Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Banning The N-Word

While we’re talking about race and liberals, I wanted to talk about something that recently happened vis-à-vis the NFL and how it really exposes the problem with liberal thinking. The issue involves the NFL’s proposal to ban the “N-word.”

What brought this issue to a head was the supposed bullying of Jonathan Martin. When the NFL investigated that incident, the outside investigator turned up a massive number of uses of the N-word by and between players and even involving some coaches and trainers. The NFL immediately recognized that this created a hostile work environment and a bevy of liberal journalists proposed banning the N-word by making it a personal foul (15 yard penalty for its use on the field).

Thus, begins our tale.

Right out of the gates, every single liberal sportswriter jumped on the bandwagon of this proposal and agreed that it was time to ban the dreaded N-word. This was the perfect solution to a problem that had lingered too long: closet racists using the N-word during games. Yep, despite 0 reported instances of that, these journalists just knew this was a problem. And even if it wasn’t, it’s the right thing to do to ban this word. Indeed, only a racist could oppose this idea!

Naturally, the NFL’s designated race hustler, the Fritz Pollard Alliance, jumped on board too. The Fritz Pollard Alliance is an organization dedicated to complaining that “minorities” (read: blacks) aren’t getting a fair shake in any aspect of football.

Soon, articles were being written asking why those rich, white, conservative, racist men who own the teams (like Obama supporter Dan Rooney) wouldn’t order this ban immediately. What could they possibly be waiting for, those dirty racists?

Then things went wrong.

A few days after this golden alliance of liberals declared the perfect solution of banning this outrageous word, a black football player named Richard Sherman threw a hissy fit. He called the idea racist that a bunch of old white men would tell him and his fellow black teammates what words they could or could not say on the field.

Uh oh. That does sound racist.

Now we had a dilemma. It was racist to allow the word to be used, but it was racist to try to stop players from using it. Curses!

By this point, most liberal sportswriters were running away from this story because there was no solution they could push. Of course, that didn’t stop them from demanding that “The NFL must do something!” even though their own logic made it impossible to fix this problem.

Then, the Fritz Pollard Alliance cranks got all pissed off at the young thugs (oops, that’s now a “racist” term according to Sherman) would use a word that the old pros “had fought their whole lives to stop.” You might not remember that, but run with it. The youths responded by claiming that “nigga” is a term of endearment and, thus, the NFL had no right to trample on their First Amendment rights.

This brought a round of articles from the liberals who started this craziness about how the players' First Amendment rights are sacrosanct and the dirty, racist white-conservative-owned NFL better not trample those. Oh, and the NFL still needed to fix this N-word problem.

In the end, the issue fell apart because it was unworkable from the get go.

What this was, was an attempt by liberal journalists to try to insert themselves into history by manufacturing a new civil rights issue. Basically, they hoped to bandwagon an easy victory and then declare themselves the equal of people like Martin Luther King for their bravery in stopping the outrageous use of this word. But it didn’t work. It didn’t work because the black players they claimed to be speaking for crapped all over their idea. Liberals always seem to think of the people they help as children who need their guidance, but in this case, those children easily exposed the liberals as confused fools who never bothered to understand the issue or think through their solution. These are hard times to be paternalistic.

In fact, let’s examine some of the failings of our liberal friends on this issue:
● Notice first, that liberals love speech codes. They believe that society should ban words they don’t like and that you should be punished for using those.

● Notice next that the liberals didn’t care about First Amendment rights when they liked the end result. This is typical of liberals to assume that all good people will agree with them, to assume that no rational or decent person could be on the other side, and thus to not care about the rights being trampled because those rights belong to bad people. Liberals only want to protect things they agree with. For the record, those aren’t rights, those are indulgences.

● Notice also, that they don’t understand what the First Amendment is. The First Amendment protects your right to speak from the Government, not from the NFL.

● Notice further how this issue fell apart once it became racist to be on either side. It’s funny how often and how easily liberal ideas end up in this kind of Mexican standoff. This really highlights that the complaints aren't legitimate in the first place if the same argument can make you racist for either supporting or opposing the same thing. This really points at the rotten logic of the victim movement.

● Finally, note that we again see the same pattern you always see with liberals. First, they see a problem and they immediately demand the most obvious and overbearing solution: somebody powerful ban the word! They never stop to ask if this would work before patting themselves on the back for their great solution either.

Secondly, once the original plan proves unworkable, they fall apart because they have no actual solution other than the big, obnoxious one they originally offered. Thus, their answer becomes “somebody do something!”

Third, like everything else liberals do, their solutions quickly devolve into competing interest groups, with each side trying to claim victim status. The result is a bitter debate that gets settled on the basis of who you like rather than principle.
What’s interesting to me is how consistently the things above play out when it comes to liberals. They always propose the most overbearing solution possible; they love trampling on people’s rights and doing so hypocritically. It never works and they never care if they are causing more problems than they are solving. In trying to fix something racist/sexist/etc., they always discover the children they want to help quickly see their solutions as equally racist/sexist/etc. Everything always falls apart. And yet, they smugly claim moral superiority every single time. That’s the story of liberalism time and again. This is why they judge their own actions on intentions rather than results, because their results suck.


Tennessee Jed said...

they love trampling on people's rights for the people they hate. Liberals always pat themselves on the back for their good "intentions." Whether it is actually practical or not is moot. The solution here should have been obvious (as noted by Al Sharpton in a recent post here) "It depends on who says it." In other words, ban it, but only for racist, white Republicans because they meant it in a hurtful, mean spirited way. (as opposed to, say, a good natured loving way.)

Kit said...

Don't like the word? BAN THE WORD!!!

Similar to the "Ban Bossy" campaign?

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, That actually is the liberal solution -- ban it when the person uses it means bad things with it... and liberals will decide when that is.

The latest is that they want the referees to penalize players for hate speech basically without defining what that means.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Actually, that's more of a brainwashing, persuasion thing. This was pure brute force -- make it illegal.

tryanmax said...

This particular example is a little too on the nose to work for what I'm about to say, but it does provide the template for liberal reasoning, as you explained.
1) They propose an unworkable overbearing solution.
2) They have no backup plan when it falls apart.
3) They devolve into factions.

Because it's so predictable, and since what ends up replacing the liberal solution is usually what was always inevitable, conservatives should be able to turn this to our advantage. As the liberal solution crumbles, conservatives have plenty of time to craft a message proposing the inevitable as their "solution."

Unfortunately, conservatives are always too busing taking each other apart over who allowed the liberal solution to be implemented in the first place, who isn't doing enough to stop it now, and why are we even allowing the liberals to set the agenda?

tryanmax said...

Also, the "ban bossy" thing is B.S. Bossy, pushy little boys get called "bossy" too. They just react to it differently. What adults are blaming themselves for, I see little children coming to on their own.

When little boys get in trouble with authority, their peers regard it as a mark of (notorious) distinction. "Ooh! You got in ♫ trouuu-buuull! ♫ Ha, ha, ha!" When little girls get in trouble with authority, their peers hold it against them. "Teacher says you're bad, so I won't play with you!"

These trends emerge at an age when children have little regard for how they "ought" to behave. (Unless you buy into the blank slate theory that says we are unconsciously imprinting every little thing on our newborns, in which case we're screwed. Even if you paint your boy's room pink, you will unintentionally give him cues that this is somehow wrong. I say, "Bull!")

I don't buy that there is a trade-off b/w authority and femininity. That's just a theory forwarded by bitchy women to explain why everyone calls them a bitch. (No, rude males don't get called "bitch." They get called "dick" and "asshole." Language recognizes gender. Get over it.) I have worked under many women who exercise excellent authority without being bitchy, just as I have worked under men who lead without being pricks.

Anthony said...

I hate to be that guy (no, that's lie, I'm fine with being that guy) but the First Amendment has nothing to do with the NFL. Most private employers censor the speech/conduct of employees to an extent (even private, off the job speech). Companies like to make money, most of them do it by avoiding controversy.

As for this controversy in particular, Sherman claiming that his private employer cracking down on vulgarity would impede his blackness is high idiocy. Fortunately for Sherman, he is a very, very useful idiot so he can afford that ridiculous stand. Most cannot.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, That's one of the many flaws throughout this debate. First, they don't care about anyone's "rights" because they like the result. But the moment they don't like the result, suddenly they start screaming about "the First Amendment," which they not only didn't care about the moment before but doesn't even apply. It shows how utterly incapable liberal thinking is of analyzing an issue... it just jumps around from vague 100% generalities ("we should ban all bad things") to vague 100% generalities ("you have a total right to speech") and it's never right.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think the bigger problem for conservatives is twofold. First, once liberals propose something (and let's use this example because it fits the mold perfectly: "We must ban the n-word!"), most of the conservative world steps out of the path of the debate and says nothing... they run scared. We saw it with Ryan, for example, where no one came in to back him up because they didn't want to get involved in that. Basically, they shy away from controversies that deal with anything other than numbers theory.

Then the other group moves in. Those are the Limbaughs, the Coulters and the backbenchers who need their moment of fame to open the money spigots. These people are after attention. So suddenly, you get Limbaugh going on the air to spend 3 hours debating why he should be allowed to use the n-word (and for those who doubt this, this really happened recently).

So think of this from the public's perspective. First, the left proposes something that sounds like they care... or sounds stupid, depending on who you are. The GOP remains silent, telling the public that this is an issue the Democrats own and are the only ones who can resolve. Then come Limbaugh and Coulter basically being heard as wanting to call people the n-word.

The message: the Democrats are stupid, but they care and they are trying. The GOP doesn't care about this issue. And in fact, conservatives are secret bigots who are angry because they can't openly be bigots anymore.

That's a horrible message.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Agreed about "bossy." This is an effort by a handful of feminists who are still fighting a long lost war against the language under the belief that somehow they can turn little girls and little boys into something they are not just by defusing a couple words. Never going to happen.

And you are right about "bitch". That's a title you earn, and there are male equivalents even if the feminists don't want to believe it. The problem, in my experience, is that the "bitches" I've met typically are emulating the jerks and assholes as their prime examples of how men manage people. They don't seem to get that those are horrible examples to pick and that those men are held in very low regard.

Kit said...


I've developed a theory that such over-the-top hyper-masculinity in both men and women is an act of over-compensation to cover up feelings of insecurity.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I think that's the general consensus on what it is. In many cases, I think it's true. I will say, however, that in my experience, more often than not, it's evidence of a narcissistic or psychopathic personality -- someone with a total inability to care (and relate to) about anyone but themselves.

BevfromNYC said...

Ummm, I refuse to comment for fear that I might say something that might be misconstrued as a slight to whichever aggrieved party might be in attendance. And anyway, my code book is still on back order from the South KKKorner bookstore.

Actually this reminds me of the time the good ladies of the Northeast took it upon themselves to stop the horrible exploitation of the unfortunate 'circus "freaks'. You know, midgets, dwarves, fat lady, the snake boy, the dog-faced girl etc. Well, come to find out, these "freaks" didn't NEED or want their help and certainly never asked for their help. As a matter of fact they were really upset because they actually were treated and paid very well.
But, but, but the well-meaning ladies of the Northeast would not be persuaded! It was shameful exploitation that people would pay money to STARE at them? The "freaks" pointed out that people STARED at them anyway. And they were well-compensated. So well, that they owned their nice homes in a special enclave in Sarasota Florida where they lived when not traveling the world. And, who else was going to hire them for the same amount that they earned in the circus?

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, and don't call me "bossy", 'kay?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Isn't it amazing how often do-gooders decide to help people who absolutely don't want it?

Feminists used to run into this a lot too when they tried to help "exploited" strippers or hookers only to discover that (1) these women made a killing, (2) many of them actually enjoyed it and those who didn't felt the benefits outweighed the rewards -- and that the ugly side was more bearable than working at McDonalds, and (3) they didn't want to be saved. And in more recent history, they discovered that college girls didn't want to be saved from the boys.

And of course, the biggie in American history is prohibition -- an utterly disastrous attempt by do-gooders to save people from themselves. That attempt to help people pissed them off so much that they began to tolerated a murderous mob just so they could get their hands on some booze.

The things is, I don't think the do-gooders care if the people claim to want to help actually want the help or not. They want feel like they've done something, no matter what the end result.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, What about "bossie"? ;-P

BevfromNYC said...

No, but "Ms. Bossie" is just fine. or, "Madam Bossie" or pretty much anything that means I should get paid more (not the same) than my male counterparts.

AndrewPrice said...

Madam Bossie works. LOL! Good thinking to aim for getting paid more than everyone else! That's how you get ahead in life! :D

Koshcat said...

To be fair to reasonable conservatives, getting involved with something like this tends to be a lose-lose endeavor. If you agreed that players and coaches should not be using the word, then you're accused of infringing their individual rights. If you agree that people have a god given right to be jerks, then you are accused of being racist and uncaring. About the only thing a politician could say is that this is an issue between the league and its members although you will still be accused of being both uncaring, racist fascists. While I recognize your concern, I think that sometimes the best approach is to keep your mouth shut.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, The problem with that, however, is this.

1. Saying nothing is the conservative response to almost every issue, particularly those involving issues that involve real people as compared to numbers. So the cumulative result is that conservatives are seen as uncaring about things that matter to people... or as condoning the present state of things.

2. Saying nothing leaves a vacuum for the idiots to race into and exploit our name. That's why talk radio is seen to be speaking for conservatives, because they are typically the only conservative speaking on most issues and we don't disclaim them. Thus, we let ourselves get defined by our fringe because we defer to them.

3. This puts extra emphasis on the few times conservatives do speak up... which usually involve something bad, e.g. something like the Terry Schiavo situation. So what you get is the image of people who don't care about anything except injecting themselves into things other people consider tragic personal issues. That makes us seem obsessive or nutty and downright scary.

And keep in mind, this isn't a YES/NO issue. That's a mistake conservatives make ALL THE TIME! If the Democrats say "we want socialized medicine," that doesn't mean we either agree or oppose it. There are a million alternative positions to take. At the very least, we need to learn the art of Public Relations and how to agree without agreeing.

For example, in this instance, conservatives could immediately stake out the position of, "I find it pretty shocking that a racist word like this gets used so casually in this day and age and I would personally fire any employee of mine who used that word while on the job. I would hope the NFL and the players can get this issue under control."

Notice that this puts you on the right side without actually committing to anything in particular. It also shifts the blame to the players, exactly where the liberals sportswriters never looked. In fact, you've tossed the NFL an out -- they can run with this and say "Any solution needs to come from the players through their union." The end result, you've taken as strong a stand as the liberal sportswriters even though you've said nothing AND you are seen as the rational guy because you are talking about "both sides" negotiating a resolution.

So when Sherman screams that it's racist to try to tell him what he can say, you can now say, "That's the problem with liberals, always trying to impose things without thinking about whose right they are trampling on. I've always said that this issue needs to be resolved by the players and the NFL together."

AndrewPrice said...

As an aside, you should all read this and enjoy: Idiots

Some of these are really, really funny.

Kate W said...

Speaking of banning words:
Arizona is considering banning professors from using swear-words.
Tennessee banned the word 'Gay' from classrooms.
Senator Robert Ford (Democrat) wanted to ban profanity from the state
"Morality in Media" is a conservative group that seeks to ban things it deems inappropriate from media.

Seems more like a lot of groups just wants a reason to stop the other side from talking or saying things they don't like.

Post a Comment