Dennis and Judy off 101.5 Called N.J. Attorney General, "Turban Man."
I've been thinking about, and reading about, the Dennis & Judi thing for a couple of days now. I'm glad that, if nothing else, it's become a teachable moment and an opportunity to heighten public awareness. On the other hand, there's a good amount of hypocrisy out there. There are those who call for the radio hosts' firing but still support Trump, who is far more offensive and has said much worse things.
Some people also seem to lose sight of context and intent. D & J were trying to be funny. They failed. Instead they offended people. I don't believe they are racist, but what they said was a racist remark. It was not their intent, but it happened. People in government have said far worse things, and yet they continue to serve (and get reelected).
I suspect that all of us, in our lifetimes, have made some remark that can be construed at racist, sexist, ageist, or some other -ist. But unless such remarks are intentional and/or represent a pattern of "-ist" thought, I think it's unfair to label the person.
mrincredible said:
One of the most dangerous things happening out there is that white people are being convinced we're being oppressed, when the rest of society is just asking for a level playing field. This Dennis and Judi problem is a situation that could easily be twisted to support that belief. I'm worried it's a growing problem and not dying out with an older generation. Look at the tiki-torch chuckleheads who marched in Charlottesville.
It is a growing problem, but - and I say this with full understanding that you wrote this at 4.30! - I don't see how it should be up to POC to convince white people that they're not being oppressed. I feel this is yet another thing that cannot be reasoned out of people because they didn't reason themselves into it in the first place.
Just my opinion, though of course.
mrincredible said:
flimbro,
I think it calls the racism on the carpet. Societally it's more constructive than just punishing them by firing them. I think the host's audience needs to hear their racism deconstructed and shown for what it is.
It denies them the luxury of just retreating behind the defense of "politically correct people did me wrong."
One of the most dangerous things happening out there is that white people are being convinced we're being oppressed, when the rest of society is just asking for a level playing field. This Dennis and Judi problem is a situation that could easily be twisted to support that belief. I'm worried it's a growing problem and not dying out with an older generation. Look at the tiki-torch chuckleheads who marched in Charlottesville.
Malloy's own initial response was so typical - putting himself in a fictional similar position as he put Grewal and claiming it would be no big deal. As if calling a Sikh "turban man" was just pointing out what kind of hat the guy wears. That's part of a subtler racism that, in my opinion, needs to be addressed.
One parallel I can think of is the strategy of trying to end drug trafficking by locking up as many low level dealers and possessors as we can. It doesn't address the actual problem. Just firing these two wpul d probably be about as effective.
I shouldn't post at 430 a.m. because I ramble.
I agree with your goal but I think you have the casting all wrong.
I think it's time we expect white folks to act like adults and own their shite. Thinking that we need to have a town hall meeting to explain racism and shame the practitioners is kinda ridiculous in 2018. Going further and requiring the subject of racism to participate in this discussion, presumably to show how much he's 'really just a regular guy', is simply absurd.
If Dennis and Judi are parents I'm sure they have no problem explaining to their kids why bullying is bad or why you shouldn't call the big girl "fatty" or the other kid "stupid". On a very basic level if you can master these conversations it seems pretty simple to expand the general concept to include religion, skin color, language, cultural differences etc. If a 12 yr old can get it, we can't give 50 yr olds a pass.
Dennis and Judi didn't misunderstand what they were saying. They knew exactly what they were doing and they did so because they assumed they could get away with it. They understood that their whiteness allowed them to 'other' anyone they chose with relative impunity. You don't stop this behavior by forcing individuals to explain their racism, as if planting a scarlet R on them is going to shame them into being better people- you punish them.
Calling the AG out of his name empowered Dennis and Judi and diminished the AG. They were saying, "you may have achieved some success in our society, but at the end of the day you deserve no respect and we're going to remind you who you are". Their intent was to reposition him to be subservient to them and by extension their listeners, effectively reifying whiteness, privilege and power. If you want to stop that behavior you take the rewarding of power out of the equation. In this case that power is derived through income- theirs and the station that enjoys a profit from their ratings.
I've always had the vibe that D and J were typical bigots, holding it all tightly in, but really wanting to let it fly. I think if they were forced to have a forum with the man they offended, it would allow more of their fans, who want to write this off as liberal PC BS, to see that it isn't. It might give D and J a bit of perspective, as well as make them uncomfortable AF, which is a bonus. Yes, we white folk need to stop putting yet another burden on non-whites and just be better people, but the reality is, we can't seem to do it by ourselves.
callista said:
I've always had the vibe that D and J were typical bigots, holding it all tightly in, but really wanting to let it fly. I think if they were forced to have a forum with the man they offended, it would allow more of their fans, who want to write this off as liberal PC BS, to see that it isn't. It might give D and J a bit of perspective, as well as make them uncomfortable AF, which is a bonus. Yes, we white folk need to stop putting yet another burden on non-whites and just be better people, but the reality is, we can't seem to do it by ourselves.
I appreciate your honesty, but what exactly would Dennis and Judi and their fans learn at this forum?
Really. What would this forum look like?
Would they learn that Gurbir Grewal had a head, two arms and two legs? Just like them. Would Gurbir recite his CV for all to hear and be impressed by? Would he bring pictures of his wife or kids or parents so all gathered could see that he had a family?
Would Gurbir explain that his feelings were hurt by being referred to as 'turban man'? Would he change hearts and minds if he simply asked to be referred to by his name? Would that wash away the racism?
What would Dennis and Judi learn about another human being that they don't already know about human beings? What new mysterious and powerful perspective would they become privy to?
And to your point re burdens- why does this imaginary summit require Gurbir Grewal to participate at all?
"You know, the attorney general," co-host Dennis Malloy said, starting in on a rant about his decision to suspend marijuana prosecutions statewide, "I'm never going to know his name, I'm just going to say the guy with the turban."
"Turban maaaaan," co-host Judi Franco added in a sing-song voice.
"If that offends you," Malloy said, perhaps anticipating what was to come, "then don't wear the turban and then I'll remember your name."
"Don't wear the turban and then I'll remember your name."
That demonstrates a pretty ugly mindset. It's not satire, it's not funny. Too bad they're going back on the air in a couple of weeks.
Okay, not to be argumentative but to further the discussion here. I also know that nobody is reading this who might actually put together something like this, so I feel free to fantasize.
I like the idea of taking Malloy out of his safe space and putting him up on stage to defend himself against someone with an educational pedigree like Grewal's. I wouldn't want Grewal to try and make the case that he's a human being and deserving of respect. So maybe in that regard it wouldn't make sense to ask him to participate - I think I understand your comment about the casting. Maybe it's better optics to have another white guy up there to debate Malloy. I don't know, but I know nobody's taking my advice on this.
What I am pretty certain of is there are thousands of Dennis and Judi fans right now who are angry that they've been suspended. I went ahead and took a peek at the NJ101.5 Twitter feed and the hashtag DennisandJudi. I didn't read too far but it looks like the balance is definitely in favor of the two of them, some people expressing a lot of further anger, resentment and racism. Some were less vehement. It makes me wonder if there is a way to reach SOME of those people to help them understand that words, especially from someone with a big audience, are hurtful. And a lot of them don't even want to accept that the behavior was racist.
So I am not for letting them off the hook, but I don't know if just suspending them, or even firing them, does any more than just make a bunch of angry racists even angrier (and racist-ier). And maybe pushes some people further in that direction.
And to ridski's points, I do think a lot of young white men are "reasoning" themselves into these feelings of oppression. There are some very organized and well-spoken people who are making it their business to convince young white men that they are being systematically pushed down. Jordan Peterson is one such person, denying the existence of white privilege. They're not all Alex Jones frothing at the mouth. They're the ones to beware.
flimbro said:
mjc said:I don't get the have-them-talk-it-out thing.
I would love to see a (moderated?) discussion between the DJs and the AG, maybe looking for common ground, a la the professor and the cop hosted by Obama, or one of Brian Lehrer's shows. I can dream.
And what exactly are they going to 'discuss'? What's to debate? What common ground needs to be identified? The DJs are at fault- period. There is no need for the AG to respond or present "his side". He's a Sikh and he wears a turban- end of discussion. There really aren't two sides here.
Pretending that there is some greater truth to tease out by having two ignorant people talk to this man is insulting to him and ultimately gives deference to two knuckleheads.
Exactly this. These people are racist dirtbags (despite their "apolgies.") No discussion to be had.
mrincredible said:
Okay, not to be argumentative but to further the discussion here. I also know that nobody is reading this who might actually put together something like this, so I feel free to fantasize.
I like the idea of taking Malloy out of his safe space and putting him up on stage to defend himself against someone with an educational pedigree like Grewal's. I wouldn't want Grewal to try and make the case that he's a human being and deserving of respect. So maybe in that regard it wouldn't make sense to ask him to participate - I think I understand your comment about the casting. Maybe it's better optics to have another white guy up there to debate Malloy. I don't know, but I know nobody's taking my advice on this.
What I am pretty certain of is there are thousands of Dennis and Judi fans right now who are angry that they've been suspended. I went ahead and took a peek at the NJ101.5 Twitter feed and the hashtag DennisandJudi. I didn't read too far but it looks like the balance is definitely in favor of the two of them, some people expressing a lot of further anger, resentment and racism. Some were less vehement. It makes me wonder if there is a way to reach SOME of those people to help them understand that words, especially from someone with a big audience, are hurtful. And a lot of them don't even want to accept that the behavior was racist.
So I am not for letting them off the hook, but I don't know if just suspending them, or even firing them, does any more than just make a bunch of angry racists even angrier (and racist-ier). And maybe pushes some people further in that direction.
And to ridski's points, I do think a lot of young white men are "reasoning" themselves into these feelings of oppression. There are some very organized and well-spoken people who are making it their business to convince young white men that they are being systematically pushed down. Jordan Peterson is one such person, denying the existence of white privilege. They're not all Alex Jones frothing at the mouth. They're the ones to beware.
My man, Malloy lives in his safe space. You can't take him out of it.
He doesn't have to 'defend' himself, that's the way white supremacy works- privilege based on nothing other than skin color. None of this is based on merit or credibility, there's no rhyme or reason with this. This guy can't be debated into changing his mind about white supremacy. This isn't a battle of the minds- who's better than who. Racism isn't based on any actual facts- it's all imaginary. Grewal is a target because he's not white- period. Dennis doesn't have to stand up to him in a battle of who's more accomplished- all he has to do is say, "hey look at the funny hat on the brown dude- stupid, right?!". With that simple maneuver Dennis and Judi remind other white people that they are in fact superior and in charge.
Dennis is a DJ at a radio station. Grewal is an Attorney General. There is no comparison. Obama was a law professor, senator and then president of the United States, Trump was a semi-literate con artist builder from Queens but he was still able to question the President's birthright because he was a white man.
And who the hell cares if racists are angry? They're always angry and stupid and wrong. It's pretty much the job description isn't it? And it's not just young white men "reasoning" themselves into believing they're oppressed. White folks have been deluding themselves about being under attack since they got off the boat. Being under perpetual siege is the big lie that drives the more violent aspects of racist American mythology. Indigenous Americans were out to get them, enslaved Africans were out to get them, Japanese were out to get them, Poles, Italians and Irish were out to get them. Newly freed Black Americans were out to get them, educated Blacks were out to get them, Arabs and Muslims were out to get them and now Mexicans and Central Americans are out to get them.
It's the young white men who concern me the most. They represent the future of either racism or acceptance. And there are a lot of people cultivating the racism of the future.
Anger is the soil that the roots of racism grow in.
I think some people are getting backed into racist beliefs because not enough people are showing them the path of justice and equity right now. Starting at the very top. And one of the keys to pulling someone down the path of hatred and racism is taking their anger and stoking it.
mrincredible said:
And to ridski's points, I do think a lot of young white men are "reasoning" themselves into these feelings of oppression. There are some very organized and well-spoken people who are making it their business to convince young white men that they are being systematically pushed down. Jordan Peterson is one such person, denying the existence of white privilege. They're not all Alex Jones frothing at the mouth. They're the ones to beware.
The fact that you had to put "reasoning" in quotes means that reason is not how they got there.
I think there's a pretty good chance that the roots of racism grow in commerce and capitalism.
I think the socio political control and manipulation of lower-middle and middle class white folks requires the constant re-creation of race-based anxiety, faux 'oppression' and peril or "anger" based on non-existent slights and threats.
I'm also pretty sure that you're right to be concerned about young white men, but then again, middle-aged white women seemed to have a lot of trouble figuring Trump out a couple years ago.
mrincredible said:
I think I'd rather see this kind of racism dragged out into the light and have it exposed for what it is rather than trying just trying to shove it back further into the dark.
Your white audience, I suspect, would be divided into two camps: Those who will never get it, and those who are confident they already do. Neither is going to come away any wiser.
While you’re focused on that first group, I’m more interested in the latter. How many of them can accept that they, too, are racist? Maybe I’m projecting my problems too much onto other whites, but I can’t help being aware of race all around me, all the time. When I’m talking with someone; when I see others talking. Stereotypes spring unbidden to mind. It takes a conscious effort to resist all the signals out there that offer reassurance of my whiteness. I’m racist. Knowing that, I think, helps me do my best to not become a racist. It also helps me see, I think, what nonwhites are up against. People like me.
That first group won’t change; it can only be contained. That second group, however, is worth working on to convince that its confidence is misplaced. To me, that’s the battle for further progress that’s potentially winnable.
If a person has a racist thought or reaction but mentally/intellectually overrules it and in no way acts upon it, is s/he a racist?
unicorn33 said:
If a person has a racist thought or reaction but mentally/intellectually overrules it and in no way acts upon it, is s/he a racist?
Perhaps start a bit easier: If one works hard to try to consider the needs of others, and asks inwardly: "Self, am I selfish?", what is the answer?
Smedley said:
Dennis & Judi are in the mold of old-school (when I say old-school here, I mean 1990s) shock jocks who aim to be provocative/controversial, but clearly they went too far here. 20 years ago this would have caused a minor stir and passed; in 2018 they're probably finished, as if they're not fired I bet advertisers will bail.
I think D&J's core constituency is South Jersey Trump voters who probably think this is fine, but the station overall is too big/mainstream to let this slide.
They represent a wide swath of people in Ocean County. I was shocked when I moved down here and heard that term being used (towel head or turban head) often, by people of all ages, men and women. I fired 2 carpenters and 1 sprinkler guy because they used the term. And I will continue to call out anyone who has to show their ignorance in my presence.
Well, @flimbro, your posts helped get me this far. Thanks, too, to ridski, Scully and erins.
cubby said:
flimbro said:Exactly this. These people are racist dirtbags (despite their "apolgies.") No discussion to be had.
mjc said:I don't get the have-them-talk-it-out thing.
I would love to see a (moderated?) discussion between the DJs and the AG, maybe looking for common ground, a la the professor and the cop hosted by Obama, or one of Brian Lehrer's shows. I can dream.
And what exactly are they going to 'discuss'? What's to debate? What common ground needs to be identified? The DJs are at fault- period. There is no need for the AG to respond or present "his side". He's a Sikh and he wears a turban- end of discussion. There really aren't two sides here.
Pretending that there is some greater truth to tease out by having two ignorant people talk to this man is insulting to him and ultimately gives deference to two knuckleheads.
I agree. Having a forum further legitimizes their statements, it implies that they may be okay rather than outright racist.
Don't give them the forum to try and explain away their comments.
yahooyahoo said:
cubby said:I agree. Having a forum further legitimizes their statements, it implies that they may be okay rather than outright racist.
flimbro said:Exactly this. These people are racist dirtbags (despite their "apolgies.") No discussion to be had.
mjc said:I don't get the have-them-talk-it-out thing.
I would love to see a (moderated?) discussion between the DJs and the AG, maybe looking for common ground, a la the professor and the cop hosted by Obama, or one of Brian Lehrer's shows. I can dream.
And what exactly are they going to 'discuss'? What's to debate? What common ground needs to be identified? The DJs are at fault- period. There is no need for the AG to respond or present "his side". He's a Sikh and he wears a turban- end of discussion. There really aren't two sides here.
Pretending that there is some greater truth to tease out by having two ignorant people talk to this man is insulting to him and ultimately gives deference to two knuckleheads.
Don't give them the forum to try and explain away their comments.
So, rather than try to educate an ignorant person or create a teachable moment for others, let's just call the person names and dismiss them? I truly don't understand this attitude.
Back in the 70s, when NOW first gained widespread publicity, many men (myself included) didn't fully understand some of what they were saying. By today's standards, we would have been classified as "sexist." However, many men (myself once again included) listened and learned, and our thinking changed.
When you dismiss people out of hand and just call them names, you're not doing anyone any good.
unicorn33 said:
yahooyahoo said:So, rather than try to educate an ignorant person or create a teachable moment for others, let's just call the person names and dismiss them? I truly don't understand this attitude.
cubby said:I agree. Having a forum further legitimizes their statements, it implies that they may be okay rather than outright racist.
flimbro said:Exactly this. These people are racist dirtbags (despite their "apolgies.") No discussion to be had.
mjc said:I don't get the have-them-talk-it-out thing.
I would love to see a (moderated?) discussion between the DJs and the AG, maybe looking for common ground, a la the professor and the cop hosted by Obama, or one of Brian Lehrer's shows. I can dream.
And what exactly are they going to 'discuss'? What's to debate? What common ground needs to be identified? The DJs are at fault- period. There is no need for the AG to respond or present "his side". He's a Sikh and he wears a turban- end of discussion. There really aren't two sides here.
Pretending that there is some greater truth to tease out by having two ignorant people talk to this man is insulting to him and ultimately gives deference to two knuckleheads.
Don't give them the forum to try and explain away their comments.
Back in the 70s, when NOW first gained widespread publicity, many men (myself included) didn't fully understand some of what they were saying. By today's standards, we would have been classified as "sexist." However, many men (myself once again included) listened and learned, and our thinking changed.
When you dismiss people out of hand and just call them names, you're not doing anyone any good.
"When you dismiss people out of hand and just call them names, you're not doing anyone any good."
Like when you refer to someone as "Turban-man"?
unicorn33 said:
Back in the 70s, when NOW first gained widespread publicity, many men (myself included) didn't fully understand some of what they were saying. By today's standards, we would have been classified as "sexist." However, many men (myself once again included) listened and learned, and our thinking changed.
Did you and the other men who listened and learned ever view women as a threat?
DaveSchmidt said:
unicorn33 said:Did you and the other men who listened and learned ever view women as a threat?
Back in the 70s, when NOW first gained widespread publicity, many men (myself included) didn't fully understand some of what they were saying. By today's standards, we would have been classified as "sexist." However, many men (myself once again included) listened and learned, and our thinking changed.
The point is that ignorance needs to be dealt with education, not name calling.
Also, I don't necessarily think that anyone who makes a single racist or sexist remark is a "dirtbag" racist, sexist, or bigot. (I'm NOT talking specifically about D & J now.) People often make thoughtless comments and then immediately regret saying them or even thinking them. It's a human trait.
When I see a woman in a burka, my (unspoken) reaction may be, "Oh, that poor woman." Does that make me a racist or bigot?
unicorn33 said:
The point is that ignorance needs to be dealt with education, not name calling.
The point here, as I see it, is that it’s one thing to be willing to listen and learn when you believe the “other” poses no threat. It’s another when you’re fearful and feel that another’s progess will only set you back. That’s ignorance from a deeper well and doesn’t just give way to education.
DaveSchmidt said:
unicorn33 said:The point here, as I see it, is that it’s one thing to be willing to listen and learn when you believe the “other” poses no threat. It’s another when you’re fearful and feel that another’s progess will only set you back. That’s ignorance from a deeper well and doesn’t just give way to education.
The point is that ignorance needs to be dealt with education, not name calling.
What's the alternative to education or at least an attempt at education?
unicorn33 said:
What's the alternative to education or at least an attempt at education?
There is no alternative to education (with allowances for it to be a very blunt and uncomfortable schooling). The choice to make is whom you try to educate, which I gave my thoughts on earlier.
I don't see the educational value of a discussion with the DJs. The people who have thought what they did was OK are likely going to see this as coerced and therefore of no importance.
Staged discussions imho don't lead to anyone having any aha! moments.
Fwiw, the discussions on MOL have really led to my rethinking a lot of my ideas about race and racism. The people of color who come to this board and relate their experiences and their thoughts and expectations have had much more influence on me than hearing white people apologize or explain themselves. If I've learned anything here, I think it's that white people should talk less about race and prejudice and listen more.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Dave, Trevor Noah was interviewed on Australian radio and didn't apologise, and said he wouldn't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-26/trevor-noah-refuses-to-apologise-for-joke-about-indigenous-women/10038876
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/comedy/trevor-noah-refuses-to-apologise-for-joking-about-aboriginal-women-20180727-p4ztyk.html
Show me the lie in this interview
He has said words that sound almost like an apology but actually aren't because he says doesn't think it's worth spending energy on something from so long ago. (A slight paraphrase, it's late at night now, I have a migraine)
The 'joke' is horrible about women anyway. It's shocking about a specific culture and people. And what's worse is he's trying to market/visit our country to 'entertain' us - or the non-indigenous citizens anyway - and become even more famous and rich from other people's discomfort. This is not the man he purports to be.