True or racist? (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

I'm not sure I agree with this. Depending on the context, even true statements can be racist.

Let's say I'm in a predominately black neighborhood and somebody breaks into my car. My friend asks me who did it. I say "probably some black guy." I think that seems statistically true but also racist.

I don't agree that that statement is racist assuming that it's statistically true. But that's sort of a tangent that might be worth fleshing out in a different thread. Wilbon's statement is a little racist no matter what.

Edit: Honestly, I don't think I have a counter-argument here. Realistically I'm taking it as a premise that true or statistically-true statements can't be racist by virtue of being true. I'm not sure that I can defend that but I'm also not sure that I need to. I'll have to think this over.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Wilbon's statement is a little racist no matter what.

I think Wilbon's statement was probably wrong. I don't really think it was racist.

ETA: I just reread what IronShiek wrote and it might be racist if Wilbon actually said there were "no black fathers." But I was assuming that was a paraphrase. Here's an article where Wilbon said the lack of black fathers in the home was one contributing factor:

http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/wilbon-keynotes-conversation-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-black-baseball/

 

[TheIronSheik]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[Parrothead]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

unless you are crazy, you can't say insensitive stuff like this

 

[TobiasFunke]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I may be wrong but I seriously doubt that anyone said anyone shouldn't be allowed to say something. As far as I can tell people were just pointing out that statements that portray a particular minority in a negative way tend to play better when they come from a member of that minority.

And I'm not sure how "saying facts" got introduced into the equation since Wilbon's statement was not a fact.

 

[RBM]

 

[TheIronSheik]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

unless you are crazy, you can't say insensitive stuff like this

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I may be wrong but I seriously doubt that anyone said anyone shouldn't be allowed to say something. As far as I can tell people were just pointing out that statements that portray a particular minority in a negative way tend to play better when they come from a member of that minority.

And I'm not sure how "saying facts" got introduced into the equation since Wilbon's statement was not a fact.

I think people are confusing what I was saying with what other people were saying. I never said anything insensitive. Not sure why that's even a discussion.

 

[roadkill1292]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Before this, when was the last time anybody attacked you here? You were way overdue.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Before this, when was the last time anybody attacked you here? You were way overdue.

Actually, lately, it seems like a pretty daily thing. I have thick skin, and I don't let it bother me when people disagree with me. But in this case, I couldn't understand why smart people were arguing over something like this. It just didn't make sense to me.

 

[Parrothead]

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

unless you are crazy, you can't say insensitive stuff like this

I mostly agree with Iron Sheik. The thing about white people being allowed to say "######" is a bad example, but Wilbon was making what he purports to be a statement of fact. Anybody should be able to make truth-claims regardless of race, and they should be interpreted in a color-blind manner. Personally, I think his statement was over-simplified to the point of willful stupidity and borderline racist, and that assessment would be exactly the same if a white guy had said it.

IMO, it's very slightly racist to have a double-standard when it comes to this sort of thing. A racial slur is different because there's no question about whether a black person who slings that term around is doing so in a hateful manner -- no problem there. But empirical statements should be treated the same way regardless of the race of the speaker. And it goes without saying that being right (which Wilbon is not, of course) should be an automatic defense against "you're a racist for saying that."

Thank you. I kind of feel like I was attacked here for saying people shouldn't be allowed to say facts because it does not pertain to their race. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I may be wrong but I seriously doubt that anyone said anyone shouldn't be allowed to say something. As far as I can tell people were just pointing out that statements that portray a particular minority in a negative way tend to play better when they come from a member of that minority.

And I'm not sure how "saying facts" got introduced into the equation since Wilbon's statement was not a fact.

I think people are confusing what I was saying with what other people were saying. I never said anything insensitive. Not sure why that's even a discussion.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I didn't.

To summarize what I said: I asked if what Wilbon had said was racist. I thought it had sounded odd for him to say. People on this board said no because it was actually true. They showed facts to back up there argument. I then asked if Kornheiser had said it, if people would have felt the same way. They said no. I asked why it was bad if people are saying it was factually true. People said it didn't matter if it was true. Only black people can say it. I said if it is a true statement, backed up by facts, why can only black people say it. People said because of 200 years of suffering. I said that didn't make sense as to why facts can't be said by other people.

Not sure where I was racist or insensitive.

 

[Jackstraw]

We attribute a LOT of stuff to race that should be more accurately attributed to poverty. Ghettos look the same and behave the same all over the world.

 

[Parrothead]

I didn't.

To summarize what I said: I asked if what Wilbon had said was racist. I thought it had sounded odd for him to say. People on this board said no because it was actually true. They showed facts to back up there argument. I then asked if Kornheiser had said it, if people would have felt the same way. They said no. I asked why it was bad if people are saying it was factually true. People said it didn't matter if it was true. Only black people can say it. I said if it is a true statement, backed up by facts, why can only black people say it. People said because of 200 years of suffering. I said that didn't make sense as to why facts can't be said by other people.

Not sure where I was racist or insensitive.

sarcasm meter.. its down