Sunday, May 27, 2012

SHARON STONE SUED BY FILIPINA EX-NANNY FOR RACISM


Would YOU want your kids singing 
“Twinkol twinkol…”?

I am anti-racism; I proved this by my article criticizing Filipinos’ bias for Jessica Sanchez, and also by the fact that most of my friends are considered ‘minorities’ in the US.

But I could not agree with Sharon Stone’s former yaya, a Filipina named Erlinda Elemen, who is suing the actress for alleged derogatory remarks about Filipinos being stupid and whatnot. First of all, how dare this nanny sue Sharon Stone? She’s the star of ‘Basic instinct’ and ‘Sliver’ for God’s sake!


BEING OFFENSIVE DOES NOT VIOLATE RIGHTS

Second, making racist remarks is no more a violation of another’s rights than any other thing said in the mass media. They’re just fucking words! Anyone who appreciates freedom of expression and anti-censorship should get what I’m saying.

It’s moronic to talk about “limits” to freedom or regard it as “not absolute.” Such conditions to the idea of freedom are often used to make the state the delineator of such freedoms.


SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF RACISM

“And then, and then,
she called me a ‘brown nigger’!”
Indeed, the problem is in supposing that, because something such as racism is wrong, it’s up to the government to sort things out. As if government is even capable of sorting things out! Racism is not a sickness to be cured by punishing offenders, wherein if only all racists are jailed or fined heavily, the battle will be won.

In ‘our’ thirst for vengeance, we neglect to counter whatever fatuous claims are made by racists. We’re more intent to blame and punish, to vent and catharsize.

And because the debate on race remains unresolved, thanks to reliance on government to deliver ‘justice,’ the longer it takes for genuine tolerance to be achieved via reason.


RACISM IS TECHNICALLY, NOT JUST MORALLY, WRONG

Racism is to be rejected not on account of how offensive it is, but because of its untruth. Race is a mere abstraction, a generalization that ignores individual differences.

Supposed attributes of certain races are constantly challenged by exceptions to a prejudice, which aren’t actually exceptions but displays of the very real variety among individuals made possible by sexual reproduction, a process that excludes no member of the species.


WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE ICEPICK MURDERER?

Acquit na yan, sigurado.
How is Sharon Stone then to be ‘punished’ for her supposed ignorance? If people felt strongly about it, they’d boycott her films and appearances, make her not viable in the market. And if, in spite of a reputation as a racist she remains popular, well, we can’t blame her for her continued celebrity. Or are we then going to sue her fans for not giving a shit about her racism?

So no, suing is not the way to tolerance and appreciation of diversity among humans.


ADDENDUM ON LABOR CONTRACTS

There’s also the wage aspect of the lawsuit. Inasmuch as Stone violated labor laws, the charges are specious. Employer-employee contracts are between two parties, and no third party has any business in it unless otherwise permitted by both. Now if Stone had an explicit agreement as to the amount of compensation or whatever, then the suit is valid.  

No comments: