What's new
By:

Is Hayward a victim of reverse racism on this board?

There is white and then there is David Duke even thinks you're too white white.

Hayward fits the latter...
 
Last edited:
Let's get something straight. Reverse racism would be when a racist person is discriminated against because of their own race by someone of a race they are prejudiced against. When people discriminate against a white person there's nothing reverse about it...it's plain old racism.

That said, I'm willing to give this kid a chance. He was the best player on a team that went a lot further than they were supposed to. I believe that winners win, and Hayward has won when he wasn't supposed to. That suggests he might be a closet-winner. Now he just needs to, um...come out of the closet.
 
Dwill_PwnasaurasRex said:
Black people dont like hockey, cycling, skiing, or swimming

For the most part
Click to expand...

The top 5 reasons brothers don't want to play ice hockey? Why only 5? Because if we gave them 10 it would make The Man nervous.

Reason#5: It's cold out there!
Reason #4: Brother don't want to get his gold tooth knocked out
Reason #3: Brothers don't like white men with sticks
Reason #2: Brothers don't like white men with masks
and the #1 Reason brothers don't play ice hockey is that we do not feel the need to dominate yet another sport

chrisrock_natx.jpg
 
No - I am sure we all would have felt way better if Cole Aldrich was our pick. Hayward at his position, his size is just not what we need.
 
Zerol said:
No - I am sure we all would have felt way better if Cole Aldrich was our pick. Hayward at his position, his size is just not what we need.
Click to expand...

Really? So all the 'Aldrich' is a big white stiff talk prior to the draft was really this board's way of saying how much it liked him?
 
The Ghost of Blue Edwards said:
Look, if you don't understand genetic economics and how it relates to the history of blacks in America, I'm not gonna spend all day explaining it you.

Put yourself in the shoes of a slave owner in colonial America. If you have 2 slaves put in front of you and one of them looks like Gordon Hayward and the other looks like Amare Stoudemire, which one would you buy?
Click to expand...

The question isn't "Which one would you buy?" It's "Which one would you breed?"

I studied this a little in college, and it's a difficult topic to approach. Obviously, no one makes it to the NBA on physical gifts alone, it takes hard work no matter who you are. But the fact of the matter is that everyone has different genes, and some races are more likely to have certain genetic traits than others.

If you can admit that Polynesians have a tendancy to be large, white people tend to have thin lips, Jewish people tend to have curly hair, black people tend to have wide noses, is it so out of the question to generalize that one race might tend to have larger/smaller muscles than another?
 
The Ghost of Blue Edwards said:
No, it's not racism to acknowledge the simple fact that in the NBA black athletes are physically superior to white athletes due to simple genetic economics, i.e., the breeding of slaves in the 17th-19th centuries.
Click to expand...

This smacks of psuedo-science to me.

If this nonsense is correct then wouldn't it also apply to mental and emotional attributes. African americans were bred to be subservient to authority, less intelligent, less independent and less intellectually curious?

I highly doubt that a few centuries is anywhere near long enough to affect such a substantial change in the genetic makeup of a people.
 
theres a little of both going on. Some people dont like the pick for basketball reasons. Others, like vinylone, are just plain racist ********. Others still are a mixture of the 2. The 3 races of Hayward Haters if you will.
 
Slappfisk said:
This smacks of psuedo-science to me.

If this nonsense is correct then wouldn't it also apply to mental and emotional attributes. African americans were bred to be subservient to authority, less intelligent, less independent and less intellectually curious?

I highly doubt that a few centuries is anywhere near long enough to affect such a substantial change in the genetic makeup of a people.
Click to expand...

If we put 100 random people on an island, and only the 25 tallest were allowed to mate and multiply, future generations on that island would be taller than the average human. Agreed? (In general of course, not necessarily everyone)

What about if we put 100 random people on an island, and only the 25 strongest and most athletic were allowed to mate and multiply, future generatios would be stronger and more athletic. Agreed?

If you understand American history, this is essentially what happened. In a hundred years, all these difference will be gone through interracial breeding. No one is being racist (at least I hope not).
 
The Ghost of Blue Edwards said:
Put yourself in the shoes of a slave owner in colonial America. If you have 2 slaves put in front of you and one of them looks like Gordon Hayward and the other looks like Amare Stoudemire, which one would you buy?
Click to expand...

...personally, I'd take neither....but try and get Dwight Howard by throwing in 10 grand and a player to be named later!!!
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
If we put 100 random people on an island, and only the 25 tallest were allowed to mate and multiply, future generations on that island would be taller than the average human. Agreed? (In general of course, not necessarily everyone)

What about if we put 100 random people on an island, and only the 25 strongest and most athletic were allowed to mate and multiply, future generatios would be stronger and more athletic. Agreed?

If you understand American history, this is essentially what happened. In a hundred years, all these difference will be gone through interracial breeding. No one is being racist (at least I hope not).
Click to expand...

Uh, the first two paragraphs are so wrong that I don't know where to begin.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
If we put 100 random people on an island, and only the 25 tallest were allowed to mate and multiply, future generations on that island would be taller than the average human. Agreed? (In general of course, not necessarily everyone)

What about if we put 100 random people on an island, and only the 25 strongest and most athletic were allowed to mate and multiply, future generatios would be stronger and more athletic. Agreed?

If you understand American history, this is essentially what happened. In a hundred years, all these difference will be gone through interracial breeding. No one is being racist (at least I hope not).
Click to expand...

Its an awfully selective theory, it only applies positively to physical attributes but not negatively to mental ones.
 
Slappfisk said:
Its an awfully selective theory, it only applies positively to physical attributes but not negatively to mental ones.
Click to expand...

Feel free to apply it to any physical or mental attribute. Just replace tallest with shortest, lowest IQ, Highest IQ, biggest ears, smallest feet, worst vision, eye color, hair color, whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top