Ever look at the values of Michael Jordan RCs, or those of a dozen other popular Black players? Check out some Goldin Auctions results. Racism indeed. Yes, of course it exists, but the notion of seeing it everywhere and in everything is out of control.

I don't want this kind of stuff on the forum anymore, satire or not.
thanks

Leon, throw this guy off the site

Longstanding members are almost never banned for a first offense. If it happens again then that's a different story.

For the logo, why couldn’t they use one of the statues? Beautiful Art Deco artwork that doesn’t get a lot of attention today, but instead they went with a rip-off of an ugly ‘90s logo.

When I was a kid, we played Cowboys and Indians. We never played Jews, Negroes, Muslims, Asians or Africans. But that was just the kids I played with. Maybe it was different in other parts of the country? :confused:

Yup.

I (over 60) consulted my daughter (under 30) and when I mentioned the words "copypasta" and Navy SEAL she immediately knew what I meant and after a few seconds started reading it to me from her phone. This seems to be one of the most famous ones. Here is another one that is less controversial: "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"

That being said, I had never heard the term "copypasta" before (and was obviously not aware of this particular one and if I saw it without realizing what it was would have said "wtf you can't post that").

On the other hand, if I told my daughter I used to watch a cartoon called "Go Go Gophers" and described it she probably would not believe me. It just goes to show you something....I am not sure what exactly.

I hate the whole iPhone social media culture lol.

In real life, there were Native Americans and US Cavalry sometimes confronting each other in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This cartoon (because it is a cartoon) represents both in caricature; unflattering Indians and stupid Cavalry.

But as Wikipedia sums it up: However, the Gophers prove to be very clever and always manage to foil the plans of Colonel Coyote and Sergeant Oakey Homa.

So, I suppose someone desperate to find something to be offended by could find it here....... I guess. Or, people could lighten up a bit.

Spiders would have been so damm cool. Would have immediately been an iconic name. I would have bought a cap the next day. This just smacks of a bland safe corporate decision. Not horrible but a missed opportunity.

Just to be clear, I didn't say I (or anyone else) was offended by the cartoon (certainly I wasn't as a youngster). I just meant that it was not likely such a cartoon would be made today. And yes, The Gophers, while speaking mostly gibberish, did always outsmart the Cavalry.

They don't put Chief Wahoo on the uniforms, but last I heard the team still owns the copyright and I believe they still have Chief Wahoo adorned items selling in their gift shops. So they did not completely dump the mascot and are still apparently making some money off it.

Personally, I think the name change is long overdue, but I don't think they made a great choice with "Guardians".

Also, out of curiosity–with all the discussion of "white privilege" and "cancel culture"–is there is a single post on this thread from someone who is not white?

There is all this talk about cancel culture etc. but the same people who rally against cancel culture, which is ultimately based around respect, are people who took huge issue with things like kneeling during a song or wanting to have a say in what bathrooms people use. Everyone on either side thinks the argument is dumb to be having in the first place.

I personally have no issue with players kneeling respectfully during the anthem to make a point, but at the same time I think cancel culture is getting out of hand when it targets people like Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson.

That might be because you weren't affected by their lived lives.

Do I think cancel culture can go too far? Yes, but ultimately it is a social view based in respect and shifting attitudes toward social issues that would have either been indifferent to an issue or even encouraged it by omission. For example, I don't think there's any reason for a woman to put up with sexual harassment at work while they're trying to make a living. If you're accused and guilty of that behavior, you haven't been cancelled. You've been held accountable. And while people might like calling it cancel culture in a detrimental way, it's more about accountability for me.

I have no problem with people taking a strong stand against sexual harassment (and worse) in the workplace. It's the token gestures against historical figures who are long since dead, that I find more problematic in some cases. Learn from history, don't pull a 1984 and try to erase it.

By the way I'd be willing to bet many highly respected names from history were anti-Semitic. Should we cancel them too?

I don't think they're token. I think in each case the side moving toward change has carefully thought about what they're doing. To dismiss them just because is worse than anything cancel culture can bring about. Monuments are public structures that are a part of people's lives who live around them. I would have a big issue with a Hitler statue in my neighborhood. I don't care if that makes me a cancel culture person. It's how I feel about a person who impacted my family.

Groot should be the teams first mascot

Abraham Lincoln is not Hitler, nor is Woodrow Wilson. That isn't persuasive. How do you feel about removing Lincoln's name from schools? How carefully thought out was what the SF School Board did? Or what Princeton did in renaming the Woodrow Wilson School?

I don't live in those places so how could I answer those questions? If you're interested why not contact people involved with both causes?

No need, the reasoning in each case was explained, I just disagreed with it and viewed the acts as token political correctness that weren't at all helpful to the presumed goal of improving society. Maybe we should be talking, for example, about the huge problem of children born to single mothers rather than worrying who a dorm is named after.

And yet that statue isn't actually on British soil so the point stands.

Why? What does one thing have to do with the other? If I'm living in a dorm named after someone who wronged my family, regardless of what you might think of them from afar, how does my issue with living in a place named for them relate to single mothers?

Because the effort and energy of certain groups are directed at the dorm, not the real issue hurting people.

That is correct:

https://magazine.promomarketing.com/...erican-groups/

Just curious.... Should we use your standards to cancel Martin Luther King (and his national holiday?) Or will we choose to be hypocritical?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...uments-227042/


The most shocking claim Garrow relates is that King was present in a hotel room when a friend of his, Baltimore pastor Logan Kearse, raped a woman who resisted participating in unspecified sexual acts. The FBI agent who surveilled the room asserted that King “looked on, laughed and offered advice.” Other allegations include that King’s philandering—long known to be extensive—was even more rampant than historians knew; that King took part in group sex; that King may have fathered a child with one of his mistresses; and—less pruriently—that King continued taking money from his onetime ally Stanley Levison, a Communist Party member, even after he was supposed to have broken off ties.

How does a random single mother enter into the equation if I'm a student in a dorm named after someone who affected my life negatively, in addition to the lives of others, who may similarly be involved in the effort to change the name of the building? You're deflecting now because you don't think things are as important as others. But that is what I've been saying. Maybe you could consider the lived lives of other people and what's important to them.

Take up any cause that means something to you. I don't decide what you're interested in.

You know as well as I do that this is not just done at the local/micro level and that there are national groups articulating their priorities.

I would ask how you know that if you're not involved in any one cause.

If you are male, the justice system is even more biased against you. Why is that never mentioned?

Pretty much everyone who is not armed has virtually no risk of being killed in an interaction with the police. 81 unarmed people in 2020 killed by police, an average of 49 per year by lightning. And recent statistics have shown that, on a per-interaction basis, whites are actually more likely to be killed.

FINA absolutely made the wrong decision. One that they will undoubtedly change very, very soon.

None of the comments above should be taken as ignoring any real issues. However, what we have today is an overblown hysteria/reaction driven by media and social media that care not one iota for truth. Consider the false "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative that still pervades the Michael Brown case. The media and social media have so inflamed people that there's no time for investigation or facts - just reactions based on outcomes. No care if something was justified or not. And a lot of that is based on race - the media knows that killings of black people by police are hot news and will run with stories and inflame people without regard to truth or balance. We've all heard of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin. Why has there not been similar mass coverage of Tony Timpa who died in an identical fashion to Floyd - with the added fact that the police literally mocked him as they killed him?

There are other cases where police overreact and kill unarmed white people -- there was just one in Massachusetts and also a case of a mentally disabled young man in perhaps Louisiana. They just don't get the media and Twitter airplay they would if the victims were Black. They don't fit the narrative.

There's also the current Colorado case where police tased a 75-year old white man for no reason, knocking him unconscious and eventually causing a stroke and burst appendix. That one has gotten a little media attention but nowhere near as much as it should.

No reflexive tweets screaming outrage even before any of the facts are known, eh?

If you have a cell phone (or any other object) in your hand in a dark alley, on a dark night, and the officers can't identify the object but repeatedly ask you to drop whatever you're holding, that is just as good as being armed.

I personally believe that officers should only have to ask someone one time to comply and, if they don't, then have the authority to use deadly force.

I think you have to look at these things on a case by case basis but two things. One, yes, at some point the police have the right to self defense if the suspect doesn't stand down; and two, the reflexive presumption and outrage any time a Black person is involved that the police acted BECAUSE the suspect was Black is misplaced. It may be the case, it may not be, but wait for the facts.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this. It's a scientific fact that people's minds and bodies shut down in response to high stress situations (i.e. police interactions). Requiring compliance on the first order - especially since police orders are often shouted from multiple directions and conflict with each other - is a completely unrealistic, ridiculous standard. Have you ever said "what?" in response to a question or instruction from your spouse/significant other? Yes? Now imagine that in a police interaction - under your idea, the police would be justified in killing you. "Show me your license and registration" "what?" *BLAM*. C'mon.

2 Things:

1) You are the typical closet racist. Your politically correct term gives it away. How many "African Americans" do you actually know? I live in the 4th largest city in the US and I don't know any "African Americans" (that I know of). I do however know many Black people. Please be sure to mention next how many "African American" friends you have (as is also typical of the closet racist to want to be made known).

2) I had "the talk" with my daughter, 2 step daughters and 1 step son. It went something like this: "If a police officer gives you a lawful command, comply." Whew! That was a hard one.

If memory serves, in the late 1980s the Rev. Jesse Jackson led the movement to adopt that term, but it started to fall out of vogue in the mid 2010s.

There is a difference between a request such as, "Show me your license and registration...BLAM" and "put the f'ing gun down...BLAM" Most will get that, but apparently not all.

Edited to add: Jacob Blake is a good example of what I am referring to. Why did it take so many commands until the officer finally shot? Personally, I think that officer needs to spend more time training on the pistol range. How do you squeeze off 4 shots and not get one kill shot?

And if you're holding a cellphone? And you have four people screaming at you with a spotlight on you? "Drop the gun!" "Get down!" "Put your hands up!"
Which command do you comply with? Either way, you're not complying with one which justifies deadly force in your eyes. It's *ridiculous*.

At my 20th high school class reunion* - where I was the only white person in attendance - I asked a few of my classmates about this exact subject. Every last one said they would prefer to be called "Black". And, beyond that, there's other reasons that "African-American" is a poor term to use:

1) Not all Africans are black.
2) Not all black people are American.

I recall a CNN news story from a couple years ago where they referred to suspects in a crime in England as "African-American" despite the fact that none of them had ever even been to America let alone being American.

* - without a doubt, one of the two or three most fun weekends in my life. Holy cow, the laughter!

I get what you're saying, but your not addressing the root of the problem. Why did it take four people screaming at you with a spotlight on you in the first place?

You did something wrong. You got caught. Drop whatever you're holding and throw your hands in the air. Why is that difficult? Why does it take 4 officers (or in many cases a lot more).

This has got to be the worst thread yet.

Leon - I'm behind you 100% for an discipline you find warranted.

lots of trash being thrown out. Thought this was a safe-haven from that.


.

Because sometimes a large number of police all respond at once? Surely you've seen that?

Ah, a presumption of guilt. What if you DIDN'T do anything wrong? Do the police absolutely *NEVER* confront anyone who has done nothing wrong?

BLAM, you're dead, for not getting on the ground.

The response (number of responding officers) is usually based on the suspects actions. If the suspect gives up willingly, typically no more than 2 officers are needed. If the suspect decides they want to run, typically more officers are called as backup. Either way, it's usually up to the suspect and their actions.


Innocent or guilty, you still comply with the officer's command. PERIOD!


Now, that part I like.

I feel like I'm talking to a kid. Don't you have a Rubik's Cube to solve or some other childish activity to occupy your time until your parents get home?

I wonder if there are any people on the board as a whole who aren't white men....

Ted

You will see that I also use the term "Black" in my posts. Some people prefer one, and some the other. I tend to use them interchangeably. I don't think anyone finds "African-American" offensive, but if I'm wrong, please let me know.

Ted

Yup, and I'd mentioned before how I wondered had the Cleveland team been giving a cut of their money to native American tribes and/or charities all along, how those native Americans would have reacted had the team decided to change the name anyway, and because of that, informed them they weren't getting money anymore. So as that article you linked to says, the team still sells Chief Wahoo items, but now donates a part of those proceeds to native Americans. So if the native Americans are trully against the use of the term Indians and Chief Wahoo image, wouldn't you expect them to turn down the money and tell the team to just stop all use and sale of items with that name and image? How much anyone want to bet they take the money? Oh, there will still be other native Americans that would complain and want the use stopped, but who can those still dissenting native Americans really blame then?