Not surprising coming out of Texas. Steers and Queers.
good luck with that
Not surprising coming out of Texas. Steers and Queers.
It's a poor attempt at humor using a line from Full Metal Jacket. Excellent movie. Amazing monologue, but definitely not the right time to reference it.
more of a play that a Texan is out in full force defending an openly gay man, though I've heard the DFW is more socially liberally, economically conservative than the small towns.
What you say is true in Dallas. Not so much in Fort Worth. They are very different places, socially and otherwise. To your point, Fort Worth is much more socially conservative than Dallas.
The towns are farther apart than A2 and Detroit, geographically and socially.
you mean that line from a primus song?
should take some advice from the immortal Richard Sherman: quit bitching and fuckin adapt. It's the 21st century, man.
And neither do I think people have to accept something they've never accepted before. But I do think that we should all accept each other's rights to equal opportunity in the marketplace and each other's privacy and private property.
And what I find offensive in my private dwelling may be something you do routinely, in the privacy of your home. And as long as you aren't harming others or destroying the general air, food and water and we share on planet earth, then I shouldn't be allowed to restrict what you do in the privacy of your home or dwelling.
So in that sense, I agree, we need to join the 21st century of liberty and privacy rights. And public spaces we should promote free ideas and free people, along with equal opportunity.
And you can blame the media more then anything - more then "bigots" and more then "ignorance" and more then "tolerant owners". Look at the "bullying" last year on the Dolphins. Now imagine a firestorm 4 times worse with Michael Sam and rumors of disgusting jokes directed at him or bullying or hazing or whatever.
Let's say the Washington Redskins draft Michael Sam (Oh - wouldn't that piss off the PC liberal crowd! The awful, racist Redskins with the first gay NFL player!) . I can promise you the local and national media will descend on their training camp like few have seen. The pressure will be immense to play Michael Sam. The activists will be out in force at Preseason events. The harcore right will be out in force. You'll see an absolute crap show at some of their events.
Then the rumors start (Washington DC media loves to float rumors). Such and such said this. Michael Sam did this. Michael Sam was spotted in Dupont Circle with a man. Michael Sam isn't starting. He's not playing. Why is the coach a bigot? What are the coaches doing?
Look - I want this guy, like all rookies to succeed. He seems like a solid citizen who came from a tough life. And he's gay. So what? But the disgusting, idiotic media/political establishment of this country won't give his team peace and that is why he won't get drafted until later. The best option for him, I think, is a small-market squad up North or even the Patriots. They figure out ways to beat the media at their own game.
You don't think that the cultural diversity in New York wouldn't be accepting of him?
but dissenters always shout louder than supporters.
You lose all crediblity with your PC rants. The name is literally about the skin color of an ethnic group, a term that was derogatory for generations. The guy who helped pick the name was one of the most outspoken and virluent racists of his time. I don't get how being opposed to it is anything short of common sense.
I guess you must equate rants with what the sportscaster did in his monotone voice on the video that started this thread. I mentioned PC in exactly one sentence.
Look - the PC crowd is out to "ban" certain words. But what they fail to recognize is that you can NEVER ban words. You might make them socially unacceptable in settings, but you can never ban them. And most of the time when you ban them in what you think are "social settings" you just make them that much more powerful and give people reasons to demagogue the issue.
The Washington Redskins aren't changing the name anytime soon.
But you can sure as hell punish their use. For example, people who drop the f-bomb around here (not fuck, you can say fuck) are Bolivianed or worse. "Redskins" is a racist anacronism that will go away sooner or later.
We need to ban the "Fighting Irish", "Cleveland Browns" and the "Washington Nationals". Nationals, to me, implies that undocumented people aren't invited. In Washington DC we give undocumented immigrants driver's licenses. So we need to ban the name - it isn't inclusive enough. It makes a select group of people feel uncomfortable.
Cleveland Browns, to me, implies a brown population of Cleveland. Never mind the history of it. To me it is offensive. And Fighting Irish - where do we begin? It is some immoral and disgusting to equate the Irish with fighting. It has its roots in racism, right? We need to ban and change these names immediately.
Do you agree?
Browns are very obviously a reference to Paul Brown, seeing as (a) it is an objective fact, and (b) there is absolutely no evidence that it has ever been taken otherwise by any rational person ever.
The Washington Nationals is a reference to the fact that Washington is, in fact, the seat of power of our "nation".
The "Fighting Irish" is a little racist/jingoist/etc, but we didn't systematically kill the Irish, rape their women, take their land, and destroy their culture, and then name a team the derogatory slur to which we referred to them as we systematically killed them, raped their women, took their land, and destroyed their culture. So, I guess that's a difference.
Mascots can make a "select group of people" uncomfortable and be within the bounds of good taste. I'm not sure everyone likes the Vikings mascot. But there is a line of decent taste, and HOLY SHIT IT'S 2014 AND WE STILL CALL A TEAM THE REDSKINS.
Hey I'm Irish!!
Its crazy how the world opens up for you when you stop seeing yourself as a victim.
Do soemthing about it?
It's not as if it's just white people ridden with guilt who have no relation to the Indian people are up in arms about the Redskins. Numerous Native Americans from all different tribes and groups have been vocal about their opposition to the name.
When the group you're applying the name to says "Stop, this isn't cool and it's offensive" generally you stop. As far I've learned, there's been no such movement surrounding those of Irish descent or the Fighting Irish name/mascot. Literally, the only time I see it brought up is as a counter-'argument' (and that's being generous) and as sort of a 'gotcha' moment against removing the Redskin name b/c the PC treehuggers will fight to save the Redskins but not the Irish, look at how hypocritical they are.
Lastly, the treatment of the Irish, while dispicible and deplorable, pales in comparison to the treatment of the natives of North and South America by Europeans. It was a literal genocide. I think the comparison is rather dubious. A lot of the anti-Irish sentiment had to do with the anti-Catholic sentiment in the nation at the time.
As someone of BOTH Native American AND Irish heritage, you can't out-flank me on this one. The Irish were treated poorly by the British, and were treated poorly by modern standards in the late 19th century/early 20th century. However, the treatment of Irish people is, by historical standards, LIGHT YEARS beyond the treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, and a bunch of other groups.
There is also a big difference between attributing a moderately undesirable quality to a group and just flat out naming your team after a slur. If they were the "Notre Dame Fightin' Micks," or the "Notre Dame Shamrock-F***ers," you'd have a better case.
on the graves of my Irish ancesters that from this day forward I will ONLY refer to Notre Dame as the "Shamrock F***ers".
You're managing the rare feat of being intentionally dense and unintentionally dense at the same time.
Redskin is a racial slur. The others you're just pulling non-sensical connections out of your ass. Would you be cool with, for example, the Washington Ni***rs?
And another thing: people are actively offended by the Redskins name. I'd love for you to even try and find anyone actually upset at "Nationals" or "Browns."
Fighting Irish is a complement bro...
And now that image is stuck in my head for the rest of the day.
"I have no desire for you to think of me as an out of control raging leprechaun."
Not to worry. No one thinks the leprechaun part fits. ; )
Named after Paul Brown, an Ohio native and coaching legend. The colors used, orange and brown, we're brought to the organization by Brown from BGSU. I'm not sure where you got your information..
though we might haggle over what should be considered soon
There are openly gay women in the WNBA. Fans don't organize and protest when an openly gay woman is benched for a straight one. People are capable of understanding that a gay person may simply not perform well.
The NFL is a media juggernaut. Where do you think activists (on both sides of the issue) are going to go to be seen and create a scene?
I see your point - but again, the WNBA is literally a subsidized league that not a lot of people are die-hard fans of.
But - I sincerely hope you are right about Michael Sam and the media. I think it would be awesome if they DIDN'T make a scene.
I think you may be underestimating the ability of gay fans to understand that a gay guy may just not play well, but you're right that an NFL game is much more likely to draw someone like the Westboro Baptist Church. Having lived in Kansas, though, I can tell you that it's hard to do much of anything big without drawing the Westboro Baptist Church. No one is going to say military familes shouldn't have funerals for their fallen soldiers, but the WBC crowd shows up to protest those funerals. People like that come and go, and you just have to ignore them. Otherwise they win.
There is no question the cultural and social diversity in NYC and surrounding would be very open to having Michael Sams, and they would celebrate him - at least on draft day. But come week one of the preseason and Michael Sam doesn't play until 2 minutes in the 4th qtr?
And then imagine the media in New York!!! They love their rumors and page-six stuff worse then other places too. I can see the New York Daily publishing all kinds of decrepit stuff. They love to dig into player's personal lives. They love to have coaches engage in warfare and they love to create controversy where there is none.
Maybe I am wrong - in fact I hope I am wrong. And maybe Michael Sam can meet up with Derrick Jeter and get some tips on avoiding their cameras. But I just don't see NY or DC as great places for him. Somewhere like Buffalo (which is basically an international franchise lol) or even New England would work.
Is infowars.com your most frequented website?
Want to accuse me of going to infowars? How about brietbart? Better yet - I'll save you the trouble. I view and read all of them -- even Mother Jones and Daily Kooks (whoops, I meant Kos), which I am guessing you frequent.
But instead of questioning me - why don't you address my positions? Why don't you make a salient argument? Can you really deny that the media destroys reputations and forments demagogues (on all sides)?
And why do you think the Redskins are being pushed to change their name now? What about 5 years ago? There were crickets 5 years ago. Even 10 years there was NADA on this issue. They have success for one season with RG3 and then the PCs come out of the woodwork.
Factually untrue considering there were attempts since the late 80s and the infamous Redskins lawsuit was filed in the early 90s. You can read about it here
Also don't read any of those sites. Prefer NYT and WSJ. Don't really care about your media argument -- I just find the loonies who rave about the MSM to be funny and wanted to make a snide comment.
I remember Dale from the Pony Excess 30 for 30.
Good for him; he makes great points pretty much all around. And good for him calling out all the NFL players who are celebrated which have done actually bad things. The only criticism I have of his soliloquy is that Sam is/was a 3rd-5th round pick, even before public ally coming out, because he's like 6'2" and 260 lbs as a DE. There is well established precedent for the NFL to shy away from non-ideal size and/or position switchers as SAM may have to do to play LB. Other than that, spot on.
"Sam is/was a 3rd-5th round pick, even before public ally coming out"
The SEC is gonna be PISSSSED about this...
This Michael Sam thing is still news? Somebody please make it end and bring back my Tebow 24/7 coverage!
"Why is this still a story?" - the new "no place in the league for this".
Maybe the sooner people like you stop whining, it won't be.
I mean it was OK to hear about it the first day, you know when I said good for him and that's awesome.
Now it is still the topic on espn day 5. just give me some sports people.
Great commentary by Mr. Hansen. I'm a new fan.
These ignorent GMs should retire like Al Campanis.
But most (not the Browns lol) are creating a product that they want to see win and fill up stadiums. If the media descends on Michael Sam, creates a huge firestorm and then causes division in the franchise, the team and the fan community -- is that worth the pick? I don't know. And don't act like it couldn't happen. It has happened.
Witness Atlanta and Michael Vick. AND PLEASE NOTE - I am not equating the two in terms of behavior. Michael Sam is a human being and Michael Vick aided criminal and inhumane activity. But I am equating the two in terms of the potential (yes - POTENTIAL) media firestorm. The season Michael Vick's dog-running came up - ATL's season went down the tubes.
You can't dismiss that so easily. And I sincerely hope it doesn't happen this way because it will bring out the worst in all sides of the issue.
This is a terrible excuse for not doing what is right. Your making exactly the same argument that was made when Jackie Robinson joined MLB. Is that any reason to take away a man or woman's rights. It's interesting that even Al Campanis was one of the biggest proponents of Robinson playing. That puts comments like yours to the right of even Al.
To be accurate, Al Campanis resigned (I assume, given what happened, it was of the corporate "please resign or we will fire you" variety) two days after this interview. I have to say, this still probably ranks as one of the most mind-blowingly embarrassing ways that anyone has destroyed their career, at least in the age of the television interview. Koppel gave him opportunities to clarify too, but Campanis continued to dig the hole with patently racist and stereotyped remarks.
Yes true, and a bit sad as well. Because it turns out that despite Al's racist views, he was one of the biggest proponents of furthering the rights of minority players, starting out with Jackie Robinson as his roommate. Fortunately he was at retirement age so it didn't destroy his career. But his legacy is a bit sad given he'll be remembered for his Koppel interview and racist views and not for his previous actions. The silver lining is that as a result of his interview, the league put in a number of policies that accellerated the opportunities for minorities in management positions. I don't think we'd be where we are today if it wasn't for Al's unfortunate downfall.
And I believe Sam, by coming out and starting a national discourse, has decided that there is a similar opportunity today.
A serious question: If you scoff at the notion that having gay players in the locker room (something that I personally don't care about) causing any kind of discomfort for straight players, do you also believe that we no longer need separate locker rooms based on gender? What about bath rooms? And if women have any problem with this, would you just tell them to grow up or stop being so whateverphobic or get over it?
I get it: You get to brush off straight people being concerned about anything because they are straight and anything that doesn't fit your worldview is instantly some kind of -ist or -istic. But try thinking about it from the standpoint of a victim group (RE: Women in the same situation as straight men in this case) and get back to me.
So you are saying that straight men are a victim group?