onion: 9 ears ole blakk gurl a cu**

[blugiant]

The Onion Tweets That Quvenzhané Wallis Is the C-Word



By noon on Monday, The Onion swiftly apologized for calling 9-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis a ‘c--t’ and said she ‘deserved better.’ In a Facebook post, the satirical publication’s editors wrote they ‘instituted new and tighter Twitter procedures to ensure that this kind of mistake does not occur again’ and that they are ‘taking immediate steps to discipline those individuals responsible.’
And the Oscar for most offensive tweet goes to The Onion: ‘Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a c--t, right?’ Yikes. Tricia Romano reports.


Best Actress Oscar nominee Quvenzhané Wallis has been called a lot of things, most of them complimentary. Among them: “a small force of nature,” “special,” and “extraordinary.” Now, thanks to The Onion’s Twitter feed, she can add another word she probably shouldn’t hear for another 15 years.

The normally funny satirical website posted a now-deleted Tweet that called Wallis a c--t. “Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a c--t, right? #Oscars2013”

Um, what? Wallis is so young and innocent she carried a puppy purse to the Oscars.

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/02/25/the-onion-tweets-that-quvenzhan-wallis-is-a-cunt/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1361793867216.cached.jpg

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/25/the-onion-tweets-that-quvenzhan-wallis-is-a-cunt.html

[Nunya]

Is that what they said? Flippin heck! I'd read the story but hadn't seen the tweet... just some mention that the term used to describe her was derogatory... damn... why would they even have thought that was funny??? Never mind satirical???

Bloody idiot... I wonder what his reasoning behind statement was...

[Suesumba]

Bloody idiot... I wonder what his reasoning behind statement was...

that's how pedophilers think--no smiley fi dat.

[blugiant]

Is that what they said? Flippin heck! I'd read the story but hadn't seen the tweet... just some mention that the term used to describe her was derogatory... damn... why would they even have thought that was funny??? Never mind satirical???

Bloody idiot... I wonder what his reasoning behind statement was...

disrepect fe blakk ooman. do yuh tink dat eediat wood ave sed da same ting bout honey boo boo?

[RichD]

disrepect fe blakk ooman. do yuh tink dat eediat wood ave sed da same ting bout honey boo boo?

here was been much debate as to whether The Onion’s controversial Oscar night tweet, about Quvenzhané Wallis, was brilliant satire or offensive trash. But there is no denying that the fallout has been one of the most fascinating post-Academy Awards stories.
For the first time in the history of the parody news organization -- which often enjoys having its humor misunderstood and seems generally indifferent to public sensitivity -- The Onion’s CEO offered a very real apology. This took place after a massive public outcry regarding The Onion’s Oscar night tweet calling the 9-year-old actress a “c**t”. There has now been a significantly smaller backlash to the backlash, over the fact that The Onion didn’t stand its ground.
Whatever side of this you find yourself on, we couldn't help but notice how the public’s reaction to the perceived slight against Wallis compares to another child star who graced our screens last year: Alana “Honey Boo Boo” Thompson. During the run of her show, Thompson, who is several years younger than Wallis, was the butt of endless late night jokes and harsh media criticism. The only resulting public outrage from that was directed at her mother for putting her in the public eye.
So why do we, as society, value our Wallises more than out Honey Boo-Boos? Many would probably be quick to point out race as a factor, but the difference is more likely the mediums in which the two girls have been presented. While Wallis is the star of an award-winning movie, something we respect and admire, Thompson is the star of a reality TV show, something our culture at large looks down upon. While that take on the two forms of entertainment may be valid, it doesn't change the fact that both stars are children and probably equally capable of googling themselves.
Does this mean that there should also be outrage directed towards comedians who have joked about Honey Boo-Boo? Or should those upset about The Onion tweet chill out? Either way, it won’t really matter here on the omnipresent random-outrage-generator known as the World Wide Web.

[blugiant]

here was been much debate as to whether The Onion’s controversial Oscar night tweet, about Quvenzhané Wallis, was brilliant satire or offensive trash. But there is no denying that the fallout has been one of the most fascinating post-Academy Awards stories.
For the first time in the history of the parody news organization -- which often enjoys having its humor misunderstood and seems generally indifferent to public sensitivity -- The Onion’s CEO offered a very real apology. This took place after a massive public outcry regarding The Onion’s Oscar night tweet calling the 9-year-old actress a “c**t”. There has now been a significantly smaller backlash to the backlash, over the fact that The Onion didn’t stand its ground.
Whatever side of this you find yourself on, we couldn't help but notice how the public’s reaction to the perceived slight against Wallis compares to another child star who graced our screens last year: Alana “Honey Boo Boo” Thompson. During the run of her show, Thompson, who is several years younger than Wallis, was the butt of endless late night jokes and harsh media criticism. The only resulting public outrage from that was directed at her mother for putting her in the public eye.
So why do we, as society, value our Wallises more than out Honey Boo-Boos? Many would probably be quick to point out race as a factor, but the difference is more likely the mediums in which the two girls have been presented. While Wallis is the star of an award-winning movie, something we respect and admire, Thompson is the star of a reality TV show, something our culture at large looks down upon. While that take on the two forms of entertainment may be valid, it doesn't change the fact that both stars are children and probably equally capable of googling themselves.
Does this mean that there should also be outrage directed towards comedians who have joked about Honey Boo-Boo? Or should those upset about The Onion tweet chill out? Either way, it won’t really matter here on the omnipresent random-outrage-generator known as the World Wide Web.

butt aff endless joke cah honey boo boo maddar milkinn da trailer park trash angle fe xxploit ar yuth. dencentlee dress blakk yung ladee gott cawled de c-wurd. oyinbo a tri fe gawn de prablem iss natt dat dem cawl de yung blakk gurl de c-wurd butt cah dem didd itt to a blakk gurl. oyinbo tryinn de reverse racism angle fe defend dat itt okay fe cawl a yung blakk gurl de c-wurd iss okay cah itt satire. oyinbo racism att itt finest

[Tuff Gong]

I have stopped reading or watching anything the Onion puts out!

[RichD]

Our Insincere, Pointless Cult of Apology

by Michael Moynihan Feb 28, 2013 4:45 AM EST
Sorry but the endless apologies from hapless celebrities and witless pundits add up to a big zero. Michael Moynihan on our pointless cult of apology—and why we’ve hit bottom when even The Onion has to atone.

• 
  [*=right]

As best I can tell, everyone on the Internet is upset, their tender feelings inflamed by insensitive jokes, panting with exhaustion from the endless search for new outrages, demanding that people they don’t know offer them abject apologies for saying things they don’t like. This, it seems, is why the Internet exists—to remind us that different people who think different things are funny, that some people think nothing is funny, and others who get a perverse joy in watching well-known people, fearful their bank accounts will deflate, prostrate themselves before the public, expressing “disappointment” in their true selves.

So how does one achieve forgiveness from the permanently offended? Well, in the most extreme situations, there is always the shamefaced march to rehab (“It was the booze that inspired my Wagnarian fits of anti-Semitism, because such profanities don’t exist in my heart”). There is, however, a much cheaper option: the ritualistic public apology. As public pressure mounts on the offender, threatening to damage their own “brand” or a company’s earnings, a carefully crafted apology is released into the wild, America’s wounds are salved, and the braying mob moves on to its next victim. Nothing has changed, of course, but nothing was meant to have changed. Ours is an age of moral grandstanding—in 140 characters.

A few weeks ago, disgraced journalist Jonah Lehrer—someone whose transgressions I am well-equipped to judge, and whose apology I accepted, whatever that means—told a journalism conference that he was sorry for his “mistakes,” “errors,” “frailties,” “failures,” “weaknesses,” and “weak spots”—a rather nice way of saying “lies,” “deception,” and “plagiarism.” Lehrer, pleading like Peter Lorre trapped in a Berlin basement, said he couldn’t help himself, it was part of who he was, and he needed our help to avoid trespassing the boundaries of respectable journalism. He apologized without admitting too much; he was apologizing because he wanted back in.

But most of our quivering outrage is directed not at those who were clearly dishonest, but those who offend our sensibilities. As if Sunday’s Academy Awards ceremony wasn’t hideous enough, the following day the Internet teemed with fist-shaking commentary on host Seth MacFarlane’s crude humor, First Lady Michelle Obama’s cameo appearance, and a tweet from the satirical website The Onion calling 9-year-old actress Quvenzhané Wallis a “cunt.”

The outrage machine whirred, and it was determined by many that The Onion’s tweet was very much out of bounds, possibly imbued with racism. No evidence for that charge was required when a suspicion would suffice. Writing in Salon, a Hampshire College professor denounced the Onion’s “ironic racist misogyny,” because one can never be too offended.

This furious backlash to the Wallis tweet managed something once considered unthinkable: In the spirit of the times, The Onion apologized, writing that “no person should be subjected to such a senseless, humorless comment masquerading as satire.” In short, that the tweet’s author would be “disciplined” for doing what The Onion—love it or hate it—has always done.

Another Salon writer complained that misogyny and racism “dominated” the performance of Oscar host Seth MacFarlane and his opening number, an unfunny confection called “We Saw Your Boobs,” “celebrates rape on film.” NJ.com polled readers on whether or not McFarlane should apologize (84 percent said no). A petition on Care2 (“the number one petition site in the world”) demanded an apology from the comedian because “his words have scorched the hearts and violated the peace of those who engage in a day to day uphill battle for human rights.” MacFarlane, human rights abuser, said he wouldn’t host the Oscars again if asked, but hasn’t yet asked for America’s forgiveness.

MacFarlane, human rights abuser, said he wouldn’t host the Oscars again if asked, but hasn’t yet asked for America’s forgiveness.

And he needn’t bother. After all, who would believe that a man made fabulously wealthy by selling politically incorrect humor would be awakened to his insensitivity by an army of bloggers? Or that his breathless accusers would believe him to be reformed? Or should even be surprised by his humor? Does anyone think New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who earlier this week defended wearing blackface to a Purim party (“political correctness to the absurd”), believed the following statement, issued only after the intercession of members of his own party? “I recognize now that the connotations of my Purim costume were deeply offensive to many. I am sincerely sorry that I have hurt anyone.” Or how about Fox News host Bob Beckel, who apologized last week for doubting that rape existed on college campuses, clarifying—a crisis PR euphemism that always manages the opposite—that he “simply was trying to make, there was not a distinction to make here, it simply was that date rape is rape. And that is, by any other definition, rape is rape.”

Such disavowals of one’s own beliefs are typically followed by the accused’s critics “accepting” an apology (as I did) with grace and magnanimity (as I tried to do), and concluding that it was now time to “move on.”

Lehrer’s calculated apology—a 45-minute mea culpa full of elisions and half-truths, which earned him a $20,000 speaking fee—failed miserably because he committed a real, quantifiable offense. No bruised feelings involved, no accusation of an —ism, and no conceivable way of salvaging the “brand.”

In response, the journalism profession spoke with a unified voice: We have moved on, without Jonah Lehrer. But all hope is not lost. He could always try rehab.


- See more at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article....kypgx3Hn.dpuf