Jazzfanz: Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay remarks Ok. Swears and All Caps Not Ok.

[UGLI baby]

well said trout

Said no person ever...


£¥£

 

[TroutBum]

You can call out a specific mistake made by the moderators there, sure. They make mistakes. Everybody does. But year in, year out, the content there is consistently smart, civil, and even funny. Their board is vastly better than this one because of the way it is moderated.

The problem with the moderators here taking the "everybody is crying so we must be doing something right" view is that it doesn't take into account the notion that some of the people doing the crying might actually have a point.

But you guys do whatever. I don't really give a shoot. In fact, I don't give a shoot so much that I just keep responding to this thread and keep trying to defend myself and my moronic opinions. How's that for some intellectual honesty?

I totally agree with the bolded part.

Sexism offered at no charge to us.

He is a man (allegedly), so somehow it's sexist to tell him that he needs to grow an organ or two that he clearly wasn't born with? If he were a girl (I know, I know, he's a bitch but let's not get hung up on a technicality) and I told her to grow a pair, then I might see your point. Maybe.

Every community has to decide where it's going to come down on the issue of how much it wants disadvantaged groups to feel welcome. The more we tolerate an d engage in hurtful language, even playfully, the more unwelcoming we will be to disadvantaged people.

So you're saying that Tickler is disadvantaged? Wow, thanks for the news flash.

Nate = Not Racist and Cool

Stoked = Probably Racist and Not Cool

Nate's Monica, sho.

 

[TroutBum]

Said no person ever...


£¥£

Except...

Never mind.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Since your opinion is harmful and reflects untruth, you should change it if your goal is to become a better person.

i think homosexual marriage is harmfull.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Let's be real, here. Jazzfanz is the second-worst basketball message board (shout out to the horrible Clutchfans) I've ever seen and the worst I've ever been a part of.

LOL. I can literally remember when you joined the board years ago. I would guess about five or six years ago but could be off a little bit. In any case, I recall how shortly after that time, you proclaimed how Jazzfanz was one of the best boards you'd been to, second only to the Pacers board which according to you was the pantheon of sports' webbing. Does anyone else remember this as well? I'm really not making this up.

And yet, from what I can tell, you've recently made a conscious decision to come back to a board that sucks so badly and then complain about said suckiness? Is that what you're selling'? Really??? Listen, I too get frustrated at the board. About its' content, about its' moderation, about some of the members. But if I don't like it, I can simply steer clear of threads whose subject matter is bothersome to me for whatever reason, live with the decisions the moderator staff has made, put said users on ignore, or maybe most decisively, log the hell off the site.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't like the site, then don't come on here. It' really not rocket science.

 

[TroutBum]

LOL. I can literally remember when you joined the board years ago. I would guess about five or six years ago but could be off a little bit. In any case, I recall how shortly after that time, you proclaimed how Jazzfanz was one of the best boards you'd been to, second only to the Pacers board which according to you was the pantheon of sports' webbing. Does anyone else remember this as well? I'm really not making this up.

And yet, from what I can tell, you've recently made a conscious decision to come back to a board that sucks so badly and then complain about said suckiness? Is that what you're selling'? Really??? Listen, I too get frustrated at the board. About its' content, about its' moderation, about some of the members. But if I don't like it, I can simply steer clear of threads whose subject matter is bothersome to me for whatever reason, live with the decisions the moderator staff has made, put said users on ignore, or maybe most decisively, log the hell off the site.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't like the site, then don't come on here. It' really not rocket science.

Racist.

 

[One Brow]

If anything the language was more "ageist" or whatever, since I associate crying with little kids who don't possess the maturity to reason.

Associated with both actually, which fits in well with the infantilization of women.

I'm impressed with your ability to find some sort of offense in everything though. You would have fit in well with most of my professors.

You should be impressed by your own ability to participate in offensive cultural myths, even when you do not intend to give offense.

 

[One Brow]

He is a man (allegedly), so somehow it's sexist to tell him that he needs to grow an organ or two that he clearly wasn't born with?

Equating the existence of a penis with being thick-skinned is sexism, yes.

So you're saying that Tickler is disadvantaged?

No. However, your post was read by other people that Stickler. Even when you don't address, for example, women directly, making comments that toughness and masculinity makes the board less friendly for them as readers, as well.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Associated with both actually, which fits in well with the infantilization of women.

^^^bullcrap, but if you see it, that is probably more of a statement about you than nate.

 

[One Brow]

^^^bullcrap, but if you see it, that is probably more of a statement about you than nate.

Thank goodness the man has come in to explain that most women don't feel infantilized (I certainly concede that a few do not, and few who do like it). Now we'll see some real expertise.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Thank goodness the man has come in to explain that most women don't feel infantilized (I certainly concede that a few do not, and few who do like it). Now we'll see some real expertise.

just as "expert" as your statements

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

Thank goodness the man has come in to explain that most women don't feel infantilized (I certainly concede that a few do not, and few who do like it). Now we'll see some real expertise.

I think far more women would find your assumption, that the far majority of them are infantilized, more sexist and insulting than they would nate's. Perhaps it just speaks volumes about your perception and treatment of women and the company you keep.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Equating the existence of a penis with being thick-skinned is sexism, yes.

untuck is the word he used I believe, not that it matters

 

[TroutBum]

Equating the existence of a penis with being thick-skinned is sexism, yes.

Except, I didn't do that. Even if I had, it's obvious that it's not the penis that makes a person thick skinned, but the testes. More to the point, the testosterone. It's not sexism, but rather, science. Hooray!

No. However, your post was read by other people that Stickler. Even when you don't address, for example, women directly, making comments that toughness and masculinity makes the board less friendly for them as readers, as well.

This makes no sense, sorry.

 

[One Brow]

just as "expert" as your statements

You mean, my statements based on believing what people say, rather than yours explaining why they don't mean it or are wrong?

 

[One Brow]

I think far more women would find your assumption, that the far majority of them are infantilized, more sexist and insulting than they would nate's. Perhaps it just speaks volumes about your perception and treatment of women and the company you keep.

Thanks for your thoughts; but they don't really make sense to me. So, please tell me why you think they are more sexist and insulting than Nate505's, and what volumes it speaks to you about my perception and treatment of women and the company I keep.

 

[One Brow]

Except, I didn't do that. Even if I had, it's obvious that it's not the penis that makes a person thick skinned, but the testes. More to the point, the testosterone. It's not sexism, but rather, science. Hooray!

This makes no sense, sorry.

Well trolled.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You mean, my statements based on believing what people say, rather than yours explaining why they don't mean it or are wrong?

I had just as many links and references as to "what people say" as you. People say all sorts of stuff, believe what you want.
I'm not explaining why "they don't mean it or are wrong" whoever "they" are, I'm saying your statement was bullcrap.

Getting from Nate calling a male poster out as crying about something to Nate calling women babies is pretty absurd. It seems like quite a stretch even for you.

 

[One Brow]

I had just as many links and references as to "what people say" as you. People say all sorts of stuff, believe what you want.

Unfortunately, I am forced by the evidence to believe what I would prefer to not believe. Does that ever happen to you?

I'm not explaining why "they don't mean it or are wrong" whoever "they" are, I'm saying your statement was bullcrap.

Since my statement is based on the testimony of the women who not only feel the pressure of infantilization, but also can point to multiple, pervasive, specific instances thereof, you assessment that my understanding is worthless effectively means these women are wrong, despite your denials.

Getting from Nate calling a male poster out as crying about something to Nate calling women babies is pretty absurd.

I agree, that would be absurd. I would like to believe you can think more deeply than that, that you are capable of seeing that ideas in a culture can be connected, and feed each other. I would like to think you can understand that this means even if something is not directly said, it can form a part of the general interpretation behind the actual statement. That would be my preference for belief.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Unfortunately, I am forced by the evidence to believe what I would prefer to not believe. Does that ever happen to you?

I don't know the ins and outs of what you believe but based on my limited interaction with you, yes I am at times forced by the evidence to believe what you prefer not to believe.

Since my statement is based on the testimony of the women who not only feel the pressure of infantilization, but also can point to multiple, pervasive, specific instances thereof, you assessment that my understanding is worthless effectively means these women are wrong, despite your denials.

That's a nice story but it's pure conjecture. My calling your statement bullcrap is based on the testimony of the women who do not feel the pressure of "infantilization" blablablabla. I'm not saying your understanding is completely worthless but I say your jump from point A to point X with nothing in the middle to back it up is quite the jump with absolutely no backing. I'm going to call this type of jump to conclusions an escalation of OB proportions from now on. P.S. please send links to this testimony that when Nate calls Stickler a crier he is actually infantilizing women. tia

I feel like you are King Arthur - to you I say "Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

I agree, that would be absurd. I would like to believe you can think more deeply than that, that you are capable of seeing that ideas in a culture can be connected, and feed each other. I would like to think you can understand that this means even if something is not directly said, it can form a part of the general interpretation behind the actual statement. That would be my preference for belief.

Yep, I'm on board now. From now on we should stop communicating because someone somewhere might take it the wrong way and be offended.

Or..... we can actually listen to what someone is saying instead of listening to what everyone else is saying about what that person said. Communication is so you can understand the person communicating. If you are offended at what Nate said because someone out there in the US may have been offended because one time someone else said something similar and meant it to be degrading to women.... you should just stop communicating with people.

Who cares what the "general interpretation" of what someone says is? What is the actual meaning behind what that one person said? That should be the important question.