Posted by
• 02.24.12 07:09 pm

I just finished a 300-hour argument about the “Chink in the Armor” guy and I left it more confused than when I went in. 

I said he shouldn’t have been fired and I didn’t even get into the fact that he did it by accident. It’s a well-known colloquialism and even if he meant it to be snarky, it’s the English language being used correctly.

The guy I was fighting with is a news editor and he wasn’t concerned with intent either. He said he would have fired the guy for being negligent and causing a whole lot of headaches for everyone he worked with. “He should have been aware it would be problematic,” my friend said, “that’s part of his job.”

I argued that firing the guy empowers the PC lunatics and makes us all second-guess ourselves. Now we’re living in a culture of fear. It’s like a milder form of living under the Taliban. I say we avoid appeasing both groups of anti-Western extremists.

However, during the course of the debate, we started wondering if there was ever a time when someone should be fired for being offensive. What if someone used the word “niggardly” in an Obama headline? I think the answer is “yes.” They have to be fired for sabotaging your newspaper but how do you prove that, conduct a CAT scan? As Ezra Levant put it, “It’s none of your business what my intention was.”

So, without further To Do. I’d like to present 15 offensive things and we can all decide together what the punishment should be.




This whole controversy made Levant the champion of the whole, “None of your business” movement. To get into intent is to get into people’s heads and nobody, least of all the government, has the right to do that.

Intent: To showcase the whole “intent” debate.

Punishment: He had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

What should have happened: The Canadian HRC should have gone to the Taliban and apologized for Levant in person.





Last week, NATO personnel were burning a bunch of incendiary propaganda and accidentally included some Korans. Afghan rage was ignited by the fire (see what I did there?)

Intent: Accident.

Punishment: Obama wrote a letter to the Afghan president assuring him those responsible will be “held accountable.”

What should have happened: Those responsible should have been burnt on the wrist with the head of a match.




Not only is this just a joke, it’s a fucking Tweet! GLAAD got mad.

Intent: To make fun of soccer.

Punishment: Forced to apologize but was still suspended.

What should have happened: No ReTweets.




Five days after Roland Martin’s suspension, Whitlock made this comment. Even those who have his back said it was a lame joke and used the word “lazy” a lot. I actually think it’s a pretty good joke and if was said in a bar, I guarantee a lot of people would have laughed. I mean, it’s not Oscar Wilde but it ain’t Garfield.

Intent: To make a juvenile joke.

Punishment: Forced to apologize.

What should have happened: He should have to Tweet a picture of his dick.




This is the thing that got me arguing about the whole topic for three days. Nobody seems to believe he didn’t know what he was doing. He claims he didn’t think of it and he’s used the headline a million times before. He also says he’s the least racist person on earth.

Intent: Who cares?

Punishment: Apologized his ass off and lost his job anyway.

What should have happened: Him and the first person who noticed should have had a good laugh about the whole thing. The fact that everyone made it into an issue actually made it racist. Now every kid who asks his dad what happened will learn the word Chink. Way to go.




She was making a really good joke about getting out of jury duty and the Media Action Network for Asian Americans went bananas. In a very telling gesture that gives away their true agenda, the head of the MANAA said comedians should have to consult his group before making jokes like this. She laughed in his face.

Intent: Silverman has always said her job as a comedian is to make jokes as funny as possible. To worry about how they may be interpreted muddles up the process.

Punishment: Apologies were demanded but Sarah refused.

What should have happened: Whoever heard the joke should have laughed and said, “Good one.”




Here’s something, if you’re born that way and you tend to speak in a slightly effeminate manner, you would need more rehearsals to speak normal. So, yeah, he was right.

Intent: He was kidding.

Punishment: He apologized again and again to GLAAD and all they did was demand more shaming. He had to drop out of producing the Oscars and that led to Eddie Murphy dropping out too (he had his own gay controversy a couple of decades before and his reaction was, “There’s nothin’ like having a nation of fags looking for you”). The quote still happened but now GLAAD and the word “fags” are more powerful than ever before.

What should have happened: Ratner should said, “You’re kidding, right?”





We all know what Dan Savage made Santorum into, right?  So, when Rick’s campaign did a commercial with him covered in mud it appeared to be a level of negligence worthy of a pink slip, no? My buddy would say yes because it led to endless ridicule but I’m inclined to say no.

Intent: To make Rick Santorum the next president of the United States.

Punishment: Nothing. Santorum “Approved this message” so who’s to blame?

What should have happened: The guy who did this deserves the loudest “DUDE!” from his boss that has ever been duded.




Here’s a perfect example of what my debate opponent would say deserves a firing. He doesn’t care if someone was trying to sabotage their company or was just fatal naïvete. I disagree. Just because we all have disgusting brains doesn’t mean ads have to take that into consideration. Another important thing to consider about this ad is that it’s a hoax. Breyers never pubished such an ad.

Intent: To fuck with our minds.

Punishment: Nothing

What should have happened: Say this was real, the second you punish this guy, you’ve sexualized a young girl. That’s the whole problem with this punishing accidents thing. You make us all second-guess ourselves. It’s like Bill Burr says about pedophiles. We’re so scared of being accused of inappropriate behavior, we just stay the fuck away from kids.





The interesting thing about this story is nobody, including the guy who drew it, seems to know if it was on purpose or not. He was drawing phallic towers until 4 in the morning and later realized he had overdone the penisness of some of them.

Intent: To sort of draw a penis.

Punishment: They made subsequent versions less penisy.

What should have happened: He should come out of the closet and embrace his sexuality.




There are about a dozen more examples of disgruntled Disney artists sneaking sexual imagery in cartoons. Putting porn in kid’s movies is definitely grounds for dismissal but what if you can’t prove it? And what if nobody notices it? They added two frames of a nude lady in The Rescuers and the guy was fired but he cost his employers millions of dollars because they had to recall the entire first run.

Intent: Havin’ a laugh.

Punishment: Unclear.

What should have happened: His gaffe cost way more than his salary, sorry, they were right. But that’s the price you pay as a prankster. When we threw snowballs at cars when we were kids we were well aware a grown up could come out and beat our ass. That’s why it was fun.




At first glance, this doesn’t seem to be a big deal but if I was the guy’s boss I’d say, “What the fuck are you doing? I’m employing you and you’re trying to get me sued by putting sex in children’s movies?”

Intent: Probably fucking with his boss.

Punishment: Dunno.

What should have happened: If this guy confessed, he’s obviously fucked in the head and should be fired. If he insisted it was a mistake, then they should let it go but keep a close eye on the guy. Shit there I go again, talking about intent, trying to get into his mind. What would Ezra Levant say?



At about 4:35 Stewart Lee points out that Isabella, the French princess William Wallace impregnates in Braveheart was 4 at the time. Now, Glaswegians haven’t succumb to the PC Taliban-style diligance  diligence that dominates American culture so instead of stabbing him with a rapier, they laugh their fucking heads off.

Intent: To make people laugh by being offensive.

Punishment: Two people were grumpy.

What should have happened: Those two grumpy guys should calm the fuck doon.




Matt Stone and Trey Parker are responsible for a cartoon that featured Muhammad in a bear costume.

Intent: To make people laugh by being offensive.

Punishment: Extremists tried to have them killed.

What should have happened: Maybe Muslims could update some of their stupid gay rules. The Taliban doesn’t even allow stuffed animals.




That’s right. High School kids in Utah dared to use a Cougar as a mascot just because their team was called the Cougars. Can you believe that shit?

Intent: To play a game and have fun.

Punishment: The mascot was deemed offensive to women, so they had to change their name to The Chargers.

What should have happened: All cougars should be hunted into extinction for mocking spinsters. Wait, I thought it was an empowering word. Looks like someone’s bluff got called.


Anyway, the editors at Takimag helped assemble my rambling into one decisive opinion but it’s a little misleading as I keep going back and forth on the whole thing. See the original article here.

What do you think? Should the “Chink in the armor” guy have been fired? Is intent possible to ascertain?


  1. blorp says:

    yeah fuck thinking

  2. Anonymous says:

    Okay, first, this is nothing I won’t find on any “witty” lesbian’s tumblr on any given day
    Second, the “sex” in Lion King? That was intentional. Only it was SFX. The stars turning the F into the E were just carelessness. It was the SFX team trying to get a cameo.

  3. Red says:

    A woman I met recently at work was saying how she knows she’s annoying but she loves herself anyway and we were laughing and I go, “Yeah, I love me ‘warts and all'” before realizing she had two big warts on her chin. I could have apologized and explained it was an accident and turned it into a big heavy thing or I could have just ignored it and moved on. I ignored it.

  4. Stupid Leigh says:

    Your friend is correct, in my view. It was an irresponsible blunder equal in scale to having printed unchecked information as fact, and one which brought ESPN nothing but headaches and mountains of abysmal publicity.

    Stewart Lee, one of your subjects above, is actually an adamant defender of the idea of “political correctness” (because he’s a brilliant comic, he defends it very humorously, but his defense is sincere: I disagree with him on this, every bit as adamantly, while still believing it a good bit.

    He also does a really lengthy bit on Top Gear, where he satirically and brutally attacks the program for what he (and many in the UK) perceives to be its insensitive jokes. Great bit, and again I personally don’t agree with him at all. It’s worth viewing, though, as it is an intelligent commentary on what you’re discussing here to some degree. Here’s a portion of the bit:

  5. quadruple x says:

    “…makes us all second-guess ourselves.” Having to take the time to have TWO synapses fire before we open our giant mouths and say the first thing that comes to mind is a good thing. We don’t live in a vacuum, words have consequences. Of course you can still say whatever you want; the “PC Police” isn’t real, no one’s going to crash down your door and arrest you, but I have never understood this idea that you should be able to just flap your lips and everyone everywhere has to just silently nod.

  6. miss Universe says:

    OMG the Taliban? PUH-LEEZ why don’t you just say “…and this is JUST how it started with Hitler!”?? LAZY COMPARISON TO RANDOM TOTALITARIAN REGIMES ARE FOR INTELLECTUAL COUCH POTATOES. You might be a nut, Gavin, but you’re better than that.

  7. Red says:

    I don’t understand how people can say PC is a straw man when the Chink in the Armor guy lost his job. As well as Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez. Did those people deserve to be fired?

  8. Zippy says:

    Sarah Silverman can say “chink” because she is a hebe and God only knows the kikes have suffred enough throughout history. :O

    Wait, that comment didn’t come out very PC , did it?

  9. Julian D says:

    Here’s another example. If you wanted to call your dog Mohammed as a joke and you had kids, you’d be putting your kids in danger. So you don’t do it but now your justifying their crazy rules. Vegans throw blood on people in vintage furs. If you don’t wear your old fur, you’re justifying PETA’s stupidity. Shouldn’t we stand up to the bullies?

  10. JJJJJJJJJ says:

    Sarah Silverman says chink because she can’t say nigger. Crafty jew, picking her spots.

  11. Frankly Mr. Stankly says:


    So anyway what is Ann Coulter’s pussy like?

  12. captonfalcon says:

    either everything’s funny or nothing is! And miss universe what point are you making? “omg the taliban?” taliban what? lol… and he didn’t make a subtle comparison to anything.. so your arguing against nothing. however you did you caps, may be your kidding, even then what point r u making?

  13. Reply to Every Number says:

    1 Muhammad is fictional and the CHRC is out of line
    2 Agree, basically
    3 The entirety of the punch line is ‘beat a gay.’ Not clever enough to be funny. Requires apology, probably not firing/suspension.
    4 Don’t care
    5 Agree. Great example of censure inflaming a non-situation. Retarded
    6 Duty pun was better
    7 Don’t know enough about the situation/person involved (or care to research)
    8 Santorum really likes to play with shitty cum
    9 If real ad, designer should be reprimanded (severity depending on accident or not). You’d have to be blind not to get the connotation whether it was a child’s vagina or an albatross’s wing. It is the focal point of the add and lickable is a suggestive word. An in-house, discreet disciplinary action is not the same as a public debate in the limelight. I’m glad it’s fake, because my kids prefer Breyer’s creamy texture.
    10 Towers are penises. What’s the problem
    11 Don’t care
    12 I believe the other guy who said the thing about the SFX team. Fascinating
    13 Don’t care, hate Scottish people
    14 Don’t like South Park, but again, Muhammad is made up
    15 Only surprisingly absurd situation on the list. Feel like there is more to this story because of how stupid it sounds

  14. Papa Murph says:

    diligence, not dilgance

  15. Reply to Every Number says:

    Final thought. Gavin, you are already playing the PC game. Half your SC posts and most of your humor is about words, labels, categorizing people, acceptable/taboo speech, ironic verbal games, culture wars, etc. This idea that you’re advocating a position of naive innocent individualism outside of the public sphere is nonsense. No matter what side you take, if you’re arguing about language, you are policing language.
    If you really didn’t care and wanted to say whatever you want, you would do that and not bother to defend it. But unsurprisingly, you have to defend it, because we live in a pluralistic society. No one is actually shocked anymore, it is just people looking for leverage over each other now that we can’t fight to the death with swords.

  16. Julian D says:

    @Reply to Every Number

    Does that mean Ezra Levant is playing the PC game? Or is he fighting the thought police?

  17. Reply to Every Number says:

    @Julian D
    I don’t think there’s as big a distinction as people close to the issue believe. Many individuals on the ‘free speech’ side of the debate can be highly critical of language that expresses any shred of guilt, remorse, sensitivity, sympathy, or self-criticism. To think that conservatives or anarchists or libertarians do not prefer certain parameters of speech over others is ludicrous. It may be that the PC folk are currently more powerful but that does not mean their critics are un-biased.

    In terms of the example, Levant was placed in a real situation with immediate consequences and from what little I know of the situation, he acted commendably (although I question the ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ figure spent fighting the CHRC, especially since it was the Alberta Human Rights Commission that held his 90 minute hearing).

  18. captonfalcon says:

    @Reply to Every Number

    Except the south park bit i liked your first post, but..

    “This idea that you’re advocating a position of naive innocent individualism outside of the public sphere is nonsense”. Your saying he flat out isn’t promoting the individualism of inexperienced individuals (teens)by promoting hipsters..
    “No matter what side you take, if you’re arguing about language, you are policing language”
    ..Because he makes fun of certain cliques or groups of people.
    False because he makes fun of everyone. How can he police language if he’s fighting for the destruction of words. Clearly what gives words power is when someone warns that the word is offensive and not to be used. I think gavin defends the fact that society won’t overcome a word or joke by attaching a punishment or harassment to it, rather denying it of any harmful meaning.. donno the levant sitch but i hope i interpreted you right..
    Cheers! and interested in your response!

  19. bollockstothis says:

    Re number 9 – pedophile is spelt “paedophile”, a pedophile is someone with an un-natural fascination with feet, not quite the same really, is it?

  20. Dude with Super Straight Penis says:

    @bllockstothis I dunno, when i think of feet i think of fucking little children so…

  21. Julian D says:

    You’re talking about British spelling. Things are different outside of your island.

    @Reply to every number
    There is a big difference between this article arguing about free speech and real Thought Police and that is the latter group does something about it. In the Taki link he says “I’m offended every day I walk around New York City. I don’t sue anyone for it because I’ve known since kindergarten that only sticks and stones can break my bones.”

    That’s what different. We all have words we like and dislike. The thing that separates the libertarians and the anarchists from ESPN is they don’t take away a man’s living when they don’t like a word. The government and employers take away privileges when they don’t like speech. Anarchists and libertarians let you say whatever you want. Even when they don’t like it.

  22. zig says:

    Political Correctness is a condition suffered by millions of US citizens, spread by a timid and liberal media, that hold forth the notion that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. (thanks to the students at Texas A&M, 2008)

    For example, these two words, n***** and B**** are the clean end of nigger and bitch.
    Somehow, the asterisk cleans up the evil connotations of those two nouns.

    Normal people recognize that the intent to insult is what makes things offensive.

    Normal people just ignore scumbags that try to insult.

    Abby normal people embrace insults and wear them like hair shirts.

    Man, those are some different thinking people (pc for dumbass fools).


  23. Reply to Every Number says:

    Hipsters are not pre-lingual cavemen. They are self-conscious, self-styled, and well-educated. That is why their ‘rebellious’ gestures are ironic; they have been reconfigured to achieve the glossiest appearance, not for their political efficacy. That makes it a language game whereby hipster bands can make ‘subversive’ music and also play shows for Nike or prominently wear Supreme clothing without any cognitive dissonance.
    The destruction of words is impossible. We need at least a handful of experiences to be taboo in order to experience catharsis and release. If there was somehow no longer any restricted speech, Gavin would be out of a job and would not be able to tell a single joke. Humor relies on taboo.
    @Julian D
    Libertarians and anarchists are currently a minority and hold little political power, so there is little policing they can get away with. If the tides changed, I would bet good money that PC thought and speech (eg. ‘white guilt’ rhetoric) would be scapegoated just as vigilantly as racist speech is today. You say “The thing that separates the libertarians and the anarchists from ESPN is they don’t take away a man’s living when they don’t like a word.” but if Libertarians were elected into powerful governmental positions you can sure bet they would swiftly dismantle any funded organizations with any ties to or sympathy for organizations like the CHRC. Political movements need their enemies and they don’t succeed by forgiving and forgetting. I’m certainly not saying that it is equivalent for a government agent to force a citizen into a private hearing over a few cartoons and for Gavin to write an article blasting Lester Bangs for regretting that he called black people (minding their own business) niggers. But Gavin’s article and other sentiments on this site do suggest the kind of reactionary feeling that may become dangerously exaggerated if their favorite politicians took power.

  24. Reply to Every Number says:

    I don’t like South Park because of the animation. Nothing to do with the jokes.

  25. Julian D says:

    Hang on, so your beef here is that although libertarians don’t impose their beliefs on anyone and want as little gov’t control as possible, they WILL start doing the opposite or they WOULD do the opposite if they could? Er, let’s wait until that hypothetical becomes true before you start making it the pillar of your argument. Fuck you.

    The definition of anarchists and libertarians is, “have your own opinion but don’t FORCE anyone to adhere to it.” Your contention that this core belief will be betrayed is a fantasy. How about talking about things that actually exist, today?

  26. bollocktothis says:

    @ julian d, so how do you spell paedatrician in the land of the free? and i’m not in that little island, i’m in a fucking enormous one somewhat to your south west, you know , the one where what you call “ossies” live

  27. Tard Patrol says:

    The acceptable American spelling is “pedophile,” not “paedophile.” If you Brits hadn’t been stupid enough to lose your empire at our hands, I wouldn’t have to come on here and lecture you about this.

  28. Reply to Every Number says:

    @Julian D
    My criticism is based on the attitudes I see in Gavin’s rants and commenters’ responses on this site and other internet forums concerning anti-PC sentiments. Also the study of political theory versus political application. There seems to be a huge gulf between idea-generators and the behavior of public officials no matter their ideological allegiances.
    But I can’t predict the future any more than you. I do agree that the PC movement needs a serious corrective. No one should be called before a tribunal or receive death threats for humor. But when ‘free speechers’ take the stance that no one should ever be offended by any speech ever, in my view they are turning speech into the oppressor and restricting emotional response. On some level you have to strike a balance between external and internal liberty.

  29. bollocktothis says:

    @ tard patrol, so you’re intent on screwing latin as well as english, bring on 911 part II i say but lets hope the useless cunts get it right this time and blow the fucking lot of you up, lets face it, you asked for it, you got it, stop whining about it
    is this the 16th example of when iits ok to be offensive, please discuss

  30. bollocktothis says:

    further to the above, as the catholic church is generally and widely credited with inventing the sport of kiddie-fiddling and they are also leading exponents of the use of latin to disguise their true aims and crimes should we not therefore use the latin spelling of said midget-diddling activity i.e. paedophile, it seems only fair really
    now you have to decide whether this is offensive to associate the catholic church with baby-bonking or to associate toddler-touchers with the catholic church ?

  31. hi says:

    i know you’re trolling but yeah you should probably be fired if you’re using a newspaper to mock/subjugate a group that’s not on top of the American cultural ladder/still deals with racial discrimination. there’s no need to perpetuate that legitimately harmful shit just because puns get you off

  32. hi says:

    like where do you draw the line with “political correctness”? seems like the only time people rage against “being PC” is when white dudes want to use the bully pulpit to mock/demean non-whites

  33. bye says:

    ^^^ Yeah, this might be slightly related to the fact that white dudes aren’t designated as a “protected class” by our current Attorney General and are therefore unable to file lawsuits or get people fired for mocking them for being white dudes. This might be related to the fact that it’s open season in the media on mocking white dudes. PC preaches and encourages such double standards in a half-assed attempt to achieve equal results rather than to give everyone equal opportunity.

    Most white American dudes are not rich, have never oppressed anyone, and are likely to be descended from indentured servants rather than slaveowners, yet the common cultural perception is that they all were in on the game. Some of those white dudes get their necks stepped on by less-qualified individuals merely to achieve some dimly religious idea of “equality.” Only someone as apparently naive as yourself would think such double standards would lead to harmony rather than conflict.

    When was the last time you thought it was OK to mock someone for being Jewish? Talk about a group that has power and wealth far beyond their numbers!

  34. hi says:

    by virtue of being born white you are “in on the game” yeah, in that at the very least you have never had to and will never face any sort of disadvantage solely because of your skin color

  35. bye says:

    very facile regurgitation of what they fed you in sociology class.

    here’s what they won’t feed you, even though it’s true: by virtue of being born black in America, blacks here are also “in on the game” because they enjoy an absurdly lavish lifestyle compared to their African homeland. That’s why you don’t see them fleeing to Africa. They will never know the disadvantage of being born in Africa. That’s why Africans are still moving here, rather than the other way around.

    Blacks living in majority-white countries always live longer and eat better than they do in all-black countries. Real talk. Eat it.

  36. hi says:

    it’s good when people own that they’re actual racists so you don’t have to continue the argument

  37. suba suba says:

    images aren at loading properly. I am not sure why but I think

  38. Rolet online says:

    Yeah bookmaking this wasn at a high risk conclusion great post!

Leave A Reply