MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Not A Serious Person on February 25, 2019, 09:56:26 PM
-
Don't see how this is racist. Seems like he was trying to pay a compliment (like calling a player a "monster")
Does intent matter?
Iowa radio announcer Gary Dolphin suspended for basketball season after 'King Kong' reference
https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/sports/college/iowa/basketball-men/2019/02/22/iowa-basketball-gary-dolphin-suspended-hawkeyes-gary-barta-maryland-bruno-fernando-king-kong-comment/2952771002/
Longtime radio voice Gary Dolphin has been suspended from broadcasting Iowa basketball games for the rest of the season.
The action comes following comments that Dolphin made during the postgame portion of Iowa’s radio broadcast of Tuesday’s home game against Maryland, in which he referred to the Terrapins’ Bruno Fernando, who is black, as “King Kong.”
The suspension, announced by Learfield Sports Properties (which owns the rights to Hawkeye broadcasts), is for basketball only. Dolphin has been Iowa’s play-by-play voice of Iowa football, as well, for the past 22 years.
As most around Iowa know, this marks the second on-air incident this basketball season that put Dolphin in public hot water.
Dolphin was suspended by the University of Iowa and Learfield Sports for two games for negative comments he made about the basketball program and backup guard Maishe Dailey that were inadvertently aired during Iowa’s Nov. 27 game against Pittsburgh.
In that incident, during what was supposed to be a commercial break, Dolphin was telling Hansen that Iowa needed to recruit better guards, then singled out Dailey to make his point.
"We get Maishe Dailey," Dolphin said. "Dribbles into a double-team with his head down. God."
What made that story blow up even more was further comments by Iowa athletics director Gary Barta that there were “ongoing tensions” between Dolphin and head coach Fran McCaffery.
McCaffery also lashed out at Dolphin’s November comments, calling them “inexcusable.”
Dolphin released a statement in the release, apologizing for his language.
“During the broadcast, I used a comparison when trying to describe a talented Maryland basketball player. In no way did I intend to offend or disparage the player," Dolphin said. "I take full responsibility for my inappropriate word choice and offer a sincere apology to him and anyone else who was offended. I wish the Iowa Hawkeye players, coaches and fans all the very best as they head into the final stretch of the season. I will use this as an opportunity to grow as a person and learn more about unconscious bias."
-
I will use willfully ignorant to describe you’re comment.
King Kong (the original movie) was a racist allegory.
-
I will use willfully ignorant to describe you’re comment.
King Kong (the original movie) was a racist allegory.
Them too?
Digital petition created to 'reinstate' Gary Dolphin after suspension
https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Digital-petition-created-to-reinstate-Gary-Dolphin-after-suspension-506297041.html
An Altoona man has started an online petition to 'reinstate' Hawkeye radio sportscaster Gary Dolphin immediately. Dolphin was recently suspended after making controversial comments during a basketball game last week.
The petition, which was created by Levi Thompson, Sunday, on change.org, had already garnered more than 12,000 signatures in a span of about six hours.
"Gary Dolphin was wrongfully suspended for giving a collegiate athlete a compliment," Thompson said in his post about the petition. "If you take Gary Dolphin's comment as being racist, I challenge you to search your own heart and see where you stand."
Thompson, who manages the Facebook fan page Hawkeye Heaven, set a 15,000 signature goal for the petition.
-
Whether he meant it as a compliment or not is not relevant.
Just as dressing in blackface in a Michael Jackson costume is not a thing that is done at this point in history, neither is calling a black man “King Kong”.
-
That guy is a beast
-
I will use willfully ignorant to describe you’re comment.
King Kong (the original movie) was a racist allegory.
And there is a long history of racists comparing black people to monkeys.
Perhaps the guy was simply ignorant. He isn't any longer.
-
That guy is a beast
It's not at all the same thing and I suspect (and certainly hope) you know that.
But just in case, next time you're playing ball or at the gym or at the beach, approach a large black man and tell him he's a like a big ape. See if he takes it as a compliment. Report back.
Anyhow, I doubt Dolphin had any racist intentions, and a suspension for the rest of the year seems harsh, but it was a remarkably ignorant thing for him to say and shouldn't have been allowed to slide or chalked up to a simple mistake. A professional communicator needs to know better,
-
I don't understand the porpoise behind the online petition. He orca been banned for that whale of a comment.
-
So Heisie, you are able to see racism in the NCAA because they make all college athletes, no matter their race, abide by the same rules, but you can't see racism when a white man compares a black man to a gorilla.
-
It's not at all the same thing and I suspect (and certainly hope) you know that.
But just in case, next time you're playing ball or at the gym or at the beach, approach a large black man and tell him he's a like a big ape. See if he takes it as a compliment. Report back.
Anyhow, I doubt Dolphin had any racist intentions, and a suspension for the rest of the year seems harsh, but it was a remarkably ignorant thing for him to say and shouldn't have been allowed to slide or chalked up to a simple mistake. A professional communicator needs to know better,
Do you even know who my statement was referencing?
-
So Heisie, you are able to see racism in the NCAA because they make all college athletes, no matter their race, abide by the same rules, but you can't see racism when a white man compares a black man to a gorilla.
I sincerely doubt there was any conscious racism in the remark, but after the whole gorilla/guerilla thing with Serena Williams, you'd think a sports announcer would just know better.
-
I sincerely doubt there was any conscious racism in the remark, but after the whole gorilla/guerilla thing with Serena Williams, you'd think a sports announcer would just know better.
Speaking of which, that was also ruled not racist yesterday.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-serena-williams-cartoon-20190225-story.html
-
That guy is a beast
Dat's offensive ta animals, hey?
-
Dat's offensive ta animals, hey?
I recall a few years ago (2014 or 2015?) when the LA Times did a poll about who is the REAL Sportsman (SportsPerson?) of the Year....Serena or American Pharaoh. Well, that got some folks all spun up that it was racist, not giving Serena her due, to include a horse. Mind you, it was a poll, they were asking a question not stating anything as fact or even an opinion...it was a poll....but that didn't matter...the outrage machine was in full production mode. Incidentally, the horse won the poll. Sports Illustrated was dragged into it because they started the whole thing with their award after their own poll showed fans wanted Pharoah, from which the Times put out their own poll. It, of course, led to all kinds of questions whether a horse should even be considered for an honor....after all it was Sports Person of the year. You may recall back in 2000 when they did the greatest athletes of the last century, and multiple 4 legged friends were included like Secretariat.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/14/459705249/serena-williams-wins-sportsperson-of-the-year-poll-favored-american-pharoah
-
So Heisie, you are able to see racism in the NCAA because they make all college athletes, no matter their race, abide by the same rules, but you can't see racism when a white man compares a black man to a gorilla.
Huh, when was that the discussion? The discussion was paying athletes. I think they should be paid.
I noted that many of the fat white guys here, like Cheeks. saying that opportunity to take English 101 and get a degree (a backhanded slap at intelligence) and Wades, thinking that Zion getting a couple of shoes and t-shirts is plenty of compensation for playing at Duke (because they cannot understand the value of money) were far more racist comments.
-
Feeling some Scarlet Bs coming from Rocky here...
-
This reminds me of this case ...
Note he said "Guerrilla" and not "Gorilla."
Nike had an entire campaign in the 1990s called Guerilla tennis. It is a style of play that has nothing to do with the aminal.
https://sneakerhistory.com/2015/01/10/nike-guerilla-tennis-featuring-andre-agassi-pete-sampras/
Saying words with different meanings that sound like words that might have racist meanings are now racist comments.
Doug Adler, broadcaster suing ESPN after he was fired for Venus Williams ‘guerrilla’ comment, says network ‘killed me’
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/doug-adler-espn-killed-venus-guerrilla-comment-article-1.3441842
Doug Adler says he had no choice but to file a wrongful termination suit against ESPN earlier this year after the network fired him for describing Venus Williams' strategy for charging the net as "the guerrilla effect."
-
Do you even know who my statement was referencing?
Is it relevant?
If not, I don't care.
-
Huh, Chico’s and Heisy taking the position that things black people find racist aren’t really racist at all. How surprising.
Thanks for clearing that up, white guys!
-
Huh, when was that the discussion? The discussion was paying athletes. I think they should be paid.
I noted that many of the fat white guys here, like Cheeks. saying that opportunity to take English 101 and get a degree (a backhanded slap at intelligence) and Wades, thinking that Zion getting a couple of shoes and t-shirts is plenty of compensation for playing at Duke (because they cannot understand the value of money) were far more racist comments.
Fat? Uhm, no. Laughable. Please show me my backhanded comment about their intelligence and English 101....did I even mention anything about English 101? I don’t recall, would love to see this.
-
Huh, Chico’s and Heisy taking the position that things black people find racist aren’t really racist at all. How surprising.
Thanks for clearing that up, white guys!
Common sense ruling yesterday.
Nice racist comment you made on your part, however. Not appropriate
-
Is it relevant?
If not, I don't care.
King Kong...that guy is a beast
-
Common sense ruling yesterday.
I agree that it was the right ruling. However what frustrates me is that again we have fallen into the trap of making a binary choice when it comes to racism. It is either labelled "racist" or "not racist." I think it is much more nuanced than this. I doubt that the author had racist intent, but I can certainly understand why people would be offended.
Just like Dolphin's comment. Is he racist? I certainly do not think so. But referring to a black player as "King Kong" is just wrong. Comparing black people to monkey or apes has a long and sordid history not only here, but worldwide. It was a stupid thing to do. Even doubly stupid since he got in trouble earlier this year.
And what gets lost in this isn't the need to stamp out virulent racism, but the need to have a discussion which leads people to greater understanding and empathy.
-
I agree that it was the right ruling. However what frustrates me is that again we have fallen into the trap of making a binary choice when it comes to racism. It is either labelled "racist" or "not racist." I think it is much more nuanced than this. I doubt that the author had racist intent, but I can certainly understand why people would be offended.
Just like Dolphin's comment. Is he racist? I certainly do not think so. But referring to a black player as "King Kong" is just wrong. Comparing black people to monkey or apes has a long and sordid history not only here, but worldwide. It was a stupid thing to do. Even doubly stupid since he got in trouble earlier this year.
And what gets lost in this isn't the need to stamp out virulent racism, but the need to have a discussion which leads people to greater understanding and empathy.
Well said and we agree.
The concern I have is the weaponization of it by some people. Very sad and unfortunately causes a skepticism against those that are truly practicing it. TSmith’s comments at the end, great example of doing exactly what he supposedly is fighting against. I don’t think he even gets it
-
King Kong...that guy is a beast
So, not relevant.
I'm really having a hard time understanding how anyone is so obtuse as to not understand why what Dolphin said is offensive.
-
Well said and we agree.
The concern I have is the weaponization of it by some people. Very sad and unfortunately causes a skepticism against those that are truly practicing it. TSmith’s comments at the end, great example of doing exactly what he supposedly is fighting against. I don’t think he even gets it
But equally wrong are the people who think people are too sensitive about this stuff. Just read the quotes about the petition to have him reinstated: "Gary Dolphin was wrongfully suspended for giving a collegiate athlete a compliment. If you take Gary Dolphin's comment as being racist, I challenge you to search your own heart and see where you stand. I can tell you right now that Dolphin is NOT a racist and the comment in question is the furthest thing from it."
That shows a level of ignorance and lack of understanding that is really stunning to me.
-
So, not relevant.
I'm really having a hard time understanding how anyone is so obtuse as to not understand why what Dolphin said is offensive.
Simple man. White people are the victims here. There. And everywhere.
When are we gonna get a White History Month? Need more proof than that?
-
Common sense ruling yesterday.
Nice racist comment you made on your part, however. Not appropriate
Sorry chicos, pointing out that you are a white guy telling black people that racist things aren't really racist, isn't itself racist.
Being the white guy actually telling black people that you know better than them what is and isn't racist, however, is. It is also completely consistent with your history.
-
I will use willfully ignorant to describe you’re comment.
King Kong (the original movie) was a racist allegory.
Who is the ignorant racist?
King Kong is an anti-colonialist allegory. Kong, the noble beast, has a complex dignity which stands in direct contrast to the churlish, vulgar white people who have taken Kong in chains from his Eden.
Kong displays a virtuous nobility that the the boorish, materialistic Americans who abducted Kong cannot possibly fathom.
The Kong narrative is part of the romantic primitivism movement in which accomplished poets, painters, sculptors, and writers celebrated nature and derided the excesses of civilization. Your complete illiteracy of this speaks volumes as to what and who you are.
The fact that you choose to see racism, deconstructing Kong into a wild animal, underscores your actual feelings towards non-Caucasians.
You, my friend, are a simple white man who chases ghosts in a fool's errand.
-
Who is the ignorant racist?
King Kong is an anti-colonialist allegory. Kong, the noble beast, has a complex dignity which stands in direct contrast to the churlish, vulgar white people who have taken Kong in chains from his Eden.
Kong displays a virtuous nobility that the the boorish, materialistic Americans who abducted Kong cannot possibly fathom.
The Kong narrative is part of the romantic primitivism movement in which accomplished poets, painters, sculptors, and writers celebrated nature and derided the excesses of civilization. Your complete illiteracy of this speaks volumes as to what and who you are.
The fact that you choose to see racism, deconstructing Kong into a wild animal, underscores your actual feelings towards non-Caucasians.
You, my friend, are a simple white man who chases ghosts in a fool's errand.
So, when Gary Dolphin said "Fernando was King Kong at the end of the game," he was saying Fernando's play was noble and dignified in contrast to the churlish and vulgar play of the Hawkeyes who, perhaps not coincidentally, have a mostly white roster.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/zn3PDAZxYRt5u/giphy.gif)
-
I agree that it was the right ruling. However what frustrates me is that again we have fallen into the trap of making a binary choice when it comes to racism. It is either labelled "racist" or "not racist." I think it is much more nuanced than this. I doubt that the author had racist intent, but I can certainly understand why people would be offended.
Just like Dolphin's comment. Is he racist? I certainly do not think so. But referring to a black player as "King Kong" is just wrong. Comparing black people to monkey or apes has a long and sordid history not only here, but worldwide. It was a stupid thing to do. Even doubly stupid since he got in trouble earlier this year.
And what gets lost in this isn't the need to stamp out virulent racism, but the need to have a discussion which leads people to greater understanding and empathy.
Agreed with a lot of this. Racism is a spectrum, not a binary.
-
So, when Gary Dolphin said "Fernando was King Kong at the end of the game," he was saying Fernando's play was noble and dignified in contrast to the churlish and vulgar play of the Hawkeyes who, perhaps not coincidentally, have a mostly white roster.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/zn3PDAZxYRt5u/giphy.gif)
I am not referring to the Hawkeye broadcast. I was speaking to King Kong as allegory.
-
I am not referring to the Hawkeye broadcast. I was speaking to King Kong as allegory.
Whatever literary meaning Kong had originally isn’t how that phrase and that image has been used recently.
-
Who is the ignorant racist?
King Kong is an anti-colonialist allegory. Kong, the noble beast, has a complex dignity which stands in direct contrast to the churlish, vulgar white people who have taken Kong in chains from his Eden.
Kong displays a virtuous nobility that the the boorish, materialistic Americans who abducted Kong cannot possibly fathom.
The Kong narrative is part of the romantic primitivism movement in which accomplished poets, painters, sculptors, and writers celebrated nature and derided the excesses of civilization. Your complete illiteracy of this speaks volumes as to what and who you are.
The fact that you choose to see racism, deconstructing Kong into a wild animal, underscores your actual feelings towards non-Caucasians.
You, my friend, are a simple white man who chases ghosts in a fool's errand.
Nice copy/paste job.
Also, total nonsense.
-
But equally wrong are the people who think people are too sensitive about this stuff. Just read the quotes about the petition to have him reinstated: "Gary Dolphin was wrongfully suspended for giving a collegiate athlete a compliment. If you take Gary Dolphin's comment as being racist, I challenge you to search your own heart and see where you stand. I can tell you right now that Dolphin is NOT a racist and the comment in question is the furthest thing from it."
That shows a level of ignorance and lack of understanding that is really stunning to me.
It will never end, then. Someone gets to arbitrarily make a judgement about a person’s heart, intent, etc. Some will abuse it and weaponize it, examples aplenty and recent. Others, as you point out, will be too insensivitve about how another may feel whether that impact is simply one person upset or many.
In my view trumpeting out the tired line “you white guys will never understand” does nothing to advance the conversation and has a racist tinge unto itself. Or “you white guys have it so bad”. Those absolutes are lazy, dangerous and downright hypocritical to paint a brush so broadly....but it is what people do. Not necessary and counter productive.
Are we heading to a world where we can only have leaders, spokespeople, participants in the debate only along racial, gender, age, etc, lines if they fit into a said group? Very dangerous, but sure feels at times that is where it is going. “You haven’t lived in my shoes therefore you don’t matter”....no one has lived in anyone else’s shoes, but we sure like to paint people into select groupings. I no doubt am guilty of it as well.
-
It will never end, then. Someone gets to arbitrarily make a judgement about a person’s heart, intent, etc. Some will abuse it and weaponize it, examples aplenty and recent. Others, as you point out, will be too insensivitve about how another may feel whether that impact is simply one person upset or many.
In my view trumpeting out the tired line “you white guys will never understand” does nothing to advance the conversation and has a racist tinge unto itself. Or “you white guys have it so bad”. Those absolutes are lazy, dangerous and downright hypocritical to paint a brush so broadly....but it is what people do. Not necessary and counter productive.
Are we heading to a world where we can only have leaders, spokespeople, participants in the debate only along racial, gender, age, etc, lines if they fit into a said group? Very dangerous, but sure feels at times that is where it is going. “You haven’t lived in my shoes therefore you don’t matter”....no one has lived in anyone else’s shoes, but we sure like to paint people into select groupings. I no doubt am guilty of it as well.
Did you mean to quote me here? Because you didn't really address my point at all.
-
It will never end, then. Someone gets to arbitrarily make a judgement about a person’s heart, intent, etc.
I think this is one of the problems here. Heart, intent, etc are not the important parts of the conversation. Impact is. I posted this story in another thread but it got locked before there was much time to respond, i'll repost it here:
This reminds me of a story I was told by a professor during one of my advertising classes. He said a while back, Chevy was trying to increase the amount of cars it sold in Mexico. They decided that the car that they were going to try and promote in Mexico was the Chevy Nova. After months of marketing, sales were impossibly low. They couldn't figure out the issue so they did some assessment of the locals. It was only then that they realized that Nova translates in Spanish to "No go" or "not going", not exactly a positive endorsement for a car. I don't remember if they changed the name of the car in Mexico or started marketing a different car but that fixed the issue.
Now I have no idea if that story is true or not, it was the example the professor gave to drive home an important lesson. It does not matter what message you intend to send, it matters what message your customer receives. The poor Nova sales were not the fault of the locals not understanding Chevy's message, they were the fault of Chevy not realizing what impact their message would have on the locals.
The same lesson can be applied here. I am willing to believe that Dolphin intended his comment as a compliment or at very least as a harmless descriptor. I don't think he is a racist who hates or thinks less of black people. I think he is a guy who made a mistake and said something that can reasonably be interpreted as racist or offensive. Comparing black people to monkeys has a long and awful history in our country, and I think it is reasonable for a person to be offended by the comparison, even if the intent was harmless.
I don't think Dolphin should be called a racist. I don't think he should be thrown in jail or even lose his job. I do think what he said was a racist statement. And I do think he should be held accountable for it. Because whether or not he intended to offend is irrelevant, he did offend people, that is inarguable, and you should be accountable for your actions, even if you had the best of intent. Given that part of a radio announcer's job is to not say offensive things on air, I do think a suspension is appropriate. We can argue about how long the suspension should be.
I think it would go a long way and show a lot of character if Dolphin owned his action and genuinely apologized for the negative impact that he unintentionally caused. I would hope that if he did that, people would find it in them to accept the apology and forgive. I would also hope that his suspension gets lifted and that he can be an even better announcer in the future.
-
It will never end, then. Someone gets to arbitrarily make a judgement about a person’s heart, intent, etc. Some will abuse it and weaponize it, examples aplenty and recent. Others, as you point out, will be too insensivitve about how another may feel whether that impact is simply one person upset or many.
In my view trumpeting out the tired line “you white guys will never understand” does nothing to advance the conversation and has a racist tinge unto itself. Or “you white guys have it so bad”. Those absolutes are lazy, dangerous and downright hypocritical to paint a brush so broadly....but it is what people do. Not necessary and counter productive.
Are we heading to a world where we can only have leaders, spokespeople, participants in the debate only along racial, gender, age, etc, lines if they fit into a said group? Very dangerous, but sure feels at times that is where it is going. “You haven’t lived in my shoes therefore you don’t matter”....no one has lived in anyone else’s shoes, but we sure like to paint people into select groupings. I no doubt am guilty of it as well.
It may very well be that some "white guys like you" will never understand, but when people say that, it's typically in response to white guys like you telling people who are unlike you how they should think and feel (and, typically, they should think and feel like you do).
So, because you don't find Gary Dolphin's comments offensive, it's ridiculous that anyone would. Or because you don't see a problem with the Jalen Johnson blackface signs, it's outrageous that anyone - including the kid targeted by those signs - should see a problem there.
It has zero to do with leaders, spokespeople, debate, hearts, intents, etc. It has to do with respecting the fact that people from different backgrounds and cultures, and with different experiences in life, can find things offensive that you find harmless, based on your background, culture and experiences.
While you aren't required to agree with or share their viewpoint, you should at least respect and be sensitive to it, rather than declaring yours as the only valid opinion. And you shouldn't be nearly as threatened by that as you seem to be.
And, fwiw, I don't see anyone here making a judgement about Dolphin's heart or intent, beyond saying they don't believe he was intentionally racist. He just said something ignorant.
-
I think this is one of the problems here. Heart, intent, etc are not the important parts of the conversation. Impact is. I posted this story in another thread but it got locked before there was much time to respond, i'll repost it here:
Brother TAMU, excellent post. While I may thing the reference is perfectly fine, we live in a multi-dimensional world where other people see things differently. Mr. Dolphin said as much in his acknowledgement and his comment, that he will work to better understand others, is all class.
I actually remember Gary Dolphin from his early days as a sportscaster in Dubuque. Seems like a reasonably pleasant guy.
-
And there is a long history of racists comparing black people to monkeys.
Perhaps the guy was simply ignorant. He isn't any longer.
Truth
-
Speaking of which, that was also ruled not racist yesterday.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-serena-williams-cartoon-20190225-story.html
Any people of color on the council? Anyone on the council live dealing with racist stereotypes? Who supports the council both financially and as a seat holder at the council table? How are they chosen? Honest questions.
-
Whatever literary meaning Kong had originally isn’t how that phrase and that image has been used recently.
How has it been used recently?
-
How has it been used recently?
Sorry but "recently" was a bad choice of words on my point. It may have had a literary meaning similar to what Jon was talking about, but this is what I mean.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/01/15/comparing-black-people-to-monkeys-has-a-long-dark-simian-history_a_23333383/
-
It may very well be that some "white guys like you" will never understand, but when people say that, it's typically in response to white guys like you telling people who are unlike you how they should think and feel (and, typically, they should think and feel like you do).
So, because you don't find Gary Dolphin's comments offensive, it's ridiculous that anyone would. Or because you don't see a problem with the Jalen Johnson blackface signs, it's outrageous that anyone - including the kid targeted by those signs - should see a problem there.
It has zero to do with leaders, spokespeople, debate, hearts, intents, etc. It has to do with respecting the fact that people from different backgrounds and cultures, and with different experiences in life, can find things offensive that you find harmless, based on your background, culture and experiences.
While you aren't required to agree with or share their viewpoint, you should at least respect and be sensitive to it, rather than declaring yours as the only valid opinion. And you shouldn't be nearly as threatened by that as you seem to be.
And, fwiw, I don't see anyone here making a judgement about Dolphin's heart or intent, beyond saying they don't believe he was intentionally racist. He just said something ignorant.
But in other examples, people absolutely have said racist. And in this particular example, people aplenty have said it was racist even if not said by the handful here on this board.
And if you think it is helpful dialogue by others here to throw out the white guy line, or rich, or fat, or whatever lazy term is the flavor of the day and think that is going to be productive or win hearts and minds....I believe that is a poor approach and continues to drive wedges. All it is doing is broadly labeling people because they may not agree with you and is, in itself, a racist comment.
Any time a comment is made to disparage a group of people because of race, it fits the definition of racism. Text book definition. Some here have been doing this multiple times today, and in the past, but apparently feel just fine with it. Targeting people purely because of their race. Truly something to be behold.
-
Sorry but "recently" was a bad choice of words on my point. It may have had a literary meaning similar to what Jon was talking about, but this is what I mean.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/01/15/comparing-black-people-to-monkeys-has-a-long-dark-simian-history_a_23333383/
I was referring to King Kong specifically, but yes aware of the other references. As others have stated, sure feels like this was a reference to a powerful beast like creature and meant in such a way.
I always remembered Kong as this majestic creature, smart, powerful and ultimately got his revenge against the evil done against him. Never saw the original.
-
But in other examples, people absolutely have said racist. And in this particular example, people aplenty have said it was racist even if not said by the handful here on this board.
And if you think it is helpful dialogue by others here to throw out the white guy line, or rich, or fat, or whatever lazy term is the flavor of the day and think that is going to be productive or win hearts and minds....I believe that is a poor approach and continues to drive wedges. All it is doing is broadly labeling people because they may not agree with you and is, in itself, a racist comment.
Any time a comment is made to disparage a group of people because of race, it fits the definition of racism. Text book definition. Some here have been doing this multiple times today, and in the past, but apparently feel just fine with it. Targeting people purely because of their race. Truly something to be behold.
Poor thing. Always the victim.
-
Any people of color on the council? Anyone on the council live dealing with racist stereotypes? Who supports the council both financially and as a seat holder at the council table? How are they chosen? Honest questions.
I don’t know, here is information.
https://www.presscouncil.org.au/who-are-our-members/
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Xnq42jvh2GjMA/giphy.gif)
-
It will never end, then. Someone gets to arbitrarily make a judgement about a person’s heart, intent, etc. Some will abuse it and weaponize it, examples aplenty and recent. Others, as you point out, will be too insensivitve about how another may feel whether that impact is simply one person upset or many.
In my view trumpeting out the tired line “you white guys will never understand” does nothing to advance the conversation and has a racist tinge unto itself. Or “you white guys have it so bad”. Those absolutes are lazy, dangerous and downright hypocritical to paint a brush so broadly....but it is what people do. Not necessary and counter productive.
Are we heading to a world where we can only have leaders, spokespeople, participants in the debate only along racial, gender, age, etc, lines if they fit into a said group? Very dangerous, but sure feels at times that is where it is going. “You haven’t lived in my shoes therefore you don’t matter”....no one has lived in anyone else’s shoes, but we sure like to paint people into select groupings. I no doubt am guilty of it as well.
Yup. Just like always has been and always will be.
Guess that means we shouldn't try to listen and be more respectful, empathetic and improve as individuals.
*Shrugs*
-
Cheeks, I'm curious what you think about my Chevy Nova story. I've shared it with you in two threads and now in both threads you didn't respond either time. Agree? Disagree? No opinion?
-
Cheeks ... stating "What Dolphin said is racist" is not the same as saying "Dolphin is racist." You seem to be equating those statements.
Edit: Took out the rest. Doesn't matter.
-
I for one, am shocked at how this thread has played out, and the key players within.
-
Not racist. Why is he suspended? Intent matters.
-
Not racist. Why is he suspended? Intent matters.
So I could say something that most people would think is racist, but if I truly didn't intend for it to be a racist comment, I'm good? No that's not how it works. Especially when someone's job is to communicate like his is.
And again, don't treat it like a binary choice.
-
Nice copy/paste job.
Also, total nonsense.
And ditch the Pearl Harbor reference, too, you insensitive a$$.
Typical ignorant white man.
-
Not racist. Why is he suspended? Intent matters.
Comparing a black man to a monkey? I think most would agree that falls on the spectrum of racism. Now that doesn't make Dolphin a racist, just a person who said something racist. Everyone has said, done, or thought racist things at some point in their life. Unfortunately for Dolphin, he made a mistake in a very public way.
He is suspended because regardless of intent, we should be accountable for our actions. Part of his job description is not saying offensive things while on air. Comparing a black man to a monkey is considered offensive by a large population of reasonable people (there are also reasonable people who aren't offended by it). You fail at a part of your job description and your employer has a right to hold you accountable.
Intent matters to a degree. You are right that we should treat someone who intentionally says something racist more harshly than someone who makes a mistake. But just because you didn't intend to offend someone, doesn't mean you didn't offend them. The right thing to do is own it, apologize, and try to do better moving forward. I mean I'm sure 99% of people who cause car accidents didn't intend to cause an accident, but they are still accountable for the damage that they do (unless there were circumstances beyond their control like the brakes failing). Same lesson applies here. Be accountable for the offense you cause, even if you didn't intend to offend.
-
Is Lazar's Headband racist?
He wrote this on January 24 about Theo
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57547.msg1082166#msg1082166
Badder than old King Kong? Check
Meaner than a junk yard dog? Check
Why was Dolphin's comment worse?
And, since everyone here NOW knows how obvious the King Kong reference is racist, why did no one call Headband on it?
The point is this is only racist because someone personally decided it was racist and the many are too weak to push back on these standards.
This is the problem with dubious racist comments.
-
How about mu03eng? Is this also racist?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44861.msg653371#msg653371
Quote from: JakeBarnes on September 29, 2014, 12:33:43 PM
If anyone can recruit, it's Denzel.
King Kong ain't got s$%t on Wojo!!
-
And ditch the Pearl Harbor reference, too, you insensitive a$$.
Typical ignorant white man.
No flowing prose that you pretend that you wrote yourself?
This is the real you - not the long winded posts that you copy/paste.
-
Why was this 2008 Vogue cover ok? Why did Lebron agree to such a racist image? Who lost their job over this?
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bb581652400003200566644.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
-
Why does pinterest still allow this image to be posted?
Again all you that are "tisk tisking" Dolphin's statement, please explain why these were allowable?
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/01/b5/b3/01b5b3f34cfb520212e3b564dd45d609.jpg)
-
Why was this 2008 Vogue cover ok? Why did Lebron agree to such a racist image? Who lost their job over this?
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bb581652400003200566644.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
It’s complicated, you would ‘t understand because of your life history. Same question why some guys in Virginia still have jobs while same action elsewhere meant resignations. Consistently complicated apparently.
-
Why was this 2008 Vogue cover ok? Why did Lebron agree to such a racist image? Who lost their job over this?
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bb581652400003200566644.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
It was actually pretty controversial when it came out. But nobody apparently lost their job. And Dolphin didn't lose his - Iowa announced today that he would be back next year.
-
Why was this 2008 Vogue cover ok? Why did Lebron agree to such a racist image? Who lost their job over this?
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bb581652400003200566644.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
Who said it was OK? Vogue actually took quite a bit of criticism over it. And, in all likelihood (given Vogue's history as well as the photgrapher's history), it was intentionally created to stir controversy.
http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/080320
https://www.today.com/news/vogue-cover-lebron-stirs-controversy-wbna23797883
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583333/Race-row-over-King-Kong-Vogue-cover.html
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-03-24-vogue-controversy_n.htm
https://gawker.com/5004715/time-for-leibovitz-to-confess
-
It’s complicated, you would ‘t understand because of your life history. Same question why some guys in Virginia still have jobs while same action elsewhere meant resignations. Consistently complicated apparently.
Ever the victim.
-
How about mu03eng? Is this also racist?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44861.msg653371#msg653371
Quote from: JakeBarnes on September 29, 2014, 12:33:43 PM
If anyone can recruit, it's Denzel.
King Kong ain't got s$%t on Wojo!!
Heisy, I really think you and Chicos should take up Pakuni's suggestion and approach a black guy and tell he looks like a gorilla. I think you'll be fine if you just explain to him that no, he is wrong, it isn't a racist comment at all. Inform him that you, in fact, know what is a racist comment and what isn't much better than he does.
He will undoubtedly appreciate you enlightening him so, and thereafter thank you for the compliment as well.
-
Heisy, I really think you and Chicos should take up Pakuni's suggestion and approach a black guy and tell he looks like a gorilla. I think you'll be fine if you just explain to him that no, he is wrong, it isn't a racist comment at all. Inform him that you, in fact, know what is a racist comment and what isn't much better than he does.
He will undoubtedly appreciate you enlightening him so, and thereafter thank you for the compliment as well.
Can we start with LeBron as he seems fine with the characterization of himself?
-
How about mu03eng? Is this also racist?
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44861.msg653371#msg653371
Quote from: JakeBarnes on September 29, 2014, 12:33:43 PM
If anyone can recruit, it's Denzel.
King Kong ain't got s$%t on Wojo!!
Are you being intentionally vapid?
It's a quote from a movie ... and the quote is not likening a black person to King King, it's a person bragging that he is more powerful than King Kong.
And, last I checked, Wojo isn't a black man. Do you know something the rest of us don't?
-
Can we start with LeBron as he seems fine with the characterization of himself?
So you think Lebron speaks for all black men?
-
Can we start with LeBron as he seems fine with the characterization of himself?
Walk around your neighborhood in Chicago, let us know how it goes. Because I am sure you are right, you clearly know what is and isn't racist much better than black people do.
-
Between the helmet and the spelling, Kong looks German to me in that picture.
That's not quite the point though, is it.
-
Walk around your neighborhood in Chicago, let us know how it goes. Because I am sure you are right, you clearly know what is and isn't racist much better than black people do.
This is where context matters. It seems King Kong has two means.
1. A big Monkey/Gorilla
2. This premise of the movie. The "eighth wonder of the world." An unstoppable force.
The second definition is how most use it, mean it.
So, turn your question around ... if an African-American did something that was impressive and dominant, an "eighth wonder of the world" type of thing, then would they object to the King Kong reference? LeBron did not
So you think Lebron speaks for all black men?
.
Who does? If someone objects and another does not, which one speaks for all black men?
Are you being intentionally vapid?
It's a quote from a movie ... and the quote is not likening a black person to King King, it's a person bragging that he is more powerful than King Kong.
But this is EXACTLY the context that Dolphin meant it when he called Fernando King Kong. He had a great game and was dominating which is why he made the reference.
-
But this is EXACTLY the context that Dolphin meant it when he called Fernando King Kong. He had a great game and was dominating which is why he made the reference.
No one disputes this. But just because that's what he meant, doesn't mean it was appropriate for the reasons stated earlier.
Who does? If someone objects and another does not, which one speaks for all black men?
No one speaks for their race.
-
But this is EXACTLY the context that Dolphin meant it when he called Fernando King Kong. He had a great game and was dominating which is why he made the reference.
It may have been how Dolphin meant it, but it's not what he actually said.
He actually said "Fernando was King Kong at the end of the game." As a professional communicator, it's his responsibility to choose his words carefully. He didn't and is facing the consequences of it.
Edit: What's funny here is that even Dolphin has admitted he used a poor choice of words and apologized for it.
And, yes, I 100 percent think you should approach LeBron James next time you see him and say "you remind me of King Kong." I'm sure he'll be cool with it.
Do you also believe that because the 'N' word is used in some hip hop music, black people are OK with you using that word in reference to them?
-
So, turn your question around ... if an African-American did something that was impressive and dominant, an "eighth wonder of the world" type of thing, then would they object to the King Kong reference? LeBron did not
You should go find out.
-
Between the helmet and the spelling, Kong looks German to me in that picture.
That's not quite the point though, is it.
Yes, it appears to be from a U.S. Army recruiting poster
-
I believe a wise man once said (paraphrasing here) "it's not what was said, it's who said it"
Most Iowa fans would say Dolph had it coming because Gary Barta had it in for him and was looking for any reason to suspend or fire him
Ironically Gary Barta suffered no consequence himself when the athletic dept lost 8 million in damages due to his own discriminatory behavior
-
Related question ...
Do you agree that Warriors is demeaning to native Americans?
If so, should this site scrub all references to Warriors from it?
Is 4everwarriors a racist and insensitive handle?
-
Is Lazar's Headband racist?
He wrote this on January 24 about Theo
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=57547.msg1082166#msg1082166
Badder than old King Kong? Check
Meaner than a junk yard dog? Check
Why was Dolphin's comment worse?
And, since everyone here NOW knows how obvious the King Kong reference is racist, why did no one call Headband on it?
The point is this is only racist because someone personally decided it was racist and the many are too weak to push back on these standards.
This is the problem with dubious racist comments.
Heise,
If you read the thread, you'll notice that Warriorchick did call out the reference and then Lazar's Headband withdrew his support for his previous comment two posts later. I can't speak for others, but that's why I didn't say anything at the time.
-
Related question ...
Do you agree that Warriors is demeaning to native Americans?
If so, should this site scrub all references to Warriors from it?
Is 4everwarriors a racist and insensitive handle?
Warriors by itself? No. With the imagery we used to represent warriors? Yes
All references? No. I do wish that people would drop the native american imagery that they have in their avatars and signatures though.
The name? No. The fact that he has Willie Wampum as his avatar? Yes.
-
It’s complicated, you would ‘t understand because of your life history. Same question why some guys in Virginia still have jobs while same action elsewhere meant resignations. Consistently complicated apparently.
Cheeks, I asked you a question earlier. In case you missed it:
Cheeks, I'm curious what you think about my Chevy Nova story. I've shared it with you in two threads and now in both threads you didn't respond either time. Agree? Disagree? No opinion?
I'm really curious on your thoughts.
-
Related question ...
Do you agree that Warriors is demeaning to native Americans?
If so, should this site scrub all references to Warriors from it?
Is 4everwarriors a racist and insensitive handle?
No.
No.
No. His avatar is, though.
-
The avatar stays. Deal with it.
-
No.
No.
No. His avatar is, though.
Exactly right. Nothing wrong with the term "warriors", whether referring to Roman fighters, Indians braves, or members of our own military.
Using an offensive caricature of an Indian, however, is using a racist symbol. A person continuing to use an offensive symbol and being proud of it is as good of a definition of a racist as I can think of. I
-
Using an offensive caricature of an Indian, however, is using a racist symbol. A person continuing to use an offensive symbol and being proud of it is as good of a definition of a racist as I can think of. I
See Jockey, I don't agree with this. Just because someone doesn't agree with you on whether or not something is racist, doesn't make them a racist. A racist to me is someone who hates or looks down upon another human being simply because that person is a member of a racial minority. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not something is offensive. The key for me is that when two reasonable people disagree, do they treat each other with respect? Or do they call each other names and tell the other one that they are wrong? Unfortunately, I think we have a lot more of the latter than the former.
-
I think this is one of the problems here. Heart, intent, etc are not the important parts of the conversation. Impact is. I posted this story in another thread but it got locked before there was much time to respond, i'll repost it here:
This reminds me of a story I was told by a professor during one of my advertising classes. He said a while back, Chevy was trying to increase the amount of cars it sold in Mexico. They decided that the car that they were going to try and promote in Mexico was the Chevy Nova. After months of marketing, sales were impossibly low. They couldn't figure out the issue so they did some assessment of the locals. It was only then that they realized that Nova translates in Spanish to "No go" or "not going", not exactly a positive endorsement for a car. I don't remember if they changed the name of the car in Mexico or started marketing a different car but that fixed the issue.
Now I have no idea if that story is true or not, it was the example the professor gave to drive home an important lesson. It does not matter what message you intend to send, it matters what message your customer receives. The poor Nova sales were not the fault of the locals not understanding Chevy's message, they were the fault of Chevy not realizing what impact their message would have on the locals.
The same lesson can be applied here. I am willing to believe that Dolphin intended his comment as a compliment or at very least as a harmless descriptor. I don't think he is a racist who hates or thinks less of black people. I think he is a guy who made a mistake and said something that can reasonably be interpreted as racist or offensive. Comparing black people to monkeys has a long and awful history in our country, and I think it is reasonable for a person to be offended by the comparison, even if the intent was harmless.
I don't think Dolphin should be called a racist. I don't think he should be thrown in jail or even lose his job. I do think what he said was a racist statement. And I do think he should be held accountable for it. Because whether or not he intended to offend is irrelevant, he did offend people, that is inarguable, and you should be accountable for your actions, even if you had the best of intent. Given that part of a radio announcer's job is to not say offensive things on air, I do think a suspension is appropriate. We can argue about how long the suspension should be.
I think it would go a long way and show a lot of character if Dolphin owned his action and genuinely apologized for the negative impact that he unintentionally caused. I would hope that if he did that, people would find it in them to accept the apology and forgive. I would also hope that his suspension gets lifted and that he can be an even better announcer in the future.
Couldn't have said it any better. Well done.
-
The story about the Nova is basically an urban legend that isn't true, by the way.
Doesn't change the point you're making, I just thought I'd add that.
-
The story about the Nova is basically an urban legend that isn't true, by the way.
Doesn't change the point you're making, I just thought I'd add that.
I like a good parable or fable as much as the next guy, but when they're passed off as fact the message is lost on me.
-
I like a good parable or fable as much as the next guy, but when they're passed off as fact the message is lost on me.
Now I have no idea if that story is true or not, it was the example the professor gave to drive home an important lesson.
-
Why did the professor need a fake story (which he didn't acknowledge as untrue) to drive home his point?
-
Why did the professor need a fake story (which he didn't acknowledge as untrue) to drive home his point?
I'll be honest, I have no idea if he said it was true, untrue, or didn't say it at all. It was 10 years ago at this point, I don't remember. I don't think it makes the point any less true.
-
I'll be honest, I have no idea if he said it was true, untrue, or didn't say it at all. It was 10 years ago at this point, I don't remember. I don't think it makes the point any less true.
Like I said, if it was told as a parable or a fable I don't have a problem with it - though in economics/business/ facts matter.
Lots of phony stories being told these days that people insist "make a point" even if they're fake. If the point is valid shouldn't there be a true story out there to make it with?
-
Like I said, if it was told as a parable or a fable I don't have a problem with it - though in economics/business/ facts matter.
Lots of phony stories being told these days that people insist "make a point" even if they're fake. If the point is valid shouldn't there be a true story out there to make it with?
So do you disagree with the point?
-
Why did the professor need a fake story (which he didn't acknowledge as untrue) to drive home his point?
We humans have a long and successful history of using fake stories to drive home points.
-
We humans have a long and successful history of using fake stories to drive home points.
There was this guy from Nazareth who was a huge fan of parables
-
There was this guy from Nazareth who was a huge fan of parables
Many many moons ago I saw them play with Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath.
Great show
-
We humans have a long and successful history of using fake stories to drive home points.
No problem as long as they're acknowledged as such. Making up stuff and saying it's fact because if it were it would drive home a good point? Not a fan.
-
Exactly right. Nothing wrong with the term "warriors", whether referring to Roman fighters, Indians braves, or members of our own military.
Using an offensive caricature of an Indian, however, is using a racist symbol. A person continuing to use an offensive symbol and being proud of it is as good of a definition of a racist as I can think of. I
Is this racist?
(https://a.espncdn.com/i/teamlogos/nhl/500/chi.png)
-
So do you disagree with the point?
I don't know. If there are true stories that bear out his point I suppose I do. But when it comes to economics I'm leery of guys who make up stories and tell them as facts to make a point.
-
I don't know. If there are true stories that bear out his point I suppose I do. But when it comes to economics I'm leery of guys who make up stories and tell them as facts to make a point.
It's a fair point
On the other hand, I'm skeptical that any nation really had a guns vs butter debate.
-
No problem as long as they're acknowledged as such. Making up stuff and saying it's fact because if it were it would drive home a good point? Not a fan.
In this conversation, no one presented the story as fact. I acknowledged that I didn't know if the story was true or not. I have no idea if the professor presented it as fact or a parable because it happened 10 years ago. But you are right Lenny, if the professor presented it as fact, that would be bad.
I don't know. If there are true stories that bear out his point I suppose I do. But when it comes to economics I'm leery of guys who make up stories and tell them as facts to make a point.
We are not talking about economics here. We are talking about whether or not a radio announcer should be suspended for unintentionally making an offensive comment. I say we are accountable for our actions if we didn't intend to cause harm. I gave the parable of the Chevy Nova and I also gave a true story of being accountable for a car accident even if we didn't intend to cause the accident as ways to illustrate this point. What about you? What do you think of Mr. Dolphin's situation?
-
Is this racist?
(https://a.espncdn.com/i/teamlogos/nhl/500/chi.png)
To some yes. To others no. Reasonable people will disagree.
-
To some yes. To others no. Reasonable people will disagree.
Respectfully, TAMU, I think your response illustrates my belief that some confuse "racist" with "offensive." In my opinion, it either is racist or it is not. I don't think racism gets to be in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, it absolutely is offensive to some, but not to others. Reasonable people will disagree.
-
Ever the victim.
Pointing out the hypocrisy doesn’t make one a victim. Reasonable question that people cannot seem to answer, so their responses become “ever the victim”, or worse...racist / genderist / ageist comments tied to the race, gender, age of the person making the comments....the irony and hypocrisy so thick and totally disregarded by those that make the comments.
-
Walk around your neighborhood in Chicago, let us know how it goes. Because I am sure you are right, you clearly know what is and isn't racist much better than black people do.
What if he walks around at 2:00am in Chicago on his way to a Subway restaurant.....
-
No one disputes this. But just because that's what he meant, doesn't mean it was appropriate for the reasons stated earlier.
No one speaks for their race.
The same is true for gender, too....right? So ridiculous comments like #believeALLwomen should never be embraced, it’s a bumper sticker saying but somehow became more than that.....ALL....literally ALL.....just want to make sure there is consistency here because as I have pointed out how little there is (and labeled a victim for pointing it out)
-
Respectfully, TAMU, I think your response illustrates my belief that some confuse "racist" with "offensive." In my opinion, it either is racist or it is not. I don't think racism gets to be in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, it absolutely is offensive to some, but not to others. Reasonable people will disagree.
My God, a rational response and common sense!!!!
-
The same is true for gender, too....right? So ridiculous comments like #believeALLwomen should never be embraced, it’s a bumper sticker saying but somehow became more than that.....ALL....literally ALL.....just want to make sure there is consistency here because as I have pointed out how little there is (and labeled a victim for pointing it out)
Of course. The problem is you seem to be the type of guy who always points out the minority of cases where discrimination/harrassment is shown to be made up instead of being concerned about the majority of cases where it is a serious problem. That is why people label you a victim.
What if he walks around at 2:00am in Chicago on his way to a Subway restaurant.....
Case in point...
-
This whole thread is driving some people ApeSh!t it appears.
Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. Today more than ever. Some things rise to the level of near universal offensive nature, while others do not....but all too often now we treat them equal in nature. Sorry, I disagree....reasonable people can do that.
Good day
-
Respectfully, TAMU, I think your response illustrates my belief that some confuse "racist" with "offensive." In my opinion, it either is racist or it is not. I don't think racism gets to be in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, it absolutely is offensive to some, but not to others. Reasonable people will disagree.
To me, racist is just a specific type of offensive. All racist things are offensive, but not all offensive things are racist.
I don't think you can make racism into a binary. It is a spectrum. Some things are more (or less) racist than others. Otherwise who gets to decide what is racist? Because I think I am a reasonable person. I also think my grandfather was a reasonable person. We would have very different opinions on what was and wasn't racist.
-
My God, a rational response and common sense!!!!
Cheeks, I think I have tried to give a reasonable and common sense argument without flaming or insulting anyone. I believe that we should be accountable for our actions even if we did not intend to harm anyone with our actions. I have given the Chevy Nova parable and the fact that we hold someone accountable for a car accident even if they didn't intend to cause the accident to illustrate my point. I have asked for your thoughts a couple of times. Do you agree that we are accountable for our actions regardless of intent? Disagree? See it differently?
-
Pointing out the hypocrisy doesn’t make one a victim. Reasonable question that people cannot seem to answer, so their responses become “ever the victim”, or worse...racist / genderist / ageist comments tied to the race, gender, age of the person making the comments....the irony and hypocrisy so thick and totally disregarded by those that make the comments.
Still playing the victim.
-
Comparing a black man to a monkey? I think most would agree that falls on the spectrum of racism. Now that doesn't make Dolphin a racist, just a person who said something racist. Everyone has said, done, or thought racist things at some point in their life. Unfortunately for Dolphin, he made a mistake in a very public way.
In my view, he compared him to a powerful, mythological creature that has never existed. He would have been better off saying Godzilla or the Jolly Green Giant.
I'm old, and white, but that is my opinion.
-
Of course. The problem is you seem to be the type of guy who always points out the minority of cases where discrimination/harrassment is shown to be made up instead of being concerned about the majority of cases where it is a serious problem. That is why people label you a victim.
Case in point...
Jussie Smullet is the new 'Duke Lacrosse,' i.e. the rare false allegation used by some as an excuse to dismiss all allegations.
-
Jussie Smullet is the new 'Duke Lacrosse,' i.e. the rare false allegation used by some as an excuse to dismiss all allegations.
Duke LAX wasn't even a false allegation. It could have been but we don't know. Duke LAX was an example of gross negligence and misconduct by a prosecutor.
-
In my view, he compared him to a powerful, mythological creature that has never existed. He would have been better off saying Godzilla or the Jolly Green Giant.
I'm old, and white, but that is my opinion.
I think that is a reasonable interpretation. I think it is also a reasonable interpretation that he compared him to the world's most famous gorilla.
-
Duke LAX wasn't even a false allegation. It could have been but we don't know. Duke LAX was an example of gross negligence and misconduct by a prosecutor.
I suggest you watch this ESPN 30 for 30 if you haven't.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vogue.com/article/fantastic-lies-espn-30-for-30-duke-lacrosse-case/amp
-
I suggest you watch this ESPN 30 for 30 if you haven't.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vogue.com/article/fantastic-lies-espn-30-for-30-duke-lacrosse-case/amp
I have. Mike Nifong is a terrible person who was justly disbarred, lost his job, and went to prison (for a day). That doesn't mean that something terrible didn't happen at that house.
-
I have. Mike Nifong is a terrible person who was justly disbarred, lost his job, and went to prison (for a day). That doesn't mean that something terrible didn't happen at that house.
What is your definition of "terrible"? If your comment is about a crime then you didn't watch very well then. Not one piece of evidence or testimony supported the crime as it was charged and the accuser recanted her testimony.
Is it a sad story? Yes, all the way around.
-
What is your definition of "terrible"? If your comment is about a crime then you didn't watch very well then. Not one piece of evidence or testimony supported the crime as it was charged and the accuser recanted her testimony.
Is it a sad story? Yes, all the way around.
Mike Nifong was the prosecutor. He was the terrible person.
-
In my view, he compared him to a powerful, mythological creature that has never existed. He would have been better off saying Godzilla or the Jolly Green Giant.
From Africa.
Who was put in chains and taken to America.
Who was obsessed with a white women
Who was considered a beast.
Have I missed any stereotypes here that the movie presented.
Oh..... who was captured and put in chains by white men to make them rich.
To Keefe, though, that is showing Kong as a majestic hero.
-
From Africa.
Skull Island is supposed to be off the coast of Indonesia, which makes it part of Asia or Oceania, depending on your preference. So maybe Yao Ming or Harry Froling should be offended by being called King Kong?
The point is well considered that even if the comment was innocent, Dolphin should know better.
-
Skull Island is supposed to be off the coast of Indonesia, which makes it part of Asia or Oceania, depending on your preference. So maybe Yao Ming or Harry Froling should be offended by being called King Kong?
The point is well considered that even if the comment was innocent, Dolphin should know better.
Thank you for the correction.
-
Of course. The problem is you seem to be the type of guy who always points out the minority of cases where discrimination/harrassment is shown to be made up instead of being concerned about the majority of cases where it is a serious problem. That is why people label you a victim.
Case in point...
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.
-
To me, racist is just a specific type of offensive. All racist things are offensive, but not all offensive things are racist.
I don't think you can make racism into a binary. It is a spectrum. Some things are more (or less) racist than others. Otherwise who gets to decide what is racist? Because I think I am a reasonable person. I also think my grandfather was a reasonable person. We would have very different opinions on what was and wasn't racist.
+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 don't understand the porpoise of all this fighting....
-
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.
-
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
-
+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.
-
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
-
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? ::)
-
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.
-
nevermind
-
Hyperbole much? ::)
what is exaggerated? what is not to be taken seriously? where is the excess? in my post?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.]
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.?
-
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.
-
We are not talking about economics here. We are talking about whether or not a radio announcer should be suspended for unintentionally making an offensive comment. I say we are accountable for our actions if we didn't intend to cause harm. I gave the parable of the Chevy Nova and I also gave a true story of being accountable for a car accident even if we didn't intend to cause the accident as ways to illustrate this point. What about you? What do you think of Mr. Dolphin's situation?
Brother TAMU,
I honestly don't know what should happen to the radio announcer. He said something (live, in the heat of battle, as it were) that was at best in bad taste and at worst racist. I wish we lived in a world where the worst possible interpretation of people's words wasn't the fail safe opinion of many but it is what it is. In my experience (anecdotal, I know), people who give others the benefit of the doubt are much more happy than those who don't.
As to your second point, if one's mistake on the road causes an accident, yes that person's insurance is responsible for damages incurred. But not criminally responsible. We save that for those who drive drunk, recklessly (both choices) or, worse yet intentionally use their vehicle as a weapon. So how responsible that driver is depends to a great extent on choice or intent.
-
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.
This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.
This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.
-
Brother TAMU,
I honestly don't know what should happen to the radio announcer. He said something (live, in the heat of battle, as it were) that was at best in bad taste and at worst racist. I wish we lived in a world where the worst possible interpretation of people's words wasn't the fail safe opinion of many but it is what it is. In my experience (anecdotal, I know), people who give others the benefit of the doubt are much more happy than those who don't.
As to your second point, if one's mistake on the road causes an accident, yes that person's insurance is responsible for damages incurred. But not criminally responsible. We save that for those who drive drunk, recklessly (both choices) or, worse yet intentionally use their vehicle as a weapon. So how responsible that driver is depends to a great extent on choice or intent.
Excellent, sounds like we are on the same page. Earlier I said this:
Intent matters to a degree. You are right that we should treat someone who intentionally says something racist more harshly than someone who makes a mistake.
So I agree intent changes the degree to which we hold someone accountable but whether or not they are accountable depends on the impact that they cause.
-
This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.
This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.
I couldn't agree with this more. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a remarkably high standard. It is objectively the right one when we are talking about the state taking away a person's freedoms. Whereas the justice system necessarily focuses on the alleged perpetrator, because it needs to clear a remarkably high bar to use its power to take away a person's freedom - that's not the right standard in a social or moral context. There, I think we should be collectively applying something more like a reasonableness or weight of the evidence standard. Just because someone couldn't necessarily get a guilty verdict in a court doesn't mean their claims shouldn't be taken seriously, and it doesn't mean the accused shouldn't bear the repercussions of the alleged victim's claims. To be unwilling to allow any accused to bear any social or moral repercussions unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that in every single close call, the victim bears the burden, which is crap.
-
This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.
This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.
I couldn't agree with this more. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a remarkably high standard. It is objectively the right one when we are talking about the state taking away a person's freedoms. Whereas the justice system necessarily focuses on the alleged perpetrator, because it needs to clear a remarkably high bar to use its power to take away a person's freedom - that's not the right standard in a social or moral context. There, I think we should be collectively applying something more like a reasonableness or weight of the evidence standard. Just because someone couldn't necessarily get a guilty verdict in a court doesn't mean their claims shouldn't be taken seriously, and it doesn't mean the accused shouldn't bear the repercussions of the alleged victim's claims. To be unwilling to allow any accused to bear any social or moral repercussions unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means that in every single close call, the victim bears the burden, which is crap.
Agreed and I'd take this one step further. The presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation....but only in benefit of the harasser. Often those who are quick to say "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused are also very quick to accuse the accuser of making a false allegation. Making a false allegation is a crime and subject to the same standard of innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't stop many from equating a not guilty verdict or charges not being filed to a false allegation. The reality is, there is a huge gap between false allegation and not guilty and most unsuccessful charges fall somewhere in between the two.
-
Imagine if Dolphin was the announcer for the Phoenix Suns and while all this was going on the Suns Gorilla mascot was entertaining fans in the background......the severity of fragile minds exploding into the ether is almost too much to bare. How is it the Suns can even have such a mascot?
-
Imagine if Dolphin was the announcer for the Phoenix Suns and while all this was going on the Suns Gorilla mascot was entertaining fans in the background......the severity of fragile minds exploding into the there is almost too much to bare. How is it the Suns can even have such a mascot?
I think you are aware, but in case you are not, no one is saying that the image of gorilla is offensive. They are saying it is offensive to compare a black person to a gorilla. So having a gorilla as a mascot is not offensive. If the Sun's announcers was to say "DeAndre Ayton looks like our mascot!" that would be offensive.
Why does someone disagreeing with you about something being offensive mean that they have a "fragile mind" the is "exploding"? Can't reasonable people disagree on what is and isn't offensive?
Also, what did you think of the parable of the Chevy Nova? I've asked a few times and am really curious as to your thoughts.
-
I think you are aware, but in case you are not, no one is saying that the image of gorilla is offensive. They are saying it is offensive to compare a black person to a gorilla. So having a gorilla as a mascot is not offensive. If the Sun's announcers was to say "DeAndre Ayton looks like our mascot!" that would be offensive.
Why does someone disagreeing with you about something being offensive mean that they have a "fragile mind" the is "exploding"? Can't reasonable people disagree on what is and isn't offensive?
Also, what did you think of the parable of the Chevy Nova? I've asked a few times and am really curious as to your thoughts.
No one? You sure about that? I can find 100’s of examples on social media right now claiming exactly that. People are preprogrammed to be offended by this stuff now. It’s on autopilot.
Chevy Nova. Fact checks. Urban legend
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-spanish/
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2017/04/07/fact-check-the-nova-did-not-sell-poorly-in-latin-america-due-to-its-name/
-
No one? You sure about that? I can find 100’s of examples on social media right now claiming exactly that. People are preprogrammed to be offended by this stuff now. It’s on autopilot.
Chevy Nova. Fact checks. Urban legend
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chevrolet-nova-name-spanish/
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2017/04/07/fact-check-the-nova-did-not-sell-poorly-in-latin-america-due-to-its-name/
As has been discussed previously, the Chevy Nova story is a parable. A story meant to teach a lesson, it doesn't matter if the story actually happened. What do you think of the message? That we are accountable for our actions even if we didn't intend a negative impact.
And yes, I am sure about that. No one in this thread has claimed that a gorilla is offensive, just comparing a black person to one is. I'm sure there are a handful of people out there who think a gorilla by itself is offensive but I am using the reasonable person standard. I think everyone in this conversation would agree they aren't reasonable.
And why does disagreeing with you mean that someone has a "fragile mind" that is "exploding"?
-
This is a really interesting point and brings to mind the presumption of innocence which is in place legally but where does it apply from a moral standpoint? Take sexual harassment, in certain segments of the population there is more concern for those who might be "falsely accused" of such behavior than for the people who have experienced said harassment. It feels like the legal concept of presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation.
This is why I think it's critical to decouple societal harm from calling an action/statement racist or sexist or whatever....it allows us to discuss in more empathetic way for the victim without "branding" the perpetrator.
This is really well said.
Thanks
-
No one? You sure about that? I can find 100’s of examples on social media right now claiming exactly that.
There are hundreds of examples on social media right now saying gorillas are offensive? (We're talking gorillas here, not the context in which they are placed).
-
Why ya'll let Chicos straw man you to death, I'll never know.
-
As has been discussed previously, the Chevy Nova story is a parable. A story meant to teach a lesson, it doesn't matter if the story actually happened. What do you think of the message? That we are accountable for our actions even if we didn't intend a negative impact.
And yes, I am sure about that. No one in this thread has claimed that a gorilla is offensive, just comparing a black person to one is. I'm sure there are a handful of people out there who think a gorilla by itself is offensive but I am using the reasonable person standard. I think everyone in this conversation would agree they aren't reasonable.
And why does disagreeing with you mean that someone has a "fragile mind" that is "exploding"?
Has nothing to do with disagreeing with me or not. People are free to disagree with anyone. Just as people are free to poke at why they are disagreeing.
There are a lot of UNreasonable people out there today, to many in positions of power....unfortunately. To many with giant megaphones on BOTH sides trying to push their agendas, one group in particular that runs 24/7/365 and has reach globally on all kinds of devices....I come from that world...the megaphone is insanely powerful and about 90% of them in the same row boat together on message and mission. The reasonable person standard has gone the way of the dodo bird. That's why I said fragile minds, not because they disagree with me but because they are preprogrammed in today's age to be victims at first site, and if they get marching orders from the right generals....it really gets kicked into high gear.
On your NOVA example then, is the media ACCOUNTABLE for their actions when they smear people and never apologize? Is it appropriate that the Covington kids are suing for $250M and more to get that accountability they refused to acknowledge in their rush to judgment? Doesn't that accountability in actions go both ways? Another article yesterday about a lawsuit won by a young man railroaded in a sexual harassment case in college because the college investigator was so blatantly one sided....yes, accountability should matter but does it for so many of these folks? Did the Duke Lacrosse team ever get a chance to play for that national title or have their senior season (for seniors)? The coach was fired, his life turned upside down. Was Joy Reid's homophobic comments treated the same way as others...she's still getting paid millions and didn't lose her job....accountability? How are all these anti-semetic people employed and not being held accountable? The examples are endless....and yes, endless on multiple sides of issues.
Accountability is great, if it is done correctly and equally, but it isn't. Some of the most powerful people and institutions can level whatever they want, don't apologize and don't take accountability. We all know that....endless endless examples. So though I agree with you on the notion of it, the practice of it I find lacking.
-
Agreed and I'd take this one step further. The presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation....but only in benefit of the harasser. Often those who are quick to say "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused are also very quick to accuse the accuser of making a false allegation. Making a false allegation is a crime and subject to the same standard of innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't stop many from equating a not guilty verdict or charges not being filed to a false allegation. The reality is, there is a huge gap between false allegation and not guilty and most unsuccessful charges fall somewhere in between the two.
Should someone that makes a false accusation receive a stiffer penalty? Considering the resources involved to investigate, the damage done to the victim, etc?
-
There are hundreds of examples on social media right now saying gorillas are offensive? (We're talking gorillas here, not the context in which they are placed).
Yup. A team with mostly African American players with a mascot of same teams that is a gorilla in which there is historical context of racist people making those associations.....or as you say..."the context in which they are placed"
-
Should someone that makes a false accusation receive a stiffer penalty? Considering the resources involved to investigate, the damage done to the victim, etc?
Just so we all understand, you're suggesting that a person who makes a false rape claim ought to be treated more harshly than an actual rapist?
-
Yup. A team with mostly African American players with a mascot of same teams that is a gorilla in which there is historical context of racist people making those associations.....or as you say..."the context in which they are placed"
So you believe a mascot is intended as a representative of the players on its team?
Like, the Hauser brothers and Markus Howard are big goofy birds? Stanford players are trees?
Also, shockingly, you're shifting goalposts.
-
So you believe a mascot is intended as a representative of the players on its team?
Like, the Hauser brothers and Markus Howard are big goofy birds? Stanford players are trees?
Also, shockingly, you're shifting goalposts.
No, me personally...no. But I have absolutely zero doubts based on people's own words that others do feel this way. For the same reason those people want to abolish Santa Claus, or Uncle Sam, or a Marquette Warrior, etc because they "represent" us or the school or country. As stated, there are many UNreasonable people out there.
-
Just so we all understand, you're suggesting that a person who makes a false rape claim ought to be treated more harshly than an actual rapist?
A person that KNOWINGLY tries to destroy someone's life, get them sent to prison, for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT should face a MASSIVE PENALTY. MASSIVE. MASSIVE. MASSIVE.
Just so we all understand. People's lives are destroyed by this stuff. MASSIVE PENALTIES should be levied. Just so we all understand.
I said STIFFER penalty, meaning stiffer than the BS penalties levied today. Not stiffer than those committing the actual crime. Just so we all understand.
-
A person that KNOWINGLY tries to destroy someone's life, get them sent to prison, for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT should face a MASSIVE PENALTY. MASSIVE. MASSIVE. MASSIVE.
Just so we all understand. People's lives are destroyed by this stuff. MASSIVE PENALTIES should be levied. Just so we all understand.
I said STIFFER penalty, meaning stiffer than the BS penalties levied today. Not stiffer than those committing the actual crime. Just so we all understand.
Just so we understand, Cheeks, people's lives are destroyed by rape and racism at a far greater rate than they are by false claims. Your outrage there seems curiously lacking.
The reality is false claims are very rare, and arrests and convictions based on false claims are even more rare (one study found that only seven of 216 false rape claims led to an arrest, and only two of those arrests led to prosecution). For those people, it's a terrible miscarriage of justice and the perpetrators of those claims ought to be prosecuted and punished. But in reality, you're more likely to be struck by lightning while sitting in your house than you are of being falsely accused.
The problem comes when people such as yourself use those exceptionally rare cases to call into question every allegation and offer sympathy to potential perpetrators. You like to say it's because you care about "real" victims harmed by false claims, but what you're doing actually harms real victims by discouraging them from reporting their victimhood for fear they're going to called liars.
And, just in case I wasn't clear, those people's lives have been knowingly "destroyed" every bit and more as the victims of false claims.
Also, you wrote this previously:
"I would say those that pull these hoaxes should get double punishment because of what it does to legit cases."
-
Agreed and I'd take this one step further. The presumption of innocence bleeds over into our moral and/or empathetic viewing of the situation....but only in benefit of the harasser. Often those who are quick to say "innocent until proven guilty" for the accused are also very quick to accuse the accuser of making a false allegation. Making a false allegation is a crime and subject to the same standard of innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't stop many from equating a not guilty verdict or charges not being filed to a false allegation. The reality is, there is a huge gap between false allegation and not guilty and most unsuccessful charges fall somewhere in between the two.
Correct, too often we assume a not guilty verdict means nothing happened. Something very well could have happened but it either didn't rise to a convictable offense and/or it wasn't legally provable to be such.
One thing I think about with regard to false allegations is that they are so low, but I think that is largely a function of the reporting of "factual" allegations is so low. The burden to report something like sexual harassment is so high that those who have been harassed, etc don't want to clear the barrier let alone someone who is faking it wanting to do so. In a really weird way an explosion of false allegations would be a short term positive because it would mean we've successfully lowered the barrier/burden to the whole process for victims.
-
A person that KNOWINGLY tries to destroy someone's life, get them sent to prison, for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT should face a MASSIVE PENALTY. MASSIVE. MASSIVE. MASSIVE.
Just so we all understand. People's lives are destroyed by this stuff. MASSIVE PENALTIES should be levied. Just so we all understand.
I said STIFFER penalty, meaning stiffer than the BS penalties levied today. Not stiffer than those committing the actual crime. Just so we all understand.
So you are advocating that if someone is 100% lying about another person's action that they should have significant punishment....I don't think anyone disagrees. However, a not guilty verdict does not make accusations 100% false, just means they aren't provable. The scenario you describe for massive penalties is near zero in terms of actual cases that have or could happen.
-
Impressed this thread is still going on.
Have enjoyed just sitting back and letting others do their thing.
-
Has nothing to do with disagreeing with me or not. People are free to disagree with anyone. Just as people are free to poke at why they are disagreeing.
There are a lot of UNreasonable people out there today, to many in positions of power....unfortunately. To many with giant megaphones on BOTH sides trying to push their agendas, one group in particular that runs 24/7/365 and has reach globally on all kinds of devices....I come from that world...the megaphone is insanely powerful and about 90% of them in the same row boat together on message and mission. The reasonable person standard has gone the way of the dodo bird. That's why I said fragile minds, not because they disagree with me but because they are preprogrammed in today's age to be victims at first site, and if they get marching orders from the right generals....it really gets kicked into high gear.
On your NOVA example then, is the media ACCOUNTABLE for their actions when they smear people and never apologize? Is it appropriate that the Covington kids are suing for $250M and more to get that accountability they refused to acknowledge in their rush to judgment? Doesn't that accountability in actions go both ways? Another article yesterday about a lawsuit won by a young man railroaded in a sexual harassment case in college because the college investigator was so blatantly one sided....yes, accountability should matter but does it for so many of these folks? Did the Duke Lacrosse team ever get a chance to play for that national title or have their senior season (for seniors)? The coach was fired, his life turned upside down. Was Joy Reid's homophobic comments treated the same way as others...she's still getting paid millions and didn't lose her job....accountability? How are all these anti-semetic people employed and not being held accountable? The examples are endless....and yes, endless on multiple sides of issues.
Accountability is great, if it is done correctly and equally, but it isn't. Some of the most powerful people and institutions can level whatever they want, don't apologize and don't take accountability. We all know that....endless endless examples. So though I agree with you on the notion of it, the practice of it I find lacking.
So what I'm getting from this is that you agree, we should be accountable for our actions regardless of our intent. You just think not everyone is held accountable in the same way. Is that correct?
-
Should someone that makes a false accusation receive a stiffer penalty? Considering the resources involved to investigate, the damage done to the victim, etc?
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if someone who makes a false allegation of rape (or any other crime) should be punished more harshly than an actual rapist. If that is your question then the answer is no. It takes just as many resources to investigate a false claim as a true one, and in most cases the damage done to a victim of rape is much greater than the damage done to a victim of false accusation.
If your question is should someone who makes a false allegation of rape (or any other crime) receive a penalty equal to or greater than the damage suffered by the victim of the false allegation then I would say the answer is yes.
And as has been discussed in other posts, a not guilty verdict does not equal a false allegation. Not filing charges does not equal a false allegation. Settling out of court does not equal a false allegation. An allegation of false allegation would be subject to the same presumption of innocence and beyond all reasonable doubt standard that was afforded to the victim of the false allegation. There would have to be proof that that the allegation was a complete fabrication in order for someone to be convicted of making a false allegation.
-
So you are advocating that if someone is 100% lying about another person's action that they should have significant punishment....I don't think anyone disagrees. However, a not guilty verdict does not make accusations 100% false, just means they aren't provable. The scenario you describe for massive penalties is near zero in terms of actual cases that have or could happen.
Never said anything about a not guilty verdict...did I? I don’t think so and hope it didn’t come off that way. I believe I said someone that is PROVEN to have made it up with the intent to harm someone else.
When we have absolute evidence of someone faking a sexual assault attack in order to get back at someone, etc, where if a jury convicted the accused they could do decades of time, the punishment for willfully trying to frame someone has to be severe. It cannot be disorderly conduct.
It’s a high bar to prove, but there are to many examples of this stuff and the person is merely charged with filing a false report. That has got to stop.
I’d also push for complete overhaul of libel laws to hold the media accountable. Some of the crap they get away with is terrible for a democracy and society. The standards have fallen so far. Smear smear smear...oops, we sorry.
-
I’d also push for complete overhaul of libel laws to hold the media accountable. Some of the crap they get away with is terrible for a democracy and society. The standards have fallen so far. Smear smear smear...oops, we sorry.
Oh hey, are we going to include politicians in your revised laws?
-
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.
I find it fascinating that in a very good discussion about race and the implications of language that is used, our resident racist decided to insert a random post about a black man doing something bad. It was utterly predictable.
-
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.
I love all of your posts here, Still. I don't know that I agree with all that you say, but as far as your comments about "that's racist" and "he's racist" and your remark about the difference between "racist" and "offensive", I think you have hit the nail on the head. You have made several other excellent points as well.
If we are to have a dialog in this country about race, these two things would be great openers for the discussion.
-
Brother TAMU,
I honestly don't know what should happen to the radio announcer. He said something (live, in the heat of battle, as it were) that was at best in bad taste and at worst racist. I wish we lived in a world where the worst possible interpretation of people's words wasn't the fail safe opinion of many but it is what it is. In my experience (anecdotal, I know), people who give others the benefit of the doubt are much more happy than those who don't.
Completely agree, Lenny. When I read his comments I never had a thought about whether he was racist or not. Only that his comment really crossed the line. Whether he should be punished or not? I really don't know.
-
I’d also push for complete overhaul of libel laws to hold the media accountable. Some of the crap they get away with is terrible for a democracy and society. The standards have fallen so far. Smear smear smear...oops, we sorry.
Next thing you know, Cheeks will be telling us the press is the enemy of the people.
Anyhow, I'm very skeptical of your understanding of libel laws. Suffice to say, if the media operated as you seem to think, they could easily be sued out of existence. But have you ever wondered why, if the media is so continuously telling lies about your leaders, they don't sue? (Hint: Truth is a defense).
-
Oh hey, are we going to include politicians in your revised laws?
Hell yes.
-
Next thing you know, Cheeks will be telling us the press is the enemy of the people.
Anyhow, I'm very skeptical of your understanding of libel laws. Suffice to say, if the media operated as you seem to think, they could easily be sued out of existence. But have you ever wondered why, if the media is so continuously telling lies about your leaders, they don't sue? (Hint: Truth is a defense).
Media that purposely distorts the truth is the Enemy of the people. I don’t k ow how anyone would disagree with that. Now, do I think most of the media fits into this descriptor? Of course not. Do some? Absolutely.
I’m talking about KNOWINGLY distorting. Do you support that? Is that doing society a service by knowingly doing that? Purposely caught in undercover video manipulating polls, purposely caught faking evidence, so on and so forth. Purposely making claims they know are false.
Trust in media at all time lows right now. They are doing a bang up job.