Racial double standard? of course!
 

Speaking for myself, in this era of the "new" politics board, I'm no longer responding to posts that just offer up the text of a story with no opinion on the part of the poster, or posts that just say "what do you think about xxx?" without offering the opinion of the poster.

What do you think about this story, JBX? Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I think it's a double standard that black people get offended when a non-black uses the n-word, but it's ok for them to use it.

Anyway, i think that race is giving more importance in this place in time than it should.

I can drop the C-bomb. Then again noone cares when they're called a cracker anyhow.

I can agree with this guy, what concerns me is the thought that black people are more accepting then whites are, and once we have people like the previously mentioned handing out jobs to underqualified (because you gain points for being x race), whose to say we won't have the same problem they did?

I think it's important to step away from the drama and keep this in context.

<li>A conservative talk show host was hired as a football host (probably because it would be controversial and hike up the ratings, which in fact it did).</li>

<li>He then says that McNabb, who is in a slump but certainly no slacker, is getting too much credit for the performance of the team, and that the defense carried the team.</li>

<li>In Philadelphia's first game this year, the defense gave up <b>17</b> points (all scores by tampa bay, no turnover scoring). In the second game, they gave up <b>24</b> (leaving out one interception return on the offense at the end of the game). In their last game (after the Limbaugh comments, the defense gave up <b>13</b> and the offense scored 23. And the defense is carrying the team????!!!!?????</li>

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/teamsched?team=phi

NFL football is about as cross-culture as you can get in america. Given that Limbaugh just insulted a huge portion of the television fan base, what should they have done? Let him keep his job?

Limbaugh should have known better int he first place; his claim was based on evidence that wasn't there; and while he might get away with that on his show, you have to be more sensitive with a broad audience. To me, Limbaugh wasn't fired for being racist, he was fired for being dumb. I don't think there is any deeper moral message here.

IMO the fatal mistake rush made was being stupid, not racist. HRabbit's post says why...

JBX,

It is better when posting a story to include some of your own ideas.

As to the story, it is clear that there is a double standard regarding race in America, even to most liberal thinkers.

In speech, political organizations, racial quotas, it is everywhere.

Some people feel that it is justified because minorities suffered so long, but I was always told that two wrongs don't make a right, so I don't believe this is beneficial to anyone, especially when those who do not need or deserve favoritism recieve it at the expense of others.

The best solution to racism, IMO, is to be a color blind society.

And I don't know enough about Limbaugh or McNabb to know if what Rush said is true, but if it is (and I can believe it in today's world), then we shouldn't shoot the messenger, but we should assail any system that encourages quotas at the expense of the truly talented.

Sorry about that, I posted so the quote looked right and was going to post underneath it. I always comment on my own posts.

Now, I do agree with Mr. Williams. I've seen for some time members of minority groups saying things that if a white guy said the exact same thing there would be riots in the streets.

Now for Rush's statement. I don't even follow football and I didn't know who McNabb was until the story hit, but I did know that it was unusual to have a black quarterback do to statements I've picked up on over the years in general conversation. Rush stated what I think was the obvious. He should of not backed down he has the smarts to back up his statement and put a chink in the P.C. bullshit.

Perversion of culture seems to be spreading like cancer. No longer is the first thing thought when something controversial is heard, "Is it true, does it have any validity, does the speaker think it is true, does he have backing for it?" It is now to the effect of, "Did it offend anyone? If someone is offended by it, it is offensive, therefore all involved should be punished! No one has the right to offend the unwilling! Bwa!!!!!!"

Armstrong Williams is completely right, and Rush is right on many points too.

I've been an Eagles fan for many years, I've followed them as close as any die-hard fan does. The fact about the Eagles for the past few years is that the defense HAS carried the team. In the past few years, look at the number of Pro Bowl quality defensive players that have played for the Eagles: Brian Dawkins, Blaine Bishop, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor, Al Harris, Hugh Douglas, Jerimiah Trotter, Corey Simon, Hollis Thomas, and Nate Wayne. Meanwhile, on the offense, there's Donovan and a few suspect Pro Bowl linemen. Donovan has never carried the Eagles, he's only carried the Eagles offense. Without those defensive players the Eagles don't even make the playoffs, hell, they don't even get 8 wins. In fact, watch Eagles games from the past two years. You watch the Eagles defense and it's just pure mayhem. At certain points you can swear you see certain guys running away for their dear lives, on top of that, you're almost laughing your ass off watching plays where Jim Johnson blitz's, like one for example where his two starting Pro Bowl cornerbacks blitz at the same time off both corners, the QB sees one, turns around to run, and gets nailed by other. Then, after the 4 and out, you watch Brian Mitchell have a great return. Then you watch McNabb and the offense come out, and struggle. In fact, the offense struggles against almost every defense in the league. Passes are off, guys are out of position, it's just horrible to watch, almost painful.

So, Rush was half right. Now I dare anyone to find evidence of a major network admitting that. Ain't gonna happen.

It's all context. Construction workers say things every day that woudl get Bush impeached if he said them. Rush says stuff on his show every day that isn't appropriate for an nfl pregame show.

If anything, I think the world is LESS sensitive these days compared to the touchy-feely 70's, so I can't agree with your "spreading like cancer" statement. Here in CA we have a candidate for governor that (rightly or wrongly) is accused of groping many women and saying that he admired hitler, and there really isn't that much of an uproar about it.

I really don't know why the entertainment companies keep trying to mix politics and football. Dennis Miller bombed, and now Rush did too. What next, Henry Kissinger doing color commentary on the field?

Just an observation of mine, Limbaugh should have indeed known better then to say that. I'm sure he did as well.

That's not my point though. I am dissapointed with the way civil rights in regards to race has gone recently. It's been from equality to superiority in my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong but noone seems willing to admit it in fear of being called a racist or a biggot.

I'm all for equality but it seems odd to me that a white male can't bring up a racial topic without being called a racist.

I agree that society is sometimes oversensitive, but this wasn't just a white male, it was a famous, controversial, political talk show host.

And I agree with you, I wonder how much of Limbaugh's stunt was planned. This has to be helping his ratings massively.

Exactly. It wasn't demonstrably true, it wasn't a statement he was qualified to make, and he probably knew better than to say it. Baiting for the race card is different than making comments with racial implications. And crediting promotion of a good player on his race is baiting, plain and simple becuase of it's disregard for the truth.

I'd like to address the affirmative action in regards to coaches interviews. While I can definitely see where requiring interviews with black coaches may seem like a good idea at the time to expand racial boundaries, it suffers from the same flaw that all other affirmative action cases do: it assumes minorities aren't good enough to get the position on their own.

Seriously, why would you need to give a person extra credit if you had faith in his ability to pass the test without it? This is extremely racist, yet no one seems to notice because its all done to eliminate racism. I am firmly against all forms of affirmative action for that reason. The best person should get the job. Period. I have met several black people and hispanic people and asians who could all steal jobs away from me because of their abilities, not because of their skin color, and I have faith that minorities could very easily succeed without affirmative action.

The Eagles offense is ranked 28th in the league. Its Defense is 15th. The total points allowed in games has nothing to do with the argument.

While I agree that Rush should have known better, the statement he made is absolutely spot on in regards to defense carrying the team.

This idea of a "color blind" society is some interesting propoganda put forth by the conservative faction. Affirmative Action was put in place to address real, actual discrimination by real, actual people. Discrimination was rampant across America. Blacks were regularly prevented from voting, had to use separate sections of the bus, separate water fountains, etc. Have we forgotten all this so soon?

While I think there is lots of room to argue one way or another about where to draw the line with affirmative action and quotas, the whole concept that affirmative action is "racism" and therefore we shouldn't do it is a grammatical trick along the lines of "partial birth abortion" and distracts from the issue at hand.

Minorities do not have an equal opportunity in the united states. For example, the federal sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine, used by more minorities, are still much harsher than those for regular cocaine, used by more whites. I have yet to hear a conservative call out for a correction to this terrible racist problem.

Why does it matter who smokes what? You break the law and get caught you get your ass hauled in. Also affirmative action is a joke and is reverse racism. I am sure there are many white kids in inner cities or that are poor that get the short end of the stick when it comes to education why should minorities get special treatment?

Problem is Mojo, that argument of white kids in there isn't true when one realizes the overwhelming majority are pretty much minorities.

As for affirmative action - its a must if done right. Now obviously there are many cases where its done right - and where its not done right as well.

Yes there IS still rampant racism in the world - if there was no such a thing as affirmative action or the like, then chances are, if a white employer say had a choice between a black and a white equally skilled or closely skilled, chances are, theres going to be a hiring of a white man. Its those marginal cases that get the need of a little changing around - the problems are those with overwhelming differences in skills where the bad side comes in IMO.

I'm not opposed to Affirmative Action when people who are truly qualified get the job. But when you hire underqualified people to fill a quota especially in public service jobs, there is a big fucking problem.

Well then, it's a good thing quotas were banned in the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Act, and recently upheld as being banned in the University of Michigan Admissions policy decision.

The "white guy who lost his job due to a quota" is just as mythical as the "welfare mom with a brand-new cadillac."

On paper quotas may be illegal, but do you really think that quotas aren't being filled?

I don't think that white folks are getting pushed out of jobs, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't some sort of pressure to fill job openings with minorities. Especially in high profile coaching jobs in the NFL, where the P.R. people can trot out minority coaching candidates to show the "Racially-sensitive" public that corporations can be good guys too.

I don't think you're going to change the establishment overnight, nor do I think that you're going to legislate "equality." I think that has time passes and the older generation gives way to the new, that there's going to be a positive shift in race relations.

Who knows? Maybe someday we can shift our focus to what's really important about somebody, not the color of their skin, but rather how much money they make? :rolleyes:

Affirmitive Action: It is fundamentally racist, therefore it is wrong. In this case there are no such circumstance which would warrant the usage of racist policy in this manner, therefore it lacks suffecient reason for existing. I view it is as bad.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quota

Toss the word variable in before that and you have precisely what AA does to businesses.

Why not hire the best available? Mediocrity blows, AA is promoting mediocrity.

I am so tired of these grammatical games.

Making rules that forbid affirmative action is also racist. ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH RACE IS RACIST. So to throw around that [foo] is racist, and therefore shouldn't be done, is a ridculous, empty argument.

Wow, I leave for a couple days and suddenly I'm playing grammatical games. HarmlessRabbit, I respect your opinions and commend your fight for equality in our world. But please realize that when I talk about a "color-blind" society or when I talk about eliminating Affirmative Action, it is a political opinion that I have. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that their arguments aren't solidly based and that their intentions aren't pure.

Besides, have you ever considered that things have changed since Affirmative Action was put in place? Maybe its outlived its prime like the Comic Book Code.

Firstly a lot of this stuff is directly involved with inerpretations. Also, a law forbidding AA would not be racist, it is not a race based policy, it's telling you not to be racist. If 'they' want only black people/white people/people with funky hats/etc. then so be it, it is their business, just don't force anyone to do it.

Yup.

McNabb IS overrated. Whether or not that's because he's black is open for debate.

I think the idea that AA has outlived its usefullness is entirely different than the idea that society should be "color-blind" and that having ANY laws regarding race is "racist". I think the "outlived" discussion is an interesting one and maybe a good topic for another thread!

This "color-blind" argument was used a lot here in California regarding prop 54, a conservative-backed proposition that would have starved race-based social programs by forbidding them from collecting the data they need to do their jobs. Luckily, voters saw through it and soundly defeated it.

Check out this google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

In my opinion, as I said, the term "color-blind" is an attack on grammar that conservates are trying to use to frame the debate to their advantage, just like the term "partial-birth abortion".

If you accidentally picked up the term yourself by reading conservative articles, or if you coincidentally were using it before it was co-opted by conservatives, I apologize.

No offense taken. Colorblind or no, I simply don't bother to distinguish race with the people I meet. Its just the way I am, so sometimes I have a difficult time comprehending why other people can be so prejudiced. Mayhaps a new thread will come out of this someday.