Marshall, Marshall, Marshall . . .

Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by akaGatorhoops, May 12, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. akaGatorhoops
    Offline

    akaGatorhoops Guest VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    11,890
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +861
  2. oragator1
    Online

    oragator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    12,570
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,400
    He is a dingbat and I am happy Michael Sam got drafted, it's a step forward. But as someone who has supported gay rights since long before it was fashionable, the question of what's appropriate for a channel kids may be watching is fair for at least discussion. Of course Henderson was an *** about it, but the larger point isn't necessarily that evil.
  3. your_perfect_enemy
    Online

    your_perfect_enemy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,363
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +900
    I was more surprised he has twitter followers, I mean what could he possibly have to say that anyone would care about
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. seabudgator
    Offline

    seabudgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +142
    Two points to be made here. First, Marshal Henderson is a 4 school transferee who tried to buy drugs with counterfeit money for which he spent jail time, and who exhibits possibly the worst sportsmanship in college hoops, and he is going to dish on behavior?

    Second, anybody who even suggests that this situation opens debate as to what is on TV, has not watched TV lately (I watch almost none but have seen enough to know). F0x network (which owns faux news) is constantly discussing morality while running: profanity laden cartoons (from "family guy" to http://patdollard.com/2013/07/watch...on-to-air-sexually-explicit-x-rated-cartoons/) to a bachelor/bachelorette party show "Married in America" that resulted in $1.2M in FCC fines for sex scenes, to graphic violence. Sams kissed his "loved one" when drafted - I can't possibly imagine why this situation is a topic for debate before all the crap on TV now.

    If Henderson is really worried about what is on TV, he should ask the guard to change the channel!
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,892
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,062
    Yeah most guys kiss and hug their parents on draft day, buy hey don't dare anyone say a word without getting the hammer. Kind of funny how universities, free speech and all that stuff works.
    Last edited: May 12, 2014
  6. G8R92
    Offline

    G8R92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +390
    I am proud of the ground breaking work that Marshall is conducting with his social experiments.

    Sincerely,
    Donald Sterling
    Adjunct Professor of Sociology
    • Funny Funny x 7
  7. akaGatorhoops
    Offline

    akaGatorhoops Guest VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    11,890
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +861
    Yeah. This was kinda the debate I was hoping to avoid, but...

    Included in free speech, is the freedom of others to call the guy an idiot... Or "hammer" him, as you say.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    20,054
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,998
    Well, I was glad my kids werent in the room. Call me intolerant if you want.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  9. gtr2x
    Offline

    gtr2x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    11,636
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +606
    Understandable I guess, but some might say there is far worse on tv all the time. Teachable moments I would say.

    I still recall the first time I saw two guys kiss in person. Uncomfortable, weird feeling and I was 22 at the time. Things have changed a lot since then. Hopefully, everyone can now move on and just play some sports. And yea, Marshall is a dimwit, no surprise there.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,892
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,062
    That's fine put we're getting to the point of shutting people down of objecting to ESPN viewing that display.
  11. akaGatorhoops
    Offline

    akaGatorhoops Guest VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    11,890
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +861
    I totally understand that point. And it is a very good one.

    The counterpoint, however, is . . . .50 years ago you may have said the same had a mixed race couple embraced/kissed on television.
    At some point, equality has to become acceptable. . . even if getting their is understandably awkward or uncomfortable.
    • Winner Winner x 2
  12. seabudgator
    Offline

    seabudgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +142
    It is funny when people complain about "free speech" rights being effected when some entity or person criticizes their opinion. Free speech is primarily related to government restrictions on speech.

    In contrast, when somebody like Henderson says something stupid, calling it out (by Universities or individuals) is simply an exercise of free speech and in no way impacts Henderson's free speech. Henderson is free to tweet a well considered rebuttal (right!). Henderson has every right to sound like an idiot, but his suffering the consequences (being called an idiot or a bigot) does not implicate his right to "free speech" and his getting hammered for it has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with the marketplace of ideas saying his ideas are crap.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. GothamGator
    Online

    GothamGator VIP Member VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,836
    Likes Received:
    173
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +590
    I used to think of Henderson as a harmless, entertaining fool. I guess I have to strike the adjectives and just go with the noun at this point.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,892
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,062
    That argument is not absolute, many minorities reject that comparison. In fact I know some, my own family members, find that to be offensive.
    Let's not get away from the premise of your thread. Your conjecture is Henderson is an idiot for this tweet:

    And you and others want to shut him down for that. Please don't expect to not be challenged if you're going to be so vocal with your fingertips on the matter.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    20,054
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,998
    I understand that. I jist dont like it when the media feels that they should control the timing of what my kids see.

    I disagree with the comparisons to race however.
    Gays get to vote, eat in diners, sit where they want on the bus, and were never relegated to their own sports leagues.

    Its simply not close to the same thing. IMHO
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  16. FranceGator
    Offline

    FranceGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +110
    Sure, some minorities find it offensive. But some minorities have issues with women, Jewish people, mixed-race couples, or other minorities. Some women have issues minorities or Jewish people. Some Jewish people have issue with etc. Donald Sterling hates all of the above. :D

    But it's still a relevant comparison. In the early 60's, thirty miles to the east of where I live, the Loving couple (black/white) went to the Supreme Court for the right to be married. Faced a lot of hatred and resistance here in Virginia. They wanted human dignity, and now society would react negatively to someone publicly bashing that (see the recent mixed-race TV commercial.)

    And no, nobody is trying to shut down Marshall Henderson. They are giving their viewpoints about his viewpoints. He claimed loudly/strongly in absolute terms that "innocent eyes" shouldn't see that. Innocent my foot. Actors can blast away with machine guns 24x7 but two guys kissing is "I DON'T AGREE WHATSOEVER". Marshall, thou doth protest too much.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,892
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,062
    For the sake of not being redundant, tilly explained exactly why the comparison is a false but I get the narrative no matter how false.
    The threats of suspensions have been made (see DeMarcus Walker), that is flat wrong and we are treading on dangerous territory in this country when we threaten to suppress dissent.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. seabudgator
    Offline

    seabudgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +142
    Gatorman_0: I don't think anybody is saying to shut him down, nor does anyone challenge your right to support him or to argue that bigotry toward homosexuals is different, and acceptable, from bigotry toward racial minorities.

    What one person says is "morally" justified, others may call "bigotry". Both may be perfectly well intentioned. Both are simple opinions - everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how intelligent or moronic. Criticizing Henderson's statement is not trying to shut him down, just like criticizing somebody who says gay rights is acceptable is not trying to shut them down.

    Hopefully a respectful discussion needs to happen and I think you, Gatorman_0, have every right to object to gay rights. I think akaGatorhoops statement that "at some point, equality has to become acceptable" might be less an attempt to censure debate and more a reflection that historically human rights and liberty have grown, not shrunk. His point might be made differently by opining that opposing equal liberty and rights for all groups has usually been viewed, when looking back on from 30-50 years, as being bigoted. I would hope that this was his intent.

    The point of the above is not to argue over who has a right to say something (we all do), but focus on the merits of what is said, perhaps including, a conclusion on the morality/intelligence/bigotry of the speaker.

    In this case, Henderson's statement about being concerned about young eyes watching a kiss when somebody is drafted rings hollow given both his behavior and the much more sexual/violent/morally depraved content allowed on TV today. Citing all of this is not shutting Henderson down, but reaffirming his status as a fool to all - and adding to his status as a bigot to SOME of us.
  19. gatorman_07732
    Online

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,892
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,062
    You started your post with something that is incorrect. If Ole Miss or the NCAA come down on him like DeMarcus Walker that is an absolute intent to shut that person up. What want someone to explain what he said that was so bad? I'd be willing to bet if that was one of Florida's starting 5 the OP would have not been nearly as critical.
  20. seabudgator
    Offline

    seabudgator Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +142
    No, gatorman-o, it was not incorrect. Consider the Donald Sterling situation - is the NBA showing an absolute intent to shut him up? No, he has every right to speak. What he does not have is the absolute right to speak and not have the other owners vote to kick him out of the league as an owner. When you speak like an idiot, you suffer the consequences. Consider these facts: an employee at McDonalds states loudly and to other employees and customers either of the following:
    1) I hate serving white christian old tea party people, or
    2) I hate serving black youths who dress in urban clothes, or
    3) Before serving every burger, explaining where the mcdonalds meat comes from and how it is processed.

    This is not a free speech issue as you have the right to make all those statements. Would McDonald's firing him be trying to "shut him down" or is it simply a function of their business. Your right to speak does not give you the right to say anything at any time and suffer no consequences. Athletes give up rights not given up by normal students all the time: they agree to submit to drug tests for example. When somebody is running a business and you are getting benefits from that business (wages or a scholarship), you agree to the terms of that service. Taking away that benefit for your behavior is your risk when you accept the benefits. This is not trying to shut you up, it is a term of the relationship. Henderson or Sterling can say whatever they want and the organizations are free not to associate with them.

    Going back to the question - free speech is based on government impairment of speech. What we have with Henderson and in the above situations is people suffering the legal, business and social impact of their speech.

    As to your second question ("what did he say that was so bad"), three things. First, Marshall Henderson dishing on behavior is like Hitler as the spokesman for Christianity (obviously joking here but you get the point). Second, with all the toxic crap on TV, it is ironic that a player pecking a loved one on being drafted is what sent Henderson over the edge. Finally, many people, including me, do believe that viewing all gay behavior to be noxious is bigoted. I understand the religious/moral objection to homosexuality and I support the right to feel that way. I still view the position as bigoted. I will not intervene to shut down anybody with that position (although I would not hire an open bigot) and I would not expect anybody to intervene to stop the behavior of consenting adults (though, in 29 states you are free to not hire homosexuals because they are gay).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page