Jerry Lewis drops "F" bomb

[Gaz]

Of course, sensoring isn't going to do anything but cover it up. The issue should be dealt with by explaining to him exactly what it means to others, and why he shouldn't use the word itself.

IF he is ignorant enough to use the word in the first place, you think he is going to change because of some peoples opinions, i'm sure he is aware of what it means to people.

 

[Squall7]

IF he is ignorant enough to use the word in the first place, you think he is going to change because of some peoples opinions, i'm sure he is aware of what it means to people.

He will if it means he keeps his job. The dollar sign will make you do virtually anything. It's the effect on most people when they are brought up in a capitalist country.

Also, being seen as a homophobic, xenophobic or racist is usually enough to deter anyone not signed up with the BNP.

I would have said miscogenist as well, but then unfortunately it isn't so much of an issue. Look at Schwarzeneggar, he was reportedly a massive miscogenist, yet he's still in a position of power, and respected (by some, long-term fans and supporters and such, myself not being one of them).

 

[Gaz]

He will if it means he keeps his job. The dollar sign will make you do virtually anything. It's the effect on most people when they are brought up in a capitalist country.

if he has kept it in this long about his feelings, then i'm sure he could do it longer, not actually going to change how he feels, so whats hte point, just be open.

 

[Squall7]

if he has kept it in this long about his feelings, then i'm sure he could do it longer, not actually going to change how he feels, so whats hte point, just be open.

So because you think he wouldn't change, there's no reason to try?

By that logic, why do people plead for their lives if there's a gun held to their head? Surely that's just a waste of time?!

 

[Gaz]

So because you think he wouldn't change, there's no reason to try?

By that logic, why do people plead for their lives if there's a gun held to their head? Surely that's just a waste of time?!

ooooooooook i can't be arsed to argue his case anymore, changing one mans opinion on TV ain't going to do jack all to the country, so why bother.

 

[Squall7]

ooooooooook i can't be arsed to argue his case anymore, changing one mans opinion on TV ain't going to do jack all to the country, so why bother.

Because society is composed of individuals. If you have no way of changing soceity for the better, then surely the next step is to change individuals for the better...

No use in ignoring the problem, if you can help it even one person at a time...

 

[Brawny]

LOL, both of you are great!

Yeah, it's bad, he'll have to make an apology, and it will all be swept under the rug...

Now, the BNP, what's it stand for? (Wikipedia's down for me atm)

 

[Gaz]

Because society is composed of individuals. If you have no way of changing soceity for the better, then surely the next step is to change individuals for the better...

No use in ignoring the problem, if you can help it even one person at a time...

Honestly there are bigging problems to worry about


BNP = British National Party, a neo-fascist politcal party in the UK

 

[blueovalboy7]

It's more the fact that people still use derrogatory language like that without thinking that worries me. It shows he either really feels aggression towards homosexuals or he just doesn't realise how offensive it could be.

Either way you slice it, he shouldn't have said it, but he can't exactly go back and change what he said. If he does have aggression towards homosexuals that is his choice, no matter how wrong it may be or misinformed it may be it is his opinion and/or decision to feel that way, and you nor anyone else has the right to change it. He would have to be one ignorant fool to not realize that the word is offensive to the gay community, I personally think he was trying to get laughs, and at the expense of the gay community, nothing more, nothing less, just trying to get laughs. I can't honestly tell you that I haven't used that word ever, or related words, and I know most of the people here can't either so I think I read something about changing the mindset of individuals and the whole community, well what if they are just fine with who they are? Why should they change their opinions and feelings? As long as violence does not arise from it, I see no reason to suppress people's opinions.

 

[Squall7]

Either way you slice it, he shouldn't have said it, but he can't exactly go back and change what he said. If he does have aggression towards homosexuals that is his choice, no matter how wrong it may be or misinformed it may be it is his opinion and/or decision to feel that way, and you nor anyone else has the right to change it.

If that were the case, then nobody would have the right to change anyone else's mind. If a person wanted to commit suicide, then we'd have to let them, rather than trying to stop them. How about politics? They go around trying to convince people to vote for them, should they not be allowed to change peoples' minds either? Pretty crappy political system if we can't try and change people's minds, would mean that surely the same party would get voted in again and again and again.

He would have to be one ignorant fool to not realize that the word is offensive to the gay community, I personally think he was trying to get laughs, and at the expense of the gay community, nothing more, nothing less, just trying to get laughs.

And that is okay? No, it's not acceptable behaviour. Ignorance (and yes it is, like you pointed out, he probably knows the uproar it would cause, and yet he did not care) should be dealt with, whether through education or whatever. There is no reason for it in this day and age.

I can't honestly tell you that I haven't used that word ever, or related words, and I know most of the people here can't either so I think I read something about changing the mindset of individuals and the whole community, well what if they are just fine with who they are?

So if they're fine then it's all peach? Screw the rest of the world right? Bull. There's people every day that believe they have it right, and don't want to change. Heck, it's one of the many things that begin wars, doesn't make it right, just that it's been one of the perks of the privilaged for so long, and there is no need for it to continue as such.

Why should they change their opinions and feelings?

Because they're based on false data, indocrination and myths. If your basing your feelings on something that is false, then you should rethink or get re-educated and and find new opinions and feelings. There is no other way to do that then for someone else to point out the failings of their assumptions.

As long as violence does not arise from it, I see no reason to suppress people's opinions.

So people should only express their opinions if violence does not rise from things? So in essence, no Western person has the right to express views on Islam that Muslims find objectionable and would riot on? What about Terrorism? Surely you're not saying that "we should shut up, because 'they're' threatening violence"? But it's okay to hold and express xenophobic, racist, sexist, agist, etc... views as long as they don't threaten violence? Or is it that we can have and express our opinion on anyone we see fit, and that if anyone opposses us or expresses their opinions on us, we're entitled to fight back?

Honestly there are bigging problems to worry about


BNP = British National Party, a neo-fascist politcal party in the UK

And there has been and will be a time to argue that, but it does not change the fact that this issue is dealt with wrong.

Besides, one could argue that homophobic views go hand in hand with BNP values, which just pose two faces of the problem that they present (which is basically intollerance and ignorance in general).

 

[milliways]

Jerry Lewis will apologise about this if he wishes to keep his pay cheques coming in. Admittedly, if that is the sole rationale in his head for apologising then it won't be a sincere apology, but getting sincere apologies out of people is a really awkward thing to do. Who believed that Mel Gibson's apologies over his anti-semetic rants, from when he was arrested for drunk driving, were sincere? He's still an anti-semetic but he had to say sorry 'else he'd have some huge problems trying to finance new films from Hollywood money.

 

[blueovalboy7]

I agree with the principles of most your arguments, but really, why should someone have to change?

Society doesn't care about the individual, prove to me it does and then I'll believe that changing people's minds is worthwhile. I think if you do not like homosexual people you shouldn't go around blatantly bashing them, but why does it matter if people do have that opinion if they express it in private?

Generally from what I've seen its mostly a religious issue with people, which then you have to go into the foundations of religion and how people may have misinterpreted excerpts and readings from the past, I really don't want to go there, because I am not an overly religious person so I really can't give you decent facts.

I have gay friends and I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate what was said, but it's that persons choice to be ignorant, and I never said the fact that he was ignorant was ok, in fact ingnorance is a terrible trait to have. I just think that people need to watch what they say, and if they do feel strongly about something they should find different avenues of expression, but you don't have the right to force them to change their minds, it is a choice they have to make.

Also I noticed that most of your arguments regard people who do not know of the things they criticize, what if someone is educated on the subject and still has negative views/opinions, what do you do then?

 

[Squall7]

Theres a difference between education and mis-education. You may think you know stuff, but it doesn't make it the right stuff to know. Take for example, in Secondary education, in physics you get taught that light is a wave, because it's easier for someone to understand it that way (because it has certain qualities of waves). In Advanced level physics however, you're told that light is essentailly particles. In essence what you're educated on is often a "filtered" version of whats real. Another example is history, when dealing with the holocaust, in secondary education, you don't learn about British and American Anti-semetism at the time, instead we're regarded as humanitarian heroes.

In essence, when somebody bases their opinions on myths and mis-information, shouldn't we have the right to set them straight? In the case of religion, it's a dicey subject, but that's only one half of the story, perhaps they should be introduced to the other side, real life experience (meeting and talking with a person he is prejudist against).

Also, you say that it's someones choice to be ignorant, but does that mean it's not okay for him to suffer the consequences? Surely a backlash is needed? What about the freedoms of the offended? Shouldn't they have the right to say what they think about him? Even if the response is hatred and contempt.

Oh, 1 last thing. Not everything thats said or done in private should be allowed either. Take extremists planning bombings for example. In essence, whats in the private sphere often comes out into the public sphere.

 

[blueovalboy7]

Theres a difference between education and mis-education. You may think you know stuff, but it doesn't make it the right stuff to know. Take for example, in Secondary education, in physics you get taught that light is a wave, because it's easier for someone to understand it that way (because it has certain qualities of waves). In Advanced level physics however, you're told that light is essentailly particles. In essence what you're educated on is often a "filtered" version of whats real. Another example is history, when dealing with the holocaust, in secondary education, you don't learn about British and American Anti-semetism at the time, instead we're regarded as humanitarian heroes.

Good points, I'm just saying what about those who are educated with the "full-blown" details and still does not feel they should accept it?

In essence, when somebody bases their opinions on myths and mis-information, shouldn't we have the right to set them straight? In the case of religion, it's a dicey subject, but that's only one half of the story, perhaps they should be introduced to the other side, real life experience (meeting and talking with a person he is prejudist against).

I think we should show them where and why their beliefs are flawed, but if they still choose to keep their ideals what then? I agree if we have problems with people of a certain "group" there should at least be some attempt made at talking with them and at least trying to resolve the differences, but it doesn't always work out.

Also, you say that it's someones choice to be ignorant, but does that mean it's not okay for him to suffer the consequences? Surely a backlash is needed? What about the freedoms of the offended? Shouldn't they have the right to say what they think about him? Even if the response is hatred and contempt.

By no means is being ignorant a way out of punishment, if anything it requires some sort of "backlash" as you said. Also I agree that the offended should have the right to say whatever it is they wish to say to their offender, but we generally hope that the offended will be the "more civilized" of the two parties, and from what I've noticed they usually are. Which in turn puts more negative spotlight on the offender which is not a bad thing at all; some how they need to be shown they are in the wrong, but whose call is it for what punishment to be administered.

Oh, 1 last thing. Not everything thats said or done in private should be allowed either. Take extremists planning bombings for example. In essence, whats in the private sphere often comes out into the public sphere.

Yes you are correct, it is quite difficult to keep the private sphere from integrating into the public sphere, but how are we supposed to regulate the private opinions and actions of people unless they are reported by people close to them? I really just do not see any way to combat it.

 

[milliways]

Why don't we just add Jerry Lewis to the growing list of men in public positions who keep messing up on the whole expressing bigotry in public being a bad idea?

There's too many bad apples running about and running the place/world.