OT Play by play guy suspended for "racist language"

[barfo]

It's not that when you call someone who is not a Black any sort of large monkey. It's when you refer to a Black person as any kind of monkey. For many years now racists have compared Black Americans to monkeys. Why, I remember when Michelle Obama was referred to as a monkey.
https://www.apnews.com/4968a8b35bf64c959e700a8ddfe79714

shouldn't that link be www.apenews.com?

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Ha!!!!! Watch this video at about 50 seconds and then go f yourselves.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Well, the guys I went to school with were quite colorful. Some white, asian, and black. It was educational and quite fun being able to laugh and be ourselves with each other. We never thought of calling each other racist names. We just weren't that way.

However, I understand and respect your view being that you lived through those tough times during the 60s and 70s.

Times change. Keep up or getvleft behind.
Gay doesnt mean what it meant 50 years ago, so maybe king kong doesnt mean what lanny says it does now, compared to back then???
Either way, i must be racist too because i called @dviss a beast on the court one time...

And ill say it now. @hoopsjock can be king kong on the court at times( when i slack up on defense) and i bet @dviss1 would agree.

Context is everything. Very few things are black and white aNd most are best judged situationally.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Times change. Keep up or getvleft behind.
Gay doesnt mean what it meant 50 years ago, so maybe king kong doesnt mean what lanny says it does now, compared to back then???
Either way, i must be racist too because i called @dviss a beast on the court one time...

And ill say it now. @hoopsjock can be king kong on the court at times( when i slack up on defense) and i bet @dviss1 would agree.

Context is everything. Very few things are black and white aNd most are best judged situationally.

Watch that Nurk highlight video and listen to calabro describe nurk vs adams at 50 seconds.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Watch that Nurk highlight video and listen to calabro describe nurk vs adams at 50 seconds.

Well kc is most definitely racist then. 99% chance anyhow.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Well kc is most definitely racist then. 99% chance anyhow.

Those dudes ain't American either. Add xenophobic too.

 

[Hobbesarable]

Times change. Keep up or getvleft behind.
Gay doesnt mean what it meant 50 years ago, so maybe king kong doesnt mean what lanny says it does now, compared to back then???
Either way, i must be racist too because i called @dviss a beast on the court one time...

And ill say it now. @hoopsjock can be king kong on the court at times( when i slack up on defense) and i bet @dviss1 would agree.

Context is everything. Very few things are black and white aNd most are best judged situationally.

As you said, context is everything. I would also go one step further. A person's true intent when using specific words and phrases also needs to be considered. And that can be known through civil discussion.

I've noticed many people making assumptions about a person's intent (on the internet and within our society) rather than asking them. I would like to see more discussion and understanding.

 

[Stevenson]

America is the most inclusive country in the world and there is nobody that's a close second.

The rest of the world's countries are either segregatory or monoracial in structure.

 

[Hoopguru]

As you said, context is everything. I would also go one step further. A person's true intent when using specific words and phrases also needs to be considered. And that can be known through civil discussion.

I've noticed many people making assumptions about a person's intent (on the internet and within our society) rather than asking them. I would like to see more discussion and understanding.

Unfortunately & sadly the willingness to discuss/debate and compromise anymore seems lost.
When opposing views can be receptive to mediation and open to conciliation theres a chance for give and take, balance! We need this as a society now more than ever, imo.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Unfortunately & sadly the willingness to discuss/debate and compromise anymore seems lost.
When opposing views can be receptive to mediation and open to conciliation theres a chance for give and take, balance! We need this as a society now more than ever, imo.

You can look no further than this site and how it seems more and more posters refuse to listen to anyone they disagree with.
absolutely concerning on a big picture level.

 

[Cippy91]

Context and intent. Simple. Seems lost in today’s society. All that matters today is what was said and what somebody wants it to be rather than how it was said and how the person intended it to be. Unfortunate

 

[Stevenson]

You can look no further than this site and how it seems more and more posters refuse to listen to anyone they disagree with.

I respectfully disagree. The issue isn't an unwillingness to listen and debate. It's an inability for the other side to marshall any decent/new/compelling facts and arguments. Same ol, same ol. B.O.R.I.N.G.

I'll listen, but not to @MARIS61 for instance throw gibberish out there in an intent to rile the others posters up.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I respectfully disagree. The issue isn't an unwillingness to listen and debate. It's an inability for the other side to marshall any decent/new/compelling facts and arguments. Same ol, same ol. B.O.R.I.N.G.

I'll listen, but not to @MARIS61 for instance throw gibberish out there in an intent to rile the others posters up.

In part, and no disrespectto him, he would be one of the members i was refering to. More often then not there is no back and forth but merely...the next topic of statement.
When a rebuttal is tossed out he rarely comments back. On it.

With that said it shouldnt stop you from reading his posts. To say you wont ever learn anything is also incredibly ignorant.

The key is, being able to voice one’s opinion without fear of Backlash of a personal nature and only have rebuttals based on the topic of the opinion. Then the op is responsible for responding to the rebuttals in kind.

It takes two to converse in a productive manner, but this type of productive discussion is rarer and rarer. When either side resorts to personal attacks or the plugging of ears, then there will not be any progress made.

 

[Stevenson]

With that said it shouldnt stop you from reading his posts. To say you wont ever learn anything is also incredibly ignorant.

I don't believe Maris believes half of what he says and posts, so if he doesn't, I won't either. He hasn't earned that respect. He's just a shit stirrer, and a disingenuous one at that.

@MarAzul on the other hand is at least a true believer. I respect that, albeit I disagree with his take.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't believe Maris believes half of what he says and posts, so if he doesn't, I won't either. He hasn't earned that respect. He's just a shit stirrer, and a disingenuous one at that.

@MarAzul on the other hand is at least a true believer. I respect that, albeit I disagree with his take.

Fair enough.

 

[Lanny]

Unfortunately & sadly the willingness to discuss/debate and compromise anymore seems lost.
When opposing views can be receptive to mediation and open to conciliation theres a chance for give and take, balance! We need this as a society now more than ever, imo.

The very definition of politics used to be the ability to compromise. Now it's, attack, attack, attack.
In Congress they still refer to each other as 'gentleman' and 'lady'. That's one of the last vestiges of the ability to discuss issues with each other in a civil manner.

 

[Hoopguru]

The very definition of politics used to be the ability to compromise. Now it's, attack, attack, attack.
In Congress they still refer to each other as 'gentleman' and 'lady'. That's one of the last vestiges of the ability to discuss issues with each other in a civil manner.

Thank goodness they open each session with prayer!

 

[e_blazer]

I respectfully disagree. The issue isn't an unwillingness to listen and debate. It's an inability for the other side to marshall any decent/new/compelling facts and arguments. Same ol, same ol. B.O.R.I.N.G.
HE
I'll listen, but not to @MARIS61 for instance throw gibberish out there in an intent to rile the others posters up.

Those three words are among the greatest problems in American political discourse today, IMO. Both major parties play with them and use THE OTHER SIDE as a bogey person (no sexism allowed). There are many racists among Trump's supporters, but Democrats love painting with a mighty big RACIST brush when describing Republicans. Certainly, there are no racists among Democrats (unless you go poking around a little bit). Republicans love to play the SOCIALIST bogey card on AOC (Bernie too, but everybody knows he's doty [ah, crap, ageism creeps in]). One thing that people who buy into the other side world view might want to consider is that the last poll I saw listed Democrats at 29% of the electorate, Republicans at 27%, and Independents at 42%. I n other words, the largest percentage of voters think both "sides" are full of crap.

 

[dviss1]

I have faith that one day white people will stop fucking complaining, own their shit, and finally just... Get it....

Watch what the fuck you say and stop referring to us as monkeys...

Or else you'll get suspended from your job.

 

[MARIS61]

Canada

Monoracial rural, segragatory urban.

Most openly racist country I've been in.

 

[MARIS61]

A big monkey is the sort of thing racists love to use to describe a Black person.

Untrue, also irrational.

"Racists" in America TODAY primarily exist in the black activist community, so why would they call themselves something they considered an insult?

Why would the few remaining Caucasian racists claim to be descendants of "Black" people?

Utterly nonsensical.

 

[MARIS61]

Please explain how Black Panther is complimentary but King Kong, Ape, Monkey Chimpanzee, Baboon are not.

Any biologist will confirm that the panther is the less intelligent one of that group. It's not even close.

Hypocrites are so obvious in everything they say or do.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't believe Maris believes half of what he says and posts, so if he doesn't, I won't either. He hasn't earned that respect. He's just a shit stirrer, and a disingenuous one at that.

@MarAzul on the other hand is at least a true believer. I respect that, albeit I disagree with his take.

You refuse to believe something I post because you believe I might not believe it.

You refuse to believe something MarAzul posts because you believe he believes it.

Seems the conclusion here is you refuse to believe anything you don't already believe, regardless of the source.

 

[Lanny]

Untrue, also irrational.

"Racists" in America TODAY primarily exist in the black activist community, so why would they call themselves something they considered an insult?

Why would the few remaining Caucasian racists claim to be descendants of "Black" people?

Utterly nonsensical.

Precisely true. In fact, it's so obvious that I'm going to assume that you're trying to get some of us riled up. Nice try, won't work.

 

[Lanny]

You refuse to believe something I post because you believe I might not believe it.

You refuse to believe something MarAzul posts because you believe he believes it.

Seems the conclusion here is you refuse to believe anything you don't already believe, regardless of the source.

It's a mixed up world and your sort leads the pack.

 

[Lanny]

Monoracial rural, segragatory urban.

Most openly racist country I've been in.

Sure, lol.

 

[barfo]

One thing that people who buy into the other side world view might want to consider is that the last poll I saw listed Democrats at 29% of the electorate, Republicans at 27%, and Independents at 42%. I n other words, the largest percentage of voters think both "sides" are full of crap.

That's a bit misleading - most of the 'independents' vote very consistently with one party or the other. In fact the independents who are partisan are actually more partisan than those who admit to a party affiliation.

The number of true independents is very small.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

Those three words are among the greatest problems in American political discourse today, IMO. Both major parties play with them and use THE OTHER SIDE as a bogey person (no sexism allowed). There are many racists among Trump's supporters, but Democrats love painting with a mighty big RACIST brush when describing Republicans. Certainly, there are no racists among Democrats (unless you go poking around a little bit). Republicans love to play the SOCIALIST bogey card on AOC (Bernie too, but everybody knows he's doty [ah, crap, ageism creeps in]). One thing that people who buy into the other side world view might want to consider is that the last poll I saw listed Democrats at 29% of the electorate, Republicans at 27%, and Independents at 42%. I n other words, the largest percentage of voters think both "sides" are full of crap.

Gallup has it different.
Republicans - 25%;
Independents - 39%;
Democratic - 34%.
This is undoubtedly shifting more and more to the Democrats. Why? Donald Trump.

Edit: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

[MARIS61]

That's a bit misleading - most of the 'independents' vote very consistently with one party or the other. In fact the independents who are partisan are actually more partisan than those who admit to a party affiliation.

The number of true independents is very small.

barfo

Half true.

Most independents lean one way on some things, another way on other things, and rarely support any party platform.

When faced with the choice of only 2 candidates with any realistic chance of winning they will vote for the least offensive choice, even though it's not someone who they support.

Hilary got 20-30 million votes from people who despise her and oppose her stand on most issues.

 

[Lanny]

Half true.

Most independents lean one way on some things, another way on other things, and rarely support any party platform.

When faced with the choice of only 2 candidates with any realistic chance of winning they will vote for the least offensive choice, even though it's not someone who they support.

Hilary got 20-30 million votes from people who despise her and oppose her stand on most issues.

Those Hillary voters you speak of must have found the other candidate really offensive. I applaud them.