I’m sick and tired of delusional, sanctimonious twats like Mike Ricordati trying to protect his bigoted and racist speech with claims of political correctness gone wild.
We talked about Mike Ricordati’s stereotypical pronunciation of the name, “LaQuinton” in PART ONE.
When Mike Ricordati says LaQuinton, he says it in his best stereotypical ghetto slang voice. No problem, right? Stereotypical black name treated in such a special way should not bother anybody. It is just a funny thing Mike likes to do to the name LaQuinton.
Isn’t anybody at his radio station (97.1 The Fan) listening to what Mike Ricordati is saying? If so, how do they allow him to go on for months saying LaQuinton like a racist pig?
Do they all think it is perfectly acceptable? Maybe they think it is funny too?
ARE YOU OFFENDED?
Now we turn to Mike Ricordati’s ideas on how to determine if racist and bigoted speech is actually offensive. How can you tell?
When attempting to determine an offense, Mike Ricordati suggests that not everyone should have an opinion.
He insists that only the targets of racism are legitimately able to be outraged by racism. As if racism hurts only those people that Mike Ricordati believes are the targets of the racism.
First let me point out the excruciatingly obvious.
Racism and bigotry hurt every single person.
Everyone should be outraged by racism and bigotry.
Everyone should have a hand in stopping racism and bigotry.
Do not let Mike Ricordati tell you that you can’t have an opinion on bigotry and racism just because you are African American, American Indian, Asian, White or whatever.
So, when Ricordati solicits opinions on racism and bigotry, then limits call in opinions to people who do not listen to his radio show, he magically finds that nobody opposes his attitude.
Don’t be fooled by this trick. He is only trying to protect his small little radio show world where racism and bigotry are supposedly funny and everyone opposed to his racism and bigotry are just too politically correct.
So how would Mike Ricordati determine if something is racist?
On his radio show Mike Ricordati has stated that he has no problem with the term, “Redskin” being used in popular culture. He believes making mascots (of a people) equals honoring them.
Ricordati has also expressed his belief that the Washington Redskins shouldn’t listen to critics of this racist name unless those critics are of Native American descent.
Mike Ricordati suggests that, only if a majority of Native Americans are offended by the use of the term “Redskins” (to refer to their people), then it should be deemed offensive.
This very concept is racist and perpetuates racist attitudes.
Who exactly will you include in your Native American population?
Are you only going to ask Native Americans who are 100% Native American? If not, what will be the genetic cut-off for people to be able to submit a relevant opinion on the matter? People who are one half Native American seem like they should be able to have an opinion, but what if you are only one fourth Native American, or what about three eighths Native American? See how his concept is idiotic on its face? And how will these genetically acceptable Native Americans actually prove their ancestry? Do we require a genetic test before we allow them to speak out? We can’t just take their word. Anybody could say they were of Native American heritage just to express their opinion on racism against Native Americans.
It also seems that the negative effects of racism do not stop at the borders of the United States. Do we limit opinions by artificial boundaries? Do we consult the world population of Native Americans? How do we limit which Native Americans should have a say in racism and bigotry against them? Racism in any part of the world should be able to be spoken out against even if you aren’t located at the site of the racism, right?
Ok, now you have created your arbitrary cutoff for Native American genetic ancestry relevance, and limited the opinions to particular people found within a particular random boundary and you have authenticated each of their claims of sufficient genetic link and permanent address of residence.
Now, how exactly do you propose we collect the opinions of the acceptable Native American population? Do you call them up? Go door to door? Maybe we ask them to provide an opinion as we collect their DNA for the gentetics confirmation test? We will probably need to get some sort of explanation from them, so it might require a sit-down interview. And are we going to limit the Native Americans by age. If you are under 18 you cannot express your outrage at racism against your people. Make it a rule.
Mike Ricordati really seems to be on to something.
His brilliant notion that only the specific targets of racism should be able to speak out against that racism should be seriously considered as a national policy for all races.
I know it seems counter intuitive, but you should really try to understand what he is saying.
For example, if you see a man in “black-face” doing a mammy routine, you should have no opinion on the matter, unless you are black. You may be tempted to speak your mind, but unless we can determine that you meet the minimum required genetic level of blackness, you should just keep quiet. He doesn’t want to hear from you.
Again, Ricordati has not yet gone into detail on how black you must be to qualify to register your outrage at racism toward black people, so we will need to work on that.
Who is ok to speak on the topic?
We have a number of races to consider, so we better start figuring out who qualifies to be outraged pretty soon, or nobody will be able to be outraged by racism.
I wonder if Mike Ricordati will insist that you must you be 100% African American in order to speak out against racism (against African Americans)? What about if your mother is black but you father is not? What if some of your grandparents are black? Would you be black enough to speak out? Will African Americans be able to speak out against racism against Native Americans?
To be clear, Mike Ricordat would not allow you to be outraged by someone burning a cross in the front yard of an African American family if you are Asian, or Caucasian, or any other race. He thinks that racism and bigotry can only be spoken out against by the targets.
He does not want to hear from some white-bread, middle class guy sitting comfortably in his home, speaking out and complaining about racism against African Americans, or Native Americans, or any other race.
But what if you are sickened by all racism and bigotry?
Can you be outraged? Can you speak out against it?
Apparently the answer is NO, according to Mike Ricordati.
You see, if racism is happening in our community, Mike Ricordati does not want to hear from the community. He wants to hear only from the group under attack. Makes sense, right?
All those in favor of doing away with a racist NFL team name, raise your hand. Wow, I don’t see too many of you out there bothered by it. Must mean it isn’t racist or bigoted.
Let’s just keep the racist team name.
Only a raging idiot would attempt to limit the harm of racism to the group of which the victim belongs. Racism is a crime against humanity. Every citizen is harmed when racism occurs.
I want Mike Ricordati to determine what is an acceptable level of racism and bigotry.
He really seems like he has a good handle on it.
Ignorant, uneducated, narrow minds are always the last to see the light. Watch them fight to maintain their right to spew bigotry and racism.