I have had a couple of mini debates here but nothing more exciting. In some ways this can be a very informative avenue for railfans. But one problem in my humble opinion is that it can be hard to see a persons point of view while staring at a screen. When you are looking at a person you can tell their mood or detect a certain inflection in their voice. This is so impersonal there is a lot or room for misunderstanding. Anyway we all like trains i hope and we need to bring more people to what seems to be a floundering avocation.
Semper Vaporo wrote: nanaimo73 wrote: selector wrote: I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada. North east ? I'm glad they tought us PPCLI types how to read a map. The only mass of land North EAST of Vancouver, I would call a "Continent".
nanaimo73 wrote: selector wrote: I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada. North east ? I'm glad they tought us PPCLI types how to read a map.
selector wrote: I live on a large island NE of Vancouver, BC, Canada.
North east ? I'm glad they tought us PPCLI types how to read a map.
The only mass of land North EAST of Vancouver, I would call a "Continent".
Wuups. Too much time at the computer yesterday. NW it is.
zardoz wrote:...It's being "moderated" to the point of blandness and tediousness. It's become unexciting and monotonous. When it has gotten to the point of locking or deleting threads just because they are getting a bit "spirited", then the heart of the forum has been diminished.Are so many of you so thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate anyone with a different slant on things, or cannot tolerate a little 'real-world' type of discussion? It is becoming so saccharine around here that I might as well go to Disney World for the same type of formulated entertainment. No insults. No arguments. No dissention.
...It's being "moderated" to the point of blandness and tediousness. It's become unexciting and monotonous. When it has gotten to the point of locking or deleting threads just because they are getting a bit "spirited", then the heart of the forum has been diminished.
Are so many of you so thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate anyone with a different slant on things, or cannot tolerate a little 'real-world' type of discussion? It is becoming so saccharine around here that I might as well go to Disney World for the same type of formulated entertainment.
No insults. No arguments. No dissention.
zardoz, I don't think anyone has suggested that we want uniformity in thought here. We would like uniformity in the way we treat each other, and part of that treatment is "how" we use words to get our dissenting opinions understood. In fact, it becomes the goal of many people to get others to accept their opinions, even to the point of calling the other person a moron for not agreeing with them, or using other words of desperation and ineffectualism.
Where in the forum's rules does it say that when an opinion is tendered, all responders must indicate their agreement to it? What it does say is that there are to be no personal attacks, and whether you like it or not, understand it or not, even accept it or not, personal attacks, including name calling, will not be tolerated.
If that displeases you, you have every right and encouragement to find a venue where your preferred way of dealing with people will be welcomed.
As to the question of protectionism...of course it is what we do. Of what use would we be if we didn't try to curtail expression outside the confines expressed in the rules? Why have the rules at all, in that case?
We protect a values system where people can expect to come here and say something without suffering ridicule. We protect a values system that encourages exchanges of information and opinion, limited only by the rules that preclude overtly religious or political statements that are catalysts for bickering and hard feelings. The thread that precipitated this one was being burdened by personal comments and repeated positions that were not helping to yield a useful and informative discussion. When new posters decline to offer a comment or input of any kind and the same two or more persons keep exchanging head-bangs, what is gained that Kalmbach would like it's Board of Directors or shareholders to consider a sign of corporate success at their next annual meeting?
So, the rules wisely prohibit that form of behaviour as a courtesy to would-be users who may wish to embark on such exchanges...tells them ahead of time that they should anticipate a request to desist, and then to be sanctioned if they don't comply.
Bergie didn't have the time to ask guys politely off-line to change their behaviour. You got the "treatment" publicly, as a wide-cast sweep, and if your own post was selected to be deleted, and no other, a courtesy email was sent. The new mods like a more personal touch where we attempt to reach out, and to sway the posters from their own self-destruction, which is what aggressive and willful neglect of our warnings surely is.
As I have stated repeatedly, opinions are welcome. Expect to face challenges. Each of those two exchanges can be said in gentle words that are at the same time focused on the topic and that foster a continued and friendly conversation. As soon as one person re-iterates, "Well, I don't think so," or words that mean the same thing, that is a sign that he has nothing more to add...and he should keep silent. What the moderators have to do, repeatedly, is to step in because, instead of silence, shouting the same opinion is what the offerer thinks will lend it some credibility. It won't.
I hope my lengthy reply makes my position clear about dissenting opinions. We'd have nothing to talk about, otherwise, would we? The key word, though, is "talk"...not slander, not slur, not deprecate, not flame, no shouting. Them's the rules.
-Crandell
gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .
Dope I mean... Nope
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
When it comes to matters of free speech, the proper balance between unrestricted and restricted speech is usually determined by the venue in which the speech is made. Every first year law student is taught that the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression has limits. The classic example that is often given is that a person has no constitutional right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, merely as a joke.
Similarly, the acceptable limits on our speech in the workplace, where cooperation among employees is an important consideration, is clearly different from that which we enjoy as individuals standing on our own front porch. In addition, online forums, such as this one, which are owned by a business entity not wishing to offend advertisers, usually enforce even more limits on free expression. While I don't expect Bergie to make them public, I'm sure there are corporate policies in place, which guide his decisions concerning forum etiquette.
In my opinion, it seems that once you start to potentially impact someone's financial interests, the more restrictions on free expression you are likely to encounter. While some may refer to this as political correctness, others would consider such restrictions to be just good business sense. And, as long as we are surfing on someone else's dime, I think the moderators of this forum will continue to take a conservative and somewhat restrictive approach when it comes to our heated forum debates.
Warning! A personal, possibly inflammatory, comment follows.
Firing Don Imus for his insulting remark was not political correctness run amok. Even without the adverse financial ramifications, why would anyone want to be associated with such a mean-spirited person?
Read the previous post as..."It's business".
Or, stated in a more quaint expression, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Don Imus, I am guessing, became an instant liability, and the consequences of keeping him as a corporate adjunct (i.e., defending him) were deemed to be unacceptable.
So, Kalmbach is no different. They want to foster a certain image, and to then maintain that image as best they can. That, necessarily, means managing certain activities, forum behaviour being one of them.
-Crandell.
eolafan wrote: gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.
Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.
Eolafan:
I don't know anyone who DOES like political correctness run amok. Or anything run amok. Especially mobs, dogs, hogs, and someone else's children.
Am I correct in inferring that what really bothers you is that you don't like the outcomes of the forum? Well, sometimes I don't either. But as I pay nothing for the privileges this forum provides -- education, entertainment, sharing with friends -- I am in no position to enforce any complaint I might have with the management. I have complete freedom of choice: if I find the whims of the management insufferable I can take my "business" elsewhere. I expect if I did this little world will go on happily without me, as it should.
I'm not cut out to be a moderator, because I'm not a moderate. Some of the people on here couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion. But even they are not useless as they establish a bad example. If I want to be liked, I'll call my dog; if I want rewards, I'll call my clients; if I want agreement with my boneheaded opinions, I'll call my competitors.
RWM
selector wrote: zardoz wrote:...It's being "moderated" to the point of blandness and tediousness. It's become unexciting and monotonous. When it has gotten to the point of locking or deleting threads just because they are getting a bit "spirited", then the heart of the forum has been diminished.Are so many of you so thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate anyone with a different slant on things, or cannot tolerate a little 'real-world' type of discussion? It is becoming so saccharine around here that I might as well go to Disney World for the same type of formulated entertainment. No insults. No arguments. No dissention. zardoz, I don't think anyone has suggested that we want uniformity in thought here. We would like uniformity in the way we treat each other, and part of that treatment is "how" we use words to get our dissenting opinions understood. In fact, it becomes the goal of many people to get others to accept their opinions, even to the point of calling the other person a moron for not agreeing with them, or using other words of desperation and ineffectualism. Where in the forum's rules does it say that when an opinion is tendered, all responders must indicate their agreement to it? What it does say is that there are to be no personal attacks, and whether you like it or not, understand it or not, even accept it or not, personal attacks, including name calling, will not be tolerated.If that displeases you, you have every right and encouragement to find a venue where your preferred way of dealing with people will be welcomed.As to the question of protectionism...of course it is what we do. Of what use would we be if we didn't try to curtail expression outside the confines expressed in the rules? Why have the rules at all, in that case?We protect a values system where people can expect to come here and say something without suffering ridicule. We protect a values system that encourages exchanges of information and opinion, limited only by the rules that preclude overtly religious or political statements that are catalysts for bickering and hard feelings. The thread that precipitated this one was being burdened by personal comments and repeated positions that were not helping to yield a useful and informative discussion. When new posters decline to offer a comment or input of any kind and the same two or more persons keep exchanging head-bangs, what is gained that Kalmbach would like it's Board of Directors or shareholders to consider a sign of corporate success at their next annual meeting? So, the rules wisely prohibit that form of behaviour as a courtesy to would-be users who may wish to embark on such exchanges...tells them ahead of time that they should anticipate a request to desist, and then to be sanctioned if they don't comply. Bergie didn't have the time to ask guys politely off-line to change their behaviour. You got the "treatment" publicly, as a wide-cast sweep, and if your own post was selected to be deleted, and no other, a courtesy email was sent. The new mods like a more personal touch where we attempt to reach out, and to sway the posters from their own self-destruction, which is what aggressive and willful neglect of our warnings surely is.As I have stated repeatedly, opinions are welcome. Expect to face challenges. Each of those two exchanges can be said in gentle words that are at the same time focused on the topic and that foster a continued and friendly conversation. As soon as one person re-iterates, "Well, I don't think so," or words that mean the same thing, that is a sign that he has nothing more to add...and he should keep silent. What the moderators have to do, repeatedly, is to step in because, instead of silence, shouting the same opinion is what the offerer thinks will lend it some credibility. It won't.I hope my lengthy reply makes my position clear about dissenting opinions. We'd have nothing to talk about, otherwise, would we? The key word, though, is "talk"...not slander, not slur, not deprecate, not flame, no shouting. Them's the rules.-Crandell
Very well said, Crandell! I agree with each and every word you said.
There's a reason that I haven't posted in this forum for a very long time. It's the fact that the personal attacks and insults were just getting to be too much. Things were getting to the point where I couldn't post anything without having to worry that my simple post was going to start a riot. I like to post in a place where I can have a civilized discussion and learn something, not where I can get 100 insults within 10 minutes of posting.
Like you said, it seems to me that "I disagree with your opinion and here's why..." is a much better response to a post than "Are you crazy? You're an idiot! You must not have been around when they were handing out brains..."
It seems that there are some people who just watch and wait for a key opportunity to chime in with some snide remark that will be certain to start a war.
Even though I haven't posted in a long time, I have been lurking and I've been quite happy to see threads getting locked before they turn into shouting matches. That seems much better than waiting to lock them until everyone has been insulted and degraded and feels like going off into a corner and crying.
In any event, I just thought I would let you know that someone out there supports the work you and the other new moderators are doing. It seems that a lot of people don't like it, but it is my opinion that you're doing things the right way. Keep up the good work.
Willy
Railway Man wrote: eolafan wrote: gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.Eolafan:I don't know anyone who DOES like political correctness run amok. Or anything run amok. Especially mobs, dogs, hogs, and someone else's children. Am I correct in inferring that what really bothers you is that you don't like the outcomes of the forum? Well, sometimes I don't either. But as I pay nothing for the privileges this forum provides -- education, entertainment, sharing with friends -- I am in no position to enforce any complaint I might have with the management. I have complete freedom of choice: if I find the whims of the management insufferable I can take my "business" elsewhere. I expect if I did this little world will go on happily without me, as it should.I'm not cut out to be a moderator, because I'm not a moderate. Some of the people on here couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion. But even they are not useless as they establish a bad example. If I want to be liked, I'll call my dog; if I want rewards, I'll call my clients; if I want agreement with my boneheaded opinions, I'll call my competitors. RWM
Hi RWM. To directly answer your question with one word....NO. I am not particularly bothered by the outcome of any of our forum threads, only by ignorance, political correctness, lack of common sense and the simple (and far too often illustrated) that somebody knows everything about everything...which nobody (lease of all ME) has the right to claim.
edw wrote: Warning! A personal, possibly inflammatory, comment follows. Firing Don Imus for his insulting remark was not political correctness run amok. Even without the adverse financial ramifications, why would anyone want to be associated with such a mean-spirited person?
Sorry, but it was totally PC run amok. It was all about money, both before and after. Period.
Like most Americans, what Imus said did not affect me personally one whit. I could not care less. Unlike most Americans, I don't extend feelers in every direction seeking something -- anything -- that I can claim offended me.
You ask why anyone would want to be associated with such a "mean-spirited person"? BECAUSE HE DELIVERED LISTENERS, which was his job. Which earned him, his network stations and his advertisers bushels of cash. Radio isn't art -- it's all about making money. Imus is an entertainer, and if you truly believe he is mean-spirited, he fooled you.
Only until his advertisers detected the possibility of PC backlash (which would hurt their profits) was Imus thrown to the dogs. Only until the usual PC talking heads started their attacks and threatened to organize their minions to boycott Imus' advertisers did this become an issue.
Frankly, one couldn't find a better example of PC gone wild.
I guess my hope is that our new mods don't allow the most thin-skinned among us to set the bar here. I hope we aren't forced into dumbing it down. Otherwise, like zardoz says, this forum will read like a children's book.
As I have said many times before: Baskin-Robbins sells 33 flavors of ice cream because everyone isn't in love with vanilla.
AMEN P.Z., AMEN TO THAT!
Oh, darned, now the P.C. "Police" will come after me for injecting religion into a publich forum...well, shame on me.
Willy, you are wise beyond your years!
I hope I don't come across as one of the know-it-alls that Jim is upset over. I have my share of specialty areas, but to claim that I know more than anyone else about such things is ludicrous--there's always something to be learned.
(And if something I just said doesn't sound right, blame the medications--I've been using that excuse all day!)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
At this point, a vigilant moderator, or one who happened to stumble across this thread on her way to something else, would politely ask everyone to not get distracted by the Don Imus thing, but to continue to develop the discussion along the lines of what is good for the trains.com set of fora. Or, maybe just this one.
And, in case it bears repeating, calling someone "princess", "moron", or anything other than their known name or user name, has nothing to do with correctness or politics. It is out of place in politics and out of place here. It is also contrary to the rules, or at least their intent, to attribute characteristics to a person that are not going to be universally accepted by all members and the staff at Kalmbach (i.e., it's just opinion). Examples would be "bullheaded", "stubborn", "mule", "stupid", "pigheaded", "needs to get out more", and other attempts to exhalt one's own position at the expense of another. Nothing political about that kind of talk at all...it's personal, pure and simple. And combative.
Don Imus used incautious language, but his terms revealed something about him. It was this ogre waiting to get out that drew the horrored looks from so many people. Like many talking heads in the media, and like me, they have underlying biases that come out just before we can get our fingers up to our lips to stop them. Too bad...so sad. Into the corner with you.
Had Don Imus used those very words here, and I saw them....into the corner he'd go.
Skill-testing question: why would he have been sent to the corner on Kalmbach's forums for using his choice of words in a post?
Hint: it's in the rules.
P.S.- thanks for the words of encouragement from those who have offered them. They go a long way.
One thing about P.C. is that it means different things to different people. One of the most common meanings is a societal taboo against racial or gender stereotyping. There is nothing unreasonable about that, but PC goes a lot deeper where it becomes intensely controversial. The Imus case is a classic example of violating PC at that surface level. But going deeper, PC is ultimately a doctrine of rules about what you say and even what you think. These rules cover a wide range of human activity. They are mostly enforced by society's ability to inflict punishment on individuals, but the ones who push PC would like nothing better than to make PC compliance the law.
Once you understand the rules of the doctrine, you can readily differentiate people who comply with PC with those who do not.
PC always promotes itself under the banner of fairness, and that includes not offending anyone, not even the most thin-skinned. So PC abhors arguments or anything resembling conflict or competition. It is as if it seeks to stifle those characteristics out of society because they foster spirited individuals who may ultimately challenge PC doctrine itself.
Whatever you think constitutes political correctness, you can really get your mind mangled by studying the Wikipedia explanation of the term. In my personal opinion, I think they are muddying up the water a little. I had no idea it was so hard to pin down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Selector, I'll take the hint and refrain from a point-by-point response to Poppa_Zit's previous post. Allow me to make one comment, however. Poppa_Zit states that what Don Imus said didn't affect him, or most Americans, one whit. While I can't speak for most Americans, I will say that Imus's hurtful remarks certainly affected me. Insulting those young Rutgers women in that way, just to get a cheap laugh at their expense, both angered and saddened me. And, I'm willing to bet that my reaction was shared by many other Americans, as well.
bucyrus, PC is an attempt to take the issue of irrelevance out of human interaction. It is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible. It surely can't be a bad thing to want to discourage generalizations and other fallacies that contribute nothing to the resolution of tangible issues.
If I had my way, everyone would get a course in elementary logic before they left high school. And have to pass a standardized test. Only then could they get a computer.
Okay, I'm being facetious.
selector wrote: bucyrus, PC is an attempt to take the issue of irrelevance out of human interaction. It is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible. It surely can't be a bad thing to want to discourage generalizations and other fallacies that contribute nothing to the resolution of tangible issues.If I had my way, everyone would get a course in elementary logic before they left high school. And have to pass a standardized test. Only then could they get a computer. Okay, I'm being facetious.
Kind of a bummer because that might help things!
Dan
selector wrote: Don Imus used incautious language, but his terms revealed something about him. It was this ogre waiting to get out that drew the horrored looks from so many people. Like many talking heads in the media, and like me, they have underlying biases that come out just before we can get our fingers up to our lips to stop them. Too bad...so sad. Into the corner with you.Had Don Imus used those very words here, and I saw them....into the corner he'd go.Skill-testing question: why would he have been sent to the corner on Kalmbach's forums for using his choice of words in a post?Hint: it's in the rules.-Crandell
Not to beleaguer the Imus thing, but you didn't hear his words in context. If you listen to the tape (original context, can be found with a search), you'll see it wasn't meant to be mean at all. He and his cohorts were doing schtick as usual on that show, and this time it turned out to be a horribly failed attempt at edgy humor.
If you've ever done live radio or TV or spoken to a large group, you'd know how easy it is to make a mistake in judgment. One you'd like to pull back one second later, but can't.
On a board like this, or when writing for print, you have time to proofread, reconsider and edit before hitting the send key. Not so in radio.
Here is a suggestion for you Poppa_Zit. Try this as a little sociological experiment, and maybe you will gain a better understanding of the difference between political correctness, edgy humor and downright meanness.
When you go into work tomorrow, mention to your boss that you think his wife looks like a nappy-headed **.
If your boss happens to be a woman, then make the same comment to her directly.
To validate the results of this experiment, run the same experiment over again with your own wife, mother or sister.
Oh, and if for some strange reason your test subjects don't react the way you expect, you can always use the following rationalizations in your defense (all taken from your various posts):
edw wrote: Here is a suggestion for you Poppa_Zit. Try this as a little sociological experiment, and maybe you will gain a better understanding of the difference between political correctness, edgy humor and downright meanness. When you go into work tomorrow, mention to your boss that you think his wife looks like a nappy-headed **. If your boss happens to be a woman, then make the same comment to her directly. To validate the results of this experiment, run the same experiment over again with your own wife, mother or sister.Oh, and if for some strange reason your test subjects don't react the way you expect, you can always use the following rationalizations in your defense (all taken from your various posts): Your comment wasn't meant to be mean at all.It was just a failed attempt at edgy humor.Their negative reaction is just "PC run amok".They should stop extending feelers in every direction looking for something that offends them. Please report back to us as to how the experiment turns out. If your assessment of American sensibilities is correct, I'm sure everyone will have a good laugh over it.
Please report back to us as to how the experiment turns out. If your assessment of American sensibilities is correct, I'm sure everyone will have a good laugh over it.
Whoops, edw. Your premise for this experiment is totally flawed. I know the situational difference between political correctness, edgy humor and downright meanness -- and apparently you do not.
What you offer are NOT valid comparisions. None of your examples consist of a form of entertainment that people make a conscious choice to listen -- or not listen. Just like Howard Stern, Lenny Bruce, or anyone else who dances along the edge. Consider Don Rickles packed 'em in for years in Vegas and made a fortune as -- an insult comic, insulting members of the audience and making them laugh. Because that's the behavior they expected when they showed up and paid their money.
Imus was on the air for over 39 years and dominated most radio markets he was in. He was most popular in major metro areas like New York where the standards for what is considered patently offensive are much lower than in rural areas. Look it up.
His listeners voluntarily tuned in for almost four decades because they enjoyed his edgy sense of humor. They knew what they were getting when they turned on their radio, and they did so because they enjoyed Imus' act. He made a mistake, and paid for it. What's so difficult to understand about the difference in his situation and the one you propose?
Making statements like you propose to people who don't request such statements or expect them -- like your boss, sister, mother or any other person -- is not that same as what Imus was paid to do. There's a time and a place for everything. You wouldn't pop open a beer in church, would you, but that how money is made at church picnics. We all laugh at dirty jokes, but not told at the dinner table with children present.
Sorry you're so easily offended.
selector wrote: ...It [PC] is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible.
...It [PC] is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible.
selector,
When I mentioned that PC goes deeper and enters highly controversial areas, the controversy is that not everybody agrees that the ideas behind PC are highly defensible. I, for instance, believe many of those ideas are absolutely hideous. On the very surface, PC is about offending people, but it is also a road that leads to tyranny. Even the part about offending people is highly suspect because it implies a right not to be offended, and yet, it offers no definition of what constitutes offence. Instead, it leaves the definition up to the one who claims to be offended. This empowers people to claim redress under the doctrine of PC merely by claiming to be offended. And their claim cannot be challenged because its only test is the making of the claim.
Bucyrus wrote:... Instead, it leaves the definition up to the one who claims to be offended. ...
I agree that this is true and that it is also bad logic. When I hear the words that Don Imus spoke, I think of a female dressed provocatively with unkempt hair, typically in braids or dreads. Race, ethnicity, etc. never come into play in my vision. Sure I envision a white girl, but I attribute that to the fact that white women make up over half of the females I've seen in my lifetime.
The issue that burns me deep down, though, is the rampant hypocrisy. If that had ben 50cent and not Don Imus, you would have never heard about it. If it had been one of the members of the team, you would have never heard about it. It is just another example of a person being told what he really meant by people who have no clue what he really meant and only want to further their own agenda at his expense. And that's how I tie it back to this forum.
CShaveRR wrote: I hope I don't come across as one of the know-it-alls that Jim is upset over. I have my share of specialty areas, but to claim that I know more than anyone else about such things is ludicrous--there's always something to be learned.
Carl, there is a really big difference in my mind between a "know it all" and someone who is close to "knowing it all" on a certain subject they are conversing about. I respect your views on the subject of railroading, especially related to a certain large road since you are directly associated with that road and can thus speak with virtually complete authority on the subject, where others on forums in general will come across as "know it alls" on virtually every subject they touch.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Sorry you're so easily offended.
Poppa_Zit,
I am not opposed to "edgy humor" or even "dirty jokes", if told in the proper forum (pun intended). That was one of the points I made in my first post ... venue affects everything. Sure, shock jocks push the envelope with their humor, but what you seem reluctant to acknowledge is that there actually is an "envelope", and that the envelope on the public airwaves has a finite boundary. Don Imus didn't get fired for doing what he was paid to do. He was fired for going way beyond the bounds of propriety. Keep in mind that we are talking about public airways which are owned by all the people, not just the "edgy" ones. The rules of behavior on the public airwaves are subject to regulation by the FCC which ultimately derives its authority from the people through Congress.
To bring this discussion back to the issue of PC, I think that Imus's career bio actually undermines your original argument that he was purely a victim of PC run amok. How many times has he been fired in 40 years? Once that I'm aware of. That is inconsistent with your argument that PC is such a pervasive force in our society. Apparently, even the envelope on the public airways is pretty broad.
And, Imus himself has acknowledged that his comment that led to his firing last year was "was completely inappropriate" and "thoughtless and stupid". By all accounts he appears sincere when he says the experience has turned his life around, and he has pledged never to make hurtful comments like that again.
Poppa_Zit, your comment that I seem to be easily offended implies that you did not find Imus's remark to be offensive. Is that actually your position?
So, while most people, including Imus, seem to agree that his comment was inappropriate, and went too far, why do you, Poppa_Zit continue to assert that his firing was, to use your words, "totally PC run amok"?
Now where's the logic in that?
I was thinking this modern society has gone way beyond simple dirty words learned in grade school. I recall the silence in heaven or at least the household when I got angry over a tidbit and fired a word. Punishment was swift and effective.
Today there isnt much you can do about the verbal pollution in the workplace. The best Ive seen would be on a packed Greyhound bus where an Elder who is tired of the dirty language will loom over the kiddies and shame them into silence for 200 miles with a few simple and nice sentences starting with ... listen you whips, You are young enough to be my grandchildren and I cannot accept your bad words. Ive been 70+ years in life and we dont talk that way on this bus.
The converstation was short, one way only with simple replies of yes sir, no sir etc. Amazing how young people recall English Class from Public education when put into the corner about something bad.
Amazing to watch when problems are solved properly. As for myself I keep big mouth shut at work when necessary. Especially when new employees are around and not yet much out of college. It really makes for a happy workplace.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Not to beleaguer the Imus thing, but you didn't hear his words in context. If you listen to the tape (original context, can be found with a search), you'll see it wasn't meant to be mean at all. He and his cohorts were doing schtick as usual on that show, and this time it turned out to be a horribly failed attempt at edgy humor.If you've ever done live radio or TV or spoken to a large group, you'd know how easy it is to make a mistake in judgment. One you'd like to pull back one second later, but can't.On a board like this, or when writing for print, you have time to proofread, reconsider and edit before hitting the send key. Not so in radio.
Understood, Poppa Zit. But they who live by the s(word) die by the s(word). Or, as one much brighter than I put, it, "The pen is mightier than the sword." If you make your living using words, you'd better be darned careful with how you use them. As I said, he was incautious, but even if the didn't mean them the way they sounded, they were as injurious as if he had accidentally mowed over an old lady at a crosswalk.
And I feel you are most correct that there is therefore little excuse to transmit intemperate words on this forum. Each of us has the choice to post what is hastily written or to think about it for a bit longer. Often time has a way of showing us that we have missed something important.
As my Dad is fond of saying, "Sin in haste; repent at leisure."
And no to place myself above horrible gaffs, there are a number of them over the years that actually, honestly, make me wince to this day. They were beauts, lemme tell ya.
On the first day of my on-line course in Leadership & Ethics, I post a set of rules for our discussions. One of them is this suggestion:
"Before you click on the reply button, think a bit more about what you have written. Cross, uninformed, or prickly words will often be fed back to you, and those prickles can be quite unpalatable. I know because I have had one or two good flossings in my time." This admission should in no way be construed as license or an allowance to be careless...or incautious, even once in a while. Two plus two doesn't make five even once.
I appreciate this dialogue...very much.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.