contributors: @orangeone4 and Jedediah Cain
Briefly, because no self-respecting southerner would ever go on and on about this, I do want to give some time to a little topic that deserves it: I’m sure you’ve noticed that some public figures can use whatever language, commit whatever social offense, even threaten violence, while others commit similar acts and immediately become social and professional pariahs. Even if that act was committed 30 years ago.
So what are the differences? How might one become one of the special set allowed to fully exercise their 1st Amendment rights?
- Be a Progressive, current layman’s term: Liberal
- Attack conservatives, especially Republicans
- Promote and embrace every nanny state ideal conceived
- Attack Christians
- Attack America
Recently we’ve seen this demonstrated with Paula Dean. We should call this phenomenon SWWAS (Speaking while white and southern). It doesn’t matter how, when, or why she spoke that word. She’s southern. Millions of people say it every day, but thirty years ago is recent for a southern woman. Alec Baldwin on the other hand can issue death threats, grounds for a restraining order, in real time on Twitter with ZERO consequences.
So how do you become part of the pariah class that, with each utterance no matter how meaningless, is at risk of saying the wrong word?
- Be a black conservative – which they seem to hate most of all
- Be white
- Be conservative
- Seem like a Republican, even if you’re not=conservative independent, Libertarian, TEA Party, etc.
- Be Christian
- Be Southern
The author of this Huff piece, who agrees that the Deen / Baldwin dichotomy of media response is shocking, believes it was the word itself that caused Paula trouble. I say it was the context. If a conservative male called a man ‘the F word’ he would certainly have a price to pay.
Relative outrage based on context, perceived or real. Is that truth? Honey, that’s not even progress.