Kelly Tilghman suspended by the Golf Channel

[3Jack]

Or LACK of logic.

Trudat.

[Kilroy]

I don't think examples of what "would truly be an inapropriate comment" are at all nessesary, nor in good taste.

[3Jack]

I don't think examples of what "would truly be" an inapropriate comment are at all nessesary nor in good taste.

Exactly! Interestingly, some people didn't think what Kelly said was necessary nor in good taste. In a way, you have helped illustrate my point.

[Kilroy]

Please make your points without making matters worse.

[3Jack]

I'm out.

[jonf]

I know it, you know it, but there are people out there that take things like this and run with them regardless of what you and I think or know. It certainly doesn't mean they are right, but it is the logic they use.

Personally, I rue the day that we have to make our judgements based on the flawed logic of certain members of society. Just because some individuals cannot use logic, does not mean that the rest of society should be bound to follow their skewed perception of reality. If we know they're wrong, why should we have to listen to them?

[jonf]

Just to play devil's advocate, would it be ok if Tiger were Jewish and Kelly said that the only way to beat him was to throw him in a gas chamber?

Not analagous at all. Your example, again, has only one connotation. It is only ever used in the context you suggest - a derogatory, racist context. What Kelly said is in no way analagous to the comment you present as a 'fair' comparison. That gas chamber statement wouldn't be appropriate to say to anyone - to a WASP, to a Catholic, to an Aboriginal, to an African American, etc. It is a wholly hateful comment, no matter the context. Kelly's comment was an off the cuff remark that in any other situation would have been looked at as a good natured but mildly unfunny joke about a player who is all but impossible to beat. In fact, that she commented so casually without considering the way it might be misconstrued, is testament to the fact that she was not thinking about race at all. She was not thinking "Tiger is a black man, so I'll make a pun and talk about lynching", because she would have to be a complete idiot to do that. She was thinking "Tiger Woods is so goddamn good that the only way to ever beat him would be to...beat him." End of Story.

[Golfbum]

Do any of you guys remember Ben Wright and his comments about female golfers having to adjust their swings due to their bust size? He had talked to JoAnne "Big Momma" Carner about this subject and it was her that said women have different swings due to their breasts.

Well good old Ben,( who I really liked to listen to on golf broadcasts) mentioned this fact on the air and that was the end of Ben.

Last time I read anything about him he was living in South Carolina.

Kelly got off lucky!

Reverend Al got his air time on the major networks in the USA. Makes me wonder if that is all he was after in the first place. My wife said "That is just stupid"

[Chieflongtee]

who I really liked to listen to on golf broadcasts)
"

Ditto. One of my favourite from him:
Oh the dreaded horse shoe.

[Daft_driver]

What? Wow.
What other connotation would the word lynching have?

On top of that she is from South Carolina. You'd think she would be a little more sensitive to the use of the word.

Sure she said it off the cuff, and it was incredibly stupid of her. She completely deserves the suspension.

Not analagous at all. Your example, again, has only one connotation. It is only ever used in the context you suggest - a derogatory, racist context. What Kelly said is in no way analagous to the comment you present as a 'fair' comparison. That gas chamber statement wouldn't be appropriate to say to anyone - to a WASP, to a Catholic, to an Aboriginal, to an African American, etc. It is a wholly hateful comment, no matter the context. Kelly's comment was an off the cuff remark that in any other situation would have been looked at as a good natured but mildly unfunny joke about a player who is all but impossible to beat. In fact, that she commented so casually without considering the way it might be misconstrued, is testament to the fact that she was not thinking about race at all. She was not thinking "Tiger is a black man, so I'll make a pun and talk about lynching", because she would have to be a complete idiot to do that. She was thinking "Tiger Woods is so goddamn good that the only way to ever beat him would be to...beat him." End of Story.

[fundonny]

She doesn't deserve to be suspended and this is the one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Society needs to just take a chill pill as a whole. People react just to react. Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

[3Jack]

I know I said I was out on this one, but I have to say that many sociologists would argue that off the cuff remarks reveal more about an individuals intent than does the written word. I'm not saying this is the case, but the argument has been made.

My earlier analogy absolutely analogous, though inappropriate. But being inappropriate was the whole point. Lynching having many connotations, but there is only one that I and many others draw from its use.

Remember that connotation is defined by an emotional response. It has been defined as a subjective cultural and/or emotional coloration in addition to the explicit or denotative meaning of any specific word or phrase in a language, i.e. emotional association with a word.

My emotional association with the word lynching isn't a pretty one, and it's use in reference to how one should stop a golfer who comes in part from a certain lineage is inappropriate.

As GolfBum mentioned, Ben Wright lost his job over a comment deemed derogatory towards women. So I would agree with GolfBum that Kelly got off easy, but I think that because Tiger knows Kelly well really saved her bacon.

[fundonny]

Maybe the older generation cares about such things, but many from my generation (gen X) wouldn't even think twice and just take her comment THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED!!!!

[3Jack]

I'm a genXer too...

[fundonny]

Then I'd wager you are in the minority.

[Hacker]

Maybe the older generation cares about such things, but many from my generation (gen X) wouldn't even think twice and just take her comment THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED!!!!

Donny - there are way more boomers around than Gen Xers so their opinions still matter.

Off the cuff, unintended or not, she crossed the line and has to pay her time.

Ignorance is never an acceptable excuse

[Daft_driver]

Then I'd wager you are in the minority.

Well I am GenY...makes me a young prude....

[3Jack]

I'm happy to be in the minority if it means that I'm aware that the use of the term lynching in reference to person who is, among other bloodlines, black could get someone in trouble.

As I mentioned earlier, I was watching the golf last Friday night when she said it, and I was surprised that nothing came of it until Wednesday.

[fundonny]

What Don Imus said deserved a punishment, this did not. I believe there was even a delayed reaction to all this as well, and the golf channel only suspended her AFTER some negative feedback. Tiger's agent even said it was no big deal (I'm sure after talking to his client).

I'm guessing, and other can feel free to do the same, but I bet 99% of the US population couldn't care less about her comment.

[3Jack]

If the Golf Channel had taken action on its own there would have been far less furor over this.

[fundonny]

The headline would have been the exact same "analyst suspended by golf channel".

The headline should have read "golf channel suspends analyst after gauging reactions".

[dhacker1956]

And if I am not mistaken, Tiger is not "African American" is he?

Uh Wrong. His father was of African American decsent, Mother is Thai. The way it is classified in the US he is African American.

Still have to agree that this was blown way out of proportion. I sometimes think that is Al Sharpton's calling in life!!

[fundonny]

I'd guess he spends mornings using google news searches to find quotes that he can use for his own agenda.

I sometimes think that is Al Sharpton's calling in life!!

[jonf]

I know I said I was out on this one, but I have to say that many sociologists would argue that off the cuff remarks reveal more about an individuals intent than does the written word. I'm not saying this is the case, but the argument has been made.

My earlier analogy absolutely analogous, though inappropriate. But being inappropriate was the whole point. Lynching having many connotations, but there is only one that I and many others draw from its use.

Remember that connotation is defined by an emotional response. It has been defined as a subjective cultural and/or emotional coloration in addition to the explicit or denotative meaning of any specific word or phrase in a language, i.e. emotional association with a word.

My emotional association with the word lynching isn't a pretty one, and it's use in reference to how one should stop a golfer who comes in part from a certain lineage is inappropriate.

As GolfBum mentioned, Ben Wright lost his job over a comment deemed derogatory towards women. So I would agree with GolfBum that Kelly got off easy, but I think that because Tiger knows Kelly well really saved her bacon.

I'm sorry, but the earlier example was by no means an apt analogy. One saying could be taken many ways, and is frequently used in a non hateful manner. It is used frequently, for example, to refer to the predicted reaction that sports fans might have to a poor trade their team made. This is not to say that it cannot have hateful, negative interpretations, and I would certainly not deny that the word lynch brings up bad memories of a horrible period in American history. Your analogy, however, referenced an event unprecedented either before, or after. Never have I heard that saying used in common speech, and never would I expect to.

There is no such thing as the right not to be offended. There seems to be the perception nowadays that something which offends an individual is automatically out of line. Well, I've got news for you. Everything offends somebody. If we carry this PC bull to its logical conclusion, nobody will be allowed to say anything, ever.

Your definition of connotation is spot on. It is an emotional response. And that is why we have to be careful. It is a subjective, cultural response. Given its subjective nature, we cannot respond solely on that basis, as, by definition, everybody has a different response. Not to get too much into the quagmire of moral relativism here, but if we are going to punish people for other individuals subjective responses...we are ed.

Your response to the word lynch is obviously an emotional one, and that is fine. But having a negative response to something does not mean that it was out of line. Again, if we stopped saying everything that people had a negative response to, we wouldn't be saying anything at all.

However, we must also respond with logic, and the logical thing to do is to look at what an individual intends. Judging an action based on how some people interpret it is misguided, and downright dangerous. We must ask questions like: was it intended to be offensive? Were their actions misconstrued? Were they apologetic?

I have no problem with people losing their jobs for truly derogatory comments. It's when innocent comments are misconstrued that we start walking a very fine line between the protection minorities, and the protection of free speech. Does anybody even remember what that is these days?

Also, you mention Golfbum's comment. I do not claim to speak for him, but I believe he was pointing out that said announcer was fired for a "derogatory comment" that was in fact a researched, intelligent commentary on a real factor for a female golfer's swing. I'm pretty sure he was saying that it was absurd to fire the man, as he was reporting on something he had been told by a FEMALE GOLFER.

[3Jack]

It is used frequently, for example, to refer to the predicted reaction that sports fans might have to a poor trade their team made.

Used frequently? If it was used frequently, I don't think people would have said word one about this.

Your analogy, however, referenced an event unprecedented either before, or after. Never have I heard that saying used in common speech, and never would I expect to.

You should know your history before you say what's unprecidented. Case in point, the millions upon millions of Indian nationals that died when the British Empire thought it right to deny them their own crops would disagree with you.

Your definition of connotation is spot on. It is an emotional response. And that is why we have to be careful. It is a subjective, cultural response. Given its subjective nature, we cannot respond solely on that basis, as, by definition, everybody has a different response.

And culturally, this being North America, and Kelly Tilghman being from South Carolina, and Tiger Woods being black, is making a comment that he should be lynched in a back alley appropriate?

Also, you mention Golfbum's comment. I do not claim to speak for him, but I believe he was pointing out that said announcer was fired for a "derogatory comment" that was in fact a researched, intelligent commentary on a real factor for a female golfer's swing. I'm pretty sure he was saying that it was absurd to fire the man, as he was reporting on something he had been told by a FEMALE GOLFER.

We should let Golfbum speak for himself on this...

[jonf]

You should know your history before you say what's unprecidented. Case in point, the millions upon millions of Indian nationals that died when the British Empire thought it right to deny them their own crops would disagree with you.

Using gas chambers to murder millions of people was unprecedented. That's not to say that there have not been other horrendous genocides (Rwanda, Pol Pot, the Gulags of the USSR, the Armenian genocide, the destruction wrought by the English, French, and Spanish in the New World, etc. etc. etc.). I was not saying that genocide has never happened. I was saying that a statement regarding gas chambers will always conjure up the same terrible images, regardless of who you ask. The term lynch is not the same.

Somebody has already posted about the definition of the term lynch, pointing out that it actually refers to any time where someone is put to death outside the law. Anyway, the point is, the idea of a lynching does not necessarily conjure up images of racial hatred. Suggesting someone be sent to a gas chamber necessarily does.

And culturally, this being North America, and Kelly Tilghman being from South Carolina, and Tiger Woods being black, is making a comment that he should be lynched in a back alley appropriate?

Well, she didn't say that he should be lynched. She said that it was the only way young kids would beat him. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that she was simply using lynched as a synonym for beat up, and meant nothing by it. Obviously you don't think that's acceptable, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But I must ask, where does it end? Who determines what is acceptable and what isn't? Where do we stop? Who has a right not to be offended, and who doesn't? Do we have to be aware and accountable for every potential sensibility?

I fear in the next 20 years that the delicate sensibilities of public opinion are going to do more to harm freedom of expression than any government ever could. The atmosphere of political correctness is beginning to seriously damage discourse. University campuses, traditional bastions of free thought and diversity of opinion, are quickly becoming places where freedom of expression is only encouraged if you agree with the emerging politically correct, 'leftist viewpoint.' I'm going to stop now, because this is starting to get a little too political, but I think it's something we should all take a long hard look at. Freedom of speech is for everyone, and any time you want to limit that freedom, you had better do it after a lot of thinking and soul searching.

[Fallys0820]

I have to agree with jonf on this one.

Understandably there are going to be people offended by what she said. Nothing you do is going to avoid that possibility. However, it's possible that this information didn't get out right away to the widespread media because without Tiger in the field, it may have significantly limited the viewership, not to mention it occurred on the Golf Channel on a Friday. Obviously TGC didn't get that many calls or emails or letters requesting this information over the first 3 or 4 days to force them to take action, so not that many people could have been upset of their immediate viewership. If they did and ignored it, then I would be very surprised.

I don't know that the suspension was necessary, TGC is trying to save face. I think if they actually felt that this was going to send shock waves through society, they would have been more severe. Giving her some "time off" in Hawaii doesn't seem to be very penal.

But some people (see Al Sharpton) need to give it a rest. It's people like this that encourage the longevity of such perceived connotations as what's been suggested in this thread. The term has become a colloquialism (sp?) in the English language. If you have an issue with the word, take it up with modern language, not Kelly.

Fallys
aka Scott

[jmr73]

I'm a genXer too...

Glad to join you in that minority.

[Skiddlydidly]

But some people (see Al Sharpton) need to give it a rest. It's people like this that encourage the longevity of such perceived connotations as what's been suggested in this thread. The term has become a colloquialism (sp?) in the English language. If you have an issue with the word, take it up with modern language, not Kelly.
aka Scott

I agree with this. Until this incident, I never equated the word lynch with murdering African Americans. I thought it applied to any angry mob out for blood (any blood).

Until now, the word lynch conjured images of western movies in my mind. I could have made the same mistake that kelly did in using the word.

I guess I'm just evil and should spend more time studying the history of the english language.

[sharkshooter]

...Also, you mention Golfbum's comment. I do not claim to speak for him, but I believe he was pointing out that said announcer was fired for a "derogatory comment" that was in fact a researched, intelligent commentary on a real factor for a female golfer's swing. I'm pretty sure he was saying that it was absurd to fire the man, as he was reporting on something he had been told by a FEMALE GOLFER.

It is a topic of discussion when I golf with my wife. Being well-endowed herself, it also alters her swing. This makes it hard for me to talk to her about ways to improve her swing, because, well, I have no basis for comparison.