|
Post by Moses on Jan 6, 2005 1:04:48 GMT -5
Here in Washington, where the population is primarilly black, the newspaper is owned and operated by a neocon cabal, and 100% of their columnists are part of a neocon ring. (The Washington Post Writer's Group-- the Post also owns Newsweek- ditto. They now own Slate, as well. Which was already neocon, with one slight exception.)
The "culture" columnist, whose name escapes me-- Marc something-- wrote a column urging that the only independent black station, a Pacifica station, which plays Jazz and has some talk like Democracy Now and genuine black opinion, remove the talk and play hip hop. What does that tell you?
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Jan 7, 2005 18:40:18 GMT -5
Here in Washington, where the population is primarilly black, the newspaper is owned and operated by a neocon cabal, and 100% of their columnists are part of a neocon ring. (The Washington Post Writer's Group-- the Post also owns Newsweek- ditto. They now own Slate, as well. Which was already neocon, with one slight exception.) The "culture" columnist, whose name escapes me-- Marc something-- wrote a column urging that the only independent black station, a Pacifica station, which plays Jazz and has some talk like Democracy Now and genuine black opinion, remove the talk and play hip hop. What does that tell you? It tells me that this columnist is shallow and borderline bigoted. I can't say full blown bigoted because we would have to know more about his attitudes to make such a judgment. I don't know what purpose changing a radio station's format from "progressive" to hip hop would serve in that, *gasp*, not every Black person listens to hip hop or likes it. I suppose one could say this columnist would like to see that station's audience assimilated into the collective conscious of American consumerism. Further, it's disappointing hearing things like that coming from people who identify themselves as "liberal" or "progressive" and I see it from time to time at sites like SC and DU. My advice, which I have given to some people I know, is that they need to expand their social circle beyond those they feel comfortable with, to include others outside their race, ethnicity or economic background because you really start to see things from new and different perspectives. Anyway, we have an independently owned urban format station here in Tampa and they don't play hip hop at all. Their playlist consists of current and "ol' skool" R&B, soul, gospel and "cool jazz", which personally I can't stand because they take a perfectly good song and always have to mess it up with their instrumental "interpretation." However, I hope this station remains independent because on Saturday mornings, they have public interest programming, which isn't the shallow kind that Clear Channel puts out, but real, in depth discussions of issues facing Tampa/St. Pete's Black community from all different perpectives. And they bring on guests to discuss the issues that the mainstream media wouldn't dare give a mic to. Nowhere else in Tampa's bland media would you find a White male, who describes himself as socially liberal, but with self-professed bigoted tendencies toward Black youth, discussing this issue and reaching mutual understanding with members of Tampa's Black religious community and St. Pete's Black Uhuru movement. Anyway, I don't always necessarily agree with the perpective the guests are coming from, but I know a lot more about their philosophy than had I just followed the "mainstream."
|
|
|
Post by folkie on Nov 17, 2005 17:07:28 GMT -5
I don't have the guts to read the lyrics, -- I am already angry about the sexploitation of girls and was on Tipper Gore's side to label the products of the entertainment industry. Most democrats are such sheep, that they "thought" that this was "censorship". Having just been banned from the Reality Based Community, I think I might know a little bit about censorship. It is generally considered censorship if it limits the male right to exploit females, but it is not generally considered censorship if it totally silences females and their sympathizers. Freedom of speech appears to mean total freedom of pornography, but repression and silencing of equality. I am a proponent of equality. Not of a little equality, not of a semblance of equality, but of equality. And I've been getting censored and banned for twenty-five years by people who pride themselves on their support for free speech and their opposition to censorship. So long as the freedom of speech is solely male and the censorship is only used to silence females and their sympathizers, these spoiled sexist brats continue to censor and ban without a second thought, while loudly proclaiming their opposition to censorship and banning. Yes, they're against it, but only if it were to apply to them--they're all for it when they do it to others. So I was pleased to see this topic here and the intelligent contributions. If people aren't portrayed as equal, they are unlikely to be treated as equal.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 18, 2005 10:40:13 GMT -5
The "Reality Based Community" is censoring/banning people already?!
On what basis?
|
|
|
Post by folkie on Nov 18, 2005 12:40:21 GMT -5
As the person banned, I'm probably biased, but as I see it the basis for the censorship/banning was my response to a deliberate, unprovoked insult. The insult was permitted to stand and my response in kind was deleted. The excuse for the censorship was that my response to the insult was too harsh. So after a lengthy and futile discussion, I used that same exact insult to refer to the mod and asked the mod to demonstrate what a more reasoned, appropriate response to such an insult would be, and the answer was "You are banned from this forum." Unfortunately, the person who insulted me was also a mod and I was not, so I could not have taken the less harsh and more reasoned approach of banning them, instead of returning the insult, even if I'd wanted to. I've posted a bit more about this in my topic on pronouns.
|
|