspeak. I do it plenty, and without exception it happens because (1) something was on my mind (subconsciously or consciously) other than what I intended to discuss/say, or (2) I spoke (or wrote) a word that's somewhat apropos to the idea I aimed to express but that is less apt than a different word/phrase I know, could have and should have used instead. Seen in that context, neither provides an exculpatory path for exchanging "King" for "Coon."

For each of us there are thoughts that are so odious that simply don't cross our minds. For that weatherman, that cannot be said of calling MKL "Martin Luther Coon." Sure, he had the sense to know he shouldn't have said that -- it's not as though he's the only racist/bigoted of some stripe who knows it's impolitic to say such things -- but that clearly wasn't enough to prevent him from thinking it.


Blue:
Well, therein lies the quandary. It's a dilemma borne, IMO, of misapplications and excesses of relativism, moral or otherwise.

Prior to about the 1970s or so, proportionately few folks would have looked askance at the panoply of racist remarks and actions one may have taken. In some instances, and for some individuals, that insouciance included the most heinous of acts right up to and including rape and homicide. It's not that such thoughts and the utterances and behaviors borne of them were morally/ethically right; it's that a huge share of the population, the white majority that held legal, social and political sway, (1) ascribed to racist notions, (2) allowed apathy to overcome their will to reject racist notions, and/or (3) selfishly acquiesced to applied racism (discrimination), and for some folks it was a mix of the three.

In the decades since the '70s, it became increasingly unacceptable socially to be seen in public as an overt racist, but "behind closed doors," the same forms of forbearance as before persisted. Thus evolved the period of "smiling faces," a time in which it become difficult to know who harbors racist/bigoted sentiments and, in turn, subtly acts on them. But that one isn't an overt racist/bigot as people used to be doesn't mean one isn't a racist on the "DL."

When minorities encounter white folks, they can and routinely do give the white guy the benefit of the doubt....until/unless that white person does or say something that shows s/he holds some sort of racist notions in his/her head. At that moment, one, minorities in particular, must ask themselves "was that white person just putting on o a show so as not to seem racist/bigoted because seeming so can cause them more bother than they want to face?" Obtaining an existentially accurate answer to that question is nigh impossible, especially if the person's full "story" hasn't been exposed. The person whom one just offended doesn't know one well enough to have that much info on one, and there's no way for them to obtain it; they know one just offended them.

There's also the matter of white folks deigning to tell minorities what is and isn't racist, what is/isn't racially offensive. Really? What 400+-year-long legacy of systemic, institutionalized racism, from overt or otherwise, have whites, individually and as a segment of society, been subjected to whereby they are well placed to know? In a word, none. Simply, one cannot hear literally millions of people say "X is a racial affront to us," respond to them by telling them they are mistaken, and proceed to keep doing/saying "X," thinking that "X" is okay to do or say, and in so doing expect also to be taken seriously when one claims to be not a racist.

It's an old American pastime to enjoy popcorn while being entertained. I often find the opinions of others entertaining.

To your "Red" point, have you ever mispronounced a word? If he said "Martin Lither King" what would that tell you? Could that have happened? If so, then it's not at all guaranteed that the weatherman meant it.

To your "Blue" point, society was different and harder in many ways back then. People are living longer, more comfortable lives than ever because we're evolving. You seem to think that past problems were due to white people letting them happen, but hundreds of thousands of northerners died in the Civil War, so which white people are you talking about? Aren't you old enough to remember when it wasn't just white neighborhoods but Italian, Polish, Mexican, etc..., and they they often were prejudiced towards each other?

Let me ask you this, are white people inherently more evil than any other race?
 
It's an old American pastime to enjoy popcorn while being entertained. I often find the opinions of others entertaining.

To your "Red" point, have you ever mispronounced a word? If he said "Martin Lither King" what would that tell you? Could that have happened? If so, then it's not at all guaranteed that the weatherman meant it.

To your "Blue" point, society was different and harder in many ways back then. People are living longer, more comfortable lives than ever because we're evolving. You seem to think that past problems were due to white people letting them happen, but hundreds of thousands of northerners died in the Civil War, so which white people are you talking about? Aren't you old enough to remember when it wasn't just white neighborhoods but Italian, Polish, Mexican, etc..., and they they often were prejudiced towards each other?

Let me ask you this, are white people inherently more evil than any other race?

Red:
No, not a simple one-syllable word like "king," and certainly not to the extent of transforming, "mispronouncing," as you put it, "king" into "coon."
  • King --> Kang; that's mispronunciation
  • King --> Keen; that's mispronunciation
  • King --> Coon; that's not mispronunciation
So, no, transforming "king" to "coon" could not have, as a matter of mere mispronunciation, happened to the Purdue U. degreed meteorologist who said "Martin Luther Coon" instead of "Martin Luther King."

Frankly, your positing enunciation errors as extant in the man's diction tells me you, more effectively than I, channel Taylor Coleridge.


Blue:
Past socio-political, legal and cultural "problems" are the fault of (a) the people who made and enforced (or didn't) public policy and laws and (b) who defined cultural mores. In the US, those people were none other than white people....the powerful ones who held formal power and their enablers who voted for them and/or hewed to, aided and abetted the perpetuation of racism and race-based discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the access to or purchase of services.


Tan:
What? Rather than ask about my age, please assert directly whatever be your point.
 
Red:
No, not a simple one-syllable word like "king," and certainly not to the extent of transforming, "mispronouncing," as you put it, "king" into "coon."
  • King --> Kang; that's mispronunciation
  • King --> Keen; that's mispronunciation
  • King --> Coon; that's not mispronunciation
So, no, transforming "king" to "coon" could not have, as a matter of mere mispronunciation, happened to the Purdue U. degreed meteorologist who said "Martin Luther Coon" instead of "Martin Luther King."

Frankly, your positing enunciation errors as extant in the man's diction tells me you, more effectively than I, channel Taylor Coleridge.


Blue:
Past socio-political, legal and cultural "problems" are the fault of (a) the people who made and enforced (or didn't) public policy and laws and (b) who defined cultural mores. In the US, those people were none other than white people....the powerful ones who held formal power and their enablers who voted for them and/or hewed to, aided and abetted the perpetuation of racism and race-based discrimination in housing, education, employment, and the access to or purchase of services.


Tan:
What? Rather than ask about my age, please assert directly whatever be your point.

Come on man, you really think Kang and Keen are obvious mispronounciations but there's no way Koon is, esp.after Luther (Loother). :roll:

And blaming those in power for certain things they were responsible for is fine, blaming white people isn't, because all white people weren't responsible for those things. As I've pointed out, hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers died to end slavery.
 
Come on man, you really think Kang and Keen are obvious mispronounciations but there's no way Koon is, esp.after Luther (Loother). :roll:

And blaming those in power for certain things they were responsible for is fine, blaming white people isn't, because all white people weren't responsible for those things. As I've pointed out, hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers died to end slavery.


Red:
That is correct.

Listen to the man speak. He doesn't even have an accent that'd make "kang" or "keen" be mispronunciations of "king," and he damn sure doesn't have one that'd make "coon" be such.



The man is a TV journalist, not some backwoods or downtown dude with slovenly enunciation.

As I said before, the only way words come out of one's mouth is because the thoughts those words represent were in one's mind. Now, I'm not going to speculate about how, when he was supposed to, at that very moment, be thinking thus speaking about the fact of the upcoming MLK holiday, "coon" managed to be commingled among the thoughts in his head, but I know damn well that it was because "Martin Luther Coon" is what came out of his mouth.

If he'd have said "Martin Luther Kayak," I'd say the same thing: somehow kayaking was on his mind. The thing is that there's nothing pejorative about kayaks and kayaking, but he didn't say that. He uttered what is and long has been a long-standing derisive epithet used by bigots/racists to refer to Martin Luther King.
 
Last edited:
FWIW re: the epithet "Martin Luther Koon," it's not an uncommon moniker among racists:
  • Etymology
  • Anecdotes

    The dude in the middle of the panel said (at ~1:27 in the video below) exactly what I think transpired with that KY meteorologist.



    I think that's what happened because I've seen it happen plenty of times when friends of a certain Southern cousin are around and conversing in a "laid back" setting and, thinking I won't care or be disgusted by their well hidden and usually-well-managed racist sentimentalities, say things like that. They find out otherwise when I lay into them and leave, or, if we happen to be at our ancestral home, I tell my cousins right then and there that they need to see their friends to the door.
  • Urban Dictionary Entry
  • Hellhound on His Trail: The Stalking of Martin Luther King and International Hunt for His Assassin
    • The Thunderbolt, the National States Rights Party's monthly newsletter with a circulation of about forty thousand die-hard readers, railed with predictable regularity against King and called Wallace's presidential campaign "the last chance for the white voter." Among other things, the Thunderbolt called for the execution of Supreme Court justices and advocated the mass expulsion of all American blacks to Africa. Galt apparently loved reading Stoner's screeds in the Thunderbolt and repeated his trademark zingers: like Stoner, Galt took to calling King "Martin Luther Coon," and even pasted the racist sobriquet on the back of a console television he kept in his room in Los Angeles.
  • King's Dream
    • To His legion enemies he was “Martin Luther Coon," "Martin Lucifer King," "Martin Loser King," "Liver Lip Luther," or, according to one Ku Klux Klan newspaper, the "Right Reverend Riot Inciter."
    • The depravity confronted by parents such as Alice Collins was evident enough in the cheers that greeted the aptly named minister Charles Conley Lynch, a member of the white supremacist National States’ Rights Party, when he addressed a Florida Klan rally soon after the bombing: "Children are little people, little human beings, and that means white people. There’s little dogs and cats and apes and baboons and skunks and there’s also little [N-word]. But they ain’t children." Lynch then mocked King as "Martin Lucifer Coon," the Klan’s biggest enemy, and turned his Dream speech into a prediction of his death: "I heard him on TV the other night saying, ‘the Neee-gro is not satisfied.’ Well, he never will be, because before they are satisfied they all will be six feet under the ground."
  • Long Time Coming
    • Naturally it disturbed Robert Chambliss, who had been enjoying taking credit for running the NAACP out of town. He called the new black leader "Martin Lucifer King" or "Martin Luther Coon."

Those examples come from the 1960s, but I suspect they're used these days by only the most virulent of racists/white supremacists. That the sobriquet came out of that man's mouth alludes to the kind of people he spends a lot of time around and either the influence they had/have on him or his tacit approbation of the sentiments those folks express, or, worse, both. (Indeed, I suspect my own kids may likely have never, until recently, heard anyone say "Martin Luther Coon." But I could be mistaken. I know I've never once heard something so racially vile cross their lips.)
 
Since people are accountable for anything they did going back to high school - and to be punished for it even if decades later, why are felons being given the right to vote?
 
Back
Top Bottom