Tricia Macke calls Rachel Maddow "angry young man."

LGBT outrage ensued.

Tricia Macke was suspended for a few days and then returned to work.

Here is the scoop:

Tricia Macke, a Fox 19 news anchor, posted on her Facebook page in October:

"Rachel Maddow is such an angry young man."

Then the Facebook rage ensued.

Then the demands for Tricia's job. Fox 19, of course, had to condemn her words and do something so they suspended Tricia.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/fox-anchor-suspended-calling-rachel-maddow-angry-young-man-article-1.1201800

1. SHOULD Tricia be held responsible for comments she posted on her personal Facebook page?
a) If not, why?
b) If yes, why?
2. Jokingly, would you agree that Rachel Maddow is "an angry young man"?
3. Is it fair to equate Tricia's comments as racist hate speech or is that too far? If so, why?
4. Does Tricia look like the over-baked, underweight, daughter of the Crypt-Keeper?

1. No.
a) GTFO of our personal lives, employers and governments! Lemme have the first amendment. This would be different if she was posting on a public, Fox 19, Facebook fan page, but she wasn't. It was her personal Facebook. That is between her and her Facebook friends. The only time her Employer should be involved in anything is when she is operating as an agent of Fox 19. Not at work and not on an assignment? GTFO.
2. Yes, Rachel Maddow does look and act like an angry young man. She specifically tries to look like what an American would deem as a clean-cut young man. In my opinion, it was an indirect compliment to Rachel because she apparently still looks "young". I don't care if Rachel wants to look like a young man: she's just as annoying to watch as Bill O'Reilly so I don't really care about her "young-man" look.
3. No. That is too far. I don't think it is fair to equate the LGBT rights movement with the American Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

This gent, while not making the same arguments I would at times, makes my view much better:

"More than 20 million human beings lay bloody from resistance, bruised by chains, fevered from lying in their own excrement. They were carried over the ocean in the shadowy hulls of slave ships. The air was thick with disease and the crew took turns with the young girls. Tens of millions died. Their bodies were beaten and identifies erased. This was the price of the one-way ticket Africans paid to arrive in the New World.

Chattel slavery lasted for hundreds of years in the Americas. Mothers were routinely sold away from their children. Slaves were worked to exhaustion in the heat of the hotter months and were shoeless, shirtless and hungry during the winter. Eventually, slavery was transformed into another, equally dark form of oppression – Jim Crow, and American apartheid thrived for another 100 years. Until the dawn of the civil rights movement, African Americans were denied not only social equality, but political and economic equality as well. The monumental challenge of the civil rights movement to overcome racism does not even come close to characterizing the homosexual movement in the United States today. It is a glaring minimization of African American history to liken the two struggles.

Today pundits conveniently link racial identity with sexual desires. Many such commentators purport to be supporters of the African American community. However, if they really understood the average African American and were trying to champion our cause, they would not be so surprised by the pained looks on our faces when we hear them discuss the issue. We ask ourselves, “Where were the water hoses, attack dogs and midnight rides to terrorize the marriage registrants in Massachusetts and San Francisco?”

...

Sexual response is a deep mysterious union of the mind, body, will, and emotions. The difficulty with equating race with sexuality is that if I lose the use of my mind, body, will or emotions, I would still have brown skin. I know of former homosexuals but not any former African Americans. The color of my skin was an inevitable consequence of the combination of my mother and father’s DNA."

- Dr. Derek Grier

4. Yes. Glass house, Tricia. She needs to stop the fake bake, stop the hair bleaching, add 15-20lbs of weight (most of it fat), get a different set cosmetologist for her make-up. Just saying... 😐 But I don't criticize people's physical appearance unless they ask: that's what Tricia should have learned.

1) Yes, I don't believe Tricia Macke has ever been declared psychologically incompetent. She can be held responsible for her actions. Also there's the first amendment, we can judge people for anything we want just as she can post whatever she wants on her Facebook page. If you mean "should FOX or the government do something about this?", no, they're not under any obligation to do so but FOX might benefit in public relations by forcing her to make an apology.
2) I don't know anything about Rachel Maddow but she's apparently a liberal talk show host. I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities that could be drawn with the British "Angry Young Men".
3) We don't really know enough about the context to judge if it was meant as hate speech. I'm not sure why dadude refused to answer this question and went off on a long tangent instead. You should ask him if maybe this whole thread was an excuse for him to post a rant about how the LGBT community doesn't have it as bad as as African American community used to. It seems like something that could get its own thread.
4) No but she does have ridiculous looking hair.

The question of whether or not she should be held accountable on a personal page is a moot point. Social technology is so ubiquitous these days, and so transparent to the world at large, that no such privacy exists. The idea of responsibility is purely academic...it has no bearing on the realities of the situation.

So, anyone is welcome to take the high ground and say she shouldn't be raked through the coals, it's a valid enough stance, but it does show that she's dumb when it comes to this. Small-time professionals have to monitor their FB pictures and posts like hawks these days. I know several people who aren't publicly prominent, but who have deleted their account because of professional worry. Anyone like Macke in such a public spotlight should obviously know better and be more careful, and shouldn't be surprised or upset with a suspension that is necessary from a fiscal and PR perspective on the company's part.

I'm truly shocked by the lack of PR acumen from many in a public spotlight, especially those who deal specifically with such stories (either PR/marketing reps, or those in the media). Because this is not an isolated brain-fart from the media.

As for the hate-speech part, what Sym said. We don't know enough about the context or intent to say that with any certainty. Any guess would just be armchair analyzing, no better or worse than the media types who are no doubt running with this story right now.

...

On the looks thing, lulz. Personally, I'm partial to short hair for the most part, men or women, and a good pant suit is awesome, so I like the look. It's a valid personal choice, though, and that's the underlying point that Macke shouldn't have mocked (or at least should've kept to herself). Of course I tend to avoid the political "extremes," so I can't say I'm a television fan of Maddow, but that's beside the point.

Originally posted by dadudemon

1. SHOULD Tricia be held responsible for comments she posted on her personal Facebook page?
a) If not, why?
b) If yes, why?
2. Jokingly, would you agree that Rachel Maddow is "an angry young man"?
3. Is it fair to equate Tricia's comments as racist hate speech or is that too far? If so, why?
4. Does Tricia look like the over-baked, underweight, daughter of the Crypt-Keeper?

1) I don't think a person's private life should reflect on their job. Unless the two are specifically intertwined.

A) See above. This would be no different than people trying to ban Rachel Maddow from speaking at a school on the hazards of non-safe sex because she's a lesbian in her private life.

2) I googled images of her; she does look extremely boyish in some pictures, from hair style to clothing. No idea of her personality though.

3) Racist? No. She does come off as a homophobic assclown though. Unless Maddow openly identifies as a male?

4) She looks like a discarded Stepford wife.

Originally posted by dadudemon

2. Yes, Rachel Maddow does look and act like an angry young man. She specifically tries to look like what an American would deem as a clean-cut young man. In my opinion, it was an indirect compliment to Rachel because she apparently still looks "young".

do we know Macke's intent? that comment can be taken in several ways, some of which are admittedly not that insulting...

Originally posted by Oliver North
do we know Macke's intent? that comment can be taken in several ways, some of which are admittedly not that insulting...

Does it matter? Look at the responses. Regardless of intent, it was always going to be treated that way. She can't trust ambiguity to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Of course her statement following the comments reflected a more positive interpretation, but that's just PR damage control. And she'll put it behind her now, since repeating the message of her apology is her only reasonable course of action. So we'll never actually know beyond what we've seen.

Of course, this is me taking a different approach to the question; as I mentioned, I care less about philosophical culpability and more about real-life implications.

Originally posted by Oliver North
do we know Macke's intent? that comment can be taken in several ways, some of which are admittedly not that insulting...

Looks like she made it her status. Intent is probably impossible to determine so it would be foolish to jump to the conclusion that it was meant to be homophobic. Either way she's a news anchor and should be the first person to know that it was a stupid thing to say.

Originally posted by focus4chumps

lol

But yeah, spinning it as a compliment is quite clearly not correct. At best, it was a slightly insensitive comment that was blown out of context for the sake of creating a story. But in no world was it a compliment.

Originally posted by Digi
Does it matter?

whether she intentionally made a slanderous remark about Maddow's sexuality versus used a clumsy metaphor?

like, did she slander lesbians as a people or use the term "angry man" as a symbol for the assertive and contrarian nature of Maddow's journalism, qualities generally associated with masculinity? Was it some attempt at humor or a mixture of both?

I tend to think this is the only relevant question. Otherwise, I think you get dangerously close to the same logic that says "you should know better" when someone is attacked by extremist Muslims for criticizing the faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Looks like she made it her status. Intent is probably impossible to determine so it would be foolish to jump to the conclusion that it was meant to be homophobic. Either way she's a news anchor and should be the first person to know that it was a stupid thing to say.

I guess maybe I don't get the whole context, is there a beef between Macke and Maddow? Like, it is stupid, sure, but it also seems really tame...

"Angry young man." What a lame and toothless insult.

Tricia Macke looks like a weird tranny.

Originally posted by BackFire
weird tranny.

Redundant?

No, a normal tranny looks less like a man-woman and more like a woman-man. You can usually tell someone is a tranny right away, unless you're PVS who doesn't even look people in the eye before engaging in horrific deviancy.

Tricia "I have a dick" Macke looks like someone who you aren't quite sure is a genuine woman, or a tranny. And that makes it weird.

Also Rachel Maddow is the only person on MSNBC worth watching. Except Alex Wagner, because I want to have sex with her very badly.

lol, honestly, it just seems like Macke is riding Maddow's dick here (that is a real phrase, nothing to do with Maddow's sexuality). Macke doesn't even have her own Wiki page, lol.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1) Yes, I don't believe Tricia Macke has ever been declared psychologically incompetent. She can be held responsible for her actions. Also there's the first amendment, we can judge people for anything we want just as she can post whatever she wants on her Facebook page. If you mean "should FOX or the government do something about this?", no, they're not under any obligation to do so but FOX might benefit in public relations by forcing her to make an apology.
2) I don't know anything about Rachel Maddow but she's apparently a liberal talk show host. I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities that could be drawn with the British "Angry Young Men".
3) We don't really know enough about the context to judge if it was meant as hate speech. I'm not sure why dadude refused to answer this question and went off on a long tangent instead. You should ask him if maybe this whole thread was an excuse for him to post a rant about how the LGBT community doesn't have it as bad as as African American community used to. It seems like something that could get its own thread.
4) No but she does have ridiculous looking hair.

1. You knew what I meant and tried too hard to avoid it.
2. Again, you're trying too hard to miss the point.
3. You missed a keyword: not just "hate speech" but "racist hate speech". The equivocaton was racist hatespeech.

Originally posted by Robtard
1) I don't think a person's private life should reflect on their job. Unless the two are specifically intertwined.

A) See above. This would be no different than people trying to ban Rachel Maddow from speaking at a school on the hazards of non-safe sex because she's a lesbian in her private life.

2) I googled images of her; she does look extremely boyish in some pictures, from hair style to clothing. No idea of her personality though.

3) Racist? No. She does come off as a homophobic assclown though. Unless Maddow openly identifies as a male?

4) She looks like a discarded Stepford wife.

1. Nor do I. I think people should be able to say whatver they want off the clock, on their own "space", and on their own resources.
3 The equivocation is racist hatespeech. Can we equate her comment to the hate against...say...black people from the 50s? That is the parallel trying to be drawn about this case.

Originally posted by focus4chumps

Just trying to stay positive about it. 🙂

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
"Angry young man." What a lame and toothless insult.

I thought it was funny. It is like calling a transvestite (tranny is generally insulting, for you insensitive posters) a pretty young lady. 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is like calling a transvestite (tranny is generally insulting, for you insensitive posters) a pretty young lady. 😐

/sigh

EDIT: if that is the type of mentality behind this comment, then ya, the LGBT community has a fairly good reason for being upset. But look at me being oversensitive about gender and sexuality.

Originally posted by Oliver North
whether she intentionally made a slanderous remark about Maddow's sexuality versus used a clumsy metaphor?

like, did she slander lesbians as a people or use the term "angry man" as a symbol for the assertive and contrarian nature of Maddow's journalism, qualities generally associated with masculinity? Was it some attempt at humor or a mixture of both?

I tend to think this is the only relevant question. Otherwise, I think you get dangerously close to the same logic that says "you should know better" when someone is attacked by extremist Muslims for criticizing the faith.

I have to agree in principle. It's just, when a reaction like this WILL happen if it gets out into the public, regardless of intent, I tend to focus on the effects of the words and why it could've or should've been avoided rather than the intrinsic moral value of the comments. Because let's say the intent was harmless...establishing that - which is impossible at this point anyway - is a pyrrhic victory, at best. So if you're the philosopher telling me "we've established she was not at fault," I'm the facepalming PR rep saying "great, good to know...she's still suspended."

I do think there's a difference between this and your Muslim example though. It's the difference between criticism and insults. One's a deconstruction of an idea or practice; the other is a personal attack. That extremist Muslims might not be able to tell the difference in your example is their fault, not the criticizer's. And I refuse to acknowledge that an attack on an idea IS an attack on the person who holds it. It does not need to be, and isn't, regardless of how the person takes it. Otherwise it renders immune strongly held beliefs to criticism, and paints debate on the same level as slander and insults.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I tend to think this is the only relevant question. Otherwise, I think you get dangerously close to the same logic that says "you should know better" when someone is attacked by extremist Muslims for criticizing the faith.

They didn't "attack" her though, not in the same way that Islamist do. If we say she was acting reasonably then we have to say the people who responded we acting reasonably. There's also a matter of how appropriately scaled the response was, she was rude and people were rude to her. If someone murdered a Muslim and got killed for it I'd say that person was stupid and should have known better, too.