Rodeo Announcer's joke not funny

[pam]

Oh pleaseTraveler, this thread had nothing to do with the law and reform. It was all about whether the comment was appropriate at a function. No one has said they don't agree that there is a problem with illegal immigrants. May I quote a General Authority?

Let us be careful not to consider as funny any joke that demeans or belittles others because of religious, cultural, racial, national, or gender differences. All are alike unto God.

Elder Carmack

I found your comments about foreigners and diseases to be offensive. In fact I found many of your comments to be offensive. What a stereotypical remark.

Edited July 4, 2011 by pam

[Suzie]

I am offended by many opinions expressed on this forum. The government in a free society is not responsible for the law nor is the government solely responsible for ensuring law is enforced. It is disrespectful to our society, our government, our economy, our law, our sense of humanity and our sense of decency to think that anyone should be able “allowed” to break our laws without consequences. It is prejudicial, racial, and contrary to good sense to believe any group or class of individuals be given leniency or privilege because of their status.

I am concerned, of course, about those that are here illegally. I believe they should be dealt with according to our law. In fact I expect it. If there is anyone that wants immigration reform - I am open to discussion - but let us first discuss what laws should be changed or ended. You want to change the law about screening foreigners for violent criminals? Fine then you live in neighborhoods with unscreened foreigners but do not expect anyone else to. You want to change the law about screening foreigners for dangerous communicable disease? Fine you send your children to school with hundreds of unscreened children at risk of having or carrying deadly diseases but don’t expect that you keep your children safe while you put the children of others at danger.

If there is a law, everyone - note the term “everyone”, must be held to that standard. If there is to be any exception then that exception ought to be the law for everyone. If our laws are unjust then let’s discuss the unjust laws. If our laws are just then let’s see to it that they are enforced. Let’s demand that they are enforced and as citizens of just law let us be part of the enforcement.

In the USA we have lost our sense and understanding of law as a society. One of my first trips to Japan I asked my interpreter about vending machines selling beer. I asked if it was okay for minors to buy beer. I was told minors cannot purchase bear. I then asked what it was to prevent minors from purchasing beer from vending machines. My interpreter told me that minors do not purchase beer from vending machines because it was against the law. What a novel idea!! I discovered why minors do not break the law. It is not because there is a policeman watching every vending machine - it is because the law is respected in Japan. Anyone seeing a law being broken informs authority as well as everyone around them. The law breaker is singled out and dealt with by everybody - even with little children pointing and saying “law breaker”.

In Japan no one in any neighborhood is afraid of criminal elements. No one lives in fear that the law will not protect them. In America we glamorize the law breakers - we think they are cool and we do nothing to end illegal immigration. Not only do I believe all illegal immigrants be “rounded up” but I believe we should round up those that knowingly support and assist or encourage those that break the law - including those on this forum that would knowingly “look the other way” or that do nothing when it is suspected that laws are broken. If you suspect a law is being broken and you do nothing and say nothing - YOU enable criminal behavior - YOU allow criminal mentality to infest our society and destroy a sense of safety and quite enjoyment of the law. YOU are undesirable and a plague to freedom.

The Traveler

Traveler, I'm really surprised by your post. You tend to stay on topic in most threads so I'm kind of confused at your rant. Interesting enough, I am very much against illegal immigration and I don't believe in amnesties because I believe they're almost like a "reward" to those who enter the US illegally while others who try to make it the legal way have to stay in their countries for decades before giving the chance.

Having said ALL that, I don't believe people should now have to humiliate immigrants (regardless of their status). I understand the frustration, however I don't think is proper, healthy and definetely not Christ-like to be treating them like dogs or making fun of them. It is cruel and out of place. This isn't about whether or not we support illegal immigration, this is an issue of whether or not we will humiliate others in order to score a point, think we are funny or better than others.

[Iggy]

Iggy, why are you getting so worked up? Backroads is using hyperbole, I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, Backroads was NOT using hyperbole, as the following post attests to.,

Iggy, like I said, when a guy is making jokes like that, I have NO IDEA of how to determine just how serious/playful he is. But what I have noticed from plenty of people in the world that those who dare make such jokes have few qualms about taking it far. Rounding up IS a violent act in how it dares to treat people like cattle.

Where did I get that phrase, you ask? I derived it from his comment to round up all the illegals and put them on the train. Rounding up, as pam as said, as extremely negative connotations when you're speaking about people. Again, I have no way of knowing what I meant; but if he's bothering to crack jokes like that he probably doesn't care if violence happens.

If that rodeo announcer is saying stuff like that but not meaning them, he's a tactless hypocrite. If he means them, he's cruel.

If I offended bini or applepansy, I apologize sincerely. But I still stand by that I have no way of knowing what this man meant and I have all reason to assume the worst. He KNEW he was in a place where people probably did hate illegals, had a bit of alcohol, and fights do break out at rodeos. He KNEW it was possible for his words to be imflammatory.

You offended me when you attacked Bini and Applepansy. How in the world do you know that the announcer KNEW what you attribute to him? Do you know him personally?

I do not agree with what he did. He should be reprimanded, and made to apologize PUBLICLY.

I lived in southern AZ- I was affected on a daily basis by the illegal Mexican that crossed over the boarders. Many of them were looking for a better way of life. Many of them were crossing to deal drugs. A few of them were crossing to enforce Mexican drug dealers- to kill those Mexican Americans (two to five generation Mexican Americans) who opposed the illegal aliens who crossed over to sell drugs. I heard the gun fire from my home, and saw the illegal Mexicans as they drove by in their cars firing at my neighbors.

I saw their enforcers walking down MY alley shouting at my Mexican American neighbors, telling them that if they cause his dealers trouble they will all be killed.

I am of Norwegian (Father), British (English,Welsh,French,Irish,Scottish=Mother) descent- ALL of my neighbors were of Mexican descent, 100% of them came into the US LEGALLY.

Pam, this post was a tinderbox of emotions. Trying to stay on topic is next to impossible.

In summation:

• The announcer was wrong and should be made to PUBLICLY apologize and to remove the sick joke from his repertoire.
• If a member of this forum is going to post hyperbole, then preface the post with the warning: Hyperbole coming up. Since all remarks are in writing and facial expressions, and more importantly body language is totally absent, there would be no way to truly know when one is using Hyperbole!
• For What It Is Worth- I have a hearing disability, have had it since childhood, never was diagnosed & fitted with hearing aid till I was in my mid 30"s (am now 59 yo.) I DEPEND on my other senses PLUS my ability to read body language. THUS I take what I read, literally. If you want to use Hyperbole, then state you are using Hyperbole. Smilies are NOT good enough.

[Guest Sachi001]

So you don't believe in tolerance of free speech?

IMO it does not agree with my politics and I found it not funny either. However as stupid as he was in bad taste he has a right to say it. You only give power to words when you want to give it power. It should be just ignored even as a news story. He will fade away and so will his words soon in your mind anyway.

[prisonchaplain]

Sachi...if he was at a townhall, or in a classroom, then sure, he can say what he wants. However, this guy is hired as the announcer for a rodeo. It's quite probable that there was some public support for the event. Thus, he is the voice of the rodeo, not an individual with personal opinions he's expresssing. This incident has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with inappropriate, racially-tinged humor at a community event.

[Guest Sachi001]

Sorry PC but IMO free speech is free speech. Even if was Lucifer himself. Just as long as he respects my right to such. You can't put a measure on such. A comedian once said "You can't fix stupid". Therefore in our eye he is probably stupid, but in others they may find him funny. It is Lucifer's way to oppress and deny you speech no matter how irrelevant and stupid the words may seem.

After all wasn't Martin Luther shunned for his speech? He was dumb by Catholic standards. Another example even God himself doesn't shut up false prophets. He teaches to discern and ignore such.

[prisonchaplain]

Sachi...okay...I totally agree with free speech. However, the rodeo announcer was paid. Therefore, he's not free...nor does he have the freedom to say what he wants...when he's on the community's dime.

[Mahone]

Sorry PC but IMO free speech is free speech. Even if was Lucifer himself. Just as long as he respects my right to such.

Do you really though? Lets take the same scenario as the news article Pam posted, with one difference. The words the announcer said:

Death to Americans! Death to America! ALLAHU AKBAR!

I wonder how many people would still genuinely support his right to free speech, and even go as far as to defend him?

An extreme example I know, but I for one wonder how far freedom of speech should be allowed to go. This is not just speech. It incites hatred and fear.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Mahone

[Guest Sachi001]

Sachi...okay...I totally agree with free speech. However, the rodeo announcer was paid. Therefore, he's not free...nor does he have the freedom to say what he wants...when he's on the community's dime.

If he is being paid and it's in their rules of such then yes he free to say it, but be prepared for the consequnces to follow.

[Guest Sachi001]

Do you really though? Lets take the same scenario as the news article Pam posted, with one difference. The words the announcer said:

I wonder how many people would still genuinely support his right to free speech, and even go as far as to defend him?

An extreme example I know, but I for one wonder how far freedom of speech should be allowed to go. This is not just speech. It incites hatred and fear.

Yes I would still support his right to say Death to America though I don't subscribe and wouldn't like it either.

Would you not allow Thomas Paine to have freedom of speech? How about some of the teachings of Christ running contrary to the Pharisees and considering his words blasphemy.

Here's a Thomas Paine quote:

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. "

You would deny one of more prolific Revolutionary orators to be quiet? Of course not, but I bet you would ignore his talk. This was done later after the war, but people just ignored him and he eventually faded away because they gave no notice/credence to his words.

That's why our forefathers gave this right. Free speech has to be tolerated. It doesn't have to be accepted as truth.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Sachi001

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Wow. It surprises me how worked up people are getting over this.

It's quite simple to me really. The joke isn't funny, even offensive nature aside. Yes, he has the right to free speech. No, it wasn't discriminatory in the slightest. But was it insensitive to the people who are legally in the country and are affected by the stereotypes and judgements from others? Yes. It just wasn't very nice. That's it.

Edit: To clarify, I do agree that he shouldn't have said it.

Edited July 5, 2011 by xforeverxmetalx

[Guest Sachi001]

I'm not worked up this is fun. I like to learn others viewpoints.

Yes it is simple isn't it. We call that being akamai (smart) in Hawaiian.

I'm going to blow things up now with my grandkids.

[john doe]

He indeed does have the right in America to say what he did. He also has the responsibility to stand chastened when what he says does not reflect the values of the community or the company he represents. The best way to deal with situations like this is to vote with your dollar- If you don't like the things the guy is saying, don't give your money to the company he represents. When they start to lose money over what he says, either he will change or they will replace him.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I'm not worked up this is fun. I like to learn others viewpoints.

Yes it is simple isn't it. We call that being akamai (smart) in Hawaiian.

I'm going to blow things up now with my grandkids.

I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular. It just surprised me how heated this discussion has gotten.

[mightynancy]

You want to change the law about screening foreigners for violent criminals? Fine then you live in neighborhoods with unscreened foreigners but do not expect anyone else to. You want to change the law about screening foreigners for dangerous communicable disease? Fine you send your children to school with hundreds of unscreened children at risk of having or carrying deadly diseases but don’t expect that you keep your children safe while you put the children of others at danger.

I live by a bunch of unscreened U.S. citizens, and let me tell you, they're no better than many of the illegal immigrants I know (quite the contrary, in fact).

[PrinceofLight2000]

I live by a bunch of unscreened U.S. citizens, and let me tell you, they're no better than many of the illegal immigrants I know (quite the contrary, in fact).

The point was that we don't need any more diseases being spread around by people OF ANY RACE who should never have been allowed in here to begin with.

[Dravin]

This incident has nothing to do with freedom of speech, and everything to do with inappropriate, racially-tinged humor at a community event.

Now admittedly I only skimmed the thread, but unless someone is suggesting criminal charges for the guy you are quite right about it not being a freedom of speech issue.

[Backroads]

You offended me when you attacked Bini and Applepansy. How in the world do you know that the announcer KNEW what you attribute to him? Do you know him personally?

I do not agree with what he did. He should be reprimanded, and made to apologize PUBLICLY.

I lived in southern AZ- I was affected on a daily basis by the illegal Mexican that crossed over the boarders. Many of them were looking for a better way of life. Many of them were crossing to deal drugs. A few of them were crossing to enforce Mexican drug dealers- to kill those Mexican Americans (two to five generation Mexican Americans) who opposed the illegal aliens who crossed over to sell drugs. I heard the gun fire from my home, and saw the illegal Mexicans as they drove by in their cars firing at my neighbors.

I saw their enforcers walking down MY alley shouting at my Mexican American neighbors, telling them that if they cause his dealers trouble they will all be killed.

I am of Norwegian (Father), British (English,Welsh,French,Irish,Scottish=Mother) descent- ALL of my neighbors were of Mexican descent, 100% of them came into the US LEGALLY.

Pam, this post was a tinderbox of emotions. Trying to stay on topic is next to impossible.

In summation:

• The announcer was wrong and should be made to PUBLICLY apologize and to remove the sick joke from his repertoire.
• If a member of this forum is going to post hyperbole, then preface the post with the warning: Hyperbole coming up. Since all remarks are in writing and facial expressions, and more importantly body language is totally absent, there would be no way to truly know when one is using Hyperbole!
• For What It Is Worth- I have a hearing disability, have had it since childhood, never was diagnosed & fitted with hearing aid till I was in my mid 30"s (am now 59 yo.) I DEPEND on my other senses PLUS my ability to read body language. THUS I take what I read, literally. If you want to use Hyperbole, then state you are using Hyperbole. Smilies are NOT good enough.

Actually, no, I did not intend hyperbole because "rouding up" is a phrase that has violent connotations. I will be happy to use hyperbole whenever I use it.

To my recollection and rereading, I never accused applepansy or bini of saying such a statement. I merely asked them how the joke was funny.

I know the announcer meant what he said because the phrase "I didn't meant what I said" is a false concept. One might regret how they said something, but if they said something, it meant the thought and feeling was somewhere inside of them. I have little tolerance for people who makes jokes about others because more often than not it reveals deeper feelings than just a "joke". If this man were truly against randomly grabbing people and putting them on a train, he would not have suggested such a thing.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Backroads

[Dravin]

Actually, no, I did not intend hyperbole because "rouding up" is a phrase that has violent connotations.

That can have. People use the phrase rounding up all the time without meaning to imply violence. One quite comfortably talks about rounding up the kids, or some grub. One even talks about rounding up illegals, or criminals, all the time in common vernacular without it being used to communicate violent connotations. Heck, when I think of the phrase cattle round up I don't think of anything particularly violent as I picture guys on horses herding cattle into a pen or onto a train. Now admittedly I imagine the actual process isn't as picturesque as a Western movie but the intent of "let's round them up with scary men on horses, intimidate them with dogs, possibly whip them and if such is called for tie them up and castrate them." is far from a given. I certainly don't think about whipping and castrating when I tell people I'll round up the kids or what have you. That the announcer mean to imply such is far from a given by the use of the term.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

That can have. People use the phrase rounding up all the time without meaning to imply violence. One quite comfortably talks about rounding up the kids, or some grub. One even talks about rounding up illegals, or criminals, all the time in common vernacular without it being used to communicate violent connotations. Heck, when I think of the phrase cattle round up I don't think of anything particularly violent as I picture guys on horses herding cattle into a pen or onto a train. Now admittedly I imagine the actual process isn't as picturesque as as Western movie but the intent of "let's round them up with scary men on horses, intimidate them with dogs, possibly whip them and if such is called for tie them up and castrate them." is far from a given. I certainly don't think about whipping and castrating when I tell people I'll round up the kids or what have you. That the announcer mean to imply such is far from a given by the use of the term.

All right, I'll admit I overreacted. I guess I just have trouble thinking that a guy would use a friendly round-up term in conjunction with getting people out of the country in that venue.

[Dravin]

All right, I'll admit I overreacted. I guess I just have trouble thinking that a guy would use a friendly round-up term in conjunction with getting people out of the country in that venue.

Don't get me wrong, the announcer may have meant to communicate some of the possible darker implications of literally treating them like cattle instead of human beings, but it's not a given by the article is all I'm saying. Also, given the venue I can understand how those implications could be felt even if not intended.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Dravin

[john doe]

A

I know the announcer meant what he said because the phrase "I didn't meant what I said" is a false concept. One might regret how they said something, but if they said something, it meant the thought and feeling was somewhere inside of them.

Really? I can think of several situations where a person might say something just to play to a crowd. Politicians come to mind first. Amazing that you 'know' what is in this guy's heart based on hearsay and not actually being there.

[john doe]

The point was that we don't need any more diseases being spread around by people OF ANY RACE who should never have been allowed in here to begin with.

Would you mind expanding on this statement? I'd really like to know what you mean by it.

[Backroads]

Really? I can think of several situations where a person might say something just to play to a crowd. Politicians come to mind first. Amazing that you 'know' what is in this guy's heart based on hearsay and not actually being there.

I suppose I don't, but why would anyone do a potentially offensive joke if they didn't believe in it? There are so many other ways this man could have "played the crowd". But he didn't. He said all the illegals should be stuck on a train. As a joke. No one is going to say such a joke unless they truly and honestly support it. If he had no feelings about it, he would have come up with something else. The joke idea would not even have crossed his mind.

Does the idea of "saying stuff to please a crowd" make it okay?

Am I really supposed to say "Oh, go ahead and tell offensive jokes because I can't prove you mean it?" And if he didn't mean it, he's tactless and an idiot.

Saying things for popularity's sake is a terrible thing when the wrong things are said and there is no justification for it. You said it, don't blame the desire to please the world.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Backroads
clarification of a phrase

[Dravin]

No one is going to say such a joke unless they truly and honestly support it.

Actually people use shock humor all the time. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that everyone who tells a dead baby joke is really in favor of throwing deceased infants into blenders or what have you, and a fair amount of holocaust jokes are told by people who don't truly and honestly support of the state eradication of the Jews. I'm not sure this case is a good example of shock humor but people can tell jokes without necessarily being in support of it's precepts.

And of course as John says, people will play a crowd, and that's something that transcends shock humor. I doubt (but that's just based on my own feelings) that despite all the stand up routines about their wives and girlfriends that male comedians think they're all shallow, stupid, nags. Some people go too far in search of the laugh, it's usually noticed when they overreach their audience. Surprisingly entertainers entertain, and sometimes that means they're playing to their audience and tell them what figure they'll find funny. It is possible (I don't know how probable) the guy said it because he figured it'd be a hit with a (presumably) conservative crowd.

Am I really supposed to say "Oh, go ahead and tell offensive jokes because I can't prove you mean it?"

Is that John's point?