Why is the word "Lynch" a hate crime?

[14ers]

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009674606
<!-- Copyright AHN Media Corp - All rights reserved. Redistribution, republication. syndication, rewriting or broadcast is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of AHN. -->Bill Lumpkin - AHN
Orlando, FL (AHN) - Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghham has been suspended for two weeks for her on-air remarks that young golfers should "lynch Woods in a back alley."
Tilghman light-heartedly made the comments to analyst Nick Faldo during the PGA season-opening event during the Mercedes-Benz Championship.


The Golf Channel reacted on Wednesday after the Rev. Al Sharpton called for Tilghman's firing and other NCAAP leaders reacted as well.

Adora Obi Nweze, a president of the Florida State Conference, a unit of the NAACP, told the Orlando Sentinel that's Tilghham's comments were similar to those of Don Imus, who was fired by CBS after comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Nweze said, "I don't know anybody who uses that word (lynch) commonly, or at all, for that matter."
How is this similar to Imus's Nappy headed Hos comment? The word Lynch does have a defintion, and Nweze must re-educate himself that there are times where the use of word Lynch would be correct.


"lynch Woods in a back alley." is the correct use of the word Lynch, and has nothing to do with Tiger woods being Black.

Def:
Main Entry:lynch http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?lynch001.wav=lynch%27%29)<dl><dt class="pron">Pronunciation:\ˈlinch\</dt><dd class="pron">
</dd><dt class="func">Function:transitive verb</dt><dd class="func">
</dd><dt class="ety">Etymology:lynch law</dt><dd class="ety">
</dd><dt class="date">Date:1836</dt></dl> : to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
— lynch·er noun

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's a crime since Tilghham is white.

[Easy Mac]

i use the word lynch often.

Example:

David Lynch is fucking crazy.

[Easy Mac]

It's a crime since Tilghham is white.

and Woods is black.

[highfiveoh]

I'll bite. Who said the word "Lynch" is a hate crime?

[Lathum]

I'll bite. Who said the word "Lynch" is a hate crime?

Al Sharpton

[rjolley]

Unfortunately, in the history of the United States, lynching of Black men and women occurred frequently. At a minimum, it's an extremely insensitive comment to make, especially in the wake of the noose incidents that have occurred over the past months. Here's a website with some information on lynching. I'm sure there's more. (hxxp://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#b (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1979/2/79.02.04.x.html#b))

Being gramatically correct does not make it correct to say. Some will say people are being too sensitive. However, using that term in that context is wrong. She could have made her point by saying the players should tie Woods up and kidnap him. To say he should be lynched conveys an image of hatred and racism.

There's just better ways to say Woods is the best player today and other players need ways beyond golf to stop him.

[Oilers9911]

When you think back in history to what the word lynch means in the black community then yes it is offensive and she should have been suspended. If this was in regards to a Jewish athlete and she had said, they should take him out and gas him, would that be right? It has nothing to do with her being white. It has everything to do with her saying something stupid.

[highfiveoh]

Al Sharpton

Is there a link that quotes him saying this?

[Oilers9911]

It's a crime since Tilghham is white.

A crime? No. Incredibly stupid? You bet.

[oliegirl]

I agree that it was inappropriate. I'm just flabbergasted that someone would be stupid enough to say that on air.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It has nothing to do with her being white.

Horseshit.

[rjolley]

Normally, I'd agree with you, Jon. It would be a big deal in the Black community, but wouldn't get as much media attention. Now, with the Jena, LA incident and the others that followed, I think anyone who makes that remark on air will be singled out for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Before her suspension was announced, Sharpton spoke earlier on CNN's "Prime News" and continued to push for her firing, saying he wanted to meet with Golf Channel because the comments were "an insult to all blacks."

"Lynching is not murder in general, it's not assault in general," Sharpton said. "It's a specific racial term that this women should be held accountable for. What she said is racist. Whether she's a racist ... is immaterial. She's a broadcaster. The channel has to be accountable to the public."

I'm sure all the outlaws who were hung back in the old west will be happy to know that Idiot Al is here to defend their honor.

[Oilers9911]

Horseshit.

Ahhh the poor persecuted white folk, always being picked on. You're a smart guy Jon, but if you can't see why what she said is offensive then there is just no more to say.

[Anthony]

poor choice of words, but c'mon, this is golf we're talking about. i don't think she was using that as her opportunity to talk about her supposed "racist" views. but it was a bad choice of words. funny thing is, Woods is as far from a black man as you can get. he speaks whiter than a politician and makes more money than most CEOs.

just one of these days, i wish someone in that girl's position would just say "i apologize - but only to Woods. if any one else was offended by my comments - that i didn't intend to be offensive - they should chalk it up to a case of misunderstanding and a result of the perils of speaking on live tv, where there are no 'do-overs'". i'm getting tired of people having to apologize when they make non-threatening or non-blatantly racist comments. you will know when people are making overtly racist comments. trying to lynch someone because they said something live and working without a safety net, that's just grandstanding and asking for an apology just for the sake of it.

but yes, it was a poor choice of words. we're going to get to the point where everyone on tv is a talking mannequin, or a puppet, force fed their lines. i wouldn't be suprised to see robots doing commentary. i would not want to be a commentator or have anything to do with being on tv (talk shows, sports programming, etc). to be in a situation where you constantly have to monitor and filter what you say? we all have free speech, and to have to curb that so as not to "offend" someone, no thanks. not worth it. i'll stick to being home and making all the racist and insentive comments i want in the company of like-minded people. this isn't a good time to be in the public eye.

[molson]

and Woods is black.

He's actually only 1/4 black. I wonder if this would be OK if he was 1/8. What's the cutoff when someone is still considered "black"?

[Dr. Sak]

Can seriously say that if Tilghham said...

"Phil Mickelson should be lynched"

it would've caused the same uproar? Would Sharpton go running to Phil's aid?

[Toddzilla]

Ahhh the poor persecuted white folk, always being picked on. You're a smart guy Jon, but if you can't see why what she said is offensive then there is just no more to say.I don't think Jon is saying what she said wasn't offensive - at least I hope he isn't - but I took his comment as his disagreement that the anchor being white had nothing to do with it.

and IMHO, it had everything to do with her being white.

Also, FWIW, Al Sharpton is a gasbag - who f'ing cares what he has to say?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... if you can't see why what she said is offensive then there is just no more to say.

Offensive? Only if someone was desperately looking for something to be offended about. And only a complete idiot would ignore the context of the comment. Unfortunately, Sharpton qualifies on both counts.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think Jon is saying what she said wasn't offensive - at least I hope he isn't - but I took his comment as his disagreement that the anchor being white had nothing to do with it.

and IMHO, it had everything to do with her being white.

Also, FWIW, Al Sharpton is a gasbag - who f'ing cares what he has to say?

Agreed. The fact that she was white has a lot to do with this. If she were black, it'd probably be a non story.

It was a poor choice of words and probably a stupid thing to say.

I don't think it was a "hate crime." And, yes, Al Sharpton is a gassbag. Idiot Al, indeed.

[johnnyshaka]

Also, if Tilghham herself were black, would it have brought on this much attention?

[JonInMiddleGA]

The irony here, of course, is that virtually no one on earth would have been aware of the remark at all except for the whining. She's on the friggin' Golf Channel for cryin' out loud, roughly the same number of viewers as QVC at 4 am.

[Oilers9911]

I don't think Jon is saying what she said wasn't offensive - at least I hope he isn't - but I took his comment as his disagreement that the anchor being white had nothing to do with it.

and IMHO, it had everything to do with her being white.

Also, FWIW, Al Sharpton is a gasbag - who f'ing cares what he has to say?

Well yes, Sharpton is a gas bag, no doubt about that. I guess in the truest sense yes it is a big deal because she is white...but it WAS white people lynching black people in the past.

[rjolley]

poor choice of words, but c'mon, this is golf we're talking about. i don't think she was using that as her opportunity to talk about her supposed "racist" views. but it was a bad choice of words. funny thing is, Woods is as far from a black man as you can get. he speaks whiter than a politician and makes more money than most CEOs.

just one of these days, i wish someone in that girl's position would just say "i apologize - but only to Woods. if any one else was offended by my comments - that i didn't intend to be offensive - they should chalk it up to a case of misunderstanding and a result of the perils of speaking on live tv, where there are no 'do-overs'". i'm getting tired of people having to apologize when they make non-threatening or non-blatantly racist comments. you will know when people are making overtly racist comments. trying to lynch someone because they said something live and working without a safety net, that's just grandstanding and asking for an apology just for the sake of it.

but yes, it was a poor choice of words. we're going to get to the point where everyone on tv is a talking mannequin, or a puppet, force fed their lines. i wouldn't be suprised to see robots doing commentary. i would not want to be a commentator or have anything to do with being on tv (talk shows, sports programming, etc). to be in a situation where you constantly have to monitor and filter what you say? we all have free speech, and to have to curb that so as not to "offend" someone, no thanks. not worth it. i'll stick to being home and making all the racist and insentive comments i want in the company of like-minded people. this isn't a good time to be in the public eye.
Hmmm, that's funny, Woods is far from being a Black man because he's articulate and makes a lot of money? Michael Jordan does the same. Is he far from a Black man? How about Senator Obama?

As for the rest, yes, it's a poor choice of words. However, to say people shouldn't be offended is pretty self-centered. Just because you don't understand it doesn't invalidate others views. And yes, there's free speech, but with that comes the right for peeple to not like what's said and respond.

[Oilers9911]

The irony here, of course, is that virtually no one on earth would have been aware of the remark at all except for the whining. She's on the friggin' Golf Channel for cryin' out loud, roughly the same number of viewers as QVC at 4 am.

The number of people that hear the comment when it was made has no bearing on how stupid it was to say it.

[molson]

The irony here, of course, is that virtually no one on earth would have been aware of the remark at all except for the whining. She's on the friggin' Golf Channel for cryin' out loud, roughly the same number of viewers as QVC at 4 am.

People LOVE to get fired up about stuff like this. You can almost hear the glee in their voices.

She should have just used a different word. But unless someone can show there's some kind of background of racism here, who the hell cares? What do people want now, to take her out back and shoot her?

[14ers]

LOL, I think Tiger Woods should be mad as hell. Afterall, she was calling him a Horse Thief, and we all know there is nothing lower than a Horse Thief!

[Oilers9911]

People LOVE to get fired up about stuff like this. You can almost hear the glee in their voices.

She should have just used a different word. But unless someone can show there's some kind of background of racism here, who the hell cares? What do people want now, to take her out back and shoot her?

She chose the wrong word to use and I don't think she meant anything at all by it, and to want her fired for it is too much. She has apologized for it and it should be left at that. But it was a stupid thing to say and while Al and his crew do love to blow things like this up more than it should be, if someone out there WAS honestly offended and upset by what she said that is their right.

[DanGarion]

I can guaranfuckingtee you that more white people were lynched in the USA then black people. Since it was common practice in in the Wild West.

[Aylmar]

The number of people that hear the comment when it was made has no bearing on how stupid it was to say it.

I still don't understand why it was so stupid to say the word lynch. The definition of the word doesn't involve the race of the victim. Should she have said crucify perhaps? Since crucifixion wasn't very popular in American history, would that have been alright to say? What about flog to death? Some mention of yardarms, perhaps? Is there a word or phrase that is better than the alternatives to get her meant-as-a-joke meaning across? If you're talking about a mob (or group) of people taking someone out and eliminating him, can you use a more appropriate word than "lynch"?

That's it, no joking on TV. Think of the children!

[Honolulu_Blue]

I can guaranfuckingtee you that more white people were lynched in the USA then black people. Since it was common practice in in the Wild West.

I can guaranfuckingtee you that no one was lynched in the US for just being white.

[Young Drachma]

This thread exposes the need for a better education system in the United States.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I still don't understand why it was so stupid to say the word lynch. The definition of the word doesn't involve the race of the victim. Should she have said crucify perhaps? Since crucifixion wasn't very popular in American history, would that have been alright to say? What about flog to death? Some mention of yardarms, perhaps? Is there a word or phrase that is better than the alternatives to get her meant-as-a-joke meaning across? If you're talking about a mob (or group) of people taking someone out and eliminating him, can you use a more appropriate word than "lynch"?

That's it, no joking on TV. Think of the children!

No, the definition of the word doesn't involve race, but the meaning of the word can, and, apparently, does for some folks.

A better word would have been "mug" maybe? Or "jump"? "Take him out"?

[molson]

This thread exposes the need for a better education system in the United States.

The more you beat kids over the head with stuff long past the point it's necessary, the more backlash there will be once they can think for themselves. (I don't think my school taught ANY history except the holocaust from grade 6-8. Apparently, nothing else ever happened in the world. By the end of it, no one cared anymore)

Everyone "gets it". Everyone knows about lynching and it's role in US history. Not all of us agree in this constant villianization of people who mispeak. It's tiring.

[Aylmar]

I can guaranfuckingtee you that no one was lynched in the US for just being white.

Probably not...you also had to be a Republican. Or a Tory...or seen as a Tory sympathizer....

[Passacaglia]

Luckily, whenever we say "lynch" in the werewolf forum, it doesn't count. Turns out, all this time, SkyDog was just covering our asses on that one.

[Drake]

I wonder if John Lynch ever feels uncomfortable in the Broncos' locker room.

[molson]

Luckily, whenever we say "lynch" in the werewolf forum, it doesn't count. Turns out, all this time, SkyDog was just covering our asses on that one.

Why can't you just say, "mug", or jump", or "Take him out". Surely, more people play WW than watch the golf network.

[DanGarion]

I can guaranfuckingtee you that no one was lynched in the US for just being white.

Actually I don't believe that. But it's unfortunate that because of idiots in the past the entire white public has to be blamed. I wasn't there I didn't do it and I feel no guilt for what people did in history.

[Passacaglia]

Why can't you just say, "mug", or jump", or "Take him out". Surely, more people play WW than watch the golf network.

Or sanction. Worked for me.

[DanGarion]

Why can't you just say, "mug", or jump", or "Take him out". Surely, more people play WW than watch the golf network.
I'm sure if the ratio of a certain race to whites that "mug" people is higher then someone would find offense to that as well...:(

[molson]

Is it that hard to try to avoid using insensitive word choice around people who might be offended by it?

Isn't that just human decency?

Who says she didn't try? She apologised. She mispoke. If she says it again next week maybe it's worthy of a thread.

The list of "banned" words grows every year - sometimes it's difficult to keep track.

They're just words for gods sake - all these kind of discussions do is add more hate and bigotry throughout the English language. It's getting easier and easier to be offensive if that's what one WANTS to do, because they have a huge vocabulary now to utilize. But this lady clearly didn't mean ANYTHING by her comment.

[DanGarion]

Is it that hard to try to avoid using insensitive word choice around people who might be offended by it?

Isn't that just human decency?

Please provide a list for insensitive words or groups of words, I'll get right on passing that list out to the entire US public, all 260+ million of them. Please make sure you include all regional references that could also be considered insensitive as well as those that may be only insensitive to one person.

Thanks.

[Lathum]

How come no one has ever been suspend for saying " he abused him on that play"

I think domestic violence is a far bigger issue in this country then some people who got hanged centuries ago.

[stevew]

At least the commentator didn't say something about the rest of the pros taking Tiger out for fried chicken and collar'd greens, and then lynching him in the back alley.

;)


Really poor choice of words by the commentator however. Especially since there were so many other words that would have worked.

[rkmsuf]

If she had just said "they should dismember Tiger Woods" instead of lynch none of this would have happened. Hope she's learned something.

[Young Drachma]

The more you beat kids over the head with stuff long past the point it's necessary, the more backlash there will be once they can think for themselves. (I don't think my school taught ANY history except the holocaust from grade 6-8. Apparently, nothing else ever happened in the world. By the end of it, no one cared anymore)

Everyone "gets it". Everyone knows about lynching and it's role in US history. Not all of us agree in this constant villianization of people who mispeak. It's tiring.

That's not really what I meant. I think that if people respected each other more and respected the fact that we not just came from different pasts and different paths to get here; but that we're in the same boat now and need to make it flat or we'll sink collectively, would be a lot better.

But between the diversity police, the people who want to act like nothing in the past and that it "doesn't matter anymore" and the folks who are bitter and want people to redress the "effects" of the past by "giving them" something there is more than enough blame and silliness to go around.

I don't think schools would fix it, to be honest. But the one thing I was saying that if people were taught a more complete version of history, these sorts of things wouldn't come up, because they're understand and appreciate the facts behind it.

[DanGarion]

Listen, I'm not talking about the PGA channel lady at all. She mispoke and apologized. It's pretty obvious that there's nothing there.

I'm more responding to the feeling I get from a lot of the posts here saying "it's my right to say whatever I want, regardless of how that will make people feel or make me look to people." Yes, you have that right. That doesn't mean you have to be an asshole about it.

And give me a break about a list of all offensive words to everyone in the country. Just use a little common sense.
But the problem with that is that not everyone knows what YOU consider offensive. Would I use the word lynch? Probably not, but it's not because I would think someone would consider it offensive, it just wouldn't be my choice of word, it's not a normal word in my vocabulary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"it's my right to say whatever I want, regardless of how that will make people feel or make me look to people."

You mean like Sharpton raising hell about this when even Woods himself wasn't bothered by it?

[DanGarion]

Sharpton is another perfect example of someone who acts like an asshole.

Glad we can agree on that!

[NoMyths]

What was dumb was her speaking on national TV about murdering someone, assuming that her audience would understand it was meant as an absurd joke. Unfortunately for her, this is not an assumption that should be made about a medium that reaches so many people. Joking about killing someone runs the risk of someone not getting that it's a joke, especially when you use language that hearkens back to a much grimmer time.

The fact it was in her vocabulary probably speaks more to recent coverage of lynching as a hate crime than it does to her Old West roots.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm glad that I could be here for this month's "Polarize FOFC" day.

[AENeuman]

This thread exposes the need for a better education system in the United States.


Exactly. Without knowing the reasons behind lynching, post Civil War, it is understandable why many of the comments here have gone to the relativism card.

After the Civil War lynching provided a way, through fear and lack of justice, to prevent the newly granted freedoms of Black people.

A white person saying this talented, rich and powerful Black golfer needs to be lynched is something bigger than just a word.

That being said, since when do we really listen to what women have to say?

[DanGarion]

Exactly. Without knowing the reasons behind lynching, post Civil War, it is understandable why many of the comments here have gone to the relativism card.

After the Civil War lynching provided a way, through fear and lack of justice, to prevent the newly granted freedoms of Black people.

A white person saying this talented, rich and powerful Black golfer needs to be lynched is something bigger than just a word.

That being said, since when do we really listen to what women have to say?
The guy's not even black!

[Bonegavel]

I like how her named is spelled wrong in the story.

[sabotai]

If she had just said "they should dismember Tiger Woods" instead of lynch none of this would have happened. Hope she's learned something.

I think she should have said "they should molest him like a choir boy". Now that would have been funny!

[14ers]

The real origin of Lynching.
William Lynch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lynch#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lynch#searchInput)
<!-- start content --> Captain William Lynch (1742 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1742) – 1820 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1820)) of Pittsylvania County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsylvania_County), Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia) practiced lynching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching) circa 1780 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1780). It is believed that lynching and Lynch law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynch_law) are named after him. He is not the William Lynch who allegedly made the William Lynch Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lynch_Speech) in 1712 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1712), as the date on this apocryphal speech precedes Lynch's birth by thirty years. William Lynch is the undisputed author of Lynch's Law according to the compact sent to the Virginia Legislature on September 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_22), 1782 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1782).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Lynch&action=edit&section=1)] Lynch's Law

In the late 18th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_century), Pittsylvania County, Virginia, was troubled by criminals who could not be dealt with by the courts, which were too distant. This led to an agreement to punish such criminals without due process of law. Both the practice and the punishment came to be called lynch law after Captain William Lynch, who drew up a compact on September 22, 1780, with a group of his neighbors. Arguing that Pittsylvania had "sustained great and intolerable losses by a set of lawless men ... that ... have hitherto escaped the civil power with impunity," they agreed to respond to reports of criminality in their neighborhood by "repair immediately to the person or persons suspected ... and if they will not desist from their evil practices, we will inflict such corporeal punishment on him or them, as to us shall seem adequate to the crime committed or the damage sustained." Originally, Lynch Law and lynching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching) was not associated with hanging, but called for 39 lashes, and other less severe punishments were also used. William Lynch died in 1820, and the inscription on his grave notes that "he followed virtue as his truest guide."<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[[I]citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</sup>

[hhiipp]

Even if they're hungry and you're at the park with extra KFC and some freshly cut melon?

[rkmsuf]

wait, Colonel Sanders was white?

[hhiipp]

And if that wasn't suprising enough, he wasn't even really a Colonel! Blasphemy!

[Neon_Chaos]

Tiger woods is some part asian.



REPRUZENT!


:D

[dawgfan]

Exactly. Without knowing the reasons behind lynching, post Civil War, it is understandable why many of the comments here have gone to the relativism card.

After the Civil War lynching provided a way, through fear and lack of justice, to prevent the newly granted freedoms of Black people.

A white person saying this talented, rich and powerful Black golfer needs to be lynched is something bigger than just a word.

That being said, since when do we really listen to what women have to say?
Perfectly stated AE.

[Easy Mac]

Tiger woods is some part asian.



REPRUZENT!


:D


So you're saying she should have said they need to firebomb him... or maybe Mai Lai his ass.

[path12]

So you're saying she should have said they need to firebomb him... or maybe Mai Lai his ass.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

[miami_fan]

When you think back in history to what the word lynch means in the black community then yes it is offensive and she should have been suspended. If this was in regards to a Jewish athlete and she had said, they should take him out and gas him, would that be right? It has nothing to do with her being white. It has everything to do with her saying something stupid.

Didn't this or something very similar to this already happen?

[JeeberD]

A better word would have been "mug" maybe? Or "jump"? "Take him out"?

Personally, I prefer "Go all Tonya Harding on his ass."

[dawgfan]

Personally, I prefer "Go all Tonya Harding on his ass."
Perfect!

[lynchjm24]

Fucking Lynch

[SteveMax58]

I say we lynch jim.

[Noop]

*Looks at thread and notices the usual players* *leaves*

[stevew]

This thread has certainly gone the WrongWay.

[Schmidty]

The only thing I got out of this thread is that the canadians are more predictable than the average partisan american. (obligatory Schmidty canadian shot)

Oh, and the chick said something unwise. Nothing racist, just unwise. She should have known that america only sees things in black and white, and that everything you say on-air is scrutenized with hungry eyes ready to pounce, even if you didn't mean it to come out a certain way.

I don't think America is becoming more sensitive and advanced, I think America is becoming more censored, afraid, and self-hating.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

I just (3 hours ago) talked to my wife about this, and she thinks it actually was racist. I respect her opinion, so I will be considering this while I sit here, play old records and play Chessmaster X.

[SteveMax58]

I all seriousness...things like this serve to further divide people by race and/or ethnicities. There are a handful of obvious words that, no matter the context, are inappropriate and/or derogatory in nature. Beyond that, unless you feel this woman is an outright racist, words like "lynch" should not be used to further divide people and make everybody aware that there are atrocities which involved that particular word at some point in human history (albeit more recent than others).

It only serves to make people of all races/ethnicities more aware of the fact that they are different, and must use different language when interacting with certain people of certain ethnical backgrounds. This further propagates discomfort & uncertainty when interacting, which leads to people staying with "their own kind" ...out of fear/uncertainty/laziness etc. in trying to make sure they dont offend somebody accidentally.

There is no excuse for complete ignorance to some words, but there is a line people must draw at some point in terms of what words "should" invoke offensive reactions...and which should not.

Otherwise we essentially will continue to divide ourselves by more and more percieved "differences". And on the whole...the more different people see other people, the less likely they are to associate with each other. The less people associate with each other, the less they actually know about each other. The less they know about each other, the more percieved differences they project on each other. Rinse and repeat.

[JimboJ]

I don't think I've ever heard the word "lynch" used other than in the context of lynchings of blacks. Otherwise, don't most people use the word "hang"? When someone commits suicide, they don't "lynch themselves". When someone is given the death penalty, its not "death by lynching".

I'm not big on political correctness, but I don't see how you can interpret this as anything other than a racial slur, whether she was joking or not.

[CU Tiger]

Here is where it starts and ends with me.

"Me and Kelly are dear friends. I have known here for 10 years, this is a non-issue."

How can I be offended by what someone says about you, if you yourself arent offended?

I quite honestly think you have a case of someone being too book smart. She wanted tto say/mean jump/mug/beat him, but her nerd side used the approprriate techical term lynch. I think her comment is more the product of journalism school than racism.

There are a million point/counter-point arguments but again to me it ends with the "attacked" he didnt issue the same statement to Fuzzy, whose commenst were much more dripping with with hate, and disdain. This is a comment made by a friend of his, probably not the BEST choice of words, but not enough to fire her over either.

When you think back in history to what the word lynch means in the black community then yes it is offensive and she should have been suspended. If this was in regards to a Jewish athlete and she had said, they should take him out and gas him, would that be right? It has nothing to do with her being white. It has everything to do with her saying something stupid.
Do you listen to Jim Rome?
This was his EXACT quote no less than 20 times yesterday...it was annoying as hell.

[CU Tiger]

I don't think I've ever heard the word "lynch" used other than in the context of lynchings of blacks. Otherwise, don't most people use the word "hang"? When someone commits suicide, they don't "lynch themselves". When someone is given the death penalty, its not "death by lynching".

I'm not big on political correctness, but I don't see how you can interpret this as anything other than a racial slur, whether she was joking or not.

You cant "lynch yourself", by definition a lynch is an assault by a group on an individual. Whether hanging, a rope or death is involved, a group beat down is a lynching.

[spleen1015]

Tiger took no offense, so everyone else STFU.

[JW]

How does calling for the figurative lynching of anyone who says anything stupid actually help anything in America? Do the activists think calling for her head on a platter actually helps? Does it make America a better place or a more divided place? You can bet most people hear about this story and think, "Oh, no, here we go again," and move on with their lives.

I suspect that in America in a few years we will have hate speech laws to match hate crime laws. Some Western countries are already moving in that direciton. Then it will get really interesting.

[molson]

I all seriousness...things like this serve to further divide people by race and/or ethnicities. There are a handful of obvious words that, no matter the context, are inappropriate and/or derogatory in nature. Beyond that, unless you feel this woman is an outright racist, words like "lynch" should not be used to further divide people and make everybody aware that there are atrocities which involved that particular word at some point in human history (albeit more recent than others).

It only serves to make people of all races/ethnicities more aware of the fact that they are different, and must use different language when interacting with certain people of certain ethnical backgrounds. This further propagates discomfort & uncertainty when interacting, which leads to people staying with "their own kind" ...out of fear/uncertainty/laziness etc. in trying to make sure they dont offend somebody accidentally.

There is no excuse for complete ignorance to some words, but there is a line people must draw at some point in terms of what words "should" invoke offensive reactions...and which should not.

Otherwise we essentially will continue to divide ourselves by more and more percieved "differences". And on the whole...the more different people see other people, the less likely they are to associate with each other. The less people associate with each other, the less they actually know about each other. The less they know about each other, the more percieved differences they project on each other. Rinse and repeat.

Great post. I don't at all get the motivation of people who go after people who misspeak in this way. It's disturbing - they're absolutely trying to make the world a more divided place, which in some cases (Sharpton, etc.), keeps them relevant and keeps the money rolling in.

People who say what she said is "racist" simply don't know what the word means.

[molson]

The guy's not even black!

I love how this point is completely ignored in all this, especially with the Jim Rome/Oilers9911 metaphor about using the word "gas" towards a jew.

Tiger Words is not black!

[sterlingice]

If she had just said "they should dismember Tiger Woods" instead of lynch none of this would have happened. Hope she's learned something.

Dismembering for the masses! :D

SI

[sterlingice]

Luckily, whenever we say "lynch" in the werewolf forum, it doesn't count. Turns out, all this time, SkyDog was just covering our asses on that one.
Why can't you just say, "mug", or jump", or "Take him out". Surely, more people play WW than watch the golf network.

Gold :)

SI

[sterlingice]

She should have just used a different word. But unless someone can show there's some kind of background of racism here, who the hell cares? What do people want now, to take her out back and shoot her?

I didn't think this got the credit deserved so a nice nod to that last line :)

SI

[sterlingice]

You know, I use the term lynch from time to time since, hell, you gotta mix your "killin" words from time to time for variety or else you just sound like you have a bunch of verbal crutches like that "you know" I start a lot of posts with. I never had really associated it with being a racist word- it just never crossed my mind. In my head, I always had associated it with the wild west.

SI

[sterlingice]

*Looks at thread and notices the usual players* *leaves*

Why do I think that Noop was the smartest person in this thread...

SI

[SteveMax58]

I don't think I've ever heard the word "lynch" used other than in the context of lynchings of blacks. Otherwise, don't most people use the word "hang"? When someone commits suicide, they don't "lynch themselves". When someone is given the death penalty, its not "death by lynching".

I'm not big on political correctness, but I don't see how you can interpret this as anything other than a racial slur, whether she was joking or not.

This is exactly why we have to be careful with persecuting people on words & context that arent obviously intended to be offensive. While I know the term has been associated with racial hate crimes...the term's common meaning to me, is closer to 14ers quoted definition which is "to have a group exact their percieved justice onto another individual or group". I have heard the term used in the past...and this definition is how I have always heard it used.

It isnt that I'm not aware of the way the term has been linked in the past...it's just that the term is not a word indicative of race...and not being constantly focused on race(as people like Sharpton would like us all to be), it doesnt otherwise strike me as offensive without some more relevant context. To me, if we cant take words for what they mean, and people for what they intend, then we might as well stop talking as somebody will inevitably be offended by it.

[sterlingice]

I all seriousness...things like this serve to further divide people by race and/or ethnicities. There are a handful of obvious words that, no matter the context, are inappropriate and/or derogatory in nature. Beyond that, unless you feel this woman is an outright racist, words like "lynch" should not be used to further divide people and make everybody aware that there are atrocities which involved that particular word at some point in human history (albeit more recent than others).

It only serves to make people of all races/ethnicities more aware of the fact that they are different, and must use different language when interacting with certain people of certain ethnical backgrounds. This further propagates discomfort & uncertainty when interacting, which leads to people staying with "their own kind" ...out of fear/uncertainty/laziness etc. in trying to make sure they dont offend somebody accidentally.

There is no excuse for complete ignorance to some words, but there is a line people must draw at some point in terms of what words "should" invoke offensive reactions...and which should not.

Otherwise we essentially will continue to divide ourselves by more and more percieved "differences". And on the whole...the more different people see other people, the less likely they are to associate with each other. The less people associate with each other, the less they actually know about each other. The less they know about each other, the more percieved differences they project on each other. Rinse and repeat.

Great post

SI

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

I doubt she meant the statement in a racially insensitive way. Although to downplay that word's connotation and history is as wrong as the people who are calling for her head on a platter. It seems with these issues the common reaction is one extreme or the other. In my opinion she should have been reprimanded by her superiors, kindly educated on the context of that word, and that's that. She apologized, seemingly made a mistake in words, and Tiger wasn't offended, so the Al Sharpton's of the world are just seeking self publicity.

[molson]

I didn't think this got the credit deserved so a nice nod to that last line :)

SI

I debated for about 30 seconds whether or not just to use the lynching terminology there.

[clintl]

Tiger Words is not black!

What is he, then? Is Barack Obama not black, either?

Woods has an African-American father and a Thai mother. He is just as "black" as Obama.

She deserved to be suspended, and Woods was gracious in accepting the apology. And Sharpton should accept the suspension and apology, and move on.

[molson]

What is he, then? Is Barack Obama not black, either?

Woods has an African-American father and a Thai mother. He is just as "black" as Obama.



His Father was half black. So Woods is 1/4 black, but is also Chinese, Thai, Native American, and Dutch. He actually doesn't consider himself an African-American - though the rest of society does for some reason.

Calling anyone with darker skin "black" is a throwback to slavery times - why do we still insist on doing it?

Obama is half-black, but I believe considers himself an "African American" (and if he didn't, society surely would). That's his choice.

[JeeberD]

I never had really associated it with being a racist word- it just never crossed my mind. In my head, I always had associated it with the wild west.


x2

[JW]

Once Tiger called himself Cablinasian to denote his mixed ancestry. I've also seen him refer to himself as both black and Asian.

And, no, the lady should not have been suspended. Unless she had a history of making stupid comments.

[14ers]

How about the word "looting"?

IF refering to a black athlete would the word "Looting" be a hate crime?

[larrymcg421]

Lots of silliness in this thread on both sides.

Lynching doesn't have to have a racial connotation, but it certainly was used that way in her statement and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. Now, I don't think her comment was racist. If you see it in the proper context (which the media has done a poor job of portraying), then she was actually trying to give Tiger Woods a compliment, in her own stupid way.

[JW]

How about the word "looting"?

IF refering to a black athlete would the word "Looting" be a hate crime?

And don't call a black political candidate "articulate."

Now I could look at Romney and say he really dresses well and looks sharp all the time and is really articulate and no one would think anything negative about it. Say the same about Obama and some people would try to see it as a racial slur.

Lynching doesn't have to have a racial connotation, but it certainly was used that way in her statement and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

How do you know she used it in a racially-directed manner, larrymcg421? Was she really trying to say the white guys should lynch the black guy? I don't think that is apparent at all.

[molson]

And don't call a black political candidate "articulate."



I probably wouldn't ever call Obama "articulate", but I don't get why I can't call a black football player "articulate" (when that's rare trait for a football player, black or white).

[molson]

Why do I think that Noop was the smartest person in this thread...

SI

Obviously he thinks so....No other way to explain posting in a thread where he has nothing to add other than snobbishly putting everyone down.

[Axxon]

I'm sure all the outlaws who were hung back in the old west will be happy to know that Idiot Al is here to defend their honor.


And I clearly see where he mentions her race as the issue is you so succinctly tried to get us to believe.

[Lathum]

You know what bugs me.

If Charles Barkley had said it everyone would say how funny and playfull he was being.

[Axxon]

Tiger took no offense, so everyone else STFU.

That should be the right answer but sometimes it can't be. When an issue goes far beyond the individuals involved then those individuals no longer have the right to be "ok" with something.

It's like the german cannibal whose victim willingly and knowingly let himself be killeda db eaten. That was ok with him but the law didn't simply STFU.

I'm not saying I hold that view 100% but I understand it and feel it could be applied in this case with some level of justification. Especially since it's clear that the statement was meant as a compliment but had what I call "subjective racial overtones." which is basically relying on stereotypes to get through your day.

We all do this. We have to. There's just too much input thrown at us for us to evaluate each new piece of data that confronts us so we have these big boxes with labels that we throw anything that has that label into. It's a thought shortcut that can help us make decisions faster.

IMHO, that's what's happening when people say stuff like "I hate black people."

"Well, what about Joey?"

"Oh, he's ok. It's all those other black people I hate."

WTF?

See, when he takes the time he can evaluate Joey so his approach is entirely different than the big general box that he tosses people he doesn't know into so he doesn't have to administer a personality test to see how he really feels about every random person he encounters in his day.

So, I think these boxes can be useful in some cases, well, they could be more useful if they were actually true and all but most sane people again separate the truth from the fiction on an individual basis.

That's why to me the answer isn't to try and erase stereotypes completely but to try subtly to reinforce more productive and positive stereotypes so people don't have to radically alter how they process information.

You don't see asians being mad when people say they're good at math do you?

Never hear the blacks complain about having big dicks do you?

Course not. ;)

[Axxon]

Dola,

Don't know why this didn't come to me but I'm reading the following book ( for fun no less because I'm weird )

Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City by Nathan; Moynihan, Daniel Patrick Glazer (Hardcover - 1963)

and when he is talking about the Irish he notes of their rise to prominence that they actually embraced their stereotypes and it helped unify them and enrich them culturally and in their neighborhoods. It became cool to be Irish and they played it all up, the jauntiness, the temper etc.

That's an example of stereotypes having a positive effect.

[molson]

Dola,

and when he is talking about the Irish he notes of their rise to prominence that they actually embraced their stereotypes and it helped unify them and enrich them culturally and in their neighborhoods. It became cool to be Irish and they played it all up, the jauntiness, the temper etc.

That's an example of stereotypes having a positive effect.

Interesting-

Aren't black stereotypes being used for similar "unifying" effects, except with potentially negative consequences in some cases (i.e. the hip hop culture).

I guess you could say the same thing for the Irish and their drinking.

[DanGarion]

What is he, then? Is Barack Obama not black, either?

Woods has an African-American father and a Thai mother. He is just as "black" as Obama.

She deserved to be suspended, and Woods was gracious in accepting the apology. And Sharpton should accept the suspension and apology, and move on.

Why the hell does she deserve to be suspended, because Al Shapton and his cronies were offended?

[dawgfan]

I doubt she meant the statement in a racially insensitive way. Although to downplay that word's connotation and history is as wrong as the people who are calling for her head on a platter. It seems with these issues the common reaction is one extreme or the other. In my opinion she should have been reprimanded by her superiors, kindly educated on the context of that word, and that's that. She apologized, seemingly made a mistake in words, and Tiger wasn't offended, so the Al Sharpton's of the world are just seeking self publicity.
Agree completely.

[Axxon]

Interesting-

Aren't black stereotypes being used for similar "unifying" effects, except with potentially negative consequences in some cases (i.e. the hip hop culture).

I guess you could say the same thing for the Irish and their drinking.


I agree, interesting thought. I wondered the same thing when I was typing it. Of course, it was a new thought and I'm so busy at work I can't think deep but I'd say you're dead right on both counts.

[Axxon]

Why the hell does she deserve to be suspended, because Al Shapton and his cronies were offended?

I'm venturing a guess here but I'd say IF she deserves to be suspended it's because of what was mentioned earlier, because she's a journalist. Reasonable or not, we hold the press in a special light in this country and they have privileges designed to help serve the public and with those privileges should come certain responsibilities.

Now, what those responsibilities are is certainly debatable but it's certainly within discussion that not disparaging races or encouraging racial tensions would not be acceptable.

Bottom line though, as always is the money. After all, the only way that she CAN be suspended is if her boss feels the need and that's driven by money and if enough people complain about her and not enough complain about the complainers, then she could be suspended to avoid costing the company money and that certainly is their right.

[Axxon]

Agree completely.


Again, I'd like to agree but again, how do you feel about the german cannibal? Should he simply be set free because his victim was willing? I'm not sure society should go there yet but maybe we all don't care about anything our neighbors do as long as they agree it's ok?

Funny more than half the country isn't fine with letting grown adults to that in their own bedrooms but sure as hell want people to be able to offend countless masses as long as they say it to only one willing stooge.

Then again, I've always known most people are hypocrites. Not meaning you here but the general argument that is being offered.

[dawgfan]

Again, I'd like to agree but again, how do you feel about the german cannibal? Should he simply be set free because his victim was willing? I'm not sure society should go there yet but maybe we all don't care about anything our neighbors do as long as they agree it's ok?

Funny more than half the country isn't fine with letting grown adults to that in their own bedrooms but sure as hell want people to be able to offend countless masses as long as they say it to only one willing stooge.

Then again, I've always known most people are hypocrites. Not meaning you here but the general argument that is being offered.
I'm not following this at all. What exactly did I say or agree with that you are debating?

I agree with TOSU that she made a mistake and apologized for it; I don't think she meant it maliciously or in a racial sense (and Tiger seems to agree) and those trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it deserves are serving more to publicize themselves and piss off people than they are to make clear that the term and the context in which it was used could've been read as racist, given the history in this country of whites lynching blacks.

I do think it's apparent that some out there don't recognize why the term "lynching" when spoken by a white about a black would engender a much more explosive response than in just about any other context.

[JW]

I still don't follow you, Axxon. I still don't understand how you know she was thinking in racial terms in using the word. Maybe she was just oblivious to the racial overtones of the word. Maybe she was just guilty of not knowing the word might be offensive to some people. I certainly did not know until all the publicity broke about the Jena Six incident, that many blacks see nooses as racial symbols, for example.

And you seem to think that those who don't think she should have been suspended think it was perfectly okay for her to say what she said. I don't see that either.

As for the cannibalism issue, cannibalism is to me on a different order of magnitude than a sportscaster saying something stupid.

[Axxon]

I'm not following this at all. What exactly did I say or agree with that you are debating?

I agree with TOSU that she made a mistake and apologized for it; I don't think she meant it maliciously or in a racial sense (and Tiger seems to agree) and those trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it deserves are serving more to publicize themselves and piss off people than they are to make clear that the term and the context in which it was used could've been read as racist, given the history in this country of whites lynching blacks.

I do think it's apparent that some out there don't recognize why the term "lynching" when spoken by a white about a black would engender a much more explosive response than in just about any other context.

I'm saying that people are very forgiving of people saying/doing things to people publicly as long as both sides haven't got a problem with it but let it be two people of the same sex in their own bedrooms and all of a sudden it's going to cause the end of society as we know it. It's damned odd and agian, I wasn't accusing you but the argument in general is basically hypocritical to a huge number of people.

If a public insult should be ignored then why is a private situation so scrutinized?

[larrymcg421]

How do you know she used it in a racially-directed manner, larrymcg421? Was she really trying to say the white guys should lynch the black guy? I don't think that is apparent at all.

Nope, that's not what I said at all. I think she was saying the other golfers only hope of beating Tiger would be to take him out. She could have chosen many words to make her point, but she chose "lynch". I believe she chose that word because Tiger is seen as a black golfer. I don't think she chose it because Tiger is seen as a cowboy.

[molson]

Nope, that's not what I said at all. I think she was saying the other golfers only hope of beating Tiger would be to take him out. She could have chosen many words to make her point, but she chose "lynch". I believe she chose that word because Tiger is seen as a black golfer. I don't think she chose it because Tiger is seen as a cowboy.

She probably said thousands of words that day, I doubt any of them were a though-out "choice" as you suggest.

It's a huge stretch to think she "chose" to make a racial remark there on TV. Why the hell would she do that?

[JeeberD]

I believe she chose that word because Tiger is seen as a black golfer. I don't think she chose it because Tiger is seen as a cowboy.

Or maybe she just used that it as a term for a group taking out an individual...

[Jas_lov]

I really think we're over reacting here. She should have used a different word. She didn't, she apologized, she was suspended. Tiger, the person who she was talking about, didn't have a problem with it. End of story.

[larrymcg421]

She probably said thousands of words that day, I doubt any of them were a though-out "choice" as you suggest.

It's a huge stretch to think she "chose" to make a racial remark there on TV. Why the hell would she do that?

Again, I think she was actually trying to say it as a compliment, so probably didn't think the term would be considered offensively in that context.

I don't think she's a racist and I don't think she should have been suspended. However, I am shocked that so many people don't seem to understand the racial context of that word, and why people would be upset when it's used by a white person in regards to a black person.

[Cringer]

This ripping on people for what they say is stupid. After the Packers won I marched around the truck stop yelling "sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil!" People seemed to get pissed for some reason.

[Lathum]

This ripping on people for what they say is stupid. After the Packers won I marched around the truck stop yelling "sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil!" People seemed to get pissed for some reason.

Maybe it's because you were naked?

[Cringer]

I had a mustache on.

[Lathum]

that explaines it

[sterlingice]

I had a mustache on.

I hate to say it, Cringer, but if you busted in to a truck stop with nothing but a mustache on, I'd be angry, too ;)

SI

[Cringer]

I hate to say it, Cringer, but if you busted in to a truck stop with nothing but a mustache on, I'd be angry, too ;)

SI

So you are mustachist? Real nice. One day people like you will get what you deserve. :mad:

[Noop]

Obviously he thinks so....No other way to explain posting in a thread where he has nothing to add other than snobbishly putting everyone down.

Snobbish? That is a new one. I have seen this before and honestly I want no parts because like politics people do not change their views. Hence when I opened the thread and noticed the same players saying more or less the same things they always have been saying there wasn't any need for me to comment.

So it was not a put down more of a what's the point. Enjoy yourself.

[molson]

there wasn't any need for me to comment.



But you did comment, that was my point. You needed to post just to let us all know how beneath you the discussion was.

Otherwise, you're saying that you'll only participate in a political discussion if people have dramatically changed their views - which makes no sense.

[Noop]

But you did comment, that was my point. You needed to post just to let us all know how beneath you the discussion was.

Otherwise, you're saying that you'll only participate in a political discussion if people have dramatically changed their views - which makes no sense.

Looks like you just want to pick a fight over a few words. If they bother you that much then I think you need to seek some help. I do not participate in political discussions period because I have better things to do then argue with someone who is set in their views.

[Axxon]

But you did comment, that was my point. You needed to post just to let us all know how beneath you the discussion was.

Otherwise, you're saying that you'll only participate in a political discussion if people have dramatically changed their views - which makes no sense.

See, I don't necessarily see it as disdain. Many, many thoughts can be conveyed through a well placed non statement.

When a lynch mob for example ( to keep it on topic ;) ) has you roped up and on the horse and they say "you have any words in your defense" the anwer "why bother" sounds much more like resignation than disdain. This is just one example.

[molson]

Looks like you just want to pick a fight over a few words. If they bother you that much then I think you need to seek some help. I do not participate in political discussions period because I have better things to do then argue with someone who is set in their views.

Just a message board pet peeve of mine, nothing more (when someone basically posts "this discussion sucks", then leaves). I wonder about the motivation behind such a post. To me that's pure snobbery - but we can disagree on that.

[Axxon]

Looks like you just want to pick a fight over a few words. If they bother you that much then I think you need to seek some help. I do not participate in political discussions period because I have better things to do then argue with someone who is set in their views.

Like what?

I'm being serious and I'm not going to question or criticize any answers but I am always curious about how others set priorities and what they end up as.

I certainly have way more fun things to do than argue with someone set in their views but I rather like doing it and I suggest you might want to try.

See, it's not, it's not, it's absolutely not about convincing the other person about anything it's about honing your own ideas into solid, well thought out concepts that you can rely on and will make you make better, smarter decisions and will keep your mind nimble and quick.

Rocky did way better pounding the unwielding solid beef than he did just beating on weak human bodies. Made his azz the Heavyweight Champ. ;)

[Noop]

Just a message board pet peeve of mine, nothing more (when someone basically posts "this discussion sucks", then leaves). I wonder about the motivation behind such a post. To me that's pure snobbery - but we can disagree on that.

Snobbery, is that even possible on a message board? I digress because I refuse to get sucked into a fruitless debate.

[Axxon]

Snobbery, is that even possible on a message board? I digress because I refuse to get sucked into a fruitless debate.

You'll only debate with fruits??? Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)

[Noop]

Like what?

I'm being serious and I'm not going to question or criticize any answers but I am always curious about how others set priorities and what they end up as.

I certainly have way more fun things to do than argue with someone set in their views but I rather like doing it and I suggest you might want to try.

See, it's not, it's not, it's absolutely not about convincing the other person about anything it's about honing your own ideas into solid, well thought out concepts that you can rely on and will make you make better, smarter decisions and will keep your mind nimble and quick.

Rocky did way better pounding the unwielding solid beef than he did just beating on weak human bodies. Made his azz the Heavyweight Champ. ;)

I just don't see the point of it honestly. Sports to a certain degree I can understand because it is based on action(I am not sure if this makes sense) while arguing with someone who is a hardcore conservative about something like abortion would be pointless in my opinion. If you did manage to give the best debate that was infallible they would resort to something like the bible and dig in deep despite the presence of overwhelming evidence. (I am just using an example so please people do not try to argue abortion with me.)

That being said you bring up some very valid points and they are worth being considered. This is just my own personal preference and definitely didn't mean to come off as some snob or anything. I my intent was just to post that I did read the post and decided to sit this one out for the reasons I have stated.

[Axxon]

I just don't see the point of it honestly. Sports to a certain degree I can understand because it is based on action(I am not sure if this makes sense) while arguing with someone who is a hardcore conservative about something like abortion would be pointless in my opinion. If you did manage to give the best debate that was infallible they would resort to something like the bible and dig in deep despite the presence of overwhelming evidence. (I am just using an example so please people do not try to argue abortion with me.)

That being said you bring up some very valid points and they are worth being considered. This is just my own personal preference and definitely didn't mean to come off as some snob or anything. I my intent was just to post that I did read the post and decided to sit this one out for the reasons I have stated.

Hey, I'm on your side on the whole meaning of the post thing. I don't think it was snobbery.

I think you did get what I said though so mull it over. It's not about convincing others it's about convincing yourself of the solidity of your own beliefs because you know that your opponent is equally dedicated, equally unyielding and going to give your views and your mind an intense workout that you won't get talking to someone you could convince to see your view.

Peace.

[Axxon]

Dola,

not to mention the fact that once you've done that you'll have a way easier time convincing fence sitters to consider your views and there's lots more of them than the fanatics and who knows? Maybe some positive change can happer.

Of course, you would have to want to do that. That's true.

I like knowing I can if I need to though.

[Cringer]

I just spent 30 minutes listening to a guy on the CB rant on and on about how evil Jews are. I even encouraged him some because it was funny as hell listening to the guy. He couldn't even say United States correctly, he kept saying United State. The guy made me seem like Einstein.

Sometimes in life you just have to laugh crap off and move on with your life instead of threatening and yelling at a guy over the CB radio like some guys do. :)

There is no moral to this story.

[Axxon]

I just spent 30 minutes listening to a guy on the CB rant on and on about how evil Jews are. I even encouraged him some because it was funny as hell listening to the guy. He couldn't even say United States correctly, he kept saying United State. The guy made me seem like Einstein.

Sometimes in life you just have to laugh crap off and move on with your life instead of threatening and yelling at a guy over the CB radio like some guys do. :)

There is no moral to this story.

Nobody in the game of football should be called a genius. A genius is somebody like Norman Einstein.

Joe Theismann, Former quarterback

[Axxon]

obligatory Dola,

Norman, is that you?

[tarcone]

Those of you who called Sharpton an idiot are racist. Everyone knows slaveowners killed any blacks that they thought were smart. Thus, it is racist to call a black man an idiot. So please stop.

[BrianD]

I am shocked that so many people don't seem to understand the racial context of that word, and why people would be upset when it's used by a white person in regards to a black person.

I wonder if there is any kind of north/south differentiation on this. Living in the rural Midwest, I don't know that I ever really heard the word "lynch" in a racial context. Somewhere along the line I became aware of the context, but only with as much recognition as some people seem to have with the old West context.

[molson]

I wonder if there is any kind of north/south differentiation on this. Living in the rural Midwest, I don't know that I ever really heard the word "lynch" in a racial context. Somewhere along the line I became aware of the context, but only with as much recognition as some people seem to have with the old West context.

I think you're right about that, and it supports my issue with these kind of things constantly coming up.

In the south, race is everything (it would seem). People's first reaction to everything is it's racial contexts. Which of course, just greatly increases the division of the races.

In other places, it's just not the first thing you think of. I grew up in a fairly diverse northeast city, and I just wasn't hit over the head with race (as an issue) in every step of my grade school existence. I had to learn things like stereotypes, and why certain, seemingly harmless words and images were "racist", because our lives simply didn't revolve around that kind of thing.

When people lose their shit over people mis-speaking in this way, when they clearly have no racial intent behind their words, all you do is create more division.

[JW]

Yet having grown up in the South, I did not understand until recently that the word "lynch" and the word "noose" automatically, that is without context, had a racial connotation to many blacks. And I've worked intimately with black Americans during both my military and teaching careers. I taught 10 years for example in a high school with a 99% black students population, black principal, and majority black faculty and have had many discusisons about issues of race. I understood perfectly that those words in certain contexts had racial implications, but I did not understand that apparently to many blacks the words themselves devoid of context are thought of first in racial terms.

That is why I think it is wrong to assume that the sporscaster had any kind of racial intent in mind when using the word. For many white Americans, well, we don't first think of race when we consider the words. Many black Americans do, apparently.

So that is why I have to wonder about her being punished for using the word. And I am NOT saying nothing should have been done. (There seem to be some here who think the only options are punishing her or doing nothing.) She should have been made aware of the racial implications of the word. Period. Unless she had a history of such incidents.

At the same time I have to wonder what the almost hysterical reaction by some black activists to such incidents does to bring the country together. It is as if Sharpton and some other activists wait for chances to pounce on such incidents to prove to their constituents that they are still relevant.

[ISiddiqui]

I grew up in the North (Southern New Jersey), and I had knowledge that lynch and nooses are highly racially loaded terms. So it isn't just the South where this is known. Now, I don't think she was being racist, but it was a stunningly moronic use of words. She should be made aware of that most definately. As for punishment, I don't know how much of that is necessary.

[Axxon]

I found the following article thought provoking. Apparently lynchings have some far reaching effects that I wouldn't have thought of. Just shows how vile the practice we want so badly to trivialize is. It kinda makes you see why the term could be upsetting. Especially people who believe the point about capital punishment.

The Legacy of Lynching: Part I

By Richard Morin

Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page B05

For decades, scholars have sought to answer this bloody question: Why has the murder rate been disproportionally high in the South for more than a century? Some argue it's the weather -- hot, steamy conditions setting tempers on edge and provoking deadly violence. Others blame widespread poverty and illiteracy. Still others fault a so-called southern "code of honor" that requires any slight to be avenged.

Now three sociologists have found an additional explanation: lynchings.


Today's Editorials

Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* a new millennium, a new harbinger
* Chapati Mystery
* Hiram Hover


Full List of Blogs (7 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Steven F. Messner of the State University of New York at Albany and his collaborators examined county data from 10 southern states where historically reliable information on vigilante lynchings is available: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. (Some counties where boundaries had changed were aggregated into groups of counties.)

This data set, originally collected by other researchers, contained the number of lynchings in each county in each state between 1882 and 1930, a period that scholars call the "era of lynchings." Then they gathered homicide data from the FBI and National Center for Health Statistics for each county covering the period from 1986 to 1995.

Based on this information, Messner and his colleagues produced two maps. One showed homicides: Those counties with the highest rates were colored black; those with lower rates were shaded gray, while those with the lowest rates were white. The second displayed lynchings, using the same shadings. Counties with the most lynchings were colored black, those with a lower rate were gray and those with the lowest rates were white.

A quick glace at the maps revealed a chilling pattern. The dark areas roughly overlapped: the counties with the most lynchings had the highest homicide rates, while counties with fewer lynchings had comparatively fewer murders. The overlap wasn't perfect, but it was apparent even to the naked eye, Messner reported in the latest issue of the American Sociological Review.

A more sophisticated statistical analysis confirmed the relationship. Counties with the most lynchings had homicide levels roughly 5 percent higher on average than those counties with the fewest lynchings -- a correlation that didn't disappear when the researchers controlled for factors known to influence the murder rate, such as population, poverty, low levels of education, the percentage of young people in the population, the unemployment rate and the percentage of single-parent households. They even developed an elaborate method to account for the code of honor, and found that that the correlation remained strong.

Why would a brutal practice that began more than a century ago affect these same areas today? Messner isn't yet sure. "That's the million-dollar question. We see these analyses as the first word, not the last." He hopes others will join in searching for the reasons. But Messner is confident that "lynching seems to matter and is relevant to our understanding of contemporary lethal violence" in the South.

The Legacy of Lynching: Part II

Is capital punishment the modern equivalent of lynching?

Yes, argue three researchers who found that the states that sentenced the most criminals to death also tended to be the ones with the most lynchings in the past.

Sociologist David Jacobs of Ohio State University and collaborators Jason T. Carmichael of Ohio State and Stephanie L. Kent of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas found that the number of death sentences for all criminals -- black and white -- was higher in states with a history of lynchings. But the link was particularly strong when they analyzed only death sentences for black defendants.

The sociologists theorize that the death penalty became a legal replacement for the lynchings of the past. They found that the number of death sentences in states with the most lynchings increased as the state's population of African Americans grew larger, suggesting that "current racial threat and past vigilantism largely directed against newly freed slaves jointly contribute to current lethal but legal reactions to racial threat," Jacobs and his colleagues write in a forthcoming issue of the American Sociological Review.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400529.html

[JW]

I don't see how people are trivializing lynching here. Some people just seem to be saying that not everyone automatically thinks of lynching in racial terms and that the sportscaster might well have not been thinking at all in racial terms.

[Glengoyne]

It's a crime since Tilghham is white.

This may be my favorite second post in a thread ever.

[Grammaticus]

That should be the right answer but sometimes it can't be. When an issue goes far beyond the individuals involved then those individuals no longer have the right to be "ok" with something.

It's like the german cannibal whose victim willingly and knowingly let himself be killeda db eaten. That was ok with him but the law didn't simply STFU.



Are you actually serious here? That is a horrible analogy.

One is a comment that includes nothing in context to the reason a select group is complaining. The other is an actual act that is carried out. That analogy is better used for something like the Dr. Death assisted suicide scenario.

Also, you interestingly used "German" cannibal. It implies pre-historic in time period, where the act was likely not regulated by any law. You might have used a tribal group that actually practices cannibalism today. That would have set foundation in today's cultural and moral standards. That would have provided a little more support. But it is still a very odd analogy.

[Axxon]

I don't see how people are trivializing lynching here. Some people just seem to be saying that not everyone automatically thinks of lynching in racial terms and that the sportscaster might well have not been thinking at all in racial terms.

I think it's pretty likely that she wasn't trying to be a racist and I would say that she wasn't thinking at all rather than thinking in racial terms. I can't see how any sane person in this country can think honestly about lynching and not giving even the slightest thought to the racial element to american lynching

But as I said, I don't think she was trying to be a racist and I don't think very many people think that.

Isn't the point that the criticizers are saying though is that there should be clear boundaries and we're not at the point that we can decide that on a case by case basis?

I mean, once a precedent is set, you'd have to allow the truly racist to say whatever they want too. Is it perhaps better to have a few unfair examples made so the boundary is clear?

Keep in mind, really I'm playing the devils advocate here. I'm actually a believer and have stated it here several times that I think this word policing is silly but I'm trying to see the other side and the fact that people can come out and say that they never knew black folks was lynched more than white folks to be very scary because when people lie like that for no reason I have to wonder what they are really thinking.

I brought up the last post though because I found the topic in it interesting. I'm sorry that my one sentence diminished the interest in the rest of the piece for you.

[Axxon]

Are you actually serious here? That is a horrible analogy.

One is a comment that includes nothing in context to the reason a select group is complaining. The other is an actual act that is carried out. That analogy is better used for something like the Dr. Death assisted suicide scenario.

Also, you interestingly used "German" cannibal. It implies pre-historic in time period, where the act was likely not regulated by any law. You might have used a tribal group that actually practices cannibalism today. That would have set foundation in today's cultural and moral standards. That would have provided a little more support. But it is still a very odd analogy.

You're taking the word to the "eskimo" extreme. There as nothing special in choosing the word german except I didn't feel like googling the article and I remembered the story took place in germany and hoped that would be enough for people to know what story I was talking about.

As for the analogy I truly wonder what is so different between thought and action when the topic is whether something is consensual. That's the point I'm making but really, it's not even that.

Both are ACTIONS. This person took the action of broadcasting something possibly hurtful to an audience of millions. Tiger didn't take offense at that ACTION nor did the cannibal victim.

Though I'll give you your objection for the state of argument and ask you to explain why a completely consensual action can be wrong but a completely consensual action can't be?

Then we can talk about the fact that the comment was offensive ( and here I'm giving the other side their argument ) to a race of people, not an individual person and they most certainly haven't given it their ok to the statements so the whole "tigers ok with it" argument was bogus.

And that can be. A person actually can be a racist against their own race. Can we find one of them, publically abuse them with all the worst, most vile and disgusting concepts ever and have them say they're cool with it so no one else should be offended?

I'm really curious about that too. Seems that this would be a good tactic for the klan to take up so the good non racists can accept them again as cool people in hip robes.

[Axxon]

Dola, Grammaticus, on reading your post again I get that you don't know the case I'm talking about.

First hit when typing german cannibal into google is this one about the case so I wasn't that off on its relevance.

hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm

A man accused of killing, dissecting and eating another man has gone on trial in central Germany.

The court heard how horror films had fuelled Armin Meiwes' childhood fantasies of eating school friends.

The 41-year-old computer technician is charged with murder, even though the victim allegedly volunteered for his fate by replying to an internet advert.

The gruesome incident was all captured on camcorder and the footage is expected to form part of the evidence.

"I had the fantasy, and in the end I fulfilled it," he said. The fantasy first developed between the ages of eight and 12, he added.

Mr Meiwes spoke of how he felt ignored by his father, and longed for a good-looking younger brother - whom he would bind to himself forever by consuming.

Internet link

It is Germany's first cannibalism case, and the world's media have gathered in Kassel to watch the proceedings.

Television images showed Mr Meiwes - wearing a jacket and a tie - smiling and talking light-heartedly to his lawyer moments before the trial began.

It was the first time that the self-confessed cannibal had been seen in public since his arrest.

The grisly details of the case caused a sensation in the German media when Mr Meiwes was arrested in December, 2002.

My friend enjoyed dying, death. I only waited horrified for the end after doing the deed. It took so terribly long
Armin Meiwes

Cannibalism: A modern taboo

In a recent newspaper interview he admitted that he had killed and then partly eaten his victim.

Mr Meiwes advertised on the internet for a well-built male prepared to be slaughtered and then consumed.

"Slim and blond, that would have been the type", he told the court.

The victim, 43-year-old Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, answered the advert in March 2001.

Mr Meiwes told investigators he took Mr Brandes back to his home in Rotenburg, where Mr Brandes agreed to have his penis cut off, which Mr Meiwes then flambéed and served up to eat together.

Prosecutors say Mr Meiwes then stabbed the victim repeatedly in the neck and dissected the corpse.

Shock value

Legally it is a tricky case, says the BBC's correspondent in Berlin, Ray Furlong.

Bernd-Jurgen Brandes
The court will test if Mr Brandes gave his life willingly

Cannibalism is not a recognised offence under German law and the defence will argue that, since the victim volunteered, this was no murder.

If the court accepts the defence argument, Mr Meiwes can expect a jail term of up to five years.

But the prosecution will push for a life sentence on the basis that Mr Meiwes is simply too dangerous ever to be released.

Meanwhile, Germans will continue to be treated to a media frenzy that plays on the story's unrivalled shock value.

And among the "highlights" will be the two-hour video that Mr Meiwes took of the whole incident on his camcorder, our correspondent says.

"The public probably won't be excluded from this part of proceedings; we have a tradition of open trials," says legal expert Felix Hardenberg.

"But the panel of judges will show only the relevant parts: what the victim is saying and doing before and during the killing."

Mr Meiwes has said that after his trial he intends to pass the time in jail - if convicted - by writing his memoirs.

The court will hear 38 witnesses and 14 sessions are scheduled in the trial, which is scheduled to end in late January.

The case only came to light when an Austrian student spotted another advertisement placed by Mr Meiwes on the internet and alerted police.

[Logan]

This may be my favorite second post in a thread ever.

Nothing will ever beat Joe's succinct "fuck off" to the forum feed troll.

[Grammaticus]

You're taking the word to the "eskimo" extreme. There as nothing special in choosing the word german except I didn't feel like googling the article and I remembered the story took place in germany and hoped that would be enough for people to know what story I was talking about.

As for the analogy I truly wonder what is so different between thought and action when the topic is whether something is consensual. That's the point I'm making but really, it's not even that.

Both are ACTIONS. This person took the action of broadcasting something possibly hurtful to an audience of millions. Tiger didn't take offense at that ACTION nor did the cannibal victim.

Though I'll give you your objection for the state of argument and ask you to explain why a completely consensual action can be wrong but a completely consensual action can't be?

Then we can talk about the fact that the comment was offensive ( and here I'm giving the other side their argument ) to a race of people, not an individual person and they most certainly haven't given it their ok to the statements so the whole "tigers ok with it" argument was bogus.

And that can be. A person actually can be a racist against their own race. Can we find one of them, publically abuse them with all the worst, most vile and disgusting concepts ever and have them say they're cool with it so no one else should be offended?

I'm really curious about that too. Seems that this would be a good tactic for the klan to take up so the good non racists can accept them again as cool people in hip robes.


I see what you mean about the German guy now. I recall reading about that. It is very weird. Also, from reading your post of the article, it sounds like they have some issues with how to proceed based on German law, odd stuff.

I guess the difference in consent for me is when people are consenting to do something that kills or maims another human being, regardless of consent it is harmful to society and threatens the safety of others. Consenting about speach does not kill or maim someone. It is not an action in that regard.

On the canibalism thing, you will likely consider a person willing to be killed and eaten as mentally unstable. The predator is taking advantage of someone who is not mentally stable. Also, in that specific case, the consumed one is dead.

How do we know he really consented. Was he lured into the predators zone of control and killed against his will? And the predators defense is "he consented".

I'm sure doctors and such can provide much better information on why outlawing behavior that kills and maims human beings supports a civil society.

Of course it was not long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Maybe we will see Ray Bradbury's voluntary suicide to help the planet, come to fruition in our lifetime.

[JW]

I think it's pretty likely that she wasn't trying to be a racist and I would say that she wasn't thinking at all rather than thinking in racial terms. I can't see how any sane person in this country can think honestly about lynching and not giving even the slightest thought to the racial element to american lynching

But as I said, I don't think she was trying to be a racist and I don't think very many people think that.

Isn't the point that the criticizers are saying though is that there should be clear boundaries and we're not at the point that we can decide that on a case by case basis?

I mean, once a precedent is set, you'd have to allow the truly racist to say whatever they want too. Is it perhaps better to have a few unfair examples made so the boundary is clear?

Keep in mind, really I'm playing the devils advocate here. I'm actually a believer and have stated it here several times that I think this word policing is silly but I'm trying to see the other side and the fact that people can come out and say that they never knew black folks was lynched more than white folks to be very scary because when people lie like that for no reason I have to wonder what they are really thinking.

I brought up the last post though because I found the topic in it interesting. I'm sorry that my one sentence diminished the interest in the rest of the piece for you.

Actually I found the entire post very interesting. I just didn't want to get into the other issues. I think our difference is only a matter of degree. Certainly she should be counselled by her boss at the very least about not saying stupid things or things that might offend people. All else aside, you know the network doesn't want to offend ANYONE, so as an employee she needs to understand that. I just see an overreaction mainly by the Al Sharpton types.

[molson]

LOL - check out Golfweek magazine's choice of a cover photo:

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3201070

This is in MUCH poorer taste, IMO, than the underlying comment.

So everyone in this thread who wanted to make such a huge deal out of her unfortunate choice of words, now we have a lynching noose on the cover of a mainstream magazine - I hope you're happy.

[Synovia]

Well yes, Sharpton is a gas bag, no doubt about that. I guess in the truest sense yes it is a big deal because she is white...but it WAS white people lynching black people in the past.


White people also lynched asian people, and other white people. Theres nothing intrinsically racist about "lynched"


Anyone else think Al Sharpton does much more to promote racism than he does to prevent it?

[molson]

Anyone else think Al Sharpton does much more to promote racism than he does to prevent it?

100% yes...and it's also promoted (to a much less sinsister and intentional way), by discussions like this one. Which leads us to nooses on golf magazine covers.

[Raiders Army]

Four pages of this....wow

[korme]

All I can say is, you can really tell who the country boys are in this thread.

[molson]

Four pages of this....wow

I think this is the third post in the thread that simply mocks the discussion, and yet, like the others, you posted here, and extended the length of the thread?????

[Pumpy Tudors]

and them white folks are crazy

[Axxon]

Actually I found the entire post very interesting. I just didn't want to get into the other issues. I think our difference is only a matter of degree. Certainly she should be counselled by her boss at the very least about not saying stupid things or things that might offend people. All else aside, you know the network doesn't want to offend ANYONE, so as an employee she needs to understand that. I just see an overreaction mainly by the Al Sharpton types.

Actually, I think we're pretty close to being in agreement then.

I don't really get worked up by the Sharpton boys though. They do have a right to have their say, have it considered by the voting ( in this case with $$ ) public and let the community decide what the appropriate reaction should be.

If enough people in a community are willing to take their business elsewhere then what use is it to call them overreactors? It's their community. Just chalk it up to a place you wouldn't like to live. I know of lots of places like that for me. Nothing wrong with them but not my cup of tea.

[RomaGoth]

LOL - check out Golfweek magazine's...now we have a lynching noose on the cover of a mainstream magazine - I hope you're happy.

LOL.

[RomaGoth]

Where were Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson during the Duke LaCrosse incident?

Just sayin'.

[Axxon]

White people also lynched asian people, and other white people. Theres nothing intrinsically racist about "lynched"


Anyone else think Al Sharpton does much more to promote racism than he does to prevent it?

So, since tuna boats catch the occasional dolphin or other fish, there's nothing intrinsically "tuna" related to their fishing? It's just one funky big random thing that the vast, vast majority of the fish they catch are tuna then??

I like that argument though. I'm gonna rob a bank but pick up a quarter on the street so I'll just say, 'hey, I picked up this quarter on the street so there's nothing intrinsically illegal with picking up money in your bank.'

Hey, since breast cancer also happens to the occasional male there's nothing intrinsically female to this disease either.

Shit, by your logic as long as we throw in some tokens we can be as racist as we want and it'll all be good.

[Axxon]

Dola-

to end this once and for all, Hitler gassed Romanian Gypsies, Catholics and gays as well as Jews then there is no racism against the Jews in the holocaust.

I hereby Godwinned the thread. :)

[Axxon]

All I can say is, you can really tell who the country boys are in this thread.

Please don't insult country boys. We're not all racists. :(

[SteveMax58]

So, since tuna boats catch the occasional dolphin or other fish, there's nothing intrinsically "tuna" related to their fishing? It's just one funky big random thing that the vast, vast majority of the fish they catch are tuna then??

I think you are making the OP's point for him in a roundabout way...as the operative word in the analogy is "fishing"...not tuna. So when one speaks of "fishing"(or "lynching", i.e. an action), it does not lead everybody to necessarily associate tuna or dolphin(or "white or black person", i.e. a target of the action) as both can and have been "fished" (or "lynched"), regardless of which has been "fished"(or "lynched") more.

What you've termed as a "tuna boat" is more analagous to a "racist white person"...just as a "boat" is more analagous to a "person" or even "white person".

I like that argument though. I'm gonna rob a bank but pick up a quarter on the street so I'll just say, 'hey, I picked up this quarter on the street so there's nothing intrinsically illegal with picking up money in your bank.

Again...the analogy fails since "robbing" is an illegal activity. "picking up" & "robbing" are 2 different terms...just as "lynching" & "murdering" are 2 different terms. One can murder by lynching somebody...and one can rob by picking up money from a place which does not belong to them...but they are not the same thing.

I'm not trying to nitpick you (albeit I have a bit)...but pretending that everybody in the world should understand and automatically know every word that every other person in the world might find offensive is...well, unrealistic. We have all lived in different circumstances, cultures, ethnicities, & social status...and not everybody understands every implication of every term they have heard...especially when the term has no inherit meaning to race.

By that standard or expectation...we have a lot of dictionaries to rewrite.

[Axxon]

I think you are making the OP's point for him in a roundabout way...as the operative word in the analogy is "fishing"...not tuna. So when one speaks of "fishing"(or "lynching", i.e. an action), it does not lead everybody to necessarily associate tuna or dolphin(or "white or black person", i.e. a target of the action) as both can and have been "fished" (or "lynched"), regardless of which has been "fished"(or "lynched") more.

What you've termed as a "tuna boat" is more analagous to a "racist white person"...just as a "boat" is more analagous to a "person" or even "white person".



Again...the analogy fails since "robbing" is an illegal activity. "picking up" & "robbing" are 2 different terms...just as "lynching" & "murdering" are 2 different terms. One can murder by lynching somebody...and one can rob by picking up money from a place which does not belong to them...but they are not the same thing.

I'm not trying to nitpick you (albeit I have a bit)...but pretending that everybody in the world should understand and automatically know every word that every other person in the world might find offensive is...well, unrealistic. We have all lived in different circumstances, cultures, ethnicities, & social status...and not everybody understands every implication of every term they have heard...especially when the term has no inherit meaning to race.

By that standard or expectation...we have a lot of dictionaries to rewrite.

I don't mind the nitpick. I post from work and during calls so I'm sure a lot of what I type needs nitpicking.

I think you are over stepping the analogy though since Lynching is not to crime prevention as fishing is to bringing edible food from the ocean.

But lets say it is. Compare the professed purpose of the holocaust which is to wipe out the Jewish race that also killed non Jews and try and say that the holocaust wasn't a jewish issue.

It all fails right there in Synovia's post since he clearly stated it's not a black issue since non blacks were lynched too. It's a pretty direct analogy to me.

[Synovia]

I don't mind the nitpick. I post from work and during calls so I'm sure a lot of what I type needs nitpicking.

I think you are over stepping the analogy though since Lynching is not to crime prevention as fishing is to bringing edible food from the ocean.

But lets say it is. Compare the professed purpose of the holocaust which is to wipe out the Jewish race that also killed non Jews and try and say that the holocaust wasn't a jewish issue.

It all fails right there in Synovia's post since he clearly stated it's not a black issue since non blacks were lynched too. It's a pretty direct analogy to me.

Axxon, your analogies make no sense.


Should I be offended every time someone uses the word Martyr, because Christians were thrown to the lions, even when they use the word correctly? Should I be offended every time someone uses the word "kill" because my Irish ancestors were persecuted and killed by the french and english colonists when they first moved to the US?

The word was used in the correct context. It has no intrinsic race associated. White people have been lynched. Asian people have been lynched. Yes, black people have been lynched, but theres nothing intrinsically 'black' about lynching someone.


The only reason Tiger/etc should be offended is if shes insinuating that hes a horse thief.

[Synovia]

But lets say it is. Compare the professed purpose of the holocaust which is to wipe out the Jewish race that also killed non Jews and try and say that the holocaust wasn't a jewish issue.

It all fails right there in Synovia's post since he clearly stated it's not a black issue since non blacks were lynched too. It's a pretty direct analogy to me.

Again, you're making my point.


You can have a lynching without black people being involved. You can't have the Holocaust (with a capital H) without the Jews being involved. Theyre completely seperate things.


A closer thing would be to say that people being held against their will during a war is an intrinsically jewish thing (which its not, its been done in every war since time started)

[ISiddiqui]

You can't have the Holocaust (with a capital H) without the Jews being involved.

Yes you can (any capitalization is irrelevant... we are talking about the general term here of both lynching and holocaust). Holocaust is simply a Greek word meaning completely burnt. Any mass genocide can be called a holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust


Since the mid-19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century), the word has been used by many authors to refer to large catastrophes and massacres, particularly those caused by immolation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immolation). According to the OED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OED), the earliest attested such usage dates from 1671, but it became common in the 19th century. In 1833 the journalist Leitch Ritchie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitch_Ritchie), writing about the medieval French monarch Louis VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_VII), wrote that he "once made a holocaust of thirteen hundred persons in a church". This refers to his invasion of Vitry-le-François (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitry-le-Fran%C3%A7ois) in 1142 during which the 1,300 inhabitants of the town were burnt alive in the church.

By the early twentieth century the term was widely used to refer to massacres of Armenians in Turkey, particularly during World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I). The Armenian Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide) was called "The Holocaust" (1920) and "The Smyrna Holocaust" (1923).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust#_note-1)</SUP> In 1929, Winston Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill) referred to "helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust" (The World Crisis).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-2>[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust#_note-2)</SUP>
Even before the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), the possibility of another war was referred to as "another holocaust" (that is, a repeat of the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World_War)). With reference to the events of the war, writers in English after it was over tended to use the term in relation to events such as the fire-bombing of Dresden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden) or Hiroshima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima), rather than the Nazi genocide.<SUP class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]</SUP> The term was most commonly used to refer to the destructive consequences of nuclear war.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust#_note-3) </SUP>



The term became increasingly widespread as a synonym for "genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide)" in the last decades of the 20th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century) to refer to mass murders in the form "X holocaust" (e.g. "Rwandan holocaust"). Examples are Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide), the Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Genocide) under Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin), and the actions of the Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge) in Cambodia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia).
<SUP></SUP>

[Synovia]

ISiddiqui, thats why I said "with a capital H". Holocaust with a capital H refers to that specific event.

[ISiddiqui]

ISiddiqui, thats why I said "with a capital H". Holocaust with a capital H refers to that specific event.

I edited my post. The "capital H" is irrelevent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Which leads us to nooses on golf magazine covers.

http://sports.myway.com/news/01182008/v6257.html

Golfweek magazine replaced the editor responsible for illustrating the current cover with a noose and apologized Friday for its depiction of a Golf Channel anchor's use of "lynch" in a comment about Tiger Woods.

"We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country," Turnstile Publishing Co. president William P. Kupper Jr. said. "We were trying to convey the controversial issues with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people. For that, we are deeply apologetic.
...
Turnstile is the parent company of Golfweek.

The company said Dave Seanor, the vice president and editor of Golfweek, has been replaced immediately by Jeff Babineau.

A copy of the Jan. 19 cover was removed from the magazine's Web site Friday morning.

Seanor said in an interview Thursday night that he took responsibility for the cover, which showed a noose against a purple sky and the title, "Caught in a Noose." The subtitle said, "Tilghman slips up, and Golf Channel can't wriggle free."

The magazine devoted four pages of news and commentary on the topic, including a column on the back page supporting Tilghman and asking that the controversy be kept in context.

In an editorial, the magazine explained why it felt the Tilghman story deserved so much attention. It was accompanied by a cartoon that showed the Rev. Al Sharpton, who demanded Tilghman be fired, holding a noose and offering it to a pair of Golf Channel employees staring in a hole of thin ice, presumably where Tilghman had sunk.

Reaction to the noose drew a harsh rebuke from PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem.

"Clearly, what Kelly said was inappropriate and unfortunate, and she obviously regrets her choice of words," Finchem said in a statement. "But we consider Golfweek's imagery of a swinging noose on its cover to be outrageous and irresponsible. It smacks of tabloid journalism. It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident that was heading to an appropriate conclusion."

It was not clear if Seanor had been fired.

Babineau, 45, has been with Golfweek for nine years, including roles as editor, deputy editor and senior writer.

"We know we have a job ahead of us to re-earn the trust and confidence of many loyal readers," Babineau said. "Our staff is very passionate about the game. Our wish is that one regretful error does not erase more than 30 years of service we've dedicated to this industry."

[RomaGoth]

It always comes back to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They both need to get lost and let things be. I have never in my life seen 2 people stir up things more often than these two morons. The woman's comments were out of line, yes; however I do not believe she meant anything by them and this has completely gotten out of hand. The cover of the golf magazine was meant to grab headlines, but it was in poor taste.

I wish as a society we could just get over all this crap and stand together against common problems like hunger, child porn, terrorism, and poverty. Instead, we continue to bicker over stuff and promote the very problems that we are seeking to resolve. Everytime people like Sharpton and Jackson speak, the fires of racism are stoked anew.

It is all too bad. :(

[14ers]

Another Golf racist hate crime?
http://img.timeinc.net/golf/i/tours/2008/01/jan17_golfweek_299x355.jpg

GolfWeek magazine editor fired over this cover.


It is getting harder and harder to enjoy sports now days. Maybe Star Trek was right; In the future there will be no sports or athletes.

[Synovia]

It always comes back to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They both need to get lost and let things be. I have never in my life seen 2 people stir up things more often than these two morons.



I agree. I generally consider myself to be pretty color neutral. I generally don't give a crap what color you are....

But Sharpton, and the way the majority of black journalists seem to repeat his oppinions/muck-stirring really makes me dislike most black journalists.

If Al Sharpton is so easily offended, maybe he should stop watching TV/reading magazines.

[Neon_Chaos]

Asian people have been lynched.

We don't get lynched. We know kung fu, and people always go ninja one-on-one style against Asians, allowing us to take them one-by-one.

[rkmsuf]

"karate man bruise on the inside"

[Passacaglia]

Another Golf racist hate crime?
http://img.timeinc.net/golf/i/tours/2008/01/jan17_golfweek_299x355.jpg

GolfWeek magazine editor fired over this cover.


It is getting harder and harder to enjoy sports now days. Maybe Star Trek was right; In the future there will be no sports or athletes.

But one out of every ten people will still talk about baseball.

[Neon_Chaos]

"karate man bruise on the inside"

OMFG. One of the best lines in one of Eddie Murphy's best movies. :)

[RomaGoth]

I agree. I generally consider myself to be pretty color neutral. I generally don't give a crap what color you are....

But Sharpton, and the way the majority of black journalists seem to repeat his oppinions/muck-stirring really makes me dislike most black journalists.

If Al Sharpton is so easily offended, maybe he should stop watching TV/reading magazines.

Very true. Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda, and it is called "bring as much attention to myself as possible no matter who gets hurt."

Yes, there are racist people out there. Nothing any of us ever do will change that. But drawing attention to every little thing that happens and fueling the "PC Police" is not the way to go about ending racism. People say things every day that are dumb. Hell, I say at least 3 things every day that are just stupid. Not racist things, but stupid things nonetheless. The girl apologized, the magazine apologized, why can't they just drop it? The really sad thing is that when a black person says things about whites or even other blacks, nothing is made of it. As I stated in an earlier post, where were Sharpton and Jackson when the Duke LaCrosse players were under attack for what now was obviously a bunch of lies by a black stripper? They were nowhere to be found.

I am just tired of it all. We are all equal in regards to the color of our skin. It is what is inside that makes us each different.

[Pumpy Tudors]

OK, if it'll make things better in this country, I'll go lynch Tiger Woods and see what happens.

[rkmsuf]

Very true. Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda, and it is called "bring as much attention to myself as possible no matter who gets hurt."

Yes, there are racist people out there. Nothing any of us ever do will change that. But drawing attention to every little thing that happens and fueling the "PC Police" is not the way to go about ending racism. People say things every day that are dumb. Hell, I say at least 3 things every day that are just stupid. Not racist things, but stupid things nonetheless. The girl apologized, the magazine apologized, why can't they just drop it? The really sad thing is that when a black person says things about whites or even other blacks, nothing is made of it. As I stated in an earlier post, where were Sharpton and Jackson when the Duke LaCrosse players were under attack for what now was obviously a bunch of lies by a black stripper? They were nowhere to be found.

I am just tired of it all. We are all equal in regards to the color of our skin. It is what is inside that makes us each different.

Sharpton and Jackson can post wherever they feel like.

[RomaGoth]

Sharpton and Jackson can post wherever they feel like.

LOL.

[JonInMiddleGA]

OK, if it'll make things better in this country, I'll go lynch Tiger Woods and see what happens.

It would be blamed on some white person.

[Pumpy Tudors]

It would be blamed on some white person.
In that case, I'll be back in like 25 minutes!!!

[RomaGoth]

In that case, I'll be back in like 25 minutes!!!

25 minutes??? It takes you that long??? :p

[larrymcg421]

To be affair, Sharpton did attack Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder for having Martin Luther King utter the N word in an episode.

[Pumpy Tudors]

25 minutes??? It takes you that long??? :p
This might be hard to believe, but I don't really have a lot of practice with lynching people... you know, with me being black and all.

[RomaGoth]

This might be hard to believe, but I don't really have a lot of practice with lynching people... you know, with me being black and all.

I love you Pumpy, and not in a gay kind of way either.

[rkmsuf]

I love you Pumpy, and not in a gay kind of way either.

What, you can't love him in a gay way because of his race?

[MJ4H]

I love how this point is completely ignored in all this, especially with the Jim Rome/Oilers9911 metaphor about using the word "gas" towards a jew.

Tiger Words is not black!

This would be an awesome name for the next Scrabble champion. Kind of like Chris Moneymaker for poker!

[RomaGoth]

What, you can't love him in a gay way because of his race?

See what I mean?? This always comes back to race. Are you Al Sharpton???? :eek:

[ISiddiqui]

To be affair, Sharpton did attack Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder for having Martin Luther King utter the N word in an episode.

IIRC, Sharpton also slams rappers for using the n word and advocating violence in their lyrics. So he does go after black people plenty of times as well.

[BrianD]

Another Golf racist hate crime?
http://img.timeinc.net/golf/i/tours/2008/01/jan17_golfweek_299x355.jpg

GolfWeek magazine editor fired over this cover.


It is getting harder and harder to enjoy sports now days. Maybe Star Trek was right; In the future there will be no sports or athletes.

I find it interesting that the magazine cover depicts the virtual "lynching" that the announcer got for her comment, yet that still somehow got turned into a racist picture. Apparently you can't even use the word as you are being lynched.

[st.cronin]

I really don't get what's wrong with that magazine cover.

[Klinglerware]

I wish as a society we could just get over all this crap and stand together against common problems like hunger, child porn, terrorism, and poverty. Instead, we continue to bicker over stuff and promote the very problems that we are seeking to resolve. Everytime people like Sharpton and Jackson speak, the fires of racism are stoked anew.

It is all too bad. :(

Child porn and global terrorism will go away once Sharpton and Jackson shut up? Who knew?

Maybe the money and resources going to the GWOT really are misspent!

[sterlingice]

I really don't get what's wrong with that magazine cover.

(me neither other than the crass commercialization of trying to cash in on hype, kindof like advertising for Christmas stuff in October)

SI

[molson]

I really don't get what's wrong with that magazine cover.

I'm not personally offended (I fortunately wasn't born with a sense of offensiveness).

BUT, it's just funny that it's apparently offensive to say a word with no racial intent whatsoever, and then a magazine thinks it's OK to display a image SOLELY for it's racial shock value.