Comments on: Detroit Pistons #DraftDreams: Kendall Marshall

By: oats

oats — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:55:29 +0000

Oh, and again, I have dealt with the Kevin Love thing before. Allowing for exceptions to the rule doesn’t change the fact that you are saying the rule is white people are bad at basketball. It changes nothing. I didn’t ignore it, it didn’t mean anything. When you pointed it out again, I addressed it thoroughly.

By: oats

oats — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:39:53 +0000

I almost forgot. The problem isn’t with my assumption. I dealt with what was said. I’m dealing with what is there. Both text, and subtext. This is not an assumption. The full context of your statement didn’t agree with what you meant. I shouldn’t be dealing with what you meant to say, I deal with what you said. The full context. That’s not on me, it is what you said, and you are responsible for it. This is how people communicate. The subtext is just as important as the text itself, it’s how we process information. Even just looking at the text, the text itself is advocating using race as a means to make a judgment call on a person. It’s not calling for it to be the only factor, but definitely a large one. That’s worth me taking the time to point it out. It’s the equivalent of me telling someone to watch their purse because a black guy just entered the room. I could even give some lame excuse that I’m just talking about the statistics, that black people are more likely to go to prison at some point in their lives. Admittedly that statistic says something about systemic racism in the legal system, but all of this has to do with systemic racism in our culture. When you point out that announcers say stuff like this, you are talking about how institutionalized racism has become in our culture, but you use it to justify using institutionalized racism. Again, this was me using a deliberately worse example to show why the connection is problematic. It is still another version of the same basic idea, the idea that the races are inherently different. That is the point of contention.

By: oats

oats — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:23:39 +0000

Patrick and Dan, I need to apologize for this thread. I definitely am complicit in it getting to this state. I didn’t mean to bring it here, and I’m sorry that it did. That said, now that it is here, I’m not likely to back down from it. This is something important enough to me that I can’t just back down on it. I’m a firm believer in the power of words and the power of ideas. I also believe that when talking in a relatively public forum, you have to be especially mindful of the ideas you are expressing. I know I don’t always live up to the sort of high standards I’m trying to set, but I feel it is important to set them there. I know I can come off confrontational, and definitely did here. Like I said, I played a major role in getting the conversation so far off the tracks. If I were to step out of bounds, I’d hope someone would call me out on it. Rick’s accused me of having an agenda, and while I don’t think that’s entirely accurate, there is some truth to it. I believe people should be responsible for what they say, even if it isn’t what they mean. I also believe that when someone says something wrong, you draw attention to it so people can learn from it. I’m not some politically correct crusader, trying to pick fights when they weren’t there. Hell, I’m often not very PC myself. I just believe in standing up for what I believe. This isn’t the ideal place for this discussion, and I know that too. I’m only having it here because it came up here. When Patrick asked me to let it cool off I decided to sleep on it… and then it was back. I decided to walk away, and then sleep on it again, and here it was again. Again, I’m not blameless here, I just don’t want my continuing the argument to be taken as a sign of disrespect to you guys or what you do.

By: oats

oats — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:52:43 +0000

No, all of this is clearly wrong. This back and forth we are having is not between just the two of us, at least not entirely. It has happening on the internet, and you have no way of knowing who is or isn’t paying attention. That changes everything. The decidedly public nature of an open internet thread makes this the place to hold this conversation. Words have meaning. Words have power. Words are how you spread ideas, and ideas lead to actions. If this was a one on one conversation we probably would have been more civil broaching the topic, and I’d have dropped it awhile ago. That isn’t what is happening here. For all intents and purposes, this needs to be treated as a public debate. That is why I’m being so forceful, because anyone can come across this. This is the way all internet conversations should be treated, unless they involve private message boards, emails, or messaging.

You are the one who isn’t taking into account the real issues at hand. Casually racist comments that are relatively harmless contribute to the bigger problem. Those types of comments are easy for someone to gloss over, to read but not really be aware of them. They enter the mind, but they go unchallenged, allowing them to stay there. This one comment in and of itself is not a huge problem, but the average person is inundated with thousands of supposedly innocent comments that eventually become more concrete. It creates an environment that helps perpetuate the problem. Just focusing on bigger picture stuff is wrong. It misses the true problem. Those bigger problems all stem from an idea, and in order to combat racism you have to combat the ideas that it is founded on. That means you have to confront even the smallest, least harmful versions of the idea, and you have to make it known that that is where the line needs to be drawn. The line isn’t using hate speech, or beating up people for reasons related to race. The line needs to be drawn that at the fundamental idea that there are concrete differences between races, that there is something you can know about someone due to race. That’s the only way to combat an idea, at it’s most basic level. What you said wasn’t all that bad in the grand scheme of things, but it made you complicit in the big picture stuff too. That by the way is why I’m not just using a more friendly way of coming about this. The public nature requires me to take a hard stand and make it clear to anyone reading this exactly what is being discussed. I can’t just coax it terms I think will work best for you, it has to be a broad gesture. And let’s be clear here, what we are talking about is a topic worth my grandstanding. That’s part of it too. The nature of this argument demands a bigger stage, so to speak. It is inappropriate to talk about this without making it out to be a big deal. This is really big deal. We’re talking about the power of words, the power of ideas, and the power of hate.

This isn’t a casual conversation. This topic has far too much weight for that. It could have been more casual, but you pushed it here by hinting that white people don’t get racism, by insinuating only people with personal ties to the debate can have an opinion, and by trying to dismiss what you said as harmless. That kind of conversation can’t be casual, it has to be in your face. You provoked this attitude from me. i won’t deny my original statement made it likely it would go here, it definitely did. I wanted to point out that racism inherent in the comment, and it is there. It’s important that attention is drawn to racist ideas and statement, even if they are only the result of someone not being clear with their thoughts. I honestly expected you to clarify what you meant, and then we’d have been done with this. Instead you went on the attack. Again, you went on the attack because you thought I was, so I’m exactly as responsible for getting us here as you are. But you helped get it here, and you can’t then complain that this is where the conversation has led. As for the facts, the facts are simple. The fact is you can’t conclusively determine anything about a player based off his race. I was using facts to dispute you. It came in the form of a scolding, but it was a fact. The scolding was also justified.

Maybe this isn’t the best forum for this, but this is where the conversation came up. It belongs here because it was relevant to what was said here. What’s more, we’re talking about race on a basketball site, and that is appropriate. Basketball history has strong ties to racial issues. Whether we’re talking about Larry Bird saying he was offended when he was guarded by white guys, most anything related to Donald Sterling, whether or not the NBA is marketing a league with mostly black athletes to white people, the Miami Heat hoodie photo, or even stupid things being said by fans. Those are all fairly current topics in the NBA. Yeah, this conversation is basketball related. But like I already said, I’m doing it here because you brought it up here. You questioned why it was a big deal and why I was taking it so personal, and I answered you. Don’t forget the order of events here, everything I’ve said has been a response to something you said.

As for the Asian announcer… He works at ESPN. Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless have held conversations on air about both of their love of fried chicken on the very show you are talking about. He has first hand knowledge that Stephen A. Smith likes chicken. I could bring it up comfortable in the knowledge that I wasn’t just racially profiling Mr. Smith. He declared his love of it on television. Again, this is clearly not racism. This is talking about something you personally know to be accurate about the person, and not just a “He’s black so he must love fried chicken” type of stereotype. What you said was different, you used a “He’s white so he’s bad at basketball” stereotype.

You’re really trying to defend the butt buddies thing still? What the hell man. Was my using the N word an overstatement? Of course it was. I was deliberately using a more extreme example to highlight what was wrong with what you were doing. That phrase, much like the N word, is a term used to degrade a group of people. The word came around as a crude method of calling someone a sodomite, and it’s purpose is to try to portray homosexuality in a manner that small minded people think is gross. It equates a connection between two people to it’s most base form. It implies that there is nothing more to it than that, that it’s just an unhealthy attraction to a body part. It is a term of scorn. You also used it to take a jab at me. It may have been intended as good natured ribbing, but that was not what it was. You threw around homophobic hate speech to try to put me in my place. This is not debateable Rick, and it is not even a little acceptable. The word might not be the absolute worst thing to throw at a gay person, but it is still on the list. I deliberately chose the worst example I could think of to show why you can’t just redefine hate speech for your intended usage. Maybe I should have used the Clerks 2 example of trying to redefine porch monkey as lazy person since that is closer to the level of hate involved in butt buddy (note, it didn’t work, and they had to admit that some things can’t be pulled away from their hateful roots). The point remains, that term is nothing more than ignorant minded hate speech. Actually, this goes to the points I already made. If I used the N word in a public environment to mean ignorant, and the person I was talking to knew what I meant by it, does the guy standing near us have the right to be offended? Of course he does. What’s more, even if the person I’m talking to understands what I mean, he can still find the term offensive. I understood what you meant, and still found it utterly repugnant. Unless you want people to think you are into that whole gay bashing mindset, drop it from your repertoire of phrases. If nothing else, reserve it for people that you know don’t mind it and never use it with or around people who might take offense to it. I clearly do, and that is reason enough for you to apologize for it. Again, what you meant doesn’t matter. It’s what you said. You said something crude, hateful, and offensive. This is not a remotely defensible act, so stop it. I don’t want to read that kind of thing, and it isn’t an argument you can win. You are completely, and entirely in the wrong on this point. You can not casually throw around homophobic slurs, no matter the intention. I can’t believe I actually have to keep making this point, even after Hayes pointed out that it was crude and offensive. Some things you can’t say, period.

By: rick

rick — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:11:15 +0000

If you are looking to mentor people about flippant and blantant diregards as it pertains to racism you can always try the Freep, MLive or hell ESPN for that matter. Then you will have a different outlook as it pertains to this particular subject. My other issue is I take umbridge with those who try and use the internet as a tool to advance their personal agenda without taking into consideration that their are real issues at hand yet they attack those who may have the same opinion but just voices it in a different manner. The main thing is people need to stop being so ultr-sensitive to everything if they want people to take these same issues serious when they do arise. In short when their is a racist act being displayed in here I have to believe that the overall presence in this blog would take control of said situation. I honestly feel you stated your true colors when you made your statement ”I should probably just drop this, but that’s not really my personality. It’s a flaw of mine to be honest, I have a hard time letting go of things.” To me that says it all. You like to argue if for no reason other than to argue. So in the end was it really worth all the effort? The way I see it Im going to think how I think as Im sure you will continue to think as you do. Next time ”break me off” with facts to dispute my claim, not try and scold me. You will get alot further that way. Patrick has humbled me on more than one occasion. As a man I respect his opinion as well as position and know that we will not always agree, but that doesnt mean we can’t have a spirited debate.

By: rick

rick — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:43:41 +0000

I hope you get the message and the message is dont assume. When you assume you make an ass out of you and me. Period. I dont care what you may think I thought because I know what I said. The part about Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless was that the Asian announcer on First Take stated to Skip in a conversation to Stephen A that their were good Barbecue joints in OKC. Was I to take that as a personal jab? Was I to take it as insult to my heritage and background or for that matter assume he was making a statement that was out of bounds. Its all up to interpetation. This argument manifested from thing to another for absoultely no reason that for your own self gratification. You see to me its about the thickness of your skin and if you cannot handle then thats on you. For you to try and give me history lesson really gets me because you dont know anything about me to even try to have this discussion with me. All you had to say was Rick provide stats to back it up. I dont need someone telling me what racist and racism is when I live the shit everyday man. Never do I go out and purposely intend to maliciously insult anyone because I know exactly how it feels. Furthermore your weak ass example of the ‘”N” word is so out of bounds in comparison to butt buddies that I dont know whether to take you serious or not. Whether my words were callous or not you just gave your justification for using racist terms. I mean you blantantly state that you knew what I meant but chose to go on a diatribe about homosexuality as if I said you were gay. Thats what Im talking about when I say putting words in my mouth and you knew full damn well what I was saying. You just chose to ignore it like the Kevin Love part my statement. Im done arguing with you and hope that you can get that chip off your shoulder because no matter what I stand by my words.

By: Marvin Jones

Marvin Jones — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:45:56 +0000

I think that was a well thought out response, hopefully he gets the message.

By: oats

oats — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:01:57 +0000

I forgot to say I’m not really trying to paint you as a racist. I’m saying you are supporting racist attitudes. Plenty of people unintentionally do that very thing all the time. I’m saying even an unintentional racist remark should be called out. Things said without racist intent can still contribute to the problem. I also say this in the hopes that someone thinks about what I’m saying and chooses their words more carefully in the future. I also hope someone might see this and decide to do this sort of thing on their own if they come across this type of situation in another setting. The whole point of all of this is that words have meaning, and they are important. Choose your words carefully so you are actually saying what you mean to say. If you had been trying to talk about the percentage of white athletes in the NBA, you failed to do so. Nothing you said brought that up. That’s the entire message here, really. Be aware of what you are saying, because it is really important. Casually racist comments have a way of seeping into a reader’s subconscious if they don’t pay attention to them, and that is part of how the idea that there are concrete fundamental differences between races can be confirmed for someone. I think it’s important to pay attention, and that’s really all I’m trying to do. Make certain the attention is being paid to ideas being espoused.

Okay, I think I’m off my soapbox for now… I’d prefer not having to climb back on it.

By: oats

oats — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:46:40 +0000

I should probably just drop this, but that’s not really my personality. It’s a flaw of mine to be honest, I have a hard time letting go of things. So, let’s take this from the top shall we. Talking about statistical facts is one thing. You can point out how few white guys are in the league all you want. Using that to justify a negative view on a specific player is not okay. That’s where I am trying to draw the line. Using race to draw a conclusion is my point of objection. I should point out I may have been overly aggressive with my starting point, but I do think it is a stupid thing to say. In hindsight I should have been more clear that I actually don’t think you are stupid, but rather that you expressed a profoundly dumb idea. I won’t back off that either. I do apologize for insinuating a lack of intelligence on your part, even if you are expressing rather dumb idea. Smart people can say or think stupid things too.

The fried chicken thing is stretching it an awful lot. Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless actually know each other, and if one of them has a fondness of fried chicken and the other brings it up, there is nothing remotely racially motivated in that scenario. If someone with know idea how that person feels about fried chicken brought it up, then we have a whole different ball game. Further more, the prevalence of a dumb idea does not in any way justify spreading it. If every basketball analyst on the planet said white guys are bad at basketball, I’d still call you out if you said it. None of that really is relevant to what I was talking about. I’m saying you went past just discussing statistical probabilities and took it to a further point. You are also making it sound like Kevin Love is the level a player has to be at to be worth risking drafting a white guy. The fact of the matter is that white players fill into a wide spectrum of skills and talent levels. Keith Van Horn, John Havlicek, AK47… The list of white guys not as good as Kevin Love but still worth having is pretty long, and I won’t even pretend like I’m remotely capable of setting forth a comprehensive list. Heck, even Laimbeer was not as good as Love, but a hell of a lot better than Eric Montross. There is plenty of room for a guy not to be Kevin Love but still be valuable, and you summarily dismissed all of that.

As for me placing words in your mouth, I’m not really guilty of that. If you want to say I’m twisting your words, well, you have somewhat of an argument here. It’s a little thing called subtext, which when added to the text, leaves you the full context of what you said. I wasn’t exactly pulling this subtext from nowhere either. It was there, clear as day. The subtext is important, human beings are set up to look for the subtext of whatever they are given. The subtext of your statement was, “White guys can’t play, with a couple exceptions here or there. Don’t ever risk taking one unless you are certain he is the exception.” So, I am literally taking what you said, pointing out the flaws in it and the subtext that under rides it. Placing words in your mouth would be adding things you didn’t say. You know, what you were totally guilty of when you had me ascribing a race to you. For the record, I hadn’t even considered what race you were at the time I said that, it just wasn’t relevant to my point. But I didn’t do that, none of my arguments relied on something that wasn’t actually there. What was there was a wide sweeping dismissal of white guys not named Kevin Love.

As for the butt buddies thing. Look, there are not two ways of looking at this. The term is a slur against homosexuals. No two ways about it. I know you meant it as someone I was cozy with, or agreeing with, but that is not what the term means. If I start dropping the N word and use it to mean ignorant people (I’ve heard people justify that word in that manner by the way), then you would totally be justified in calling me out for using a racist term. You shouldn’t use homophobic slurs flippantly any more than you should use racist terms flippantly. These words have clear cut meanings, don’t pretend like they don’t. I shouldn’t sit by and just go, “Oh, but he doesn’t really mean to be offensive.” Your intentions don’t matter, what matters is that what you said is really offensive. Maybe it’s asking too much to expect an apology on this point, but I do feel like I’m actually owed one.

As for my little anecdotes, I only brought it up because you questioned whether I knew anything about racism. You also seemed to imply that being white somehow hinders my knowledge of it. I gave a couple quick examples of how I’ve been the target of racism, and it isn’t a pleasant thing for me to bring up. The idea that I don’t know what I’m talking about because of where I’m from or the color of my skin really grates at me. First of all, even if I was just an outsider looking in, that doesn’t prevent me from comprehending what I’m witnessing. Secondly, I’ve dealt with it more than I’m comfortable really talking about to be honest. You can deride the experience of having someone throwing racial slurs at me while spitting on me and threatening me with imminent bodily harm if you want, but I don’t think many people will agree with that line of thought. I also find the idea that the only way to really experience racism is to go to Detroit rather absurd. You really think that I haven’t seen racism up close and personal living in the south? I live about 90 minutes from the capital of the Confederacy. I am not saying any of this to suggest you haven’t dealt with it more often, or in a more harmful way than I have. I’m only saying I in fact do have some first hand experience with the topic.

By the way, it should be noted that I’m actually more concerned that you are using your terms far too narrowly. Racism is a broad term, and it all hinges on the idea that you can know something about a person based off their race. You said something that suggests that is in fact possible. I’m saying this a topic where you have to be careful what you say, and be as clear about it as possible. Even subtext can be harmful.

By: rick

rick — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:43:14 +0000

Oh yeah btw Oats you are from where Vick and Iverson are from like that means anything significant or important, but come to my neck of the woods up here in Detroit Michigan. Maybe then you will have a newfound respect for the terms you think I use so very loosely. LMAO. Always up for a good debate, just dont put words in my mouth. Thank you.