Iowa's Gary Dolphin Suspended For Rest Of The Year

[GooooMarquette]

I don't understand the porpoise of all this fighting....

[StillAWarrior]

The point is well considered that even if the comment was innocent, Dolphin should know better.

I agree with this entirely.  But this is why I tend to draw the distinction between offensive and racist.  It was a pretty stupid thing to say.  He should have know that it would likely cause offense and create an uproar.  But I don't think that necessarily means it was racist.  In my opinion, the word racist implies an intent.  I'm aware that others feel differently, and I can respect that difference of opinion.  But I think that it is an extraordinarily serious accusation to call someone racist, and I don't think it solves that problem by saying, "no, I'm not saying you're a racist; I'm saying that the thing you said was racist."  In my opinion, it was offensive.  I personally have no idea if he harbors racial animus, so I'm not going to attach the term "racist" to him or his actions.

[Pakuni]

I don't understand the porpoise of all this fighting....

You're the Carlos Mencia of Scoop.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58011.msg1098038#msg1098038

[StillAWarrior]

+1

I (sincerely) have found this thread enlightening.  So how is this ...

King Kong is offensive to many.  And, as a professional communicator (a good Pakuni term), Dolphin should have known it could be offensive to many and avoided it.

But to punish him as a racist is too much.  His intent was not to be racist.  He should be called out and embarrassed for being a poor communicator (his job!) but not banned like the local president of the KKK.

I agree.  My concern is that once the "R Word" is attached to someone, it takes on a life of its own.

[rocket surgeon]

Because people’s lives were ruined.  FakeHoaxCrines has a long list already.  And with media going to town on these things, you damn well right I will point them out.  We have the media and half of society wanting outcomes to justify their thought processes, when they turn out to be hoaxes or untrue, you damn well right I will and of the media had an ounce of accountability they would report the same way the fraud as they do the work up to conviction that they pass to the American people.

There are actually people that want to let the actor off with a warning, this is how much DS is going on these days.

I’m sorry, but for the same reason I say go after the big fish who cheat taxpayers, go after small ones too.  Same for people that are truly communizing crimes, I would say those that pull these hoaxes should get double punishment because of what it does to legit cases.

i don't even want to try to estimate the amount of damage that could have been done nation wide had the chicago police not done their due diligence(police work) to defuse the jussie smollett situation(somewhat).  there are still facts to be revealed, but this one guy could have set off protests and mayhem making the ferguson riots look like child's play

[StillAWarrior]

i don't even want to try to estimate the amount of damage that could have been done nation wide had the chicago police not done their due diligence(police work) to defuse the jussie smollett situation(somewhat).  there are still facts to be revealed, but this one guy could have set off protests and mayhem making the ferguson riots look like child's play

Hyperbole much?   

[MUBurrow]

In my opinion, the word racist implies an intent.  I'm aware that others feel differently, and I can respect that difference of opinion.  But I think that it is an extraordinarily serious accusation to call someone racist, and I don't think it solves that problem by saying, "no, I'm not saying you're a racist; I'm saying that the thing you said was racist."  In my opinion, it was offensive.  I personally have no idea if he harbors racial animus, so I'm not going to attach the term "racist" to him or his actions.

For what its worth, defining racism as an intent-based offense is incredibly deferential to white folks, at the expense of racial minorities.  It takes racism from something that negatively impacts the lives of minorities, and makes it something for white people to prove they aren't. It literally co-opts the negative effects of racism.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

nevermind

[rocket surgeon]

Hyperbole much?   

  what is exaggerated?  what is not to be taken seriously?  where is the excess?  in my post?

[Pakuni]

I agree.  My concern is that once the "R Word" is attached to someone, it takes on a life of its own.

In fairness, I don't believe anyone here has attached the 'r' word to Dolphin.
At worst, some have said his comment was racist which, as you say, is an arguable point.

If we all can agree that what he said was at least offensive - and there at least seems to be some consensus to that effect among the non-Cheeks members here - why all the arguing?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

  what is exaggerated?  what is not to be taken seriously?  where is the excess?  in my post?

What damage would have been done to the nation? 

[Pakuni]

  what is exaggerated?  what is not to be taken seriously?  where is the excess?  in my post?

In the four weeks between when Smollett made his claims and his arrest, there was not one resulting act of violence.
Your very silly claim that it was going to lead to mass riots is very silly and not to be taken seriously.

[StillAWarrior]

For what its worth, defining racism as an intent-based offense is incredibly deferential to white folks, at the expense of racial minorities.  It takes racism from something that negatively impacts the lives of minorities, and makes it something for white people to prove they aren't. It literally co-opts the negative effects of racism.

I don't really understand what you're saying, but would be open to hear an explanation.  What does it mean that it "co-opts the negative effects of racism."

If it's not apparent, I'm asking in the spirit of discussion and understanding.  I'm not disagreeing or arguing with you.

[StillAWarrior]

  what is exaggerated?  what is not to be taken seriously?  where is the excess?  in my post?

Your entire post.  Yes, there might have been riots that would have made Ferguson look like child's play.  Incalculable damage.  Or, it's quite possible that it would have been largely forgotten by the next news cycle.  Likely, actually.

[Pakuni]

I don't really understand what you're saying, but would be open to hear an explanation.  What does it mean that it "co-opts the negative effects of racism."

If it's not apparent, I'm asking in the spirit of discussion and understanding.  I'm not disagreeing or arguing with you.

If I can chime in, I read it as saying that the effects of an act of racism are the same regardless of the person on the other end's intent. Someone offended by a racist comment is no less harmed because the speaker was trying to make a joke.

By focusing only or primarily on the intent, you dismiss the negative effects on the other side.

[MUBurrow]

I don't really understand what you're saying, but would be open to hear an explanation.  What does it mean that it "co-opts the negative effects of racism."

If it's not apparent, I'm asking in the spirit of discussion and understanding.  I'm not disagreeing or arguing with you.

Oh totally, and in re-reading my post, I can see where my brevity would come off as snark. Apologies on that - I didn't mean to come off as a d*ck.

The problem with classifying racism as an intent-based infraction, is that makes racism about white people.  For example, if Gary Dolphin's statement can't be racist without us knowing what is in Gary Dolphin's heart, at the first claim of racism, we all look to Gary Dolphin and his track record and his explanations for what he said. We immediately lose sight of the victim of his statement, or the broader community impacts and history of the phrase he used, and how it has historically contributed to discrimination against the black community.

And I get that we have socially cobbled "racist" and "offensive" and "hatred" and "bigoted" into one big mess that is almost impossible to pull apart. But even that is sorta racist - if we transform claims of racism into a case study of the white person that said or did the allegedly racist thing, we might as well not have the term racism at all. (That's what I meant by "co-opting.")  And that's messed up! Minority communities need and are entitled to be able to point to things as racist!

I know its kind of a semantic argument, but I think the semantics are really important here. Its true that the way we feel informs the words we use - but I think the reverse is just as often true. We start using terminology that actually informs the way we think, often without realizing it.  So the slow crawl of "hey that's racist" into a focus on white intent removes that arrow from the minority quiver when trying to draw attention to something that's messed up or needs to change. Granted, to your point, another big step in that process is for racist to no longer be a character-flaw label from which a person cannot be redeemed.

[edit - after writing my small novel i saw Pakuni's comment - which is probably more to the point - but I was too far in to not indulge myself and hit post.]

[Cheeks]

Don’t get me wrong, those that are guilty of these ills have to pay a price...no one to my knowledge is arguing differently. No one wants racism, Genderism, ageism, Sexual assault, etc.

My issue is that we are so damn fast to convict and rush to judgment, we have done a great disservice to significant number of people and some seem to Pooh Pooh it like it is merely collateral damage.  It isn’t

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Don’t get me wrong, those that are guilty of these ills have to pay a price...no one to my knowledge is arguing differently. No one wants racism, Genderism, ageism, Sexual assault, etc.

My issue is that we are so damn fast to convict and rush to judgment, we have done a great disservice to significant number of people and some seem to Pooh Pooh it like it is merely collateral damage.  It isn’t

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here.  And with that, I am going to leave it at that.

[StillAWarrior]

If I can chime in, I read it as saying that the effects of an act of racism are the same regardless of the person on the other end's intent. Someone offended by a racist comment is no less harmed because the speaker was trying to make a joke.

By focusing only or primarily on the intent, you dismiss the negative effects on the other side.

I disagree.  I think that someone can be duly chastised -- publicly or privately -- for making an insensitive and offensive remark.  Whether we chastise them for "being offensive" or chastise them for "being racist" does not change the negative effect on the other side.

[StillAWarrior]

Oh totally, and in re-reading my post, I can see where my brevity would come off as snark. Apologies on that - I didn't mean to come off as a d*ck.

The problem with classifying racism as an intent-based infraction, is that makes racism about white people.  For example, if Gary Dolphin's statement can't be racist without us knowing what is in Gary Dolphin's heart, at the first claim of racism, we all look to Gary Dolphin and his track record and his explanations for what he said. We immediately lose sight of the victim of his statement, or the broader community impacts and history of the phrase he used, and how it has historically contributed to discrimination against the black community.

And I get that we have socially cobbled "racist" and "offensive" and "hatred" and "bigoted" into one big mess that is almost impossible to pull apart. But even that is sorta racist - if we transform claims of racism into a case study of the white person that said or did the allegedly racist thing, we might as well not have the term racism at all. (That's what I meant by "co-opting.")  And that's messed up! Minority communities need and are entitled to be able to point to things as racist!

I know its kind of a semantic argument, but I think the semantics are really important here. Its true that the way we feel informs the words we use - but I think the reverse is just as often true. We start using terminology that actually informs the way we think, often without realizing it.  So the slow crawl of "hey that's racist" into a focus on white intent removes that arrow from the minority quiver when trying to draw attention to something that's messed up or needs to change. Granted, to your point, another big step in that process is for racist to no longer be a character-flaw label from which a person cannot be redeemed.

[edit - after writing my small novel i saw Pakuni's comment - which is probably more to the point - but I was too far in to not indulge myself and hit post.]

Thank you for that response.  And I didn't think you came off as a dick.

My issue is that many times I see people be accused of racism (or, if you must, saying a racist thing) when it is completely unrelated to race.  I know it's hypothetical, but if this guy had made the same comments about a white player -- focusing on the visual of a big monster that is swatting away all the shots like king kong swatted airplanes.  If he used that same phrase five times over his career about a white player without incident, and then being called a racist for using it about a black player.  Insensitive?  Yes.  Offensive?  Yes.  Ill advised?  Absolutely.  But not racist.  Not in my opinion.  I think the intent matters, and I don't think it minimizes the effect on others to say so.

I think we should be able to say, "Dude, that's an awful thing to say.  You have to understand how offensive that is and how hurtful it might be" without saying, "Dude, that's racist."

[mu03eng]

Thank you for that response.  And I didn't think you came off as a dick.

My issue is that many times I see people be accused of racism (or, if you must, saying a racist thing) when it is completely unrelated to race.  I know it's hypothetical, but if this guy had made the same comments about a white player -- focusing on the visual of a big monster that is swatting away all the shots like king kong swatted airplanes.  If he used that same phrase five times over his career about a white player without incident, and then being called a racist for using it about a black player.  Insensitive?  Yes.  Offensive?  Yes.  Ill advised?  Absolutely.  But not racist.  Not in my opinion.  I think the intent matters, and I don't think it minimizes the effect on others to say so.

I think we should be able to say, "Dude, that's an awful thing to say.  You have to understand how offensive that is and how hurtful it might be" without saying, "Dude, that's racist."

But you are kind of making Burrow's point. You are concerned about the "harmful" effect of saying something (not someone) is racist. To put it another way, declaring a statement or even an action as "racist" should not be a pejorative, it is simply a way of labeling a statement/action as offensive to someone of a certain race. If you call a person a racist, that is absolutely a perjorative and that absolutely needs to recognize intent.

Let's put it this way....if I make a racist statement, while I can/should feel chagrined that shouldn't necessarily follow my life. If I make multiple racist statements, we need to start looking at the pattern to determine if there it is intent or a lack of understanding and that informs where I myself am a racist or if I'm simply ignorant enough to have made repeated racist statements.

Bottom line we need to make declarations of racism about things/actions something that is acceptable to hear as the one responsible for the thing/action as well as making sure that we don't apply a scarlet letter for that single thing/action.

Where I disagree with Burrow is that labeling a statement/action racist is not the domain of minority groups. We need to be able to declare when a minority group makes a racist statement/action against non-minority groups

[StillAWarrior]

But you are kind of making Burrow's point. You are concerned about the "harmful" effect of saying something (not someone) is racist. To put it another way, declaring a statement or even an action as "racist" should not be a pejorative, it is simply a way of labeling a statement/action as offensive to someone of a certain race. If you call a person a racist, that is absolutely a perjorative and that absolutely needs to recognize intent.

Let's put it this way....if I make a racist statement, while I can/should feel chagrined that shouldn't necessarily follow my life. If I make multiple racist statements, we need to start looking at the pattern to determine if there it is intent or a lack of understanding and that informs where I myself am a racist or if I'm simply ignorant enough to have made repeated racist statements.

Bottom line we need to make declarations of racism about things/actions something that is acceptable to hear as the one responsible for the thing/action as well as making sure that we don't apply a scarlet letter for that single thing/action.

Where I disagree with Burrow is that labeling a statement/action racist is not the domain of minority groups. We need to be able to declare when a minority group makes a racist statement/action against non-minority groups

I think that's all very reasonable.  But, I think a lot of people absolutely blur the line between "that's racist" and "he's racist."  I think that distinction is frequently lost in the public discourse.  And I think that often the people who are yelling the loudest on these issues (not referring to anyone on this board) are perfectly happy to blur that distinction.  If I believed that people would treat the phrase "that's racist" as non-pejorative, I'd probably be fully on board with you.  But in my experience, the interpretation that you espouse is a distinct minority.

[GooooMarquette]

You're the Carlos Mencia of Scoop.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=58011.msg1098038#msg1098038

Guilty of not closely following the entire thread. I'm feeling like that may be a good thing....

[rocket surgeon]

In the four weeks between when Smollett made his claims and his arrest, there was not one resulting act of violence.
Your very silly claim that it was going to lead to mass riots is very silly and not to be taken seriously.

you need to read my entire post, including the first sentence-...had the chicago police not done their due diligence" 

 let's say chicago handles this situation as they have their hundreds and hundreds of unsolved murders.  let's say they didn't have the evidence they have so far and the people who are still supporting and believing smollet didn't do anything. they continue to wage their twitter war comments, the media continues their "outrage"  bingo,  dominoes falling...mission accomplished.  i hope like...they have more video of this but even then, people will believe what they want to believe...right o.j.?   

[Pakuni]

I disagree.  I think that someone can be duly chastised -- publicly or privately -- for making an insensitive and offensive remark.  Whether we chastise them for "being offensive" or chastise them for "being racist" does not change the negative effect on the other side.

That's fair. We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm of the opinion that putting the focus on protecting the speaker's reputation comes off to a victim like saying the potential harm to that person is more important than the actual harm to you, i.e. it's better to be a victim of racism than to be called a racist.