Miller: How Sports Can Teach

tksirius

HN's Love Doctor
"although I am fascinated by Hypocrite’s Four Temperament Theory"

Ok, first off, it's Hippocrates. 2nd: the four temperament theory is about as racist as it gets. Did Jon mean fascinated as in how ridiculous the theory is?
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
It is a great read by Jon and many can reflect on similar stories growing up, times you would take back or want to apologize. But, I have to disagree with him to an extent. Comparing Dolph's situation and use of the term King Kong is nothing similar to what that "older kid" did when saying the nasty unwarranted comments about Joe's hair and asking if he used "gorilla shampoo". Two very different intents there.

I ask, if someone is completely innocent and oblivious to what they are saying, is that unbiased racism? I believe it is not when the intent was to compliment the action/play of an individual.

What kind of society is it like to live in with people walking on egg shells so much because they are afraid that a term they use might be different in the context it is taken. I agree we have to try to be cognizant of it and try but what kind of society do we live in with everything under a microscope being examined.
 
Last edited:

83Hawk

Banned
It is a great read by Jon and many can reflect on similar stories growing up, times you would take back or want to apologize. But, I have to disagree with him to an extent. Comparing Dolph's situation and use of the term King Kong is nothing similar to what that "older kid" did when saying the nasty unwarranted comments about Joe's hair and asking if he used "gorilla shampoo". Two very different intents there.

I ask, if someone is completely innocent and oblivious to what they are saying, is that unbiased racism? I believe it is not when the intent was to compliment the action/play of an individual.

What kind of society is it like to live in with people walking on egg shells so much because afraid that a term they used might be different in the context it is taken. I agree we have to try to be cognizant of it and try but what kind of society do we live in with everything under a microscope being examined.
I agree.

I have made more than my share of racist remarks (I grew up in a different time), but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Perfectly innocent comments are being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. People are unfairly being labeled as racist or insensitive. People are being reprimanded, suspended, or even fired. The old days were bad to be sure. But now we have the equivalent of Affirmative Action.

I still say Dolph did nothing wrong. A mountain was made out of a molehill, and a good man has suffered needlessly.
 

homes

Well-Known Member
What is offensive can be very subjective, at times. Not always, but sometimes. Jon's childhood experience I don't see as being all that subjective, as he described it, it was offensive and wrong. Jon was a kid, he didn't say anything. Was Jon a racist as a child, or just immature to not know how to handle it? If he was a racist, why was he playing with this kid in the first place? But Jon's no longer a kid, and my bet is if he heard that same thing today, he wouldn't remain silent. He didn't need to uncover any unconscious bias to know that, he needed to mature, which he did, as most of us do. If that compels him to issue a belated apology, so be it, good for him, that's a mature thing to do, not everyone would. And, in doing so, if he can impart some perspective on other people, that's a positive, too. (BTW - I'm only using Jon's story as an example, it could be anyone, including me).

My question, is where do we draw the line? Of course, some words are per se offensive and wrong, no one needs to be told that certain words can be said with good intentions. Otherwise, who is the arbiter of what is offensive speech? I think that's what has everyone on pins and needles, and people get very worked up about this, on both sides. Can anything be offensive if the listener, alone, gets to determine it is? What is in the speaker's heart, the intent, no longer matters? What if I'm in a room giving a speech and thank the men and women in the audience for attending, and some human-form being in the room is offended by my exclusionary reference? Do I need to explore my unconscious bias? Do I need to be somehow more inclusionary? Where does it end? Because it can become a very slippery slope.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
What is offensive can be very subjective, at times. Not always, but sometimes. Jon's childhood experience I don't see as being all that subjective, as he described it, it was offensive and wrong. Jon was a kid, he didn't say anything. Was Jon a racist as a child, or just immature to not know how to handle it? If he was a racist, why was he playing with this kid in the first place? But Jon's no longer a kid, and my bet is if he heard that same thing today, he wouldn't remain silent. He didn't need to uncover any unconscious bias to know that, he needed to mature, which he did, as most of us do. If that compels him to issue a belated apology, so be it, good for him, that's a mature thing to do, not everyone would. And, in doing so, if he can impart some perspective on other people, that's a positive, too. (BTW - I'm only using Jon's story as an example, it could be anyone, including me).

My question, is where do we draw the line? Of course, some words are per se offensive and wrong, no one needs to be told that certain words can be said with good intentions. Otherwise, who is the arbiter of what is offensive speech? I think that's what has everyone on pins and needles, and people get very worked up about this, on both sides. Can anything be offensive if the listener, alone, gets to determine it is? What is in the speaker's heart, the intent, no longer matters? What if I'm in a room giving a speech and thank the men and women in the audience for attending, and some human-form being in the room is offended by my exclusionary reference? Do I need to explore my unconscious bias? Do I need to be somehow more inclusionary? Where does it end? Because it can become a very slippery slope.

Slippery slope huh? Choose your words better.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I have a lot of thoughts on this. First off, I highly doubt Joe was offended by the words "gorilla shampoo". He was hurt because kids were being mean to him.

I also have a "Joe" at my school. I moved to a small school in 8th grade that prided themselves on trying to get new kids to move away. They were mean as hell to me so I did everything I could to fit in. A kid who got it worse than me would always get picked on and I would join in. Anything to get the attention off me. Joe jumped me once and beat me up. I look back now and think "good for him". I'm glad he did it and I'm embarrassed of how I treated him.

Here's the difference. My Joe was white. He was a white kid who got picked on by other white kids. It doesn't matter if the reason is color of skin or just being labeled an outcast. Bullying is bullying. The reasons people are mean to someone dont matter. The act of being mean does.
 

SteveGarvey1

Well-Known Member
When the King Kong comment happened, I was in the same camp as Jon. Thought it was BS, thought the reaction was from the PC, hyper-victimhood culture we now live in.

But what changed my mind was thinking what would have happened had I been the play by play announcer for Iowa (and thank God for you all I am not). Would I have known better than to use a King Kong reference to refer to a black player? Yes, I finally admitted to myself, that I would have known better to use it. Because it would have been wrong, due to past racists using monkeys and apes to describe African-Americans.

Dolph may not have realized it because he's older than me, and from a previous generation where it was acceptable to call black people "colored", and refer to them in other unsavory ways.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
When the King Kong comment happened, I was in the same camp as Jon. Thought it was BS, thought the reaction was from the PC, hyper-victimhood culture we now live in.

But what changed my mind was thinking what would have happened had I been the play by play announcer for Iowa (and thank God for you all I am not). Would I have known better than to use a King Kong reference to refer to a black player? Yes, I finally admitted to myself, that I would have known better to use it. Because it would have been wrong, due to past racists using monkeys and apes to describe African-Americans.

Dolph may not have realized it because he's older than me, and from a previous generation where it was acceptable to call black people "colored", and refer to them in other unsavory ways.

I'm 42 and I jokingly call people racist all the time for things said where I can connect some dots. I can find more times to say "racist" than "that's what she said" . And we all know how easy it is to find times to say that. Point is, I would have never made that King Kong connection.
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
I agree.

I have made more than my share of racist remarks (I grew up in a different time), but the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Perfectly innocent comments are being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. People are unfairly being labeled as racist or insensitive. People are being reprimanded, suspended, or even fired. The old days were bad to be sure. But now we have the equivalent of Affirmative Action.

I still say Dolph did nothing wrong. A mountain was made out of a molehill, and a good man has suffered needlessly.


Yea, I'm not saying if should be a free-for-all now that anyone can just say anything that they want, EVEN THOUGH, this country is founded on freedom of speech. We still have to try to be sensitive. But, we now live in a society that suppresses the majority, to appease the minority. This all goes back to why we can't pray in schools now or even say the Pledge of Allegiance. A small group felt discriminated against, so the now the majority has to conform. The intent is good, but it is just not attainable to cater to every single different person.

Society is going to come to a standstill with individuals getting so granular they focus on the smallest things. This is where political correctness gets silly. You can't possibly cater to EVERYONE in a society, especially in one that is as diverse as in America.
 
Last edited:

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
I have a lot of thoughts on this. First off, I highly doubt Joe was offended by the words "gorilla shampoo". He was hurt because kids were being mean to him.

I also have a "Joe" at my school. I moved to a small school in 8th grade that prided themselves on trying to get new kids to move away. They were mean as hell to me so I did everything I could to fit in. A kid who got it worse than me would always get picked on and I would join in. Anything to get the attention off me. Joe jumped me once and beat me up. I look back now and think "good for him". I'm glad he did it and I'm embarrassed of how I treated him.

Here's the difference. My Joe was white. He was a white kid who got picked on by other white kids. It doesn't matter if the reason is color of skin or just being labeled an outcast. Bullying is bullying. The reasons people are mean to someone dont matter. The act of being mean does.

In Jon's experience, I have no doubt the "gorilla shampoo" statement was pertaining to Joe's skin color. This because of Joe's response back to the bully. If Joe was white, he may have been picked on still, but I don't think gorilla shampoo is stated, but, I could be wrong. I wasn't there.
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
When the King Kong comment happened, I was in the same camp as Jon. Thought it was BS, thought the reaction was from the PC, hyper-victimhood culture we now live in.

But what changed my mind was thinking what would have happened had I been the play by play announcer for Iowa (and thank God for you all I am not). Would I have known better than to use a King Kong reference to refer to a black player? Yes, I finally admitted to myself, that I would have known better to use it. Because it would have been wrong, due to past racists using monkeys and apes to describe African-Americans.

Dolph may not have realized it because he's older than me, and from a previous generation where it was acceptable to call black people "colored", and refer to them in other unsavory ways.

I'm not sure I can say I wouldn't, or at least something similar like Fernando was a "beast" down low. Again, it might have not even dawned on me. I mean the TRUE INNOCENT, isn't that the best compliment when it never even dawns on them or they are completely oblivious. That means it is completely out of their conscious.

Radio is a different dog. Good broadcasters on the radio are trying to give the audience an image an many times it is using comparisons. TV viewers can see what is going on. Radio broadcasters are trying to plant an image.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
In Jon's experience, I have no doubt the "gorilla shampoo" statement was pertaining to Joe's skin color. This because of Joe's response back to the bully. If Joe was white, he may have been picked on still, but I don't think gorilla shampoo is stated, but, I could be wrong. I wasn't there.

Oh I agree that they used his skin color against him. My point is, is bullying over race worse than finding a different reason to bully someone? When I got picked on bad as a kid, I doubt it hurt less than it hurt Joe, just because skin color wasnt the reason.

If there was actually such a thing as gorilla shampoo, would it have been equally as bad if those kids randomly brought it up in conversation without even realizing a connection to Joe could be made? One of those is kids going out of their way to hurt someone. The other is kids having a conversation without connecting dots that are pretty tough to connect.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I can say I wouldn't, or at least something similar like Fernando was a "beast" down low. Again, it might have not even dawned on me. I mean the TRUE INNOCENT, isn't that the best compliment when it never even dawns on them or they are completely oblivious. That means it is completely out of their conscious.

Radio is a different dog. Good broadcasters on the radio are trying to give the audience an image an many times it is using comparisons. TV viewers can see what is going on. Radio broadcasters are trying to plant an image.

That's where I'm at. I know that someone who is completely oblivious has a less "racist" mind than someone like me who always sees the stereotypes and points them out.
 

Thawki

Well-Known Member
I have a lot of thoughts on this. First off, I highly doubt Joe was offended by the words "gorilla shampoo". He was hurt because kids were being mean to him.

I also have a "Joe" at my school. I moved to a small school in 8th grade that prided themselves on trying to get new kids to move away. They were mean as hell to me so I did everything I could to fit in. A kid who got it worse than me would always get picked on and I would join in. Anything to get the attention off me. Joe jumped me once and beat me up. I look back now and think "good for him". I'm glad he did it and I'm embarrassed of how I treated him.

Here's the difference. My Joe was white. He was a white kid who got picked on by other white kids. It doesn't matter if the reason is color of skin or just being labeled an outcast. Bullying is bullying. The reasons people are mean to someone dont matter. The act of being mean does.

PCHawk, I don’t understand how anyone that has grown up in this country, regardless of education level, could think that in the situation described, that Joe would not be offended by the term “gorilla shampoo”? I am honestly baffled that you would believe that would not be what offended Joe or be the thing that most offended him.

Yes, a bully was mean to him. And he accomplished that by pointing out to a group of kids, some of whom were Joe’s friends, that he was sub-human in the eyes of the bully. And I will add to that, by saying that Joe and many, many others probably go through life every day wondering how many others feel that way and just don’t express it out loud.

I feel quite confident in saying that if you “highly doubt Joe was offended by the words...” you would be completely mistaken and I feel confident saying that without being able to read Joe’s mind. I won’t demonize you; I will just let you know you were wrong. Whether you choose to admit that to yourself or figure it out is up to you.
 
Last edited:

theboat

Well-Known Member
PCHawk, I don’t understand how anyone that has grown up in this country, regardless of education level, could think that in the situation described, that Joe would not be offended by the term “gorilla shampoo”? I am honestly baffled that you would believe that would not be what offended Joe or be the thing that most offended him.

Yes, a bully was mean to him. And he accomplished that by pointing out to a group of kids, some of whom were Joe’s friends, that he was sub-human in the eyes of the bully. And I will add to that, by saying that Joe and many, many others probably go through life every day wondering how many others feel that way and just don’t express it out loud.

I feel quite confident in saying that if you “highly doubt Joe was offended by the words...” you would be completely mistaken and I feel confident saying that without being able to read Joe’s mind. I won’t demonize you; I will just let you know you were wrong. Whether you choose to admit that to yourself or figure it out is up to you.
His point is that if Joe was the stinky kid or the fat kid and was being made fun of for that it would have been just as detrimental . Kids are dicks.
 

Latest posts

Top