Radio DJ/Red Dead Voice Actor Cumia Fired For Racist Twitter Rant

[Eric the Orange]

Phrozenflame500 has post some of twits up top, like when he calls the black community violent or call her a c*** alot. I guess that isn't racist or sexist by your definition then.

ps. link to where you can see the rest of the twits. http://gawker.com/siriusxm-host-claims-cuntrag-assaulted-him-in-racist-1599491744/all

I know, I read it all while the posts were still up. Of the ones posted above, the only one which is even close to being racist is the last one, "There's a deep seeded problem with violence in the black community. Try to address it and you'll be exiled to racistville. But it's real." Along with that comment he posted videos and statistics on it. It's a real issue, pointing it out doesn't make it racist. And calling someone a c*** is an insult, not racism or sexism.

OK lets say for the sake of argument it has nothing to do with race. If so why did he keep bringing up that he was white and they were black. some example include "Shes lucky I was a white legal gun owner or shed be dead. then 5 blacks started giving me shit", "reason!?? I WAS WHITE!!!" ect. If race isn't an issue why bring it up at all.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

He said it to describe a woman so it sexually therefore sexiest in that context.

No it's not. The sexual definition of it is just "a woman's genitals". I've never heard of that definition being used outside of things like "she's just a walking c***" or in other words, a whore. And in this context, I really can't see how he'd be using that definition over the more appropriate, "Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable."

We're going to go on about the c word for 4 more pages aren't we, i fell like not doing that. I'm just going to stop now because both of us are not going to more on the subject. but I still think what he said was racist and sexist.

edit:

I just gotta say, to whomever said him calling her a **** was sexist: Its no more sexist than calling a man a dick, which we all know happens all the time. And yes, I wrote the whole word ****, because censoring things just gives them more power.

you do have a point there, maybe I've been a little bit jumpy on that one word. but I still think he was being sexist overall on his twitter

 

[AwesomeDave]

I just gotta say, to whomever said him calling her a **** was sexist: Its no more sexist than calling a man a dick, which we all know happens all the time. And yes, I wrote the whole word ****, because censoring things just gives them more power.

 

[Something Amyss]

Did Sirius NOT do a background check on the guy when they hired him?

The guy's made no bones about his feelings on blacks in the past. It's not about whether or not they knew he was racist.

Hell, it's not even about their feelings on the matter. This event spurred people to stop their subscriptions to Sirius.

Radio companies love shock. They love it until it becomes a liability. Anthony had crossed the rather fuzzy line into liability.

No, they fired him because he's a big part of their public image and nobody wants a massive racist representing them.

They didn't mind him representing them before.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I censor it because it's generally considered one of the most offensive words there are. If you take a look at it's definition, it can be used sexually but it is also used as an insult, "Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable.".

His tweets are gone so I can't give you the links. But a quick search on the subject supports what he says. There's stats like the ones here [http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf] that show that close to 40% of prisoners in the US are black and that 55% of those are for violent crimes. Compare that to stats like these [http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf] that say that people who are black make up only 13.6% of the overall population and it becomes pretty easy to see that there are some issues there.

Oh, sure. I can play this game.

These [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-says-official-report-8959804.html] are [http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_sentencing_review.pdf] some [http://www.civilrights.org/publications/justice-on-trial/sentencing.html] of the few things that popped out during my own search. There are a bunch of numbers here, but I'll spoil the best parts

Spoiler: From the Civil Rights

C. Racially Disparate Sentencing Outcomes

One of the most thorough studies of sentencing disparities was undertaken by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, which studied felony sentencing outcomes in New York courts between 1990 and 1992. The State concluded that one-third of minorities sentenced to prison would have received a shorter or non-incarcerative sentence if they had been treated like similarly situated white defendants. If probation-eligible blacks had been treated like their white counterparts, more than 8000 fewer black defendants would have received prison sentences in that two year period, resulting in a five percent decline in the percentage of blacks sentenced to prison as a percentage of the entire sentenced population. In short, the study found, blacks are sentenced to prison more frequently than whites for the same conduct.

Other sentencing data is consistent with the New York findings. Nationwide, black males convicted of drug felonies in state courts are sentenced to prison 52 percent of the time, while white males are sentenced to prison only 34 percent of the time. The ratio for women is similar ? 41 percent of black female felony drug offenders are sentenced to prison, as compared to 24 percent of white females. With respect to violent offenses, 74 percent of black male convicted felons serve prison time, as opposed to only 60 percent of white male convicted felons. With respect to all felonies, 58 percent of black male convicted felons, as opposed to 45 percent of white men, serve prison sentences.

Spoiler: From the Independent

Judges and magistrates are institutionally racist, consistently handing down more lenient sentences to white criminals, an official Government study has revealed.

The disturbing report, produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), shows that black and Asian defendants are almost 20 per cent more likely to be sent to jail than those who are white. At the same time, the average prison sentence given to Caucasian criminals by courts in England and Wales is seven months shorter than those given to Afro-Caribbean offenders.

The report separates conviction and sentencing rates by comparable offences and pleas, excluding the possibility of the data being inaccurately skewed. The Ministry of Justice said yesterday that ministers were aware ?without a shadow of a doubt? that there were problems with the system, and said work had begun to address it as an area of ?increasing concern?.

Spoiler: From the Sentencing Project

INTERACTION OF RACE/ETHNICITY WITH OTHER OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS
This section synthesizes the findings of recent studies that examine how the defendant?s
race interacts with the defendant?s age, gender, and employment status.
Key findings:
· Young black and Latino males tend to be sentenced more severely than
comparably situated white males;
· Unemployed black males tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably
situated white males.
The findings of relevant studies suggest that certain demographic groups within minority
populations are treated especially harshly at sentencing in comparison to a similar
population of white offenders. For example, a study of the Pennsylvania State
Correctional System published in 1998 found both in terms of the decision to incarcerate
and in terms of the length of sentence, blacks received harsher sentences than whites,
younger offenders received harsher sentences than older offenders, and males received
harsher sentences than females.10 The confluence of these three factors results in young
black males being sentenced particularly harshly. A number of other recent studies have
found similar evidence indicating that young black and Latino males are sentenced more
harshly than white males.11
The Pennsylvania study found that, controlling for other factors, including severity of the
offense and prior criminal history, white men aged 18-29 were 38 percent less likely to be
sentenced to prison than black men of the same age group. In addition, white men of this
age group were sentenced to an average prison term that was almost three months
shorter than that given to black men of this age group. Furthermore, black men aged 18-
29 were more than four times as likely to be sentenced to prison as white men over the
age of fifty.

Yeah, that's a lot of stuff. It all boils down to that a good percent of the time, if two people are pressed with the same crime... it'll boil down to the race. If you're white, you might have a chance. If you're black, that chance is lessened.

And we're talking about Government studies here. And funnily not just here, but the Ministry of Justice over in the UK. This thing is global.

Frankly, a lot of this thread is systemic of the divide we all have as a people. We are going to polarize ourselves to our views. You are tired of being PC, putting other people's views first, or hell, just proud of your own people (that isn't a crime), you might side with Anthony. Hey, he was violently attacked once and some guys came over to do it again.

If you don't see what's wrong with PC, you might be a little more liberal, or you might be a minority, you might side with the other side. For really, we have Anthony saying that he was violently attacked. I'm looking through these reports and I'm not seeing where it says that these black guys beat him up. I'm somewhat assured as a citizen of New York that if a bunch of people saw 4 black men beating up on a white guy in broad daylight in Manhattan, the Cops would have been called in two seconds.

So, we have one side just believing Anthony's words because he said it and it just happens to go with your sensibilities. That Blacks are violent, and here we are. We have another saying 'I don't have the facts, just heresy'. I'm going to wait for video tape before anything, and then go from there.

 

[Chaos Marine]

The guy looks like a sleazy version of Jim Varney.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Did Sirius NOT do a background check on the guy when they hired him?

Siriusly, it's like the old story about the scorpion asking the frog to carry him across the river.

You KNEW what he was like before you hired him. If you didn't then shame on you for not doing a background check.

Oh, they knew. They just wanted the ratings they knew he and his fellow imbecile would bring in. The only problem here is that keeping him on now would cause more damage than he's worth- if they could get away with it, they'd keep him.

 

[Someone Depressing]

It seems like race has little to do with it. He's just an angry little man who got attacked (violently or not, I can't find any details aside from said little angry man) and he's blaming it all on the people he was attacked by's skin colour.

Looking at some other things that this horrible man has done, anything that happens to him from here is deserved.

 

[SeeDarkly_Xero]

There are a few things those defending Cumia seem to either not be aware of, or are outright dismissing for the defense of a false understanding of 1st amendment rights.

First of all, Cumia has NO "personal" media. He is [was] a representative of his radio station, 24/7. If I understand his "station" correctly, when A&O are not live on air, they are being rebroadcast later in the day or have "best of" segments being aired so there is likely no time listeners could go without hearing that show, if they choose.
But his overall radio personality is depended on to bring "ratings," "subscriptions," & "advertisers." (This is true of most all radio personalities regardless of how many hours they are on air.)
Any action on his part that could threaten that long term is the only thing that matters to his employers.
Shock jocks get a lot of leeway because even when they are hated for what they say and do, they attract listeners. And as long as they attract listeners, their employers are willing to accept responsibility for their antics.
But that's the distinction... "listeners." Not "protesters" or "activists" or "mobs of angry minorities calling to complain to general management."
Radio is business and things like this that interfere with their ability to do business aren't typically allowed to continue.

I've worked in radio but have never listened to the A&O Show. I can't speak to their day-to-day content, but I can say that these decisions are RARELY sudden, often come after a multitude of previous infractions of various severity, and typically are well deserved. I have to imagine that is the case here given that firing him constitutes a tremendous commitment of time and resources by SiriusXM to rebuild their image and hire in a new personality and change all their existing marketing. It would indicate to me that they expected to lose far more than that by keeping him hired.

On the issue of Cumia's racism: Any one who feels he should be allowed to say what he wants is correct. He is free to do so without fear that our government will penalize or imprison him for all things said, save admission of crime, etc...
He has no such constitutional guarantees that he is free to say those things on radio, free to promote hateful ideas as an employee of a company with a public image to maintain, or free from the responsibility of what he has said to the community to which he has said it.

Oh and if you're worried that he maybe got a little beat up by the very people he has apparently been so hateful toward over the years... if you feel it's unjust that they might elude jailtime... they aren't the ones making millions or abusing the forum they're given with which to address countless listeners. Even being fired he has it better than them any day of the week. Is that just?

TLR? The bottom line is that after all this time in the business of being in the public eye, Cumia should have known and acted better.

 

[Plunkies]

To be fair, the term "racist" has lost all meaning at this point. Anyone who talks in any way negative about black people in general or a specific black person is likely to be called a racist.

If you're speaking negatively about an entire race, that kind of is the meaning of racism.

Black people make up 13% of the population yet commit 50% of the homicides. Is that racism? Because that's what I'm talking about when I'm saying he speaks negatively of black people in general. Even if he said "all black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. I reserve the term racist for people who are actually racist aka skinheads, KKK, black panthers, terrorists, people who illogically hate an entire race. Not people critical of the behavior of a few.

I don't actually think he's a racist in the sense that he hates black people, but he's very clear about his views regarding black people and their tendency to commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

Which is a false statement.

It is not. Your need to be PC doesn't change facts. 13% of population - 50% of murders, 40% of forcible rape, 40% aggravated assault, 60% robbery, 40% vehicle theft.

I have no doubt that a lot of the people who like to feel superior when public figures say naughty words would definitely label him a racist though.

When you're calling black people animals, that is a racist statement. I'm not even sure what there is to defend here.

I mean, it's unsurprising that someone who says racist things is called racist.

Was he calling black people animals? Or calling black criminals animals? Or calling the specific black people who attacked him animals? You don't know, nor do you care. You only enjoy the witch hunt and context has never been necessary.

 

[A-D.]

Dude.

http://i.imgur.com/VUjiT62.png

Can't get more racist then that, and that's ignoring all the "savage violent animal" remarks. How much mental gymnastics do you have to pull to call that not racist?

My first reaction to that would be "Context?". If the context is applied that black people arent people, then yes its rather racist. If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame, then no thats not racist. Would you consider any guy, or guys, who attack you for such an insane reason as "Woman complains about being in frame of photo" people or vicious dickwads?

Its only racist once you bring race into it. In fact from all the tweets you supplied, i have not seen his connection to "black = savage violent animals". Rather he calls the people who attacked him, if they did even attack him as he claims, savage violent animals, which isnt that wrong since humans are animals anyway.

So yes, if his tweet-rant was based on the context that all black people are this, and no making a statement that predominantly black communities have issues with violence isnt racism if its backed by statistics, then its racist as fuck. If his tweet-rant was based around the people who specifically attacked him as well as the woman who caused him to be attacked over a rather stupid reason, no it isnt racism because they may as well have been white and the point would still be valid. Its not racist because the attackers happened to be black.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

If anything I commend him on the restraint he showed for getting violently assaulted and the only retaliation he took was a few mean spirited insults on twitter.

He showed restraint, only if you believe a word he said. He claimed he was taking pictures of Time Square and this woman just happened to be in frame. Do you honestly believe that? He claims he was attacked, yet he live tweets it instead of trying to defend himself.

Nope. I think he's a lying racist asshole and the evidence points to that conclusion.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame...

Do you really believe that's what happened? I don't. Not for a second. I think he was taking a picture of the woman's ass and got caught and she got mad.

"Just happened to be in frame..." that's a lame excuse for when you get caught taking a picture you shouldn't.

 

[Rawbeard]

Random dude voicing a random NPC is NOT a Red Dead Voice Actor.

 

[keserak]

The racism is implied but not really specific, according to the tweets the poster supplied, the DJ may of been commenting on the people at the event and bemoaning the amount of violence that is commonly perceived to be in the black communities...

Well, that's bullshit.

Racism a) deprives a person of personhood and b) denies that it's doing it in order to protect privilege. He literally said that black people aren't people. That is literally the most racist thing you can say. And denying the position is racist is itself a racist ploy: if you're found to be wrong, say there's no such thing as right and wrong and try to walk. The next page in the playbook is to accuse everyone else but yourself of racism.

Except none of those insults were related to race, they were related to their behavior.

"They" being an entire race of people. Slurring an entire race of people is racist. No moral person should have problem with this definition.

He said it to describe a woman so it sexually therefore sexiest in that context.

No it's not. The sexual definition of it is just "a woman's genitals".

It is the worst insult to use against a woman in the U.S. and culturally-similar areas, and its slang term for genitals exists precisely because it reduces a woman to nothing but a body part.

I've never heard of that definition being used outside of things like "she's just a walking c***"

Then you may well have led a shockingly and almost impossibly sheltered existance, because that is not how anyone else in the U.S. uses the term. No one uses the term to refer to prostitutes unless they are demeaning those prostitutes.

 

[A-D.]

If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame...

Do you really believe that's what happened? I don't. Not for a second. I think he was taking a picture of the woman's ass and got caught and she got mad.

"Just happened to be in frame..." that's a lame excuse for when you get caught taking a picture you shouldn't.

There was a story of a kid, well teenager being attacked by a woman because he had one of those drones which took pictures, from about 100 meters in the air. She didnt like that and attacked the teenager. So no, i have no reason to doubt that someone could go apeshit for being in the frame. Plus if the guy is racist, why the fuck would he take a photo of some black womans ass? Isnt the whole point of being racist to hate that group of people to the extent that you wouldnt find them attractive even?

Never assume there is just one possible explanation to any situation, just because its easier to assume the guy was at fault doesnt mean he actually was. Nor is it right to assume because he went on a tirade about that happening makes him racist because the attackers happened to be black. Even if your assumption is correct, that is no excuse to be assaulted by anyone.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

To the people who say that what he said isn't racist based on lack of context, I feel you are overlooking several points:

1. The person (keep in mind that is singular) who allegedly assaulted was a black woman, who only did so after he started to take pictures of her. Yet in many of his tweets, he is calling an unspecified group "animals."

2. He deliberately makes reference to him being a white gun owner and "them" being black. And in the next sentence says "they" are animals. He references no other groups, only those based on race.

The context is plain as fucking day: he was "assaulted" by a black woman and proceeds to call all black people animals. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to think he is referring to someone else besides black people.

captcha: It is certain

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I hate it when people inject race into something for no good reason.

This whole racism thing is getting way out of hand. He was the victim in the confrontation and nothing he said on Twitter was inherently racist.... Oh wait, he's white, and they were black, must be racism, can't just be that they were being savages.

Jeez, it seems there's this idea that you can say anything disparaging about a person's race and "not be a racist" so long as you don't outright say "X is an inferior race"

By that logic, I could say "I'm doing a better job roasting this animal than the guys at auschwitz" followed by a "shame, would've given them some tips" and you'd instantly have a bunch of people coming over to defend the statement because "I clearly could be referring to the culinary skills of nazi officers within their numerous deathcamps and my willingness to show them proper roasting and basting techniques" or some stupid crap like that.

This man's a racist, it's obvious what he's implying, and claiming "HE WAS JUST CALLING HIS ATTACKERS SAVAGES AND NOT A PEOPLE" is being purposely dense on the part of his defenders.

Don't really know why your including me. I was just commenting on how its silly how people take note of a persons race when they are ranting abotu them when it as little bearing on what they are actually ranting about. I see things like that a lot on the internet.

 

[Plunkies]

Even if he said "all black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. I reserve the term racist for people who are actually racist aka skinheads, KKK, black panthers, terrorists, people who illogically hate an entire race. Not people critical of the behavior of a few.

...I'm... not entirely sure if you realized it. But you put these two sentences right next to each other.

So, essentially, he's not racist unless he hates the entire race, but you also say you wouldn't view him as racist even if he said the entire race of black people are... something.

No offense, but you're outright saying even if he's racist, he still wouldn't be racist because... well, "reasons" essentially.

I'm not joking here, friend, how can he hate an entire race, yet not be racist in your eyes because you view being racist as "hating an entire race"? Is this going to be one of those things where "It's not racist unless someone outright comes out and says they're a racist" type deals where, since you didn't specify what he'd be calling the entire race of blacks we're supposed to infer it isn't something that bad?

"Oh no no nooooooo, I meant even if he said, for example, 'all black people are rather handsome looking with that darker skin tone' it wouldn't be racist!"

Once more, not trying to offend you, but your comments so far on black people being "more likely to commit horrible crimes" and your defense of someone referring to blacks as "savages" and disparaging their whole race casts a rather... unnerving eye on your views on race.

How do you not get this? Saying something racial is not the same as being racist. You seem confused by that point. My comments on black people being more likely to commit crimes are based on statistics in which they are objectively more likely to commit crimes. Anthony Cumia's comment on "savages" and "animals", in context of both his known and publicly outspoken views as well as the twitter messages themselves, was obviously in reference to blacks who commit crimes or the black person (or people) that victimized him in the incident.

So, to clarify, I reserve the term "racist" for people who literally hate races. Someone who has an opinion on race, race relations, cultures or religions I do not consider racist. And I certainly don't accuse people of being racist because their views differ from mine, which seems to be the common thing to do these days.