Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/05/01 02:14:41
Subject: Re:Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And yet, I'd be willing to bet money that most of those same players who were talking about a strike or whatever they were going to do, routinely use offensive and racist language, not only on a daily, but on an hourly or minutely basis.
He didn't just say a rude word. I'm so fething bored of this thing where people think it's all about who can and who can't say rude racial slang.
I mean, think about the following two statements;
'You can really play basketball, n-word'.
'I do not think you should continue hanging around with people of that particular ethnic group.'
The first statement uses a rude word. It is probably not a good thing to say.
The second statement uses all the proper, politically correct terminology, but is a horrible, ugly sentiment, arguing for racial seperation.
Figure out which statement is actually worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I thought Kareem Abdul-Jabbar had a good take on it. Full article here.
Moral outrage is exhausting. And dangerous. The whole country has gotten a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging.
...
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing.
That was a fantastic piece. Thanks for linking to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: From one perspective it gets results, and it gives the media ratings fodder so this trend is not going to abate any time soon. Seriously, I was in the gym and 3 out of 5 TVs were covering this story
It won't end as long as we rely on the media getting responsible and no longer trumping up offensive words from nobodies in to national scandals.
But it might end if we, as a society, get sick of that bs and stop, as Kareem Abdul Jabbar says, our Morally Superior Head Shaking.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 02:18:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/05/01 02:19:45
Subject: Re:Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
I think would argue that the first statement may even be non-derogatory depending on the context like I've seen people use [see forum posting rules] as a term of endearment before.
2014/05/01 02:26:43
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Polonius wrote: Of course. His real crime, as always, was being racist on tape. The reasons the past sins weren't penalized as heavily is because there wasn't the proof (the DOJ's suit was settled quietly), and there wasn't the uproar.
But racial scandal is really bad for an entity that relies on minority dollars more than any other major sports league. It's one thing to secretly suspect somebody of being a bigot, but hearing it on tape makes it harder to ignore, you know?
Yeah, basically it's that this time there's a story with legs. The whole story can be captured in a couple of seconds of news time - Sterling said some racist stuff on tape, and here is part of that recording for you. 10 seconds and everyone is up to speed on the story, knows the key fact and has an opinion that they are posting on the internet.
Compare that to a DoJ investigation in to racially biased housing, people would have to watch like a whole hour of TV to figure out if that's happening, or maybe even read a news article that went on to a second page. That kind of story is never going to get far.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/05/01 02:34:41
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Cheesecat wrote: I think would argue that the first statement may even be non-derogatory depending on the context like I've seen people use [see forum posting rules] as a term of endearment before.
Doesn't really matter, because the N-word is so exclusive and exclusionary. Let's face it, most of us who peruse this website have skin that is far to pale to EVER consider using the word in conversation, and NOT look like a racist. The fact is, it's very usage is highly offensive to people, and for organizations like the NBA to sit around and "let" their players use that sort of language in what is ultimately a workplace, and yet go after some dude who makes idiotic remarks that are also racist is hypocritical to say the least.
Say what you will about the NFL's new "racial/discriminatory language" rule that goes into effect this next season, but at least theyre stepping up and doing something about it.
2014/05/01 03:35:26
Subject: Re:Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Jihadin wrote: Clipper fanchrise is on its death spiral I believe now
It is in the best shape it has ever been on the court, with bidders lining up out the door to spend a billion or so in the wake of Sterling's imminent departure.
2014/05/01 03:36:34
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Jihadin wrote: Clipper fanchrise is on its death spiral I believe now
It is in the best shape it has ever been on the court, with bidders lining up out the door to spend a billion or so in the wake of Sterling's imminent departure.
Hopefully, if it does get sold and moved, it goes to Seattle. In it's time, Seattle was actually quite the basketball town... Of course, the 'Hawks were terrible back then, and Ken Griffey Jr. was pretty young, and both the Hawks and Mariners' home was the Kingdome
2014/05/01 03:48:08
Subject: Re:Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Cheesecat wrote: I think would argue that the first statement may even be non-derogatory depending on the context like I've seen people use [see forum posting rules] as a term of endearment before.
Doesn't really matter, because the N-word is so exclusive and exclusionary. Let's face it, most of us who peruse this website have skin that is far to pale to EVER consider using the word in conversation, and NOT look like a racist. The fact is, it's very usage is highly offensive to people, and for organizations like the NBA to sit around and "let" their players use that sort of language in what is ultimately a workplace, and yet go after some dude who makes idiotic remarks that are also racist is hypocritical to say the least.
Say what you will about the NFL's new "racial/discriminatory language" rule that goes into effect this next season, but at least theyre stepping up and doing something about it.
I remember during my time living in New Orleans, I was one time, around midnight in a lot on Canal Street parking a car for a guest at the hotel I worked at. I was walking along a fence between the lot and the Iberville projects when a co worker in the booth up front just got a call that his relief would not be in until 1am.
He got pissed and yelled into the phone, "N word! You don't call me an hour late to tell me you'll be another hour late!"
That one word was echoing and re echoing from the project building, making it very uncomfortable for me, because I was the only person in view, and as stated, quite white, and even whiter after that word got yelled out, feeling imaginary crosshairs on me. I mentioned the poor timing and volume of the comments to my co worker on my way out of the lot.
2014/05/01 03:49:01
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like black people took a word meant used to denigrate them and re-appropriated it as a term of affection between one another.
The weird thing is that nerds are doing the same thing right now and people who don't get what black people did don't notice
Ahtman wrote: It is almost like black people took a word meant used to denigrate them and re-appropriated it as a term of affection between one another.
The weird thing is that nerds are doing the same thing right now and people who don't get what black people did don't notice
Yah. Those are practically the same! It's uncanny! All those well educated, introverted white folks and their distinct history of oppression via institutionalized racism! They could be mirror images!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 04:42:36
2014/05/01 04:44:48
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Nerd used to be an insult (not as severe mind you) but going on twenty years, nerds have reclaimed the word and now have a wide range of social acceptance. Hipsters are the new nerds, mostly because we needed a new word for obnoxious know it alls. It's the same basic principle, and its happening right now but some people struggle to grasp the concept, as we now see
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 04:45:22
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2014/05/01 05:33:31
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
LordofHats wrote: Nerd used to be an insult (not as severe mind you) but going on twenty years, nerds have reclaimed the word and now have a wide range of social acceptance. Hipsters are the new nerds, mostly because we needed a new word for obnoxious know it alls. It's the same basic principle, and its happening right now but some people struggle to grasp the concept, as we now see
Hipsters aren't nerds. Nerds are typically gainfully employed.
No one is struggling to "grasp the concept." Some of us just recognize a very bad analogy.
2014/05/01 05:39:31
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
That's not the point Most Hipsters have jobs to, but much like the nerds of old, we have mean stereotypes about them*. Don't worry. Maybe in 40 years Hipsters will be cool too and we'll all have to live with them pointing out they were hipsters before it was cool
*Cause the 40 year old virgin living in his parents basement was never an assumption anyone made about certain kinds of people
Some of us just recognize a very bad analogy.
it's only bad if you decide to be needlessly obtuse about it
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 05:43:55
cincydooley wrote: Sebster, you should check out the video of Bomani Jones just lighting up his colleagues regarding this situation.
Hes been, perhaps, the most spot on about this whole situation, in my opinion.
I can't view it from work, what does the article say?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Doesn't really matter, because the N-word is so exclusive and exclusionary. Let's face it, most of us who peruse this website have skin that is far to pale to EVER consider using the word in conversation, and NOT look like a racist. The fact is, it's very usage is highly offensive to people, and for organizations like the NBA to sit around and "let" their players use that sort of language in what is ultimately a workplace, and yet go after some dude who makes idiotic remarks that are also racist is hypocritical to say the least.
I really don't think there's any value at all in that line of discussion, to be honest. Basically what you're saying is that because it generally sounds racist when you or other white people say it, then no-one should be allowed to say it.
I mean, ultimately, if the speaker didn't intend any racism and the recipient didn't take any, there's no problem. Now, there's never a guarantee that the recipient won't take offense so I think it's sensible to never use the word, but that's a long way from what you're saying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 06:22:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2014/05/01 09:27:55
Subject: Re:Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
The NFL also recently banned custom facecages unless the player had a "medical reason" for meaning we lost really cool ones like Karlos Dansby's
Spoiler:
I don't even know why you would want to wear that. Face cages stifle breathing enough as it is.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: In addition to what they wearing during games, the NFL is pretty insistent on what players wear before and after games as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
It's no different than the NFL forcing coaches to wear team apparel instead of something more professional like a business suit as in other sports (NBA, NHL, etc.).
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2014/05/01 13:41:32
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
Not when part of your job is to promote Nike and not their competitors, and is being well paid to do so. If you are a driver for Coke you can't be seen wearing Pepsi t-shirts or drinking pepsi products while working either, and vice versa.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 13:41:57
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2014/05/01 14:36:58
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Polonius wrote: Of course. His real crime, as always, was being racist on tape. The reasons the past sins weren't penalized as heavily is because there wasn't the proof (the DOJ's suit was settled quietly), and there wasn't the uproar.
But racial scandal is really bad for an entity that relies on minority dollars more than any other major sports league. It's one thing to secretly suspect somebody of being a bigot, but hearing it on tape makes it harder to ignore, you know?
Yeah, basically it's that this time there's a story with legs. The whole story can be captured in a couple of seconds of news time - Sterling said some racist stuff on tape, and here is part of that recording for you. 10 seconds and everyone is up to speed on the story, knows the key fact and has an opinion that they are posting on the internet.
Compare that to a DoJ investigation in to racially biased housing, people would have to watch like a whole hour of TV to figure out if that's happening, or maybe even read a news article that went on to a second page. That kind of story is never going to get far.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think most people find overt, superficial racism unseemly. Not wanting your girlfriend taking pictures with black guys is both racially discriminatory, it's also petty and without gain. People see this, and go, "there's a guy that just plain don't like black folk."
Housing discrimination, on the other hand... well, people love it. Not all people, and certainly not those discriminated against, but for the most part, people like that the can, or wish that they could, limit what types of people lived in certain areas. Ethnic enclaves, gritty blue collar neighborhoods fighting against gentrification, and good old fashioned Red Lining all exist because while we're racially open minded in theory, we all are keeping an eye on our property values.
2014/05/01 14:55:08
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
Not when part of your job is to promote Nike and not their competitors, and is being well paid to do so. If you are a driver for Coke you can't be seen wearing Pepsi t-shirts or drinking pepsi products while working either, and vice versa.
That depends on what your contract defines as "working," which in this case I do not know the exact wording. A football players' "work" includes watching game film, so does that mean he has to wear Nike apparel while doing it on the off chance that there is a member of the press present at the training facility?
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a fine like this if the violation is a breech of contract. That being said, I still think it is stupid to have trivial things like that I a contract.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 14:55:51
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2014/05/01 14:58:50
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
I'm guessing it is also easier for the league to ignore housing discrimination since it doesn't really involve or impact the league.
Now they have him on tape telling her not to bring those black guys (former NBA players) to HIS games (the NBA's games) and how he is kind enough to give his black players (current NBA players) food and housing (pay their NBA salary).
Housing racism doesn't really have anything to do with the NBA. This rant had everything to do with his status as an NBA owner.
2014/05/01 15:20:13
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: That depends on what your contract defines as "working," which in this case I do not know the exact wording. A football players' "work" includes watching game film, so does that mean he has to wear Nike apparel while doing it on the off chance that there is a member of the press present at the training facility?
It very well may. I know that, when playing NCAA football, I was required to wear team gear any time I was doing anything related to the team that someone might see; and that was in D3. So it wouldn't surprise me if NFL players are contractually forced to do the same.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2014/05/01 15:27:09
Subject: Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine
Kilkrazy wrote: You are still a member of the team and the league although you did not play an official match that day.
I'm not denying that, but to fine a player $10,000 for wearing an Adidas shirt instead of a Nike shirt is draconian.
Not when part of your job is to promote Nike and not their competitors, and is being well paid to do so. If you are a driver for Coke you can't be seen wearing Pepsi t-shirts or drinking pepsi products while working either, and vice versa.
That depends on what your contract defines as "working," which in this case I do not know the exact wording. A football players' "work" includes watching game film, so does that mean he has to wear Nike apparel while doing it on the off chance that there is a member of the press present at the training facility?
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a fine like this if the violation is a breech of contract. That being said, I still think it is stupid to have trivial things like that I a contract.
I think a lot of them, if not individually then the NFL or the players league, have promotional contracts. It also may not be that they have to wear the sponsors gear, but that at the very least they can't wear something promoting the competitor of the sponsor. If Nike is paying money to team X to be able to say they are the official sponsor of team X I imagine there are rules governing it. Certainly at home they can, but going into, during, and coming out of games is probably covered.
Wasn't there an issue recently (within the last two years) with an athlete wearing another team's hat, or maybe it was another sports team's hat? They get annoyed at that stuff as well.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
