SI rankings, racist slurs hurled at Mutombo

[elindholm]

Before it's too late, I want to commend the moderators for permitting this thread to stay here. It is a discussion of the Gorilla, which is a Suns issue.

Fine, you don't like my arguments or me.

I don't dislike you. I dislike your methods of argument/discussion/debate/analysis/whatever you want to call it. But I don't transfer that to you personally.

Suffice it to say that your trump card is always the innocence of accidental intention, since other people's sensitivities--how they perceive racial insults--are fungible and even sometimes not entirely irrational, and since the history of racial stereotyping is something in which you appear to not be interested.

I don't understand your use of "fungible" in this context.

Of course I'm interested in the history of racial stereotyping; you've resorted to another ad hominem roundhouse rather than engage the substance of the debate. But I think that society can't move forward until people are able to get over the past. There are competing priorities.

But this is one illuminating and painful case where the willingness to use accidental intent as cover--the attitude of "get over it, it's a freakin' gorilla and he wasn't intended to represent black basketball players"--is doubly wrong since it leaves in place the insult and dismisses the hurt it may have caused.

That's too extreme. If a broad body of people (either all black or of mixed race, I don't care which) were polled, and it was demonstrated that a non-trivial percentage found the Gorilla to be racially offensive, I would recommend changing it. I don't know what that percentage is, but offhand I'd say 10% of the African-American fan base would be high enough to raise concern. (I'd rather not poll the players, because their attitudes toward the league in general are extremely complex and confused.) My personal guess is that it would be less than 5%, which is small enough to fall into the category of people who will claim offense at anything. But, in all seriousness, if I were shown a poll that put the percentage of offended at double digits, it would change my mind entirely.

Other than that, you know nothing about me. Absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't go that far. I know this issue is highly emotionally charged for you. That comes through in the defensive tone of your posts and your spontaneous lashing out at those who disagree.

I also know that you have selected "haverford" as a screen name. It's likely that you have (or used to have) a connection to the college of the same name. In fact I would put the probability at 70% or better that you were a student there. And if that's true, I know quite a bit about the education you received, in which case I know more about you than you think.

Which is okay. We don't have to have secrets here. If you're interested, send me a PM and I'll tell you a bit about my own educational background. I just don't discuss it "in public" because it tends to distract from the things I really want to talk about.

 

[haverford]

Good grief, let it rest. Once again: you found it cowardly and, by my reading, somewhat threatening that I defended Jabbar's view (I was asked to do so by someone in the thread after merely saying I supported it). My hunch is that there is some emotion in the issue for you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. My emotion is more a function of your behavior. As for the argument itself: we can perhaps shake hands on your middle paragraph, beginning "That's too extreme...." Sounds reasonable to me.

I have zero interest in your "educational background." No doubt, you were educated well. But the older I get, I find that doesn't mean so much, or at least all that we might want it to mean. If my screen name tells you all you need to know, you can be happy with that.

 

[fordronken]

My hunch is that there is some emotion in the issue for you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. My emotion is more a function of your behavior.

Say you're right. Do you really think it's better to have an emotional reaction to someone arguing on a message board...or to racism?

 

[haverford]

Say you're right. Do you really think it's better to have an emotional reaction to someone arguing on a message board...or to racism?

To racism.

 

[fordronken]

To racism.

Then that means...

 

[haverford]

It means that we do not understand each other. You like what elindholm has to say. That's OK. Your prolonging this argument/discussion by asking leading questions about whose emotion is more justified or appropriate is not helpful in any way that I can see.

 

[fordronken]

It means that we do not understand each other. You like what elindholm has to say. That's OK. Your prolonging this argument/discussion by asking leading questions about whose emotion is more justified or appropriate is not helpful in any way that I can see.

I'm pretty sure we just agreed on which emotions were more justified or appropriate.

And if you don't want other people getting involved, you probably shouldn't argue on a public forum.

 

[D-Dogg]

Relax, I'm on your side. My comment was drenched in sarcasm and referred to a previous thread in which one person scaled Olympus to tell me that anyone who found such remarks to be racist was probably the racist himself. The denial of racism knows no bounds.

Please add a rolleye icon or something to those types of posts in the future, because I was about to tear your head off.

Sarcasm doesn't come across in the printed word. Use this so you aren't misunderstood.

Oh and whoever told you that previously is a damn dirty racist.

 

[Chaplin]

Good grief, let it rest. Once again: you found it cowardly and, by my reading, somewhat threatening that I defended Jabbar's view (I was asked to do so by someone in the thread after merely saying I supported it). My hunch is that there is some emotion in the issue for you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. My emotion is more a function of your behavior. As for the argument itself: we can perhaps shake hands on your middle paragraph, beginning "That's too extreme...." Sounds reasonable to me.

I have zero interest in your "educational background." No doubt, you were educated well. But the older I get, I find that doesn't mean so much, or at least all that we might want it to mean. If my screen name tells you all you need to know, you can be happy with that.

Your obviously very upset with this discussion. Which is a shame because it is extremely intelligent -- as long as you get by the attacking.

You obviously believe very strongly in what you are talking about. The only issue I have is that you believe so strongly in an issue you refuse to back up because you either think this conversation is a) not worth your energy, or b) don't really have the proof. My guess is that it's "a" because unlike some people on this board, you have a very intelligent writing style -- again, only if you move past the personal attacks.

 

[elindholm]

Oh and whoever told you that previously is a damn dirty racist.

I hope you read this whole thread.

 

[haverford]

Your obviously very upset with this discussion. Which is a shame because it is extremely intelligent -- as long as you get by the attacking.

You obviously believe very strongly in what you are talking about. The only issue I have is that you believe so strongly in an issue you refuse to back up because you either think this conversation is a) not worth your energy, or b) don't really have the proof. My guess is that it's "a" because unlike some people on this board, you have a very intelligent writing style -- again, only if you move past the personal attacks.

Fair enough Chap, and I do appreciate your compliment and attempt to moderate. To be honest, your dissatisfaction with my end of the argument is probably mostly due to "a" (I've got a lot going on that I think takes priority) and partly because, well, because I didn't like the way elindholm handled the argument back in August when it was a much more "live" issue for me. Now, I will apologize for the cheap shot that led elindholm to resume the issue: elindholm, it was a stupid comment on my part and clearly an attempt to goad you in some way. As fordronken says, it is a (semi)-public forum, and one can't expect to be exempt from a lively give and take. And I don't. But I do feel rather lonely in saying that too much of the blame has been pointed my way for this. At any rate, I can live with it, and I'll no doubt return to the board daily to learn more about the Suns, and share in the general fandom. The season starts on Tuesday, after all.

 

[haverford]

Please add a rolleye icon or something to those types of posts in the future, because I was about to tear your head off.

Sarcasm doesn't come across in the printed word. Use this so you aren't misunderstood.

Oh and whoever told you that previously is a damn dirty racist.

And I will back elindholm up strongly here: he is not a racist. On the contrary. We merely disagree, in this case, about where racism is found.

 

[Nash]

But I do feel rather lonely in saying that too much of the blame has been pointed my way for this.

yo haverford! I've been reading the debate between you guys from time to time and kind of felt bad that I was responsible in a way because it was my post on Mutombo (damn him!) that restarted this argument. On the other hand, I feel it was not be that bad a thing since I hope it served to settle the difference between the two of you.

As for the root of issue, initially I thought it was a stretch to construe the Suns mascot as racist. I should give you credit for getting your POV across in classy manner. I still feel that the mascot is OK but do appreciate why you feel the way you do.

You got your point across without resorting to any name calling and staying gracious throughout the debate and I tip my hat to you for that. Sorry you felt like you were blamed for most of this -- I guess some of us who see both sides from a neutral standpoint should've jumped in and talked earlier. But dang! you guys did most of your arguing late last night and in the wee hours of this morning..it was all done by the time I woke up

Bottom line : both sides, pl shake hands and

 

[haverford]

yo haverford! I've been reading the debate between you guys from time to time and kind of felt bad that I was responsible in a way because it was my post on Mutombo (damn him!) that restarted this argument. On the other hand, I feel it was not be that bad a thing since I hope it served to settle the difference between the two of you.

As for the root of issue, initially I thought it was a stretch to construe the Suns mascot as racist. I should give you credit for getting your POV across in classy manner. I still feel that the mascot is OK but do appreciate why you feel the way you do.

You got your point across without resorting to any name calling and staying gracious throughout the debate and I tip my hat to you for that. Sorry you felt like you were blamed for most of this -- I guess some of us who see both sides from a neutral standpoint should've jumped in and talked earlier. But dang! you guys did most of your arguing late last night and in the wee hours of this morning..it was all done by the time I woke up

Bottom line : both sides, pl shake hands and

Thanks Nash. I do like and respect this board, in spite of occasional appearances to the contrary.

 

[BC867]

This post is an example of the foolishness of ethnic group prejudice itself.

Each person is an individual, with his or her own strong points and weak points, good habits and bad habits, etc.

Appearance reflects what part of the world a person's heritage began in. And how close to, or far from, the Equator it began.

I find it ironic that God is portrayed as a Caucasian. Human life began on the African continent.

 

[D-Dogg]

I hope you read this whole thread.

Enough to realize that you do think the remarks made to Mutumbo were racist, and that what haverford referred to was applying some argument about the Suns gorilla being racist to this situation, where they don't apply.

you said:

I said that looking for examples of prejudice where it doesn't exist is racially divisive

And I agree with that. However, how haverford put it in that first post was that someone (you) told him that someone who found "such remarks racist was probably the racist themselves" which actually doesn't apply to the comments made or your earlier argument on related issues. It makes it seem like your previous argument had to deal with remarks like the Mutumbo ones, but clearly that's not correct.

I'm assuming, after reading this thread, that you thought the comments to Mutumbo are racist and that people who think the Suns gorilla is racist are basically race-baiting and looking for problems where there aren't any.

Right?

 

[elindholm]

I'm assuming, after reading this thread, that you thought the comments to Mutumbo are racist and that people who think the Suns gorilla is racist are basically race-baiting and looking for problems where there aren't any.

Right?

Pretty close, yep.