What's new

Looking for genuine discourse re:Jay-Z/NBA

[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];821657 said:
Did you catch the article on the decline of the Left published recently in Harper's? That'd be a cool place to start.

I'm definitely not going to bash you publicly.

@OB

btw, we agree on a lot of stuff. I'm probably to the left of where you are. I respect that you bring your sense of things consistently. Yeah, so there definitely wouldn't be any bashing. The blind spots I mentioned have more to do with the conceits of the "Left" than with your particular positions.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];821657 said:
Did you catch the article on the decline of the Left published recently in Harper's? That'd be a cool place to start.

I'm definitely not going to bash you publicly.

The article by Adolph Reed Jr.? I read a summary and an opening paragraph, but I'm not a subscriber so can't see the rest. I certainly didn't see anything I would disagree with. Clinton and Obama were/are centrists, and the left is moribund. No argument here.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];821702 said:
@OB

btw, we agree on a lot of stuff. I'm probably to the left of where you are. I respect that you bring your sense of things consistently. Yeah, so there definitely wouldn't be any bashing. The blind spots I mentioned have more to do with the conceits of the "Left" than with your particular positions.

Well, I'd be one of the last people to argue that the left is any bastion of reason or clear thinking.
 
Don't let him troll you Stoked. He's big on pretending he wants to have a conversation but blaming other people on why he cant, because it has to be on his terms. He is like Emperor Kuzko and we have thrown off his groove. We don't speak his language, we don't do things his way, so it's our fault if the conversation doesn't go the way he wants it to. He needs a stage to show people how smart he is.

Ok, done giving him a hard time for this post.
Really though it's more like we both want the other to at least acknowledge we understand the other persons take but both feel like we have to be right, and we tend to naturally push each others buttons, then once it gets going we escalate it because we are competitive and have to "win" or get the last word in, so rarely does anything useful come of it.
I don't have anything against /size, I just think we communicate differently and see things differently. No biggie imo. One year, we may even be able to have a decent conversation in a thread. I'm holding out hope. It might start to happen when I stop tossing stones at him and giving him crap. I think I did it once for a day or so.. but it might be because I didn't log in or post.

You can go back to the 10th page +/- and read my posts. You'll see that you're wrong.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];821729 said:
You can go back to the 10th page +/- and read my posts. You'll see that you're wrong.

Read again where you entered the thread and still see your tone and approach as the same.
We were discussing things, you felt what I thought was important to the topic was useless, I defended it and still think you don't get the nuance of what I was saying.
You got your bristles up and basically told me to talk about what you feel is important to the topic or shut up.
I decided at that point you didn't want to truly understand what I was trying to say and just wanted to pound your point and show everyone how much smarter than me you are as opposed to actually understanding what I was getting at.

You still think you were the only kind and rational one in the conversation and that I was just a jerk to you when you were being completely nice to me. I should be honored that you deigned to speak to me even if it was in dismissing and or attacking me and my posts so when I defended my stance and point you of course were offended that I would lash back at you even though you were the first to throw a punch.

I'm sure your version of reality paints you as the victim.
Feel free to feel that.
I was honestly having the dialogue with you trying to understand what you were saying and even trying at first to not match/respond to your veiled and not so veiled jabs.

Don't bother responding to my PM. I don't need a response any more.
 
Last edited:
This is a relevant and interesting read.

ESPN article on Jordan <--- Link

I'm curious about the tone of the book if Jordan played no part in it.

The tipping point, Lazenby wrote, came in 1977, when a girl at his school called him the N-word.

"So I threw a soda at her," Jordan said in a 1992 interview with Playboy magazine, the details of which were written about in Lazenby's book. "I was really rebelling. I considered myself a racist at the time. Basically, I was against all white people."

"As an owner, I'm obviously disgusted that a fellow team owner could hold such sickening and offensive views," Jordan said in a statement. "... As a former player, I'm completely outraged.

"There is no room in the NBA -- or anywhere else -- for the kind of racism and hatred that Mr. Sterling allegedly expressed. I am appalled that this type of ignorance still exists within our country and at the highest levels of our sport. In a league where the majority of players are African-American, we cannot and must not tolerate discrimination at any level."

Just two quotes, read the article for more context.
Plenty of years between the two, and plenty of change.
 
We had a very public trial with substantial race based overtones in the last 12ish months here in the United States where outright killing a black kid for no real reason went unpunished.

If you've ever studied the history of lynching for example, a big chunk of the ritual of it was that everyone in town knew who did the lynching.

No real reason except the pothead was slamming the other guys head into the pavement.

The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat party so of course everyone knew who was doing the lynching.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];820501 said:
Dude, the record is pretty easy to access... because teh internet saves things... scroll back through the pages of this thread and you'll see one of us get unnecessarily (and unintentionally) provoked (hint: you) and you'll see the other one trying to engage the board in conversation.

[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];819360 said:
just a thought here:

person1 says: we need a robust historical account of racism in order to account for it's enduring effects and to do our best at correcting them.

person2 says: Forget historical context. Let's step back and "rationally" look at how inconsistent/hypocritical these corrective measures are! (e.g. affirmative action)

person3 says: let me be the mild guy in the middle. Let's find a happy balance and take a medium-length historical perspective on this issue.



OK... person3 is the least helpful person in this exchange because he accepts person2's premise for limiting the historical context of the discussion. He isn't balancing the conversation; instead, he tips the conversation in favor of person2 (and this issue is perhaps the most critical one for person1). The most irritating political affectation in the world today is the person who espouses a false balance.

This is a direct jab at something I said, and you have my stance incorrect as to person3 in your scenario. When I changed your scenario to what I saw it as you took offense to it. Keep in mind there were zero jabs from me in your direction. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];819363 said:
Serious question here (I'm not just trying to be provocative, even though it sounds that way):

What value is there in asking someone to limit the historical sense they have of a concept?

This move is either saying, "your history is wrong" or "your history is right in many respects, but we can't handle too much context... the only hope we have is through parsimonious accounts."

One thing is certain, this move does nothing to enrich our understanding of the concept under investigation. The only value I can find is the precedence it gives to a certain method for evaluating things. This method has nothing to do with the concept; rather, it is a moral process of measuring things that comes in from elsewhere and starts governing the discussion.

Next srs question:
What value is there in this person interceding in this debate with his "general theory of evaluation"? What do we get out of this??

Both of the bold parts are direct jabs at what you think is wrong about my approach to the topic and what I feel is an important point in the discussion.
You attempt to completely dismiss it while stating my stance incorrectly at the same time. You seem to have zero interest in actually understanding what I am getting at, but say how I go about it is all wrong...... because part of what I say has to do with how we go about it? How hypocritical is that.

[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];821803 said:

[size/HUGE] ego [/size] <--- Here's your link

[QUOTE='[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
I never got one[/QUOTE]

Strange

I'm done with you on this.
Respond if you want to, but don't expect a response after that. I'm 50/50 on how entertaining dragging this out more will be.
 
kudos to Kicky on a wonderful and heartfelt post above...


anecdotal story based on my observations, perhaps the discussion has moved past this point, but I thought I'd mention it anyhow...

among African-American high schoolers, those who are light-skinned and known to be biracial are subject to little or no ridicule or teasing by other African-American teens, while those who are light-skinned but known to have two black parents are subject to more ridicule and teasing. That's less the case when the child and both parents are similar in skin-tone.
 
This is a direct jab at something I said, and you have my stance incorrect as to person3 in your scenario. When I changed your scenario to what I saw it as you took offense to it. Keep in mind there were zero jabs from me in your direction. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Both of the bold parts are direct jabs at what you think is wrong about my approach to the topic and what I feel is an important point in the discussion.
You attempt to completely dismiss it while stating my stance incorrectly at the same time. You seem to have zero interest in actually understanding what I am getting at, but say how I go about it is all wrong...... because part of what I say has to do with how we go about it? How hypocritical is that.



[size/HUGE] ego [/size] <--- Here's your link



Strange

I'm done with you on this.
Respond if you want to, but don't expect a response after that. I'm 50/50 on how entertaining dragging this out more will be.

dude, let me promise you something... you're not person3. That's the reason I tried (a few times) to address my question as "serious questions".... they were aimed at everybody. Your position isn't accurately conveyed because I wasn't trying to convey it. Are there some resemblances between your position and person3? Yes.

The whole question of "imported knowledge or values" versus "in situ knowledge or values" is one that is at the very core of my past research. And, I felt it was a decent question to ask since most of the thread was dedicated to people giving general judgments rather than anything personally felt, which I felt was distracting the conversation. And, if someone can point out what is causing distraction, then maybe it can be dealt with. It was an honest attempt at engagement. Perhaps this just isn't my place.
 
Just because someone wrote an essay does not automatically make their views reflective of the attitudes of our society. I get the history and it lends me more patience when a black person holds racially divisive attitudes but that does not mean that I will pretend that it is ok. What seems to be missing from the conversation here is where we are/should be headed as a society and how to get there. The skeletons in our collective closet should be used to understand our present but our goals and aspirations should be used to shape our standards.

If Jay Z does in fact espouse this nonsense then no I would not equate it with Sterlings remarks but I would be quick to condemn it as crazy stupid and wrong. There is no room in our future for the bigotry of our past imo.


There's a difference between "someone wrote an essay" and seeing essays on a regular basis.

However, perhaps you mean essays are not a sufficient response. What would be sufficient response?

Must you always crop a quote to frame an argument you would like to have? I am not interested in tallying essays with you. Are you going to address the larger theme of my post?

The larger theme being that black people are not as severely criticized as white people when using racially charged language? That's already been covered in this thread. Racially charged language has more meaning when it goes with the flow of a racially biased society, instead of against that flow, and therefore deserves a larger response. In most circumstances, the proper response to speech is better speech; in a few circumstances, words have more power than just being words.

Are you capable of anything other than regurgitating the same holier than thou liberal douche bull **** mantra? Are you capable of finding motivation in anything other than guilt or the desire that other people should feel as pathetic as you do? I know that you are usually on Ax to grind auto pilot so I will try to forgive you this one last time for attributing to me an opinion that you wish to rail against.

Where did I even hint that that a larger response was not appropriate?
 
Where did I even hint that that a larger response was not appropriate?

I must have misunderstood the point of your posts. I do try to keep that in mind when I formulate responses (hence the occasional question mark). It would be more constructive if, instead of berating what you think my personal tendencies are, you instead point out the difference between what you meant when you posted and what you read in my response. What did you mean as the larger theme?
 
First: One Brow quoted the posts in question. I stand by them. I was not directing hostility towards you but towards the ideas you expressed. And those ideas are, and always will be, patently offensive. I respect your right to have an opinion. I also respect my own right to tell you that the opinion you hold is racist and vile.

Okay, so the intent of your posts was misunderstood by me. You're an intelligent person, I'm sure you can see how I could make the conclusion that you were directing your criticism at me rather than at my remarks.

Can we agree on the point that no one LIKES to be called a racist? Whether it's latent or not, when you label someone (or their comments) as racist you're going to get a defensive reaction. Judging from the conversation in this thread, every time that gets thrown around the fences go up and the discussion stops. I felt like that was my reaction to your initial posts.

Second: Have you been on this board in the last ten years? Of course I was dismissive.

I have been on these boards for some years, however I have not focused much of my attention on individual posters. I read conversations, but rarely associate posts/attitudes with specific people. I'm just not that engaged in the community I guess. In my case, your reputation did not serve you in either direction, bad or good. I took your posts at face value because I had no other context.

Third: I continue to stand by my statements that what you've described here as stale attempts at being witty, in larger context of what you were posting, very clearly indicated latent racial biases. I don't think there's any level of freshman-level linguistic analysis that wouldn't come to that conclusion. I'm sorry, but I'm not shakeable on that issue. I do not feel any need to apologize for calling you out on it. I, like One Brow, 100% believe you that you did not intend to post in a racially provocative manner. I also believe that virtually everyone who does so doesn't understand the full import of what they are doing.

Agree to disagree then. You are welcome to hold your opinion on the matter. At least now I understand specifically your criticism.

OB's description of white privilege above is spot on.

Look, I have had feelings in the past related to feeling like being white was a disadvantage. I remember very well applying to law schools and receiving a very high score on my LSATs. A roommate of mine, who happened to be a second generation immigrant of North African descent, received an identical LSAT score. We went to the same high-end private college, we had the same standardized test scores, we had nearly identical GPAs (I think he was .02 higher, which is essentially one letter grade in a single class over four years) and we were even in the same major. Long story short: He went to Harvard, I went to Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt is a very good school, but Harvard is Harvard. At 20 years old, I distinctly remember feeling that this was unfair. I even spent significant amounts of time trolling websites like lawschoolnumbers.com and entering the user provided data into excel spreadsheets so that I could do regression analysis on various schools to determine just how many LSAT points various schools impliedly "gave" you for being a minority (if you're curious, the numbers were large except at UNC-Chapel Hill, where it was actually a disadvantage). The point here is that I went deep on this issue.

My old roommate has had a wonderful career, he's even worked for the NBAPA and is one of my sources for inside the league gossip. But the guy had a hell of a time in Boston and dealt with more police incidents in three years than I or anyone in my family have dealt with during their entire lives combined. I know he's just a regular guy, but for some reason he kept getting stopped, searched, questioned, etc. In speaking with him, it became apparent that these problems persisted basically everywhere he lived that wasn't his original college in suburban Atlanta. I've also gotten acquainted over time with his family situation and seen how, honestly, everything is just harder when you're an immigrant and a minority.

Ten years down the line, I can honestly say that he deserved it and I didn't. It's questionable whether I even deserved to go to Vanderbilt. In some sense, I always treated a good education as my birthright, and lo and behold it happened despite virtually every decision I made that could have derailed it. The assumption was always that everything was going to work out. That's a thing I recognize that I could get away with because there weren't any structural obstacles for me personally.

Understanding white privilege, in some respect, requires trying to conceptualize what your life would have been like under totally different circumstances. It's an exercise in empathy, and I'm ashamed to say that I wasn't capable of that at 18, 19, 20 years old. I spent a lot of time in the intervening years involved in a charity educational program in inner city schools in Atlanta and Nashville. Those schools were primarily poor and black. That was my period of time spent even observing other people dealing with their own structural burdens, even at the basic level of feeling like school for them was handled as if it was child prison. The assumption was never that these kids would succeed. As a result, yes I find it patently offensive when people complain about some level of reverse racism. I see the evil in myself from a decade ago examining a single data point that measured a solitary result and acting like there is some equivalence versus and entire lifetime and pre-lifetime of systemic harm. It's like trying to learn to swim when someone keeps pushing you under. Telling that aquatic violence victim that learning to swim sucks because you keep getting water up your nose is bound to induce rage.

This got overlong, rambly and kind of personal, sorry about that. I'll go back to work now. Everyone should stop being racist.

This is very insightful. Thank you for sharing. Self-introspection is something that a lot of people in our country are not very good at. Your experience and analogy help me to clarify the issues you are addressing. I can see how the concept of reverse racism is offensive to you.

I am of the opinion that if we want to slow down racism that all of us need to be accountable with contextual adjustment. Of course someone like Donald Sterling needs to have consequences similar to the depth of his problem. He has a considerable amount of influence and power. His previous incidents with housing discrimination and other things are further proof that he needed to have some consequences. I think that criticism/punishment should match the context of the comments/crime. I do not have enough experience or knowledge to divy out those things, but I believe that appropriate people could do that. However, I do not think that going the other direction on the continuum is helpful. Racist actions from a hateful white person does not, in my opinion, justify racist attitudes from a black person. I understand why that would make them angry, but I don't think it should be used as an impetus to perpetuate racism. I don't know if that is a clear explanation of what I think, but it's an attempt. If we, as a national community, want to improve racism within our midst, we need to stop making excuses and start being the answer. We need to identify our own bias, and work to correct it.
 
Back
Top