B!tch Ass White Boy

[Mike]

This Youtuber goes by the name Officer Tatum, and in this short video(little over 6 mins) he covers an incident that occured in an NBA playoff game on Sunday, where a black player refers to a white player as a "b!tch ass white boy".

The NBA, which has gone further than any other league to promote the social justice agenda (kneeling during the anthem, court has 'black lives matter' written all over it, all the jerseys have social justice slogans on them, etc) has been quiet as a church mouse on the whole thing. Ironic, since their current mission, we are told repeatedly, is to be a force for racial justice. But it appears that this doesn't include all races.

The player that made the racial insult wasn't fined, suspended, or reprimanded in any way. The league has said nothing at all about the incident.

Of course, had the white player referred to the black player as a "b!tch ass black boy" he'd be fined, suspended, and maybe even banned from the league. He'd be spending the rest of his life apologizing. And no matter what he did with his life, that one comment would be the defining moment of his legacy. No one would ever let him forget it.

Some notable players and coaches like Doc Rivers and Shaq, claim - with straight faces - that the comment wasn't racially motivated. Just a reminder: he was called a "b!tch ass WHITE BOY":)

I played sports growing up. I know how it goes. Intense trash talk is part of the game. Ive got no problem with that. I'm not "outraged". I'm not offended. But the double standard here is astounding! And the silence from the league is just more proof that this social justice stuff is hypocritcal crap.

HVBo_JmhJSA

[Frank V]

This Youtuber goes by the name Officer Tatum, and in this short video(little over 6 mins) he covers an incident that occured in an NBA playoff game on Sunday, where a black player refers to a white player as a "b!tch ass white boy".

The NBA, which has gone further than any other league to promote the social justice agenda (kneeling during the anthem, court has 'black lives matter' written all over it, all the jerseys have social justice slogans on them, etc) has been quiet as a church mouse on the whole thing. Ironic, since their current mission, we are told repeatedly, is to be a force for racial justice. But it appears that this doesn't include all races.

The player that made the racial insult wasn't fined, suspended, or reprimanded in any way. The league has said nothing at all about the incident.

Of course, had the white player referred to the black player as a "b!tch ass black boy" he'd be fined, suspended, and maybe even banned from the league. He'd be spending the rest of his life apologizing. And no matter what he did with his life, that one comment would be the defining moment of his legacy. No one would ever let him forget it.

Some notable players and coaches like Doc Rivers and Shaq, claim - with straight faces - that the comment wasn't racially motivated. Just a reminder: he was called a "b!tch ass WHITE BOY":)

I played sports growing up. I know how it goes. Intense trash talk is part of the game. Ive got no problem with that. I'm not "outraged". I'm not offended. But the double standard here is astounding! And the silence from the league is just more proof that this social justice stuff is hypocritcal crap.


Even though I will agree with you that the social justice warrior phenomenon often ─ not always but very, very often ─ has nothing to do with social justice in and of itself, I'm going to disagree with you here, Mike. It's a matter of leveling the balance, and at this point in time, the balance regarding the racism issue is not level yet.

What you are now saying is that the guy lying on the floor after having been beaten up by the bully, and who in his own defense or outrage manages to score one kick back at the bully's ankles while still lying on the floor, should be condemned for having committed an act of violence.

It's a two-way street. There has been racism from white people against non-white people of all ethnicities for way too long already, and it's still going on as we speak. So in spite of the public outcry against racism that has been going on for decades already, white people are still exhibiting racism, more than any other ethnicity. So the balance is not level yet. The see-saw is still hanging over to one side, and society is still for most part complacent about the situation. Ergo, the war is not over yet, and a peace treaty has not been signed yet. Therefore, it is only understandable that among some black people, opposite-direction racism has developed and is also still very much alive.

When the balance is level and there is either no racism at all anymore in either direction, or if there is an equal amount of racism in either direction, only then would it be justified to condemn the racist slur from the black guy toward the white guy in this story. Only then. But not now.

Mind you, I'm not justifying the racism in and of itself. The black guy shouldn't have called the white guy a "b*tch ass white boy". But that's what he should not have done, as opposed to how the world reacts to him doing so. There is a distinct difference between the ethics of the situation and the mob justice response to it.

[Mike]

Hi Frank, there is some part of me that wants to agree with you, at least partially, when it comes to balancing karmic scales and so forth.

But assuming your argument is sound and represents a coherent way forward, we'd have to answer a couple important questions first:

1) exactly what does leveling the balance mean? And 2) how exactly will we know when that balance has been achieved? Who decides? And how?

Because once you let that genie out of the bottle (that you can treat whites folks one way and black folks another way) I don't know that it can be reeled in when this hypothetical balance is struck sometime in the future. I think it'll just create momentum in a non productive direction. Much more sensible, I think, to begin applying the same standards of respect to everyone and move forward that way.

[Frank V]

Hi Frank, there is some part of me that wants to agree with you, at least partially, when it comes to balancing karmic scales and so forth.

But assuming your argument is sound and represents a coherent way forward, we'd have to answer a couple important questions first:

1) exactly what does leveling the balance mean? And 2) how exactly will we know when that balance has been achieved? Who decides? And how?

Because once you let that genie out of the bottle (that you can treat whites folks one way and black folks another way) I don't know that it can be reeled in when this hypothetical balance is struck sometime in the future. I think it'll just create momentum in a non productive direction. Much more sensible. I think, to begin applying the same standards of respect to everyone and move forward that way.

I didn't mean to imply that tolerating racism would be "a coherent way forward", Mike. That would definitely send out the wrong signal. It would simply provide certain folks with more fuel that they can pour onto the fire.

Rather than approaching the issue on the basis of coherence and consistency, I am hinting at the economic ─ in the technical sense of the word, not in the financial sense ─ principle of diminishing returns, and a tapering off of the tolerance for potentially racist remarks from black people toward white people as the balance levels out. Right now, there should be some tolerance for it, but as racism from white people against other ethnicities starts waning due to legal and social response against it ─ and the USA is still very far removed from that ─ the tolerance should diminish and condemnation should increase.

The way I see this ─ without getting into the concept of karma ─ is that it's a body of water sloshing back and forth within a basin. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, but additional physics ─ e.g. friction, turbulence and inertia ─ will eventually neutralize the sloshing, until the water is level again. It needs time to expend its energy to these additional physics ─ in casu, judicial government intervention against racism in addition to an absolute and generalized condemnation of the racism from white people against non-white people ─ and then eventually it will. At least, when given the chance to do so.

But like I said, the USA is still very far removed from that, because the vast majority of the politicians don't care about issues of racism unless said issues happen to either support their personal ambitions or strike a personal chord ─ e.g. if they are of a non-Caucasian ethnicity and have experienced racism themselves.

Even now in 2020, 155 years after the official abolition of slavery in the USA, racism from white US Americans against the African-American population in particular is still very strong in several areas of the USA, and especially so in the southern states. The US American education system is still primarily geared toward a US-centric, US-propagandistic and predominantly religion-driven indoctrination, and the mainstream media are no better ─ on the contrary, because they're making money off of it.

US society as a whole is still very insular, arrogantly complacent and conservative ─ as I've already said elsewhere, the bipartisan system offers the US voters a choice between either conservatives (the Democrats) and ultra-conservatives (the Republicans), but not progressives. So it would be quite naive to expect any radical changes to US society and US culture anytime soon.

The water's going to be sloshing back and forth in that basin for quite a while still, my friend, because the political, educational and media establishments, as well as the looters and vandals that infiltrate peaceful protests, are the tidal forces that keep it sloshing, instead of being the friction, turbulence and inertia that will level things out. But all the while, it's important to keep in mind that the second slosh is only a reaction to the first slosh, and that it wasn't the African-Americans who instigated the sloshing in the first place.

Taking away the bully's fun in beating up the vulnerable isn't justice. Justice comes in the form of compensation for what the vulnerable had to endure at the hands of the bully. And in the minds of many African-Americans, the only compensation they're hoping to ever see while living in the USA is a right for payback. And that's the situation we're still in right now ─ or at least, whereas the USA and other former colonial territories are concerned. It's only a still slice from a timeline that under normal circumstances should be able to decay, but that is still ─ every day ─ being fed by the political and social inertia of the conservative USA.

Europe is much older than the USA, and even Europe is still making mistakes as we speak ─ in part, it must be said, because some European leaders actually take their inspiration from the USA, as opposed to that they would be inspiring the USA ─ but nevertheless, being so old, Europe has learned from its mistakes. Not as much perhaps as it should have learned by now ─ there are still many ultra-conservatives here as well ─ but it has nevertheless learned enough to feel humble about itself. The USA, being such a young nation and being brainwashed with the delusion of its supremacy over all other nations, is still a long way from there. It's still a cocky street-wise brat with pimples, thinking he knows everything best while he's actually still not aware that Santa Claus isn't real.

[Richard S.]

Fight fire with fire...

[Frank V]

Fight fire with fire...

But ─ pun semi-intended ─ only in the heat of the moment. ;)

It's not a long-term solution. And it shouldn't be.

[Gracy]

Point taken, the people who run the NBA are obviously hypocrites if they let that slide, considering how firmly they are clutching their BLM pearls. Hypocrisy knows no boundaries, seems it's everywhere these days.

Here's my problem though Mike, with commentators like "Officer Tatum". It's political for him, he's not a neutral observer, and I guarantee you he will ignore anything anyone does dirty on his end of this hyper polarized political spectrum. As he says here starting off a different video from August 8 all decked out in Trump regalia: "I'm a Trump Trump Trump Trumper".
vegui61HqyU

We need commentators who have the ability to call :bs: full spectrum, not just from the line up of their political enemy.

[T Smith]

Even though I will agree with you that the social justice warrior phenomenon often ─ not always but very, very often ─ has nothing to do with social justice in and of itself, I'm going to disagree with you here, Mike. It's a matter of leveling the balance, and at this point in time, the balance regarding the racism issue is not level yet.

What you are now saying is that the guy lying on the floor after having been beaten up by the bully, and who in his own defense or outrage manages to score one kick back at the bully's ankles while still lying on the floor, should be condemned for having committed an act of violence.

This is a sound argument for the woke culture presently raging (and in some regard ravishing) culture, and arguably the crux of the social justice movement itself. It's hard not to agree with its logic, but I would just point out some very serious flaws in this line of thinking. 1) Who determines the level of balance, 2) if/when we get there, and 3) what measures society (or certain members of society) must take to get us there? Calling for this type of social justice is rife for authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and even genocide, all in the name of leveling the balance. It's not too far removed from the sentiments and attitudes that inspired and allowed for the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in the genocide of 20 million innocent people on the wrong side of social justice.




Ergo, the war is not over yet, and a peace treaty has not been signed yet. Therefore, it is only understandable that among some black people, opposite-direction racism has developed and is also still very much alive.



In my humble opinion condoning reverse racism is no way to achieve any kind of peace treaty to end the war. This will only encourage a deeper divide, will exacerbate systemic racism between all (resulting in the exact opposite of its objective) and reeks of psyop and a deeper divide/conquer agenda. If the goal is to expand the war (and it may be), by all means unleash the woke agenda and look the other way when hatred and violence are unleashed in the reverse direction. But if the goal is to eradicate racism, i.e., if we truly want to level the balance, we should establish mutually-sought values of respect and social equality and strive to create a culture founded on those values whereby all people are subject to the same standards we seek to achieve systemically...

[Frank V]

Even though I will agree with you that the social justice warrior phenomenon often ─ not always but very, very often ─ has nothing to do with social justice in and of itself, I'm going to disagree with you here, Mike. It's a matter of leveling the balance, and at this point in time, the balance regarding the racism issue is not level yet.

What you are now saying is that the guy lying on the floor after having been beaten up by the bully, and who in his own defense or outrage manages to score one kick back at the bully's ankles while still lying on the floor, should be condemned for having committed an act of violence.

This is a sound argument for the woke culture presently raging (and in some regard ravishing) culture, and arguably the crux of the social justice movement itself. It's hard not to agree with its logic, but I would just point out some very serious flaws in this line of thinking. 1) Who determines the level of balance, 2) if/when we get there, and 3) what measures society (or certain members of society) must take to get us there? Calling for this type of social justice is rife for authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and even genocide, all in the name of leveling the balance. It's not too far removed from the sentiments and attitudes that inspired and allowed for the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in the genocide of 20 million innocent people on the wrong side of social justice.

To answer your questions...:

1. Nobody should have to, because it would become clear to every intelligent human being when that balance has arrived. But what you need to keep in mind is that the situation of the black guy uttering racist slurs against the white guy is only a reaction from the black guy against the systemic and enduring racism against African-Americans by Caucasian Americans. You only reap what you sow.

2. and 3. Is it really so hard to see what needs to be done? Simply end and condemn the systemic racism against African-Americans (and other non-Caucasian ethnicities within the USA) instead of sticking your ─ in the impersonal sense of the second-person possessive pronoun ─ head in the sand and equating racially inspired and systemic violence from Caucasian Americans against African Americans to any other kind of violence.



Ergo, the war is not over yet, and a peace treaty has not been signed yet. Therefore, it is only understandable that among some black people, opposite-direction racism has developed and is also still very much alive.

In my humble opinion condoning reverse racism is no way to achieve any kind of peace treaty to end the war. This will only encourage a deeper divide, will exacerbate systemic racism between all (resulting in the exact opposite of its objective) and reeks of psyop and a deeper divide/conquer agenda. If the goal is to expand the war (and it may be), by all means unleash the woke agenda and look the other way when hatred and violence are unleashed in the reverse direction. But if the goal is to eradicate racism, i.e., if we truly want to level the balance, we should establish mutually-sought values of respect and social equality and strive to create a culture founded on those values whereby all people are subject to the same standards we seek to achieve systemically...

So, you're a proponent of simply telling the bully to stop bullying the little guy without allowing the little guy to get even, whether it would be by way of self-defense or whether it would be by some other sort of compensation?

Doesn't sound like much of an energetic balance to me. But it does sound very American, I'll give you that much.

[Orph]

It seems we are mixing apples and oranges in this conversation. Society's problems are being mixed in with the NBA's rules and we're getting a mish-mash of different viewpoints. Forget for a moment about slavery, "systemic racism", and social injustices.

I don't follow basketball, but apparently, (I say apparently because I don't know for sure), the National Basketball Association has passed a rule that racial slurs will not be tolerated. Forget about everything else that happens off the court. The NBA rule says players on the court shall not use racial slurs. Period. End of discussion. That's the rule.

Under that rule, the black player most definitely should have received some kind of reprimand from the NBA. I'm not talking about tweets from fans, TV broadcasters or anything else that is outside of the basketball court itself. That player broke an NBA rule. Yet the NBA hasn't, at least to this point, done anything.

Now, what society makes of this incident is most definitely open for discussion. Racism, reverse racism, and all that. But that's a separate discussion. But, there is no doubt that the NBA dropped the ball on this and needs to enforce it's rules equally for all players.

[Frank V]

It seems we are mixing apples and oranges in this conversation. Society's problems are being mixed in with the NBA's rules and we're getting a mish-mash of different viewpoints. Forget for a moment about slavery, "systemic racism", and social injustices.

I don't follow basketball, but apparently, (I say apparently because I don't know for sure), the National Basketball Association has passed a rule that racial slurs will not be tolerated. Forget about everything else that happens off the court. The NBA rule says players on the court shall not use racial slurs. Period. End of discussion. That's the rule.

Under that rule, the black player most definitely should have received some kind of reprimand from the NBA. I'm not talking about tweets from fans, TV broadcasters or anything else that is outside of the basketball court itself. That player broke an NBA rule. Yet the NBA hasn't, at least to this point, done anything.

Now, what society makes of this incident is most definitely open for discussion. Racism, reverse racism, and all that. But that's a separate discussion. But, there is no doubt that the NBA dropped the ball on this and needs to enforce it's rules equally for all players.

I would agree with that, provided that all other rules against racism outside of the NBA would also be enforced ─ which they most certainly aren't. So unless you're willing to ensure that all other racism will be smothered just as well, you would be supporting double standards.

If we're going to be talking about food, then it's not about comparing apples with oranges, but about the fact that you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. There's a reason why that black player uttered a racist slur at the white player. It didn't come out of the vacuum of spacetime.

You have to treat the disease, not the symptoms.

[Mike]

Frank, first of all, what do you mean Santa Clause doesnt exist? I find that offensive and expect an apology from you asap.

The question I have for you is this: How exactly will this racial leveling out be obvious to everyone? It doesn't seem obvious to me at all.

I don't even quite know what you mean by that or how it could be achieved anyway. I s'pose you might think I'm being thick or something, but I'm struggling to understand this angle.

I don't think you can just simply end racism as you suggested...no more than you can end anger, bitterness, jelaousy, so forth. I think it's a mistake to look at racism like smallpox or something, as something that needs to be eradicated. When you do, you leave the door open for totalitarianism and tyranny. It might be more productive to view it as a cold. If someone has cockroaches in their home, for example, they don't take the house apart brick by brick and plank by plank, and dissolve it all into dust searching for roaches before they put the whole thing back together. It's that diminishing returns thing you mentioned. They fumigate, set traps, etc. It's the sensible way to treat the problem in my view.

Gracy, that's a fair point you make. But aside from one espn reporter and a couple dudes at Outkick, no one else is talking about it. So it's bound to come down to guys like Officer Tatum

[Ernie Nemeth]

I am more racist now than ever.

Blued eyed people are not smarter, nor does insisting it is so make it so. I will always stand up to insanity, and inverted thinking.
If you don't like it go back to your own race's country. That is why we have countries, so everyone can have a home where they are not racist and their unique identifiers are respected and honored and cherished.

We are not the same and that is alright.

Don't want to be a minority? - then go home. I have had that said to me more than once. It is irksome but makes sense.

What's it mean when a white person tells another white person to go home if you don't like it? It means every white person has a place where their lineage and ancestors hail from, and none are from North America. Same with all browns and blacks and yellows. This place is an experiment, a globalist wet dream. How do you make people from all around the world live in harmony with one another? Do you bring up their differences or do you you bring up their similarities? Do you bring up historical references or do you emphasize future cooperation? Do you make laws curtailing certain opinions and protect certain minorities from other minorities? Do you make sure there is equal representation for minorities or do you make sure all have equal access to education and merit-based advancement?

Or do you just go out and burn sh!t down?

Canada and the United States are not countries, they are super-states run by corporations with no allegiance to any state, the precursor to a One World Government.

We the people are f*cked.

[Frank V]

Frank, first of all, what do you mean Santa Clause doesnt exist? I find that offensive and expect an apology from you asap.

Okay, okay, I was just pulling your leg. Santa will surely visit you this Christmas again, just like he has all other years. :)


The question I have for you is this: How exactly will this racial leveling out be obvious to everyone? It doesn't seem obvious to me at all.

I don't even quite know what you mean by that or how it could be achieved anyway. I s'pose you might think I'm being thick or something, but I'm struggling to understand this angle.

I don't think you can just simply end racism as you suggested...no more than you can end anger, bitterness, jelaousy, so forth.

You cannot end racism as a social phenomenon. It has to burn itself out. But there will always be embers remaining and waiting to flare up into a bonfire again.

What you can however do is deal with the systemic racism, as exhibited ad nauseam by certain police districts within the USA, and with the offending cops getting away with it every time. And while you're at it, you can then also deal with any other kind of police brutality as well. It's often (but not always) the same (kind of) cops who go there anyway.

Either way, I'm bowing out of the thread now, Mike, and I have my reasons for doing so, because I've already noticed that this thread is going to go places where I don't want to be, and it's not worth the acrimony that might ensue. :noidea:

:bowing:

[Mike]

Frank I appreciate everything you've said brother. We may not agree on everything but I do respect your mind and always read your posts with great interest. I selfishly hope if you have more thoughts on this stuff you might change your mind and share them. Any dialogue with you in it will always be a better one.:handshake:

[Patient]

IMHO...You can't end racism. What I am saying is that it is not a thing that can be stopped on it's own.

People have to evolve above it themselves. I beleive that it is a part of our ascension to being a better human.

Teach people to be better as a person, spiritually, in tune with nature and the world as a whole and there will be no racism.

[Mike]

Back to the original post ....

I just want to be clear that this wasn't intended as some aggrieved white man thing. Nothing of the sort. Of course I understand that, when history is considered, one racial insult might carry more weight than another.

My goal was to merely point out the hypocrisy of social justice, and the NBA specifically in this instance.

[Frank V]

Frank I appreciate everything you've said brother. We may not agree on everything but I do respect your mind and always read your posts with great interest. I selfishly hope if you have more thoughts on this stuff you might change your mind and share them. Any dialogue with you in it will always be a better one.:handshake:

I appreciate that, Brother. :thumbsup: :handshake: :beer:

[Orph]

I would agree with that, provided that all other rules against racism outside of the NBA would also be enforced ─ which they most certainly aren't. So unless you're willing to ensure that all other racism will be smothered just as well, you would be supporting double standards.

There's a reason why that black player uttered a racist slur at the white player. It didn't come out of the vacuum of spacetime.

I agree with the part about what the player said "didn't come out of a vacuum". It's more deep-seated than that. Fine. I agree with that position. But the NBA only has control over its own "jurisdiction" so to speak. It doesn't have the right to make rules for society.

The NBA rule is no racial slurs on the court. That absolutely has to be enforced equally. It's the rule. Otherwise, what's to stop black players from assaulting a white player with a round-house knock-out blow to the head? Hey, it's okay. The black player has had to put up with so much oppression and racism all his life, that, .... well, ...... we'll just look the other way if it happens to be a black player assaulting a white player. ........ Aaaaannnnddd, the rule says no racial slurs will be tolerated. But, if a black player is the one saying it, ...... well, ....... that's justifiable so it's okay.

Just because the are injustices outside the court of basketball (in society), doesn't mean it's okay to have separate rules for blacks and whites inside the court of basketball.

[T Smith]

So, you're a proponent of simply telling the bully to stop bullying the little guy without allowing the little guy to get even, whether it would be by way of self-defense or whether it would be by some other sort of compensation?

Doesn't sound like much of an energetic balance to me. But it does sound very American, I'll give you that much.

In theory, no. I'm not a proponent of that. But I don't think anything about this dynamic is an American thing, but rather a human-nature call for justice, an "eye-for-an-eye" sort of thing, and if and when such reaction is appropriate.

The problem is we are talking in abstract terms now and not in the Biblical "eye for an eye" concrete Hammurabi's-Code-sort-of-way. Hammurabi's Code doesn't sanction gouging out anybody's eye in retribution for having one's eye gouged. It's a specific code of justice that makes sense on an emotional, concrete level but doesn't apply here.

The other problem is, applying this code on a societal level, even if we look past the problematic nature that I think is the crux of your argument, necessitates an arbiter, a mediator, a judge. You may have a clear idea in your mind when balance is reached, but I think it is a big mistake to assume every other intelligent human being (and more importantly, those implementing social-engineering programs designed to deal with the problem) thinks like you do. Specifically, what should we do to eradicate tribalism, jealousy, greed, hatred, or any other anti-social human-nature response? Should we impose a White Tax on all Caucasians because of the color of their skin? If so, how much tax and who determines this? Perhaps the best way to eradicate racism is to liquidate a large swath of undesirables altogether until we achieve that balance, whether they are privileged Americans in general, or Caucasian-Americans, or whatever group some arbitrating (and ultimately tyrannical) authority determines may be helpful in achieving social justice. Herein lies the biggest problem for me, especially when this process is wrought with (and in large part exacerbated by) a social-engineering eugenics agenda.

This all may sound like convenient philosophical rhetoric masquerading as a euphemism for putting our collective heads in the sand, and I'm not suggesting we ignore the problem. I'm suggesting we adopt Martin Luther King ideals and strive to impose and adopt decent and civilized societal standards for all peoples, races, and creeds antithetical to anti-social behavior. In my view--and this is just my opinion--condoning double standards is not the best way to achieve the mutual objective.

I know this is a charged topic, but I did want to address your questions, so I' ll leave it at that. :)

Kind Regards,

T Smith

[Mike]

I would agree with that, provided that all other rules against racism outside of the NBA would also be enforced ─ which they most certainly aren't. So unless you're willing to ensure that all other racism will be smothered just as well, you would be supporting double standards.

There's a reason why that black player uttered a racist slur at the white player. It didn't come out of the vacuum of spacetime.

I agree with the part about what the player said "didn't come out of a vacuum". It's more deep-seated than that. Fine. I agree with that position. But the NBA only has control over its own "jurisdiction" so to speak. It doesn't have the right to make rules for society.

The NBA rule is no racial slurs on the court. That absolutely has to be enforced equally. It's the rule. Otherwise, what's to stop black players from assaulting a white player with a round-house knock-out blow to the head? Hey, it's okay. The black player has had to put up with so much oppression and racism all his life, that, .... well, ...... we'll just look the other way if it happens to be a black player assaulting a white player. ........ Aaaaannnnddd, the rule says no racial slurs will be tolerated. But, if a black player is the one saying it, ...... well, ....... that's justifiable so it's okay.

Just because the are injustices outside the court of basketball (in society), doesn't mean it's okay to have separate rules for blacks and whites inside the court of basketball.


Thanks Orph. That's my position too.

The rule needs to be enforced equally, across the board.

By going so far down the social justice rabbit hole, the NBA has put itself in an impossible position. Theyre going to catch heat no matter what they do. I think theyve just decided that, by doing nothing, theyll catch the least amount of heat. It's not a very principled approach, but it's all damage control to them i think.

To treat the black player like they would a white player if the situation were reversed, well..their whole BLM crusade would come to a crashing halt. If they just fined the black player theyd be acknowledging a racial event happened, and they can't do that with a mere fine because it sets a precedent , i.e. when the day arrives when a white guy makes a racial slur against a black guy, and only a fine is leveled, the BLM social justice crowd will go absolutely nuts. But if they suspend or kick this hypothetical white guy out of the league they will be demonstrating inconsistency and hypocrisy because they did nothing when the tables were turned. Theyre in a catch 22 no matter what they do. It's a tangled web of their own making

So theyre just pretending it didnt happen and hoping it will conveniently go away lol.

[Jake]

I agree with Mike. I don't tolerate racism in ANY form EVER. This sentiment about it being okay FOR NOW is bull***t. It's NEVER okay to hate another, PERIOD. I'll judge the NBA on the content of it's character rather than the colors of skins. I'm getting sick of folks tolerating hatred, violence, murder, and a seeming open season on white people. I love white people. Don't you? I'll say it again, then I'll stop... I'm all for bringing black folk up! I'll NEVER agree to bring folks down, not because of skin color. That is ignorant. And 100% shameful.

I'll take into account that American Athletes may not be the brightest. I don't think the words ROLE MODEL matter anymore.

Please don't change the title of this thread... If it offensive, then it made it's point. No?

Jake

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Is it racism, or is it merely name-calling?

The reason I ask that is, was the remark worded in a derogatory or discriminatory way? Because then it would be racist, whether the player is white or black - it wouldn't matter. When I watch a Tarantino flick, I constantly see black characters calling other black characters n-word this and n-word that in almost every scene. Are they racially insulting each other, or is this just ribaldry...?

rib·ald·ry (rĭb′əl-drē, rī′-)
Vulgar, lewdly humorous language or joking or an instance of it.

The only reason I bring this is up is, on the field of sports there is most often certain language that passes back and forth between players that is best described as ribaldry. I've experienced it many times, and there literally is no limit. At least there didn't used to be. Skin colour included. As awful as it may sound to those outside intimate sporting circles of this kind - it really is a brotherhood of sorts - this was a thing that guys did, calling each other names others may find very rude, even disgusting. It's actually a form of endearment. No slight was ever meant, no insult, and certainly no discrimination.

So are we getting our panties in a bunch? Not stating, only asking.

Racism obviously exists, and it manifests in many ugly ways, and nearly always as discrimination. It is malicious in nature and aims to disparage and belittle. But sometimes name-calling is just name-calling, and sometimes banter is just banter. I find it hard to believe the black guy here meant to call attention to the white guy's skin colour as a defamatory slur, as a character assassination. It's more likely he was just calling him a name: 'white boy'. Had it been the other way round, because of intense sensitivity these days, it would be judged differently, and yes, rightly so. But it wasn't the other way round, so I'm dodging that argument.

For racism to be racism there has to be a victim. If the white guy in question stood up and said, 'no, this was nothing, I was not offended, I am not a victim,' then I don't see how this is truly racism.

It isn't racism any more than this song, that I'm sure we all remember, is racism.

MDZsNksbw2Q

[Orph]

The only reason I bring this is up is, on the field of sports there is most often certain language that passes back and forth between players that is best described as ribaldry.

It's also called "trash talking", and yes it happens all the time. Not a big deal. If I'm that white ball player I don't even bat an eye over his comment. But my argument is strictly about a rule that the NBA has (apparently) came up with about not using any racial slurs. That's the rule. I didn't make that rule, the NBA did.

My argument has nothing to do with society, discrimination, white privilege or anything else. I am strictly talking about an NBA rule that says "no racial slurs". A rule is a rule and has to be for everybody. Either enforce the rule equally for ALL players, or, get rid of that rule altogether ......... Or (and I'm serious), rewrite the rule to say "white people can't use racial slurs". Because that's the real rule. At least be honest about it.

Like I say, I have one argument, and one argument only. Enforce the rule equally.

[Constance]

If we really want to make the changes the way we say we all do, we need to dig right under the roots of it all to pull it all out. The path to peace is purity, purity with every thought, word and deed.

We could have a Heaven-on-Earth, a Shangri-la, a Nirvana (whatever you want to call it) but first, we have to decide that peace is what we want. :heart: :sun:

[T Smith]

My argument has nothing to do with society, discrimination, white privilege or anything else. I am strictly talking about an NBA rule that says "no racial slurs". A rule is a rule and has to be for everybody. Either enforce the rule equally for ALL players, or, get rid of that rule altogether ......... Or (and I'm serious), rewrite the rule to say "white people can't use racial slurs". Because that's the real rule. At least be honest about it.



We are becoming a closed society where "a rule is a rule and has to be for everybody" is no longer the standard. Different rules apply to different members of society depending on race, skin color, the political ramifications of enforcing the rule, etc. Irrespective of the legitimate problems underlying ill-advised social engineering objectives, the arbitrary application of rules and social decorum and law and justice between members of society due to any number of conditions, including race and skin color, is the exact opposite values of a free and open society and is the foundation of tyranny and totalitarianism and genuine tribalism.

Regardless of the verbiage of the NBA rule, we now know the rule really means (https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nba-gives-award-montrezl-harrell-who-called-opponent-btch-ass-white-boy-days-ago) "white people can't use racial slurs". I would agree we should be honest about it and lay it out as it is and see how it flies, but my guess is it would fly just fine. We have been normalizing divisive social decorum based on race for a long time now.

Those who consider themselves "progressive" should take note that this development is regressive in practice; we are once again beginning to embrace the very sentiments underlying Jim Crow, all in the name of social justice.