Re: OT: At least as offensive as nappy headed ho

On May 31, 9:15 pm, JohnnyT <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is hardly, any where near as offensive. Not even close. If there
was a dial where nappy headed ho was very offensive, this one doesn't
even move the needle.

Try harder to be an even more offended white guy.

Some may argue that it was even more offensive. At the very least, it
was probably offensive to the women in question, though maybe not as
offensive as Imus' comments were to the Rutgers team (and it wasn't on
a national radio show). But to say that the polygamist comment
doesn't even move the needle is ludicrous, and it seems to be
hypocritical to me.

If it's OK to jokingly accuse women from Utah (who may not even be
Mormon) of being involved in polygamy because 1.many women in Utah are
Mormon and 2. Mormons have been known to practice polygamy in the past
(although it is not practiced and forbidden by mainstream Mormons
today) why is it NOT OK to jokingly call some African-American women
nappy headed hoes because 1. some African American women have had what
can be described as nappy hair and 2. some African-American women have
been prostitutes and also referred to as hoes by rappers, etc. Oh, and
polygamy is a crime in some jurisdictions.

I'd say that both comments should have inflicted the same amount of
damage to the 'victims' of the jokes considering the context of the
jokes, but unfortunately Imus and the Rutger's team was in the
spotlight and no one cares about three sisters from Utah having
babies.

Ken



.

Relevant Pages
Loading