Can we talk about Imus like adults?

A friend argued with me that this is just "Imus being Imus. You can't take it seriously or get offended by it because you know he's going to do something like that."

What do you think of that?

Personally, I think it's a total horseshit argument. If you believe that this is just a case of Imus being Imus, then that means he said this because that's part of who he is and what he does, that he has done it before and will probably do it again.

And you know what? That's exactly right.

It means that his apology is worthless, and it means that, all of his good works aside, he is a mean-spirited racist who likes to demean innocent people based on their gender and race.

Imus likes to say shit and then say, oh, hey, it's not like I'm a journalist or anything, I'm a comedian. He could maybe get away with saying this if he were Howard Stern or Jon Stewart, but he's not. He wants to host his presidential candidates and his buddies in Congress and his famous authors and mayors, etc., to get ratings for his show on his NEWS NETWORK and talk about serious issues that concern him and, oh by the way, please send money to this wonderful charity I've set up.

 

It is a legitimate excuse. Popular phraseology and the mocking and aping of it is the backbone of comedy, especially of impressionists.

I just wish that if he had to say that comment, he had aimed it at more deserving people.

Not youngsters, many not even of drinking age.

 

Whitlock's take is fine. However, is the American public, or as Whitlock targets more specifically the black population, incapable of taking out the trash on more than one front? Must everyone concentrate on one thing at a time?

Imus called a bunch of college girls whores for the apparent reason that they had the gall to play in a basketball game that he was watching. They didn't do anything "whorish." They didn't insult him. They didn't flip the bird on camera.

Nope. They just happened to lose the game. As such, in the Imus world (because some are black) they end up as "nappy-headed hos." Wonderful.

 

He has made TENS (HUNDREDS?) OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for 30 years spewing precisely that froth (actually, much worse) and surrounding himself with the Rosenbergs and McGuirks of the world.

HOW is it a horseshit argument?

Splain, Ricky.

 

Imus and his stooge, McGuirk are both at fault. They've been doing this stuff for far too long. It's time for them to stop. Maybe this "time out" will help them. I notice that McGuirk has been quieter than a mouse pissing on cotton.

 

I already explained it.

 

I'm wondering what would have been approrpiate, if anything, for Imus to joke about:

-- that the African-American Tennessee players were lighter skinned than those on Rutgers?

-- that the Rutgers players looked more "gangster" than those on Tennessee?

-- the hairstyles of the Rutgers players?

-- the word "ho" to describe them -- what if he called them "nappy headed girls?"

 

With invisible ink, apparently.

 

To answer the question in the thread title: Apparently not.

I'm done with this thread.

 

Many jokes, good jokes, aren't "appropriate." But they are based on some measure of truth, or an accepted truth.

Since there were some white girls on the team, I would say that nappy-headed was about as problematic as hos.

Wasn't really based in any truth.

 

What do you not understand?

Imus has apologized and attempted to make several acts of contrition. He agrees that he has done something "repulsive and repugnant" and should be punished and that these statements don't represent who he is.

But that's the problem -- they represent exactly who he is because he's been doing it for 30 years! It means that his apologies don't mean jackshit because he's been apologized for shit like this before.

 

Here is a column that should help some of you out there in s.j.com land. Enjoy.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-md.kane11apr11,0,602648.column?coll=bal-home-headlines