Free Speech: what is insulting?
Thread Rating:
Quote: Article in black woman's magazine
Portions of Article is called White men in Hollywood, that pursue black women
If you look at many black men in Hollywood, sports, music or hell, just the black men in the world around you, you’ll find that a lot of them have dated white women, and done so proudly–which they should, it’s your life, and it’s a free country. But on the opposite end of the color spectrum, there aren’t many white Hollywood men you can think of off the top of your head running around snapping photos arm-in-arm with African-American women. Maybe that’s why it’s so surprising, or dare I say, exciting, when you find out that someone with heavy Hollywood clout is courting a black woman. But you’d be surprised to find that a number of high profile figures of the whiter persuasion in music and film have a track record of dating, are currently dating, have dated, and love them some sistahs. Here’s just a few.
Brad Pitt
One of the sexiest men alive (People’s words not mine, though I don’t disagree) has dated a couple of black women in Hollywood, and both were surprises in my book. Way back in the late ‘80s, Pitt dated singer Sinitta (what is a Sinitta?), but supposedly the two didn’t last because of long-distance issues. He also booed up with actress Robin Givens in 1989 while she was estranged from husband Mike Tyson. That allegedly didn’t sit too well with Iron Mike, but it doesn’t matter because the fling didn’t last very long. Upon the beginning of “Brangelina” Givens said in 2007 that she doesn’t find Brad to be that fascinating. In simpler terms, he’s not all that, yet he was all that when they were dating. Someone sounds a little bitter…
Chris Noth
Noth, best known for his work on “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,” “The Good Wife” and of course “Sex and the City,” (you know that face!) TV’s “Big” truly doesn’t have a love for skinny white women with Manolo Blahnik obsessions. He actually prefers a mellow sistah with some class and some curves. Noth’s future co-star for life is the beautiful Tara Wilson, a fellow thesbian. The twosome, currently engaged, first caught eyes after meeting at Noth’s New York Bar, The Cutting Room, in 2004. Together the couple have a baby boy–Orion Christopher Noth–born in 2008.
Robert De Niro
I think it’s common knowledge that Bobby De Niro loves him some black women. Have you seen him with anyone else? The acting legend and Academy Award winner’s first big relationship (that we know of at least) with a black woman was his marriage to singer and fellow actress Diahnne Abbott (see page 1 photo). The two actually had a son together, Raphael, and De Niro adopted Abbot’s daughter from a previous relationship, Drena. He also dated model/actress Toukie Smith in the ‘90s, and the two had twin boys (Aaron and Julian) by a surrogate. But the lady currently holding Bobby’s arm on the red carpet is his wife, Grace Hightower, whom he married in ’97. And while their relationship has gone up and down (they both renewed their vows and filed for divorce in 1999), they have remained booed up, and have a son together, Elliot, born in 1998. I guess De Niro can attest to the fact that once you go black…
...
Roger Ebert
Everyone’s favorite, and most reliable “thumbs up” movie critic not only likes a good film or two, but a chocolate woman to watch the movie with. At one time, Ebert briefly dated the queen of talk, big mama Oprah, and she even credits him with encouraging her to let ABC syndicate her talk show. And while he nowhere near wifed up the most powerful woman on the planet, he did marry attorney Charlie “Chaz” Hammel-Smith, who can be found by Ebert’s side a majority of the time. Chaz is now the vice president of the critic’s company, Ebert Company, while he focuses on writing post his battle with thyroid cancer. Because behind every successful man, there just has to be a black woman!
...
The article stands in stark contrast to the vehemence of Naomi Campbell's words regarding the Cadbury candy companies advertisement that compares their new candy bar to her. While it is difficult to not make some kind of chocolate connection (see above article), it is as much a spoof on Naomi's violent temper.
Quote: article on Naomi Cambell's anger
Her mother, Valerie Morris, supported her daughter’s stance, saying: ‘I’m deeply upset by this racist advert.
Do these people think they can insult black people and we just take it? This is the 21st century, not the 1950s. Shame on Cadbury.’
Black rights group Operation Black Vote has called for Cadbury to apologise after receiving dozens of complaints about the advert from members of the public.
Simon Woolley, from the group, said that without an apology, the ‘only recourse black people have is not to buy its chocolate’. He has written to the American civil rights activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to ask them to mobilise the country’s Afro-American population in a boycott of Kraft goods.
‘I want them to know what their parent company is doing in Europe. I’ve asked them to support us,’ he said. Being likened to chocolate was as bad as being called a golliwog for black people, he added. ‘Racism in the playground starts with black children being called “chocolate bar”.
Seriously? That ad is the same as calling someone a golliwog? Should white women sue over being labelled as skinny?
Interesting because I thought Free Speech was protected all over this country, but turns out in Reno, it's just in this corner of the Nugget parking lot. Who knew???
If she filed a lawsuit, wouldn't it need to be a class action suit on behalf of all women names "Naomi" ?Quote: FleaStiffI think any anger is based on the fact that she was not paid for the use of her name in the advertisement.
I mean, how is anyone supposed to connect the dots that the Naomi in the ad is her, or even black?
Quote: zippyboyJust thought I'd bump this thread, and post a pic I took last night in Reno (or Sparks actually), in the parking lot of the Nugget.
By identifying an area, the hotel can legally keep the porn slappers, strikers and buskers from standing at the lobby doors.
Quote: zippyboy
Interesting because I thought Free Speech was protected all over this country, but turns out in Reno, it's just in this corner of the Nugget parking lot. Who knew???
On private property free speech goes as far as the owner wants.
They have an identical sign at the Tempe Public Library. It works out well. People who want to get petitions signed or whatnot can use the area without fear of being rousted for being a nusiance. At the same time, patrons cab enter and exit knowing there will be no aggressiveness towards them in any other place.
Which is the way it should be.
For example, here a mod will give us a lecture on how we should be more tender with females and encourage their participation.And scolds and temporaily bans someone for using the words "dumb blonde" against a poster. But then out of nowhere a dumb blond joke appears regarding blondes being tooo dumb to realize the that moon is farther away than a certain city. So its ok to insult a general group of people..or many people at the same time. That is the rules and those are the rules I accept.
so
An ugly woman, a sumo wrestler, and Joseph Merrick are rooming together.....and storm into their local walmart. The woman slams a pack of photos on the counter, and exclaims..."we want our money back...these pictures makes us look ugly fat and grotesque"
The clerk smiles and cheerfully refunds the money....and says.....why dont you return your mirrors while you are at it.
That said, I know rules and civil behavior norms are needed. And, I know those change.
I know that various psychologists/preachers/life-coaches/whatever will offer different thresholds of when to let an insult go and when not to, but even those are not codified/legislated but rather ask people to look inside themselves and see what bothers them to the point of affecting their mental health.
All of this codification leads, I think, to tattling ... something we should have all given up by the end of elementary school ... and backs leaders (Wizard or otherwise) into corners that make no practical sense. Why even go down that road?
As far as what crosses a line ... I hate to paraphrase Justice Stewart but some dynamic of "you'll know it when you see it" has to exist. And, we have to rely on the ability of others to act like adults (i.e., not tattle).
I know that the practical application of this is difficult and "pie in the sky," but for this silly little forum family, why do we need or even want such strict codification? Wizard is boss, he authorizes lieutenants to help him police. If a lieutenant gets out of line (i.e., exercises bad "crossing the line" judgment), he can fire them. All authorities can ban users. If users don't like it, they can always go somewhere they like.
I know we largely know this, but still some act like they don't ... all the tattling and finger-pointing ... sheesh.
Quote: MrWarmthIt always seemed to me that "legislation" of something this nebulous and of wide variance among people is impossible. As "pie in the sky" as it sounds, where's the room for grace? There's nothing that makes you less of a person if someone else is an idiot. Also, clearly, there are acceptable insults (Jesus is really a zombie) and unacceptable insults (@#%@*^%^$$%).
That said, I know rules and civil behavior norms are needed. And, I know those change.
I know that various psychologists/preachers/life-coaches/whatever will offer different thresholds of when to let an insult go and when not to, but even those are not codified/legislated but rather ask people to look inside themselves and see what bothers them to the point of affecting their mental health.
All of this codification leads, I think, to tattling ... something we should have all given up by the end of elementary school ... and backs leaders (Wizard or otherwise) into corners that make no practical sense. Why even go down that road?
As far as what crosses a line ... I hate to paraphrase Justice Stewart but some dynamic of "you'll know it when you see it" has to exist. And, we have to rely on the ability of others to act like adults (i.e., not tattle).
I know that the practical application of this is difficult and "pie in the sky," but for this silly little forum family, why do we need or even want such strict codification? Wizard is boss, he authorizes lieutenants to help him police. If a lieutenant gets out of line (i.e., exercises bad "crossing the line" judgment), he can fire them. All authorities can ban users. If users don't like it, they can always go somewhere they like.
I know we largely know this, but still some act like they don't ... all the tattling and finger-pointing ... sheesh.
totally agree. Just like free tv, if you dont like it you can go away quietly, or form a bond with others that feel like you and pound the sponsors. There are consequences on both sides
In addition
I agree with you that there is nothing that an annonymous person who doesnt know me can post that can adversely effect me. Yes there are people who grew up as a kid always hiding under mommies dress when things didnt go well....and these are the same people who grew up needing moderators to unhurt their feelings through doling out of punishment. Those are the people that love to flag posts so mommie can take notice and send the other person to their room. Very insecure people. It would be nice if everyone had the capacity to defend their ideas......but some people need help through censorship. And this board provides that service.
I agree that crying and pointing fingers is childish, yet the board promotes this childish behavior, and there are people here that gloat about being "pormoted"(that term makes me laugh in this context)........and are happy to accomodate those whiners and prove their worth with their personal interpretation of "trolling" based on the their feelings about the perpetrator.
I am with you sir
Ps....Face seems to be not a strident in his ways, or have a need to prove his worth. Rather level headed most of the time. Less arbitrary. Bravo.
Quote: pacomartin
The article stands in stark contrast to the vehemence of Naomi Campbell's words regarding the Cadbury candy companies advertisement that compares their new candy bar to her. While it is difficult to not make some kind of chocolate connection (see above article), it is as much a spoof on Naomi's violent temper.
I guess the first thing that came to mind was the ETrade commercial in which one of the babies referred to "that milkaholic Lindsay" and Lindsay Lohan got her panties - or perhaps lack thereof - in a wad. I can't imagine that Naomi Campbell has much of a case.
This was a black woman's magazine, I notice - as a white man, I logically have not read this - so I half expected a ton of racial references, especially considering that it seems that TPTB in black magazines - and indeed, other TPTB among other races - seem to want to make interracial relationships edgy. I'm not sure if it's simple bigotry or if there's really money behind it - some people, like most of my mother's side of my family, are bigoted, but lots of rich people are god at making money.
Incidentally, I had to look up "golliwog."
