Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by akaGatorhoops, May 12, 2014.
Isn't that the truth! Thank God for customized channel lists on DirecTV
I will not call you a name.
Tilly expressed a contrary opinion. . . I did not call him a name.
Henderson is a dingbat not because he articulately expressed a sound belief, but b/c he ripped off an comment that others here have shown to be hollow. Then, as you alluded too . . . he backed away from it.
For this reason . . . and many others that span recent years . . . he is a dingbat.
As for your question relating to pro or college teams reprimanding players:
I support the freedom and right of those institutions to sanction those who represent them, just as much as I support the right of those who represent them to say such things.
In other words. . . I am evoking the mantra of: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Seabud touched on this.
Point taken on Henderson, though perhaps immature might be a better word. As to the second part of your post, to what extent of the slippery slope do you the NCAA or the NFL should sanction players for their thoughts? Sanctions for disagreement of thought can get dangerous and rather intolerant of ones convictions. I believe we are dangerously heading down this road.
Indeed. . . though it is a slippery slope either way.
I can not imagine you would condone a player being able to say, tweet or post ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING without repercussion from his employer.
You do draw the line somewhere, right?
But I consider my son immature.
A 20-something year old man with his pattern of behavior? Dingbat.
Well, tweeting any type of threat would be one I can think of. I don't think discontent with ESPN's choice to show what they did reaches anywhere near that level. Football and Basketball are very difficult environments because of the locker room environments (and by this I'm not just talking about the close quarters but also the comradery between players) and as a result I believe the leagues are over-compensating. It's basically like it's being forced in such a way that does not engage any thought whatsoever. Sure, you get players that come out vocally in favor of embracing these things, but not one that disagree is welcome with sharing their thoughts.
And on the 6th day, God created the customized channel lists on DirecTV.
And it was good.
Pretty sure he will only be watching SEC Network.
I would argue that on some levels, in that I think properly presented beliefs are generally respected. Visceral reactions to men kissing does not qualify. Take a look at Patric's comments last year following the Chris Broussard discussion. They were well grounded, resoectful and articulate… Even if, in my personal opinion, misguided. And there was really not any fallout to speak of.
I had to go back and refresh myself on that situation. No doubt, there was no backlash in that situation nor should there have been as he did qualify his thoughts and sin and religion. I would like people qualify their thoughts as to why or what there issue is which would help the discussion in a positive direction. There is something to be said how guys conduct themselves after being in Billy's system for a few years. I just can't agree with you n the reactions of the ESPN situation. IMO it was way over the top and in your face.
I never argued otherwise. In fact, I agree. I do think ESPN and the media made this into a spectacle. . . . which, in effort an effort for equality. . . I find counter-productive.
But that is not how Henderson framed his original tweet. To me, his sounded more like an "ewwww, gross" reaction . . . followed by a hollow rationale and subsequent retreat.
I just re-read his original tweet. It contained something along the lines of "...this Michael Sam nasty-ass shit".
You have condoned positive and open discussions. I can't imagine you think Henderson's tweet would qualify.
Hoops, with all due respect, the post I resp0nded to was "Do yourself a favor and stop guessing people's opinions, feelings or actions." Those are pretty strong words. You reveal your bias by exchanging verbs (i.e. "evaluating" vs. "guessing entirely"). gatorman's projection, whether wrong or right, may have been a well-informed hyp0thesis. There is, after all a very consistent pro-Gator bias on this board. Marshall Henderson, OTOH, has had more than a few good (even if deserved) bashings. The scales of perception can easily tip one way or another. In the end, none of us know the true context and meaning of the words that are typed by individuals we don't know, be they "dingbats" or well-informed Gator fans.
Perhaps.... But my post you are referencing was made in the heels of Gatorman "betting" that I . . . Me. . . would act differently if the tweets were done by a gator. I can speak quite assuredly on my opinions and actions. Anyway... my post in question was intended to be more of a response to his initial suggestion in which he specified me as the "op".... moreso than his broad-based presumptions about the general forum community.
I saw your message that you called. I wrote you back and called you. Did you get my messages?
But only if that person is talking about any race other then caucasian. I mean after all, I don't recall Larry Johnson getting hammered for suggesting an all black league.
Back to the actual OP, not sure I agree that Marshall is an idiot for this situation but he is overall.
I'm not sure that it's so simple. It's not clear that homosexuals were "allowed" to play in the white leagues 100 years ago since no one openly attempted to. Undoubtedly, many snuck in. If black players were able to hide their skin color, no doubt they would have snuck in as well.
None of us can know how the social marketplace would have dealt with openly homosexual athletes back in the day. But the fact that they all felt like they needed to stay in the closet back then is probably not a good indicator that they would have been well received.
The discrimination against black americans is not to be trivialized. But to your point, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that an openly gay athlete in the 1930's would not have been welcome in either the white or black leagues, hence less opportunity than a black athlete.
But he could hide it and thus he could play. Still more opportunity.
...And he could vote to create change, probably the most powerful tool. Heck in that regard there were times when a gay man had more right than a straight white woman.
Sexuality played no roll in riding a bus,
or using a restroom,
or eating at a diner,
Gays were never considered by law to be less than a full human. Blacks were.
They had the power to vote
THEY COULD OWN SLAVES.
I mean try as some may, the argument is at best silly, at worst insulting.
Tilly: your list of how historical discrimination against African Americans differs from discrimination against gays depends on one significant factor - that gays could not be known to be gay!
- In 1962, Illinois was the first state to repeal its anti-sodomy laws - thus being the first state to decriminalize homosexuality. Being gay was literally against the law - and by the way, most states deny felons the right to vote.
- The American Psychiatric Assoc. DSM-1 listed homosexuality to be a mental disorder until 1973. There were "conversion therapies" (including shock and punishment therapy) that attempted to "correct" this behavior. Many were sent to psychiatric wards for being gay.
- Thousands were discharged from the military and government jobs for being gay from the 30's until recently.
- It is still legal in many (maybe even a majority) of states to fire someone for being gay.
You are right that on a day to day basis a gay person can "hide" better than a black person, but then again it has never been illegal to be black. Is there a "winner" in the oppression game this sets up……????
I don't think it behooves anybody to compare historical misery among the oppressed. The only relevance is showing that oppression of human rights has historically been wrong. Should not the discussion be about enforcing human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and how as a society we are stopping bigotry and discrimination rather than arguing about who had/has it worse?
Gay rights is so important. The rights of men with whatever bizarre sexual perversions they have must be enforced with the full force of law. If you oppose it you're clearly on the Wrong Side Of History.
Of course, with Western birthrates at historic lows, and with Westerners being the only ones to indulge these sexual perversions, even posters on this board might be alive to see which Side Of History wins out. Exciting times!