Paul Deen Use of the the "N" word

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Anne Rice. This is INSANITY. Paula Deen did nothing illegal. She was lassoed into the lawsuit for her deep pockets. Why doesn't the woman who filed the lawsuit do interviews? She's in hiding, the coward. I'm no fan of Paula Deen (though I enjoyed her restaurant when I ate there in 1999, before she became a nationally known figure).

As for enjoying the plantation-like feel, there are certain mountain resorts in our midst (Homestead, Greenbrier) that for years cultivated that same sensibility.

1) She is accused of doing something illegal -- creating a hostile work environment --

2) how do you know she was "lassoed" in because of her deep pockets?

3) the woman bringing in the lawsuit does not have to be in the media -- she is pursuing a legal matter -- not a media event
and i guarantee if the lady did get on tv...she'd be accused of being a media whore

4) plantation = slavery = racism -- if you do not understand that -- if plantation "sensibilities" are favorable to you....well...enough said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:read the whole article. allegedly. allegedly. I didn't see video or proof, but I believe it. damn shame.

The discrimination is ALLEGED...
The usage of the word ..that is fact...this came from a COURT DEPOSITION....
Her team has already tried to spin and apologize

Please go back and read what was said.

NP here. From what I read her use of the n-word was in reference to instances in the distant past. Deen, never made reference to using the n-word in the present day and did not admit to using it around the woman who is suing her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:read the whole article. allegedly. allegedly. I didn't see video or proof, but I believe it. damn shame.

The discrimination is ALLEGED...
The usage of the word ..that is fact...this came from a COURT DEPOSITION....
Her team has already tried to spin and apologize

Please go back and read what was said.

NP here. From what I read her use of the n-word was in reference to instances in the distant past. Deen, never made reference to using the n-word in the present day and did not admit to using it around the woman who is suing her.

baby u are answering the wrong question..
i was responding to a poster insinuating her use of the word was alledged...that is not alleged....
she admitted to it...time and date were not at issue in this exchange...
that is an issue to be determined during the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a sort of leap frog effect here: Paula Deen says she once used the n word in the past = she discriminated against the defendant (who is white) = she is guilty of everything you can think of = How is this not a witch hunt?

[Anonymous]

The Huffington Post has obtained a transcript of the deposition in question. The quotes below are pulled directly from it.

On using the N-word:

Lawyer: Have you ever used the N-word yourself?
Deen: Yes, of course.

Lawyer: Okay. In what context?
Deen: Well, it was probably when a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head.

Lawyer: Okay. And what did you say?
Deen: Well, I don't remember, but the gun was dancing all around my temple ... I didn't -- I didn't feel real favorable towards him.

Lawyer: Okay. Well, did you use the N-word to him as he pointed a gun in your head at your face?
Deen: Absolutely not.

Lawyer: Well, then, when did you use it?
Deen: Probably in telling my husband.

Lawyer: Okay. Have you used it since then?
Deen: I'm sure I have, but it's been a very long time.

Lawyer: Can you remember the context in which you have used the N-word?
Deen: No.

Lawyer: Has it occurred with sufficient frequency that you cannot recall all of the various context in which you've used it?
Deen: No, no.

Lawyer: Well, then tell me the other context in which you've used the N-word?
Deen: I don't know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.

Lawyer: Like a joke?
Deen: No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don't -- I don't know. But that's just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the '60s in the south. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior. As well as I do.

On her brother's behavior:

Lawyer: Are you aware of Mr. Hiers admitting that he engaged in racially and sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace?

...

Deen: I guess

Lawyer: Okay. Well, have you done anything about what you heard him admit to doing?
Deen: My brother and I have had conversations. My brother is not a bad person. Do humans behave inappropriately? At times, yes. I don't know one person that has not. My brother is a good man. Have we told jokes? Have we said things that we should not have said, that -- yes, we all have. We all have done that, every one of us.

On telling jokes that target African Americans, Jews, gays and other groups:

Lawyer: What about jokes, if somebody is telling a joke that's got --
Deen: It's just what they are, they're jokes.

Lawyer: Okay. Would you consider those to be using the N word in a mean way?

…

Deen: That's -- that's kind of hard. Most -- most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks. Most jokes target -- I don't know. I didn't make up the jokes, I don't know. I can't -- I don't know.

Lawyer: Okay.
Deen: They usually target, though a group. Gays or straights, black, redneck, you know, I just don't know. I can't, myself, determine what offends another person.

On planning a Southern plantation-style wedding:

Lawyer: Do you recall using the words “really southern plantation wedding”? Deen: Yes, I did say I would love for Bubba to experience a very southern style wedding, and we did that. We did that.

Lawyer: Okay. You would love for him to experience a southern style plantation wedding?
Deen: Yes.

Lawyer: That’s what you said?
Deen: Well, something like that, yes. And -–

Laywer: Okay. And is that when you went on to describe the experience you had at the restaurant in question?
Deen: Well, I don’t know. We were probably talking about the food or –- we would have been talking about something to do with service at the wedding, and –-

...

Lawyer: Is there any possibility, in your mind, that you slipped and used the word “n----r”?
Deen: No, because that’s not what these men were. They were professional black men doing a fabulous job.

Lawyer: Why did that make it a -– if you would have had servers like that, why would that have made it a really southern plantation wedding?

...

Deen: Well, it –- to me, of course I’m old but I ain’t that old, I didn’t live back in those days but I’ve seen the pictures, and the pictures that I’ve seen, that restaurant represented a certain era in America.

Lawyer: Okay.
Deen: And I was in the south when I went to this restaurant. It was located in the south.

Lawyer: Okay. What era in America are you referring to?
Deen: Well, I don’t know. After the Civil War, during the Civil War, before the Civil War.

Lawyer: Right. Back in an era where there were middle-aged black men waiting on white people.
Deen: Well, it was not only black men, it was black women.

Lawyer: Sure. And before the Civil War –- before the Civil War, those black men and women who were waiting on white people were slaves, right?
Deen: Yes, I would say that they were slaves.

Lawyer: Okay.
Deen: But I did not mean anything derogatory by saying that I loved their look and their professionalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a sort of leap frog effect here: Paula Deen says she once used the n word in the past = she discriminated against the defendant (who is white) = she is guilty of everything you can think of = How is this not a witch hunt?

How do you figure this?
I never said she was guilty of everything you can think of
How did u get to that point?
She freely admitted to doing something wrong, is embroiled in a lawsuit ALLEGING further wrong-doing = company with whom she does business (Food Network) decides that is not a good look for them = she got dropped = how the HELL is that a witch hunt?

[Anonymous]

13:50 Are we following the same story?

1. Paula Deen's brother is accused of creating a hostile workplace. Yet the woman who sued filed no complaints with the EEOC. She decides to sue ... for $1.2 million. Further, she's white, so she really doesn't have standing on claims of racism. That aspect of the lawsuit may not stand.

2. It has been widely reported that the plaintiff worked for Paula's brother, not Paula, at his restaurant, not hers, and it has been widely speculated that the plaintiff included Paula and her restaurant in the lawsuit for their deep pockets and also because they're famous, which could add pressure them into settling.

3. I beg to differ. I'd love to hear her explain her motives, and why she didn't leave her job if things were as bad as she claims -- five years is a long time to put up with what she claims was happening -- and/or why she didn't take other measures to try and correct the workplace environment.

4. You missed my point. I am not describing my tastes or preferences. I was making the point that such sensibilities are not exclusive to Paula Deen -- and further they are not illegal. When I went to the Homestead in the early 1990s, to cover a business conference, I was stunned by the plantation sensibilities.
FYI: Not all plantations were owned by slaveowners. So your equal signs are inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:50 Are we following the same story?

1. Paula Deen's brother is accused of creating a hostile workplace. Yet the woman who sued filed no complaints with the EEOC. She decides to sue ... for $1.2 million. Further, she's white, so she really doesn't have standing on claims of racism. That aspect of the lawsuit may not stand.

2. It has been widely reported that the plaintiff worked for Paula's brother, not Paula, at his restaurant, not hers, and it has been widely speculated that the plaintiff included Paula and her restaurant in the lawsuit for their deep pockets and also because they're famous, which could add pressure them into settling.

3. I beg to differ. I'd love to hear her explain her motives, and why she didn't leave her job if things were as bad as she claims -- five years is a long time to put up with what she claims was happening -- and/or why she didn't take other measures to try and correct the workplace environment.

4. You missed my point. I am not describing my tastes or preferences. I was making the point that such sensibilities are not exclusive to Paula Deen -- and further they are not illegal. When I went to the Homestead in the early 1990s, to cover a business conference, I was stunned by the plantation sensibilities.
FYI: Not all plantations were owned by slaveowners. So your equal signs are inaccurate.

Huh?
Who cares what ur opinions are of her motives... U are not a party to the suit not the judge in the case.
And the plantations Paula was talking about .. Referring to was the kind with slaves

[Anonymous]

True I am not the judge. Is the Food Network?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True I am not the judge. Is the Food Network?

The Food Network is the judge of which celebrities project the brand image they want and which don't. They decided that Paula Dean does not project the brand image they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:50 Are we following the same story?

1. Paula Deen's brother is accused of creating a hostile workplace. Yet the woman who sued filed no complaints with the EEOC. She decides to sue ... for $1.2 million. Further, she's white, so she really doesn't have standing on claims of racism. That aspect of the lawsuit may not stand.

2. It has been widely reported that the plaintiff worked for Paula's brother, not Paula, at his restaurant, not hers, and it has been widely speculated that the plaintiff included Paula and her restaurant in the lawsuit for their deep pockets and also because they're famous, which could add pressure them into settling.

3. I beg to differ. I'd love to hear her explain her motives, and why she didn't leave her job if things were as bad as she claims -- five years is a long time to put up with what she claims was happening -- and/or why she didn't take other measures to try and correct the workplace environment.

4. You missed my point. I am not describing my tastes or preferences. I was making the point that such sensibilities are not exclusive to Paula Deen -- and further they are not illegal. When I went to the Homestead in the early 1990s, to cover a business conference, I was stunned by the plantation sensibilities.
FYI: Not all plantations were owned by slaveowners. So your equal signs are inaccurate.

Huh?
Who cares what ur opinions are of her motives... U are not a party to the suit not the judge in the case.
And the plantations Paula was talking about .. Referring to was the kind with slaves

I can't believe that, writing in your incomprehensible style, you had the nerve to ask the PP "Huh?"!! LOL!!

[Anonymous]

Anyone watching Paula on the Today Show now? OMG, please shut her up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching Paula on the Today Show now? OMG, please shut her up.

What is she saying?

[Anonymous]

The plantation style dinner sounds like a very weak argument to me. She does not sound like she is very involved in this action that the defendant is suing over. Too bad about the Food network.

[Anonymous]

Shit. Do I have to stop saying plantation shutters?