OT: DFW sports anchor rant re: Michael Sam

Submitted by GoWings2008 on February 13th, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Dale Hansen, the Dallas-Ft Worth ABC news affiliate sports anchor, went on a rant that has gone viral.  He went off on the NFL and the hipocracy regarding Sam's qualifications and the perception the NFL is left with regards to his draft stock.

Like or hate him, he makes some very strong points.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/laces-out/texas-sports-anchor-cuts-to-the-point-of-michael-sam-story-021214

Comments

trueblueintexas

February 13th, 2014 at 2:27 PM ^

I think the key issue is the difference between feeling uncomfortable vs. feeling vulnerable.  Those two words take on very different meanings when there is a situation where one person feels physically or sexually weaker than the other person involved. Being uncomfortable implies there is minimal to no threat where as being vulnerable implies there is a definite threat.

 

moffle

February 13th, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^

There is no right to not feeling uncomfortable, or even to not feeling vulnerable if that feeling is fully unjustified. The aim is not and cannot be eliminating discomfort. It is not disputed that somebody might end up feeling uncomfortable if they end up sharing a shower with an openly gay man. The question is whether that discomfort is valid, in the sense of representing a reasonable feeling of endangerment.

Many are arguing here that it is not. As I gather, the argument to the contrary seems to revolve around the legitimacy of feeling discomfort because of the vague possibility of unreciprocated sexual thoughts, as if that is the sole reason why we choose to segregate locker rooms by gender.

GoBLUinTX

February 13th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^

Lives just across the lake from us in his castle.  Though he keeps a rather low profile and lives a solitary life within the grounds of his estate, he has lent his name to raise scholarship funds with a HS football exhibition in our small town of Waxahachie.

On a side note, Dale Hansen is the local sports reporter that broke open the SMU scandal almost 30 years ago.

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^

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.   

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^

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.

goblue20111

February 13th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^

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.  

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

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. 

BiSB

February 13th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^

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.

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^

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?  

BiSB

February 13th, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^

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.

GoBLUinTX

February 13th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^

are totally ignorant of how the Irish were treated in this country.  Bad enough the Brits tried to starve them them into extinction, but when they tried to escape to some semblance of an equitable life in the US, they were treated like, and depicted as, apes and chimps.  Now there is the lampooning of the Irish as out of control little people.  As one of Irish descent it sickens me the way an otherwise noble institution denigrates my heritage.  Your selective righteousness sickens me as well.

goblue20111

February 13th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^

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.

BiSB

February 13th, 2014 at 3:17 PM ^

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.

PizzaHaus

February 13th, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^

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." 

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^

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.

Erik_in_Dayton

February 13th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^

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.

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^

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.

uofmfan_13

February 13th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^

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.

goblue20111

February 13th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^

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 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Contr…

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.