Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Iron Magic 904

Yahoo Sports

Recommended Posts

If only people took time to open a *****ing dictionary. Sheesh I saw this article the day it was posted..and looked up if the word had another definition. Chink means two things. The "N" word means one.

 

I also thought it was improper for him to make an analogy such as that knowing the risk that impulsive hotheads watch national television searching for reasons to be racist...when there really isn't any. Dumbass.png

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Beyond stupid.

 

Let's say there's an EPL team that's star player was gay. Then you have a game where they're blown out like 4-0, then ESPN makes the headline "Smoking Fags". According to you that would be ok, because that phrase has more than one meaning.

 

People, it was intentional. Stop being so naive.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only people took time to open a *****ing dictionary. Sheesh I saw this article the day it was posted..and looked up if the word had another definition. Chink means two things. The "N" word means one.

 

Spook also has multiple meanings. Does that make Trey's Lebron example acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not understanding the point of this conversation, Trey. What is it you hope for out of this? One person was fired and another suspended over what happened.

 

Should they be beheaded?

 

I obviously can't speak for Trey, but for me it's not about the consequences for the people involved, it's about people here needlessly defending these types of things. What do they hope to achieve by defending it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to reiterate that its ESPN's mistake for being idiots but by definition, you can tell it didn't mean any harm. It doesn't make it acceptable whatsoever to use a word that means two things at once especially if its racial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Beyond stupid.

 

Let's say there's an EPL team that's star player was gay. Then you have a game where they're blown out like 4-0, then ESPN makes the headline "Smoking Fags". According to you that would be ok, because that phrase has more than one meaning.

 

People, it was intentional. Stop being so naive.

 

I guess you didn't read what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These discussions are always really frustrating to take part in, no matter who you're discussing it with. I guess most of that comes from the fact that this stuff makes most people really uncomfortable, and that can lead to lots of miscommunication and misinterpretation.

 

One thing that's really important to understand in these situations is the role that privilege plays here. Privilege is a really hard concept for most people to understand, and I don't say that as if I'm looking down on people. I struggle with it myself, and I sometimes notice instances where my own privilege clouds my interpretation of certain situations. We're all guilty of it to a certain degree, and the best we can do is try to recognize those instances where we get it wrong and try to improve.

 

Oddly enough, and I'm being completely serious here, an example of understanding privilege that seems easy to understand to me is an episode of South Park where Stan's dad goes on Wheel of Fortune and says the N word because he thinks it's the answer to the puzzle. Token (the only black kid at the school) is upset by it and Stand doesn't understand why so he tries to defend his father's actions and convince Token that it's really not a big a deal and nothing to get upset about. This only widens the chasm between the two. At the end of the episode, Stan finally acknowledges that as a white person he will never understand how it feels to be called the N word, and as such has no frame of reference for judging whether or not his father's comments are a big deal. He doesn't get it, and that's the point.

 

Basically, the point is that it's never right to make an argument that can be boiled down to "this doesn't offend me, so no one should be offended by it". That seems to be a lot of what's going on with this story, and it's just as wrong in this case as it would be with someone defending the use of the N word.

 

Making a judgment on whether or not the guy who wrote the headline is racist is pointless. No one knows what his intentions were and no one will know. He got fired, and that's probably the only option from a PR standpoint. But beyond that is the question of whether or not this kind of thing is appropriate regardless of intention, and it's on that issue that I can't believe anyone is defending this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These discussions are always really frustrating to take part in, no matter who you're discussing it with. I guess most of that comes from the fact that this stuff makes most people really uncomfortable, and that can lead to lots of miscommunication and misinterpretation.

 

One thing that's really important to understand in these situations is the role that privilege plays here. Privilege is a really hard concept for most people to understand, and I don't say that as if I'm looking down on people. I struggle with it myself, and I sometimes notice instances where my own privilege clouds my interpretation of certain situations. We're all guilty of it to a certain degree, and the best we can do is try to recognize those instances where we get it wrong and try to improve.

 

Oddly enough, and I'm being completely serious here, an example of understanding privilege that seems easy to understand to me is an episode of South Park where Stan's dad goes on Wheel of Fortune and says the N word because he thinks it's the answer to the puzzle. Token (the only black kid at the school) is upset by it and Stand doesn't understand why so he tries to defend his father's actions and convince Token that it's really not a big a deal and nothing to get upset about. This only widens the chasm between the two. At the end of the episode, Stan finally acknowledges that as a white person he will never understand how it feels to be called the N word, and as such has no frame of reference for judging whether or not his father's comments are a big deal. He doesn't get it, and that's the point.

 

Basically, the point is that it's never right to make an argument that can be boiled down to "this doesn't offend me, so no one should be offended by it". That seems to be a lot of what's going on with this story, and it's just as wrong in this case as it would be with someone defending the use of the N word.

 

Making a judgment on whether or not the guy who wrote the headline is racist is pointless. No one knows what his intentions were and no one will know. He got fired, and that's probably the only option from a PR standpoint. But beyond that is the question of whether or not this kind of thing is appropriate regardless of intention, and it's on that issue that I can't believe anyone is defending this.

 

I'm not defending the guy using the phrase, he absolutely should have been fired and he was. My problem with Trey's comment was that he is saying that the guy absolutely had to have been a racist and that it is not possible that he could have just made a mistake. He then backed up his arguement by saying that this guy using a phrase that is probably used frequently in the English language is the same as someone using a made up phrase with "n" inserted into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending the guy using the phrase, he absolutely should have been fired and he was. My problem with Trey's comment was that he is saying that the guy absolutely had to have been a racist and that it is not possible that he could have just made a mistake. He then backed up his arguement by saying that this guy using a phrase that is probably used frequently in the English language is the same as someone using a made up phrase with "n" inserted into it.

 

And it is, depending on the intentions of whoever wrote it. We don't know that, so it's impossible to say, though I maintain that ignorance of the dual meaning on the part of the writer is a little hard to believe.

 

Context is always everything. Saying a phrase is racist in a certain context doesn't mean that phrase is always racist. It doesn't mean the person using it is racist, even if it was done as a joke. It only means it's racist in that context, which I think is what Trey was trying to get across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it was poor taste, as the headline writer should have known the hoopla surrounding Lin and the Media re him being Asian.

 

This IMO is a massive step below in viciousness than what Kobe did (call a referee a ******) and people STILL defended Kobe saying we were all being overly sensitive and "heat of the moment" and all that crap.

 

Thirdly, there is a precedent of people simply looking for racism where it doesn't exist. Many claimed Mitt Romney was being racist when he said "there's been a black cloud over the White House for the past three years", when only someone looking for racism would have come to the conclusion that he was referring to Obama's skin color as the black cloud.

 

To conclude, there are instances of clearly bad taste, there are also instances where we let people off when they clearly deserve derision, and finally, there are instances when we look for racism that clearly isn't there.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously can't speak for Trey, but for me it's not about the consequences for the people involved, it's about people here needlessly defending these types of things. What do they hope to achieve by defending it?

 

Close. My anger is towards people (and it appears that it's the majority of people) that feel this story is not racist simply because it's not black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×