Morehouse Story On Unconscious Bias

I said yesterday that south park needs to do an episode on this. Can you imagine how over the top the town would get once it came out that being racist is ok because we all are? They would have a scene where the guy from Mark's article was speaking at an event and everyone would instantly start using the N word over and over, hiding behind the fact that everyone is racist. I really want to see that episode.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Is it a "good thing"? IMO, it's only "good" when it's honest, forthright, factual, objective, and UNbiased. When we start inventing terms and code like "unconscious bias", we've pretty much lost honesty and objectivity, to say nothing of factual or forthright.

My guess is Doloh is done at U of I. As Jon and Deace's podcast title implied, the "wrong" Gary is gone.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a good discussion, for the most part. It allows people to exchange viewpoints on a subject that is not cut and dried. Talking about things in a respectful manner is good. We learn things. We think.

I have not heard or read from one person that Dolphin should be fired for this. And if he is, it's bullshit.
 
RobHowe said:
Yes, it's a good discussion, for the most part. It allows people to exchange viewpoints on a subject that is not cut and dried. Talking about things in a respectful manner is good. We learn things. We think.

I have not heard or read from one person that Dolphin should be fired for this. And if he is, it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

And I confess to now understanding why Fran has no choice BUT to remain mum. Like it or not, agree or not, he has players and recruits that may take offense at what Doloh--or any broadcaster--says/implies with their commentary. Lesson learned.
 
PCHawk said:
I said yesterday that south park needs to do an episode on this. Can you imagine how over the top the town would get once it came out that being racist is ok because we all are? They would have a scene where the guy from Mark's article was speaking at an event and everyone would instantly start using the N word over and over, hiding behind the fact that everyone is racist. I really want to see that episode.
Click to expand...

Will you take a one minute clip?

 
PCHawk said:
I've been told that repeatedly by lots of people. I just cant dobit because I dont enjoy old movies. Wish I could.
Click to expand...

Just curious, and I won't take it personally (as an old guy), but what is your cutoff for 'old movies'? There's some really good ones from back in the day. :)

 
cohawkeye said:
I wonder what the first "King Kong" would say to this......Dave Kingman....white guy BTW.
Click to expand...

Just to clariry ...

'KONG'-KINGMAN-1977-NICKNAME-CARD.jpg
 
dirtwrap said:
So where does all of this end? Please correct me if I am wrong on any of these points, however, I believe we need to look at these instances from a broader view:


3. Educators have now changed the reason why our Civil War was fought to that over slavery. That the pure northerners of the union were so disgusted by the injustices of the racist confederate south, and nothing else. That the confederate flag means slavery and the stars and bars represents freedom. When, in reality, the war was fought over money, that the confederates did not feel being part of the United States was fiscally fair due to taxation and trade, and they wanted to LEAVE the union. And dont forget, many of the pure northerners had slaves as well.
Click to expand...

This is completely off base, and almost a verbatim requote of the tired, euphemistic cry for sympathy from the SCV.

When whoever told you that the war was fought over states rights and money, they were either sympathetic to the South, or stupid. Possibly both.

Literally every single bogus reason people give for secession and the outbreak of war was tied directly to slavery.

  • Territorial expansion? The slave states were worried about there being more free states than slave states (which was the trend), and that they'd be outnumbered eventually.
  • The economy? The North's economy was booming and expanding exponentially faster than the South, and the South was pissed about it. Well...that was because the North was industrializing and the South wanted to keep manual agricultural labor--i.e. slavery
  • Lincoln's election? This was a weak-ass answer that a lot of old-school southern apologist "historians" gave after the war. It may be partly true, but they opposed Lincoln because they were afraid he would eradicate...you guessed it...slavery.
  • Tariffs? Of course the Southerners didn't support tariffs; their only trade (slave-subsidized agriculture) wasn't in demand globally anymore because the rest of the world had started realizing that humans aren't property. The North had industrialized, and it's economy supported tariffs and protectionism. The South refused to turn away from slave labor, but wanted to reap the benefits of the whole economy. Basically, "If we can't have our cake (slavery) and eat it too (mooching off the North), we don't want to be in your country anymore." Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This is a topic I could go on about for days because I enjoy it. But you made two completely baseless assumptions in your #3. I'd even say they venture into blatant lie territory.

Educators have now changed the reason why our Civil War was fought to that over slavery. That the pure northerners of the union were so disgusted by the injustices of the racist confederate south, and nothing else.
Click to expand...
That statement implies the North caused secession (and thus the CW), in part or in whole. If you believe that, I don't know what I can say to you. They didn't cave to the Confederacy over human rights, so if you want to see that as a valid excuse for the South then, well...

When, in reality, the war was fought over money, that the confederates did not feel being part of the United States was fiscally fair due to taxation and trade, and they wanted to LEAVE the union.
Click to expand...
I chuckled out loud when I read this one, and thank you for that. :) What you wrote there is the equivalent to saying someone died of blood loss but leaving out the fact that they were shot. They left the union because their economic model didn't jive with what the North was doing, which was eliminating slavery and the trade of slaves.

But since I don't expect to have changed your mind, I challenge you to give me one reason for secession that you feel is not tied directly to slavery. Just one. I really, truly hope that your views come from ignorance and not bigotry. I suspect that's the case, but please, for the love of pete, do not teach your children the simplistic, apologetic caca you are trying to sell in your post above.

I feel I should also point out that a person like me does not have to be a liberal or conservative, or bigot, or SJW to understand the social climate at the time of the Civil War. I don't identify with a single one of those groups. But I'm smart enough to see cause and effect, and that's all you or I need, pal.
 
Last edited:
hawkeyebob62 said:
How do you think us whites feel being compared to vanilla. Vanilla, for God's sake! As in, the most boring flavor of ice cream there is on this planet.

I need a safe space.
Click to expand...

I ride and die with vanilla. Superior to chocolate in every way. Of course, the best is the 2 combined.
 
CP87 said:
I ride and die with vanilla. Superior to chocolate in every way. Of course, the best is the 2 combined.
Click to expand...

There is a place called Twistee Treat here that will do "swirls" of chocolate-vanilla or stdawberry-vanilla. Chocolate-strawberry? They have to do them separately because they don't have the two together at any if their machines!

As to vanilla, when I went to Madagascar, we were only allowed to take out one ounce of vanilla beans. In terms of culinary pursuit it is equally valuable and desirable to chocolate. But in terms of flavor? Chocolate all the way!
 
CP87 said:
I ride and die with vanilla. Superior to chocolate in every way. Of course, the best is the 2 combined.
Click to expand...

When eating Neapolitan ice cream, I try to get equal parts vanilla, chocolate and strawberry. I like how they all taste together.
 
PCHawk said:
If Dolph chose King Kong because of unconscious bias, are the black people who are offended only offended because of unconscious bias towards white people? It is beyond obvious that it was a compliment. Are some people so blinded because of an unconscious bias towards an idea that all white people are out to get black people that they are incapable of seeing the obvious? Do we need to make black people aware that they have unconscious bias and it is helping to keep up a huge barrier between whites and blacks?
Click to expand...


I agree. This IS NOT a Howard Cosell "Look at that little monkey run" kind of situation.

Well, after reviewing the Cosell situation, I guess it kind of is. Howard Cosell made reference to "little monkey" to both white and black players. It didn't matter as he was referencing the play of the player. I didn't realize that until I read about it a bit just now. One interviewee stated Cosell was not the least bit racist.
 
RobHowe said:
For sure. I've seen support for Dolph's comments not being offensive from former Iowa players like Glen Worley, Tevaun Smith, Carl Davis and others.

Hopefully the topic has opened the minds of some people who otherwise hadn't. It won't penetrate others, as we've witnessed since Friday. And I'm guessing people commenting on this article in this thread aren't even reading it, instead just regurgitating comments they've made the last several days.

I don't feel I'm in a position to tell black people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Others are comfortable with it, couching it behind politics, in particular the negative connotations of PC culture run amok or saying King Kong is a fictional character.

It's intent versus impact.

As I wrote the other day, I've known Dolph for 22 years. I don't believe he's racist and do believe that his comment was meant as a compliment (INTENT). But that doesn't mean his comment can't be received by some black people as being offensive (IMPACT).

"Geez, we can't say anything anymore without it hurting someone's feelings" rings hollow with me when compared to the history of how black people have been treated and demeaned, including being compared to animals.
Click to expand...


And the key here is that most or all these players have had contact or somewhat of a relationship with Dolphin. I would put much more credence on their opinion.
 
Robowe said:
Just curious, and I won't take it personally (as an old guy), but what is your cutoff for 'old movies'? There's some really good ones from back in the day. :)

Click to expand...

I like a lot of 80s movies. The quality goes noticeably down before that. If its black and white, I'm out.
 
PCHawk said:
You are guessing if you try to say why Dolph chose King Kong. Maybe it was unconscious bias and maybe it wasn't. There is no way to know for sure. I doubt Dolph even knows for sure.

There is clearly an issue with all races having unconscious biases. Everyone should work on this. If a black man was offended by what Dolph said, it's either because he had a really hard life or he was raised to think white people all hate black people. Either way, he needs to be educated on his uncontrolled bias so he can better make decisions on what is and isn't offensive. If white people are offended by what Dolph said, then I have a really strong opinion of them that I wont share.
Click to expand...


You know what I think? I think Dolph was completely oblivious to what he was saying. Sometimes, individuals are so innocent that they have no idea the context something could be taken. I don't see Dolph as a racist man. I don't see a mean bone in his body. A racist individual would have the ability to stay in his/her lane when they should (open mic radio audience) and would know not to state that at that point. It is the completely non-racist individual who has no clue or it doesn't come to their mind when they are trying to make a reference to try to explain someone's great play to an audience that is listening and NOT WATCHING the event.

I liken it to an innocent small child that has no idea what they are saying, I.E. swear words that they hear but do not understand. Why some guy might have a big nose or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top