The Onion - Going too far?

[Jim Alfredson]

I vehemently disagree with the notion that the copy writer for the Onion piece should be prosecuted. Such a wanton embrace of authoritative censorship is antithetical to basic human rights. Who gets to decide what is offensive or not and thus worthy of punishment? It's a very thin line between arresting people for using pejorative words in satirical pieces to this:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/42299/sanal-edamaruku-backlash-against-indian-skeptic-shows-the-tyranny-of-religion

[Larry Kart]

I vehemently disagree with the notion that the copy writer for the Onion piece should be prosecuted. Such a wanton embrace of authoritative censorship is antithetical to basic human rights. Who gets to decide what is offensive or not and thus worthy of punishment? It's a very thin line between arresting people for using pejorative words in satirical pieces to this:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/42299/sanal-edamaruku-backlash-against-indian-skeptic-shows-the-tyranny-of-religion

I agree, but FWIW the common definition of "copywriter" is someone who writes the words that are part of an advertisement. Yes, at newspapers, magazines, etc., one refers to what one writes as "copy" (thus the old cry, "copy boy!" to summon the young employee who would pick up your "hot" copy on deadline and take it to the copy desk to be edited), but the person who writes those stories is just a writer or a reporter. Likewise, if you were looking in the help-wanted section under "copywriters," those would be jobs in the advertising field, not journalism.

[Tim McG]

I vehemently disagree with the notion that the copy writer for the Onion piece should be prosecuted. Such a wanton embrace of authoritative censorship is antithetical to basic human rights. Who gets to decide what is offensive or not and thus worthy of punishment? It's a very thin line between arresting people for using pejorative words in satirical pieces to this:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/42299/sanal-edamaruku-backlash-against-indian-skeptic-shows-the-tyranny-of-religion

I absolutely agree with this.

Well said, Jim.

[mjzee]

Yes, but, can we talk? While The Onion may have used an "edgy" slur to try to make their point, their point was predictably mainstream liberal (as in, it's bad to want to keep the Redskins name). That is why nothing will really be done to The Onion for the article. Their POV is as predictable as Letterman's, hardly edgy, hardly surprising. I think they need some diversity in POV amongst their writers.

[Blue Train]

Did this thread officially become the now non-existent politics/religion forum?

[Noj]

Dramatic reactions empower racial epithets. If folks simply shrugged them off, epithets would be powerless. Yet, there's all this historical context that comes along with the epithet, necessitating the prescribed reaction to its use by the wrong person. Often some who are close friends or those of the type the epithet was created for will call each other said epithet in a way which reinforces comradery. When a stranger/non-member uses the same term, it's defcon fucking 5.

All this in the face of the knowledge that we are all the same species.

A team like the Washington Redskins chose their name because Native Americans are some fierce dudes. However, I've also heard that this is the equivalent of having a team called the Washington Wetbacks or the Washington Gooks. Clearly that's not cool.

So...while philosophically I'm on the side of everybody just getting over being explosively offended by simpleminded insults coined by assholes, I'm all for not having a team that must have been named by the same sort of asshole.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Noj

[Blue Train]

Just want to point out that George P. Marshall (who picked the name) was a clear cut bigot. Try checking when he finally integrated the team. They were the very last team in the NFL to do it. Hey, @ least they beat out Alabama.

They were the Boston Braves until the bigot took over and moved the team. Before every game....they would play Dixie before the The Star-Spangled Banner into the 60's/

When the bigot died in 1969....his foundation had one clear directive....not a single penny spent to “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.”

Once again....I have no problem @ all with the Onion piece...especially with regards Dan "Cries Wolf" Synder.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Blue Train

[Blue Train]

With name vote on tap, Redskins urge fans to contact D.C. Council members

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2013/11/04/with-name-vote-on-tap-redskins-urge-fans-to-contact-d-c-council-members/

Amazing things is this Council has no authority over this, but they don't want that vote.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Blue Train

[Tim McG]

Dramatic reactions empower racial epithets. If folks simply shrugged them off, epithets would be powerless. Yet, there's all this historical context that comes along with the epithet, necessitating the prescribed reaction to its use by the wrong person. Often some who are close friends or those of the type the epithet was created for will call each other said epithet in a way which reinforces comradery. When a stranger/non-member uses the same term, it's defcon fucking 5.

All this in the face of the knowledge that we are all the same species.

A team like the Washington Redskins chose their name because Native Americans are some fierce dudes. However, I've also heard that this is the equivalent of having a team called the Washington Wetbacks or the Washington Gooks. Clearly that's not cool.

So...while philosophically I'm on the side of everybody just getting over being explosively offended by simpleminded insults coined by assholes, I'm all for not having a team that must have been named by the same sort of asshole.

Agreed.

Well put, Jon.

[king ubu]

"If folks simply shrugged them off, epithets would be powerless."

that's a very slippery slope there, my friend!

[ejp626]

In unrelated news, the Onion is ending its print run in Milwaukee, Providence, RI and Chicago. These were apparently the last hold-outs where you could get the Onion in hard copy. Print editions ended in New York and Madison last year. It will continue as on-line only. Most people will hardly notice the difference, but I certainly enjoyed getting it once a week and flipping through the different bits, then going to the "serious" section, the A.V. Club.

I feel like such a frigging dinosaur, remembering the good old days when alternative press papers could put out 3 or 4 section editions, now shrunk to hardly anything. And alternative comics that weren't on-line. I do think newspapers and certainly news reporting is demonstrably worse than it was even as late as the 1990s. And of course used CD stores around every corner. Even video, then DVD stores, had a place where you could occasionally get recommendations from somewhat knowledgeable clerks. I guess some of this can be replicated on-line, and I generally like on-line convenience, but it just seems to add even more to the atomization of society...

(I know this whole rant belongs in the other thread about stores. Anyway, it looks like we'll be on the move again this summer, and I will at least pay some attention to seeing if there are any used bookstores or CD stores or second-run movie theatres within the neighborhood or on a transit corridor from where we end up. But it's a moving target for sure. Within only a few years of moving to Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood (the northern edge) many of the stores I shopped at quite a bit (doing my part) went under and I was definitely less satisfied with my residential choice.)

Edited November 10, 2013 by ejp626

[mjzee]

A Public Policy Polling poll found that 71% of the country--including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, do not want the Washington Redskins to change their name.

According to the poll, 90 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of Democrats, and 65% of independents believe the team should not change their name. The poll found that 18% feel the team should change their name.

More here:

Breitbart

[BruceH]

Just the Onion being the Onion. God bless their satirizing hearts.

[Jazzmoose]

Did this thread officially become the now non-existent politics/religion forum?

No kidding. This isn't discussing The Onion any more, it's just bypassing the rules.

[erwbol]

Did this thread officially become the now non-existent politics/religion forum?

No kidding. This isn't discussing The Onion any more, it's just bypassing the rules.

Except you can't cheat a ban.