New Whitlock Article

[Joker]

keep posting arguEment you inbred mongoloid...maybe some day the Indy School Department will sanction it as a real word.

Haystacks freak

 

[Joker]

I am not saying anything about intelligence being a bad thing, or that leaders of the black community say a certain race is less intelligent than another.

But when you say "maybe intelligence is a factor", what folks might hear you saying is, "these guys are black, and therefore they are unintelligent, and therefore they are causing all these problems".

Now, I AM NOT SAYING that this is what you meant. I am just stating that by targeting the "lack of intelligence" as the primary factor in the behavior of this Whitlock labeled "Hip Hop" crowd, you might be inviting cries of "stereotyping" these (black) players as unintelligent. When what I think you are saying is:

Lack of intelligence=higher probability of buffoonary.

Making my point another way, would you site intelligence as the main problem if these "trouble makers" were white??

Again, I am not accusing, I am just proposing a potential problem with the arguement.

Buffoonery...not buffoonAry...only a total buffoon screws THAT up....and BTW, not to start an argument with a special ed drop out but spelling argument arguEment 100 times in your posts doesn't mean that it magically becomes a real word. Perhaps you should wait until you gradjiate 3rd grade, Gomer, before you tackle any vocabulary beyond **** and Jane Go To First Grade.

Moron

 

[fair catch fryar]

Huh????????

I think that a very prominent African American leader stated quite emphatically that he "dreamed of a time when people would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." MLK.

I am not trying to preach. These topics begin to get rather muddled when people forget this basic tenent.

My post talked about a universal desire as far as I am concerned. To be intelligent is a good thing.

Can you name one African American leader who would say that a certain race is less intelligent? Your statement is diametrically oposed to what King said.

My post removes all the talk about music, and hip hop culture, and boils the issue down to a very basic tenent that we all "dream" of. Regardless of color, or musical proclivity, or length of hair, or gender or whatever.

If you are smart, and hardworking, and respectful of your coworkers and bosses, (regardless of skin, or musical tastes, or video game enjoyment, or movies that you watch) you will have a much better chance of being in a corporation, or playing on team. And, if you are talented and have the heart of a lion, and you understand teamwork, perhaps you can be a patriot.

Whitlock did not need to talk about race, or music, or culture or what ever. He used these terms because he wanted his piece to be sexy, and he knew that he could get away with it without feeling the wrath. And, it is a trap. Many people will use his article to openly label and stereotype more people. Well, act as if you know all you want. In this country, it comes down to the individual.

It is a person's actions.

The content of his character that bleed forth these actions.

Not the color of his skin.

It ain't rocket surgery here.

The ability to say very much in very few words is a sign of intelligence!

 

[psychoPat]

Huh????????

....
My post removes all the talk about music, and hip hop culture, and boils the issue down to a very basic tenet that we all "dream" of. Regardless of color, or musical proclivity, or length of hair, or gender or whatever.

If you are smart, and hardworking, and respectful of your coworkers and bosses, (regardless of skin, or musical tastes, or video game enjoyment, or movies that you watch) you will have a much better chance of being in a corporation, or playing on a team. And, if you are talented and have the heart of a lion, and you understand teamwork, perhaps you can be a patriot.

Whitlock did not need to talk about race, or music, or culture or what ever. He used these terms because he wanted his piece to be sexy, and he knew that he could get away with it without feeling the wrath. And, it is a trap. Many people will use his article to openly label and stereotype more people. Well, act as if you know all you want. In this country, it comes down to the individual.

It is a person's actions.

The content of his character that bleed forth these actions.

Not the color of his skin.

It ain't rocket surgery here.

Quite eloquent, LoveDem. Quite convincing. Dare i say, quite correct.

Except for the portion i put into red.
How do you know the author's MOTIVES?
Could it be? ... that Whitlock is expressly trying to connect distinct individual failures
to a widely tolerated - by some, even admired - subculture, with its own characteristic traits.
Isn't this how discussion proceeds?
How people improve our understandings?

No need to beat him up ... for inferences YOU choose to make.

 

[LoveDemPats]

Quite eloquent, LoveDem. Quite convincing. Dare i say, quite correct.

Except for the portion i put into red.
How do you know the author's MOTIVES?
Could it be? ... that Whitlock is expressly trying to connect distinct individual failures
to a widely tolerated - by some, even admired - subculture, with its own characteristic traits.
Isn't this how discussion proceeds?
How people improve our understandings?

No need to beat him up ... for inferences YOU choose to make.

Hey, let me get back to you when I got some time. Good stuff though. I will write tomorrow.

 

[LoveDemPats]

Quite eloquent, LoveDem. Quite convincing. Dare i say, quite correct.

Except for the portion i put into red.
How do you know the author's MOTIVES?
Could it be? ... that Whitlock is expressly trying to connect distinct individual failures
to a widely tolerated - by some, even admired - subculture, with its own characteristic traits.
Isn't this how discussion proceeds?
How people improve our understandings?

No need to beat him up ... for inferences YOU choose to make.

"African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters"

This is the thesis would you agree?

Whites are just as prone to acts of Buffoonery and rebellion. It is not a person's color that makes them a buffoon. There is not a need to mention race. So, that is how I know his intentions.

If he was interested in defining what owners want in an employee, then he could do so without mentioning race. It simply neither needed, nor welcomed.

Distinct individual failures does not equal "African-American football players" gramatically. One does not equal several. Had he spoken of one man, and in turn had not mentioned the man's race, crede, gender, then there would be only a question of slander depending on how Mr. Whitlock critiqued him.

widely tolerated - by some, even admired - subculture, with its own characteristic traits.[/B]
No need to beat him up ... for inferences YOU choose to make.

Again, why the need to single out African Americans? It is wrong on so many levels to do this. I simply think that all people are cheated when people stoop to such tactics. The article could be good simply by clearly defining the power structure of the NFL. Whitlock even tries to make the reader feel empathy for coaches who are incapable of managing their team. This is preposterous. It seems that he is saying that these rougue players should play nicie nice because the coaches are African American. (It is a stretch, but he singles out only African Americans throughout, and the tone of the piece seems to follow this prevailing theme in all arguments presented.)

Isn't this how discussion proceeds?
How people improve our understandings?
No need to beat him up ... for inferences YOU choose to make.

Sure, discussion can procede from any topic. No problem there. I tend to disagree with racist blather couched as if it is the helping word from a good friend. I don't think that he is being a good friend. He is being a stereo-typing racist.

The players are individuals. But Mr. Whitlock talks down to them with such gems as this, "In terms of opportunity for American-born black athletes, they're going to leave the game in far worse shape than they found it." as if it is the purpose of each black athlete to carry on some romantic preconceved quest to prove something that does not need to be proven. This collectivist error is at the root of my disagreement with the article since collectivist thinking by definition, when used as a means to stratify a population by color, is racist.

Using your own question as a means to promote dicussion, how does Mr. Whitlock know the motives of the players? How does he know what they want in life? Are these African American players only pieces in Mr. Whitlocks big plan to prove something to Non-Blacks?

 

[psychoPat]

I fear we are straying too far from football and the Patriots,
but your good-faith effort must elicit at least some respectful response.
But after this, i am done with the topic.

"African-American football players caught up in the rebellion and buffoonery of hip hop culture have given NFL owners and coaches a justifiable reason to whiten their rosters"

This is the thesis would you agree?
Yes.

Whites are just as prone to acts of Buffoonery and rebellion. It is not a person's color that makes them a buffoon.
Right, again.

There is not a need to mention race. So, that is how I know his intentions.
If race didn't matter at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Since race DOES matter to some extent, why should it not be explicitly mentioned?
Why is MENTIONING race ... an African-American mentioning other African-Americans
and speaking pointedly to African-Americans
... offensive?

If he was interested in defining what owners want in an employee, then he could do so without mentioning race. It simply neither needed, nor welcomed.
Well, LoveDem and Whitlock disagree on this. He might not expect his words to be "welcomed"
... but he clearly thought they are "needed".

....

Again, why the need to single out African Americans?
Whitlock is singling out HIP-HOP.
Hip-hop is owned by African-Americans.
Could he have spoken of dreadlocks
without singling out African-Americans?
Reggae, without singling out Jamaicans?
Salsa, without singling out Latinos?
Oompapah and Lederhosen without singling out Germans?
Guinness and "Danny Boy" without singling out Irish? And so on.


It is wrong on so many levels to do this. I simply think that all people are cheated when people stoop to such tactics.
Empty words. They tell us you are angry.
So what?


.... Whitlock even tries to make the reader feel empathy for coaches who are incapable of managing their team. This is preposterous. It seems that he is saying that these rogue players should play nicie nice because the coaches are African American.
He is proud to point to African-Americans who have conspicuously succeeded
in the NFL.
They DO NOT revel in hip-hop "culture" ... and its accompanying themes of
showboating ... misogyny ... and outlaw violence.


....
I tend to disagree with racist blather couched as if it is the helping word from a good friend. I don't think that he is being a good friend. He is being a stereo-typing racist.
I suppose you're welcome to continue thinking so.
But you are wrong.
This recurring theme of black-on-black racism
also surfaces whenever someone like economist Thomas Sowell
calls his fellow native-born American blacks to task for falling far behind the accomplsihments
of all other dark-skinned minorities - often with the additional handicap of having grown up overseas ...
or when someone like supreme court justice Clarence Thomas writes opinions to strike down racially-based affirmative action.
In other words, there indisputably is a politically-correct "voice" assigned to African-Americans ...
and blacks like Thomas, Sowell, and Whitlock are "racist" when they contradict that assigned role.

The players are individuals. But Mr. Whitlock talks down to them with such gems as this, "In terms of opportunity for American-born black athletes, they're going to leave the game in far worse shape than they found it." as if it is the purpose of each black athlete to carry on some romantic preconceved quest to prove something that does not need to be proven. This collectivist error is at the root of my disagreement with the article since collectivist thinking by definition, when used as a means to stratify a population by color, is racist.
That statement is a gem.
It has applications that you may not suspect.

Good chattin' with you!

 

[Bo0MeR]

Hip Hop is NOT run by African-Americans, it is run by money hungry WHITE record company owners and CEO's. The majority of the people who buy hip hop CD's are WHITE. Do not forget these important facts.

 

[LoveDemPats]

Hip Hop is NOT run by African-Americans, it is run by money hungry WHITE record company owners and CEO's. The majority of the people who buy hip hop CD's are WHITE. Do not forget these important facts.

Facts don't matter.

 

[LoveDemPats]

How bout them bears?

 

[Fahrenhype]

It's simply a case of guy's having massive egos and coaches who are unwilling or unable to reign them in. I don't see how "hip hop culture" makes Larry Johnson an idiot. Holding out, underperforming, and then complaining like a child makes him an idiot. Would his attitude really be any better if he listened to Mozart?

People get personality traits and entertainment preferences a bit too mixed up. If there's a problem it's that immature behavior keeps getting rewarded with money and media attention. That is what sends the message to younger players and kids.

 

[Real World]

How bout them bears?

You mean, da bears.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Pretty brave article, actually. It's a pretty amazing stat that the two best teams in football are the two whitest. Not something you EVER see brought up (unlike the constant discussion of the two black coaches in the last Superbowl). Of course, "whitest" is relative. Both teams have a majority of African-American players, including many of their top stars.

It's an interesting hypothesis from Whitlock that both teams' personnel strategy focuses on "leadable" players. But he makes a mistake, IMO, facilely blaming hip-hop. I don't think it's that simple. Take Willie McGinest, a player who was recruited by Cleveland to bring focus and a winning attitude to the locker room. Willie runs his own hip-hop record label as well as a management firm in partnership with Snoop Dogg! What Whitlock is really talking about is selfishness and immaturity, which he tosses into a cultural bucket with other stuff he doesn't happen to like.

Yeah - I'm with you... so teams don't want idiots who are going to get into trouble and prefer team players who channel their energy into the success of the team.

That's great! But neither race nor "culture" (which might be construed as a "code word" for race by some) can account for the diversity of idiocy in the NFL or society as a whole.

Whitlock's going onto thin ice targeting the hip hop culture - that's like me labeling all country western fans dumb redneck inbred hicks, and there are plenty of examples of non-hip hop idiotic behavior in the NFL as well.

But I suspect Whitlock knows what he's doing, trying to generate a degree of constroversy to get young black men in the NFL thinking about how they behave and the consequences of that behavior.