On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I suspect he will strongly protest, but I think this has more to do
> with Kevin's anti-Baldwin bias than any coherent principle. Baldwin
> made an off-hand joke about a Filipino mail-order brides.
To be clear, Baldwin made a joke about himself needing said service.
He did not joke about Filipinos or mail-order brides. The extent of
the Baldwin bias I'll express at this point is that I doubt Alec has
anything but total ignorance regarding which countries traffic in
women. He could have said Russian, Chinese, or Tahitian, because the
ethnic group was not at issue. The joke was that Alec Baldwin could
not get laid unless he paid for it.
I appreciate that certain people are sensitive to certain things. I
also appreciate that no reasonable person can be expected to know what
word or words will set someone off... and neither can Alec Baldwin
(OK... there's a little more Baldwin bias). Yes, there is legally
defined "hate speech," but the mere mention of a less-than-positive
aspect of an ethnic group falls well outside those parameters.
Now... the apology. I apologize when I do something I know is wrong (I
apologize a lot, by the way). Alec Baldwin apologized when he knew he
had done nothing wrong, but wanted to make someone feel better. Anyone
who feels better because of Alec Baldwin's hollow gesture, and I say
this unapologetically, needs therapy.
> Does Kevin really want to defend a principle that one never
> apologizes to anyone who is hurt unintentionally by something one says
> or does?
Within my previously stated context of what a reasonable person should
know to be offensive, yes.
> The paradigm of this for me was early in my history online. In making
> a longish argument about US exploitation I wrote something like
> "American rape of the environment". A woman on that list wrote back
> deeply offended...
> ... But it was a very simple thing for me to write
> an apology to her on the list, explaining that I took rape seriously,
> empathized with her suffering, and that as long as I or she were on
> that list I would make an honest effort to not use the word rape in
> that way.
I lost a friend on Facebook a few months ago. I even posted the
specifics here as the circumstances related to the world of
television. She and I knew each other from my NBC days. We'd become
reacquainted on Facebook, and we'd exchanged playful slings back and
forth about the crappy shows we'd worked on (and, in her case,
continued to work on). She'd updated her Facebook status and mentioned
that she'd be in a given city holding auditions for the given reality
series she was working on. In the same playful tone that we'd been
exchanging for months, I suggested that she find more talented
contestants than the ones I'd seen in previous seasons. Well, she
replied back in a fit of rage that I have only seen in women I've
actually dated. Apparently, this particular show was, to her, the best
things since sliced bread, but there was no conceivable way I could
have known that.
By your standard, despite a record of similar jokes hurled at both
sides, I was supposed to have apologized for this perceived crossing
of the line. No thanks. Had I apologized, I'd have felt two-faced
since I don't think I said anything offensive. And had she accepted my
apology, I'd have never spoken to her again anyway because I have no
interest in associating with someone so simpleminded, so the end
result is the same.
> That was a sincere apology, I meant it exactly as I wrote
> it, she was satisfied, and we went on to have a long history of
> fruitful and productive and mostly friendly arguments on a variety of
> topics. I don't see much difference between this and what happened
> with Baldwin.
I cannot speak for your apology, which you say was sincere. I can tell
you that, as someone who studied language in college, and delights in
its use and misuse in everyday life, the specific language used by
Alec Baldwin ("I do apologize to anyone who took offense") is a
textbook example of an insincere apology. It pushes the blame back on
the listener, not the speaker. It says, "You misunderstood me, and I
am sorry for your stupidity." It just says it in a more sanitized way.
By nature I am a very blunt person. I have no inner voice, so I
externalize darned near everything. My brutal honesty has cost me a
few friends over the years, but in hindsight those people didn't need
to be in my life. With me, you always know where you stand. With me,
when I apologize to you, you always know that I mean it. People cannot
say the same about Alec Baldwin. And that isn't Baldwin bias. Those
are the facts as I see them.
Was that a strong enough protest?
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
TV or Not TV .... Smart (TV) People on Ice!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
