Pernetti is out

[Todd Gack]

Look we appreciate that there are gay people on the forum, and some of them may have been offended by Mike Rice, but again, this has nothing to do with players actual sexual orientation. You're just taking the discussion to a place that you feel you can lecture us from, but it's not what was meant.

It doesn't matter whether they were gay, straight, or if he said it while they were bending over their wife. Rutgers doesn't have to put up with him saying it. You and Townie say that "faggot" has a different meaning when applied to a straight man than a gay one -- and that when said to a straight man it's implying that he's not masculine enough. What is the different meaning when applied to a gay man? And how is it not pejorative?

 

[AluminNV]

I should have replied to Bayonne's post instead: "if the people getting abused don't stand up and complain, then it's ok? Then Sandusky and Paterno should have coached there forever in your eyes."

I can't speak for Kaiser but it seems to me that his point was that while Rice is batshite crazy and what he did was absolutely wrong, the whole situation is overblown and the players' (legally adults) defense of Rice is evidence that this is an exaggerated news story sparked by a jilted revenge-hungry ex-employee, a greedy media network and a blood-thirsty public. (DISCLAIMER: I believe Rice was very wrong to do what he did and firing him was totally warranted. I'm not condoning his behavior at all.)

Bayonne wants to compare getting basketballs thrown at your shins as an adult (DISCLAIMER: I believe Rice was very wrong to do what he did and firing him was totally warranted. I'm not condoning his behavior at all.) to being raped as a child. Can we use some common sense here, please?

Yup. You got it. Didn't take long for people to basically say a coach calling his players fairies and throwing basketballs at them is the same kind of thing as a coach raping children in the showers.

And everyone sure loves being a victim these days, so if your coach throws a basketball at you I guess it means your entitled to the same amount of sympathy as a victim of sexual abuse...

I think that's the appropriate attitude to take to the Rutgers basketball scandal if you want to remain politically correct...

Fact is Judge said practices were worse under Martin at Kansas State. How come ESPN didn't mention that? Maybe because it doesn't fit their agenda. That should end this scandal its honestly the dumbest scandal every I don't see how anyone can actually be outraged.

And hundreds of hours of practice went into making that tape and I don't see anything that bad. Just saw a coach who crossed the line.

 

[Townie72]

You are completely 100% incorrect. His point was that "Redskin" had multiple meanings because people associated it with a football team, not Native Americans. But that is completely insane logic because the term absolutely, unequivocally, 100% referred to Native Americans when the team was named - look at their logo! The only reason people associate the term with football now is because the team has been around for however many decades. Just because the term has taken on another association, doesn't change the fact that it was rooted in racism.

2013 is not when the team was named. The situation that existed when the team was named, no longer applies.

The word no longer has just the original connotation.

The people that are pushing this are just looking for headlines.

 

[RichmondCuse]

I'll confess to sometimes using stereotypes.

And I'm not a big user of slurs, etc. But, I'm not one to think the death penalty applies in all cases to those that do.

The problem is that the list of things we can't say is growing so quickly that its hard to keep up.

Society has gone downhill because no one can be criticized or ostracized or anything else regardless how outrageous their behavior is.

Surprisingly enough, there are probably a hundred topics related to "political correctness" that you and I would actually agree on. But in this particular debate, the issue revolves around the use of the word "faggot", and there is absolutely no circumstance in which that word should be acceptable. It is to the gay community as the N word is to the black community - same exact thing, and your defense of Rice suggests your inability to grasp this concept.

Truth - I've probably used that word hundreds of times in my life, in exactly the same way that you've described in this thread. More recently, I've realized how hurtful the word can be and have made it a point to avoid using it and not try to synonomize being gay with being "weak" or whatever other word you used to describe what Rice was implying. It's wrong.

 

[KaiserUEO]

You're right -- they shouldn't have run Paterno out of town because those kids let Sandusky abuse them for years. And not a peep!

This is such an embarrassing and moronic statement, I feel sorry for u.

 

[IthacaMatt]

This isn't even a PC issue, or even a political issue. It doesn't matter what you think of gay rights or gay marriage. I'm one of the most conservative people you will ever meet, but hate is hate.

Geez, you're entirely missing the point. It's not about gay people. AT ALL. It has nothing to do with whether any of the players may have been gay. And it had nothing to do with hate speech. Get off your high horse. You're embarrassing yourself with such statements. I have a significant number of gay friends around my age (middle aged) and they wouldn't be as offended as you are pretending to be about this.

It's an out of control basketball coach, insulting his players and throwing things at them. And no, it's not equivalent to calling them the N word, and no it's not equivalent to abuse in the Penn State sense. It's an sports coach, and this may be news to you, but they all pretty much used to be like that until about 15 or 20 years ago.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Seriously or are you just playing with us, if the people getting abused don't stand up and complain, then it's ok? Then Sandusky and Paterno should have coached there forever in your eyes.
That is the most up statement I've heard here in a long time. And that's saying alot.

Good god, another one??!!!

Why the stupid fluck are we talking about Sandusky???!!

 

[IthacaMatt]

Society has gone downhill since folks like Townie were no longer able to make hateful, intolerant, discrimnatory remarks without someone calling them out on it.

You see, you're really over-stepping the line with a personal attack. Townie is not the coach here. He's saying, "coaches all used to be like this. when we were growing up, calling somone a 'fag' had an entirely different meaning than it does today." There was nothing hateful or discriminatory in what he said. He didn't start getting all angry and calling you and jec and Todd a bunch of sissy fags who should take the stick out of your ass, now did he?

 

[IthacaMatt]

I see what you are saying, but I don't understand the connection. Doesn't look to me like Mike Rice was using the word "faggot" as a simple "observation."



And the word "faggot" can also describe a pile of sticks. What is your point?

My point is that you are engaging in false equivalence to try to bolster your side of the argument. But what you are accusing others of defending is not what was said by the original actor.

 

[Todd Gack]

This is such an embarrassing and moronic statement, I feel sorry for u.

Save your energy feeling bad for me and use it to look up "sarcasm."

 

[KaiserUEO]

Yeah, you've shamed me into saying that I think the term "Redskins" is racist. I feel like such a fag.

Yes they do.

U can't compare 75lb 12yr olds with no father figure, who are with someone they trust, being pounded in the arse...to 250lb 20 year olds getting a rubber ball thrown at them.

That's idiotic

 

[IthacaMatt]

I've seen it before -- but do you appreciate that a comedian and a high-profile public employee are judged by different standards? That Louis CK using "faggot" publicly is different than Mike Rice? Or that Louis CK wouldn't be hired as a basketball coach even if the "K" stood for Krzyzewski?

I love a good off-color joke, and can have a salty mouth -- but I also have the good judgment when not to use it. Rutgers was justified in firing Rice for his sheer stupidity alone.

Do you think that Louis is engaging in "hate speech"?

That's just one of the excessive comments we've had in this thread.

I mean, please, the guy was fired. Justice was done. Nobody is going to commit suicide over this.

 

[IthacaMatt]

You are completely 100% incorrect. His point was that "Redskin" had multiple meanings because people associated it with a football team, not Native Americans. But that is completely insane logic because the term absolutely, unequivocally, 100% referred to Native Americans when the team was named - look at their logo! The only reason people associate the term with football now is because the team has been around for however many decades. Just because the term has taken on another association, doesn't change the fact that it was rooted in racism.

Oh OK, so then tell us what sports team is called The Niggers. Or what fancy new car out of Detroit? Or what household appliance? You're the one who brought the N word into the discussion, and it has no place at all here. People don't call people niggers anymore in society unless it's true hate speech, or they're bigots, or they're black. Blacks have successfully reclaimed the word from white society.

None of that - which you introduced into this discussion to try to give yourself moral leverage in the discussion - is unfitting to the conversation. Your comparison just doesn't fit. It doesn't match. Calling someone a 'faggot' in a sports practice is nothing at all like calling someone the N word. It just doesn't happen in the same context.

 

[Todd Gack]

Yes they do.

U can't compare 75lb 12yr olds with no father figure, who are with someone they trust, being pounded in the arse...to 250lb 20 year olds getting a rubber ball thrown at them.

That's idiotic

No one is this dumb without trying to be. Quit trying so hard.

 

[RichmondCuse]

You see, you're really over-stepping the line with a personal attack. Townie is not the coach here. He's saying, "coaches all used to be like this. when we were growing up, calling somone a 'fag' had an entirely different meaning than it does today." There was nothing hateful or discriminatory in what he said. He didn't start getting all angry and calling you and jec and Todd a bunch of sissy fags who should take the stick out of your ass, now did he?

Actually, he started the debate by saying that we were raising a nation of "sissies". So, he may not have directed that at anyone specifically, but yea, I think we know what he was implying.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It doesn't matter whether they were gay, straight, or if he said it while they were bending over their wife. Rutgers doesn't have to put up with him saying it. You and Townie say that "faggot" has a different meaning when applied to a straight man than a gay one -- and that when said to a straight man it's implying that he's not masculine enough. What is the different meaning when applied to a gay man? And how is it not pejorative?

Nope, that's not the argument that either one of us is making. That's your straw man. The issue is calling an ATHLETE a faggot, not calling a straight or gay man that name. That is entirely your creation, and has nothing at all to do with what Mike Rice did, or why he was fired.

 

[Todd Gack]

Do you think that Louis is engaging in "hate speech"?

That's just one of the excessive comments we've had in this thread.

I mean, please, the guy was fired. Justice was done. Nobody is going to commit suicide over this.

No, I don't. And I'm on the side saying he should be fired -- you're the one saying he was misunderstood (i.e., that he used the term "faggot" correctly and everyone else is overreacting).

 

[IthacaMatt]

Actually, he started the debate by saying that we were raising a nation of "sissies". So, he may not have directed that at anyone specifically, but yea, I think we know what he was implying.

Oh, so "sissy" is a forbidden word now, too? How ridiculous.

You must be under 30 years old, and probably grew up playing sports where everyone got a trophy, whether they finished first or last.

 

[RichmondCuse]

Oh OK, so then tell us what sports team is called The Niggers. Or what fancy new car out of Detroit? Or what household appliance? You're the one who brought the N word into the discussion, and it has no place at all here. People don't call people niggers anymore in society unless it's true hate speech, or they're bigots, or they're black. Blacks have successfully reclaimed the word from white society.

None of that - which you introduced into this discussion to try to give yourself moral leverage in the discussion - is unfitting to the conversation. Your comparison just doesn't fit. It doesn't match. Calling someone a 'faggot' in a sports practice is nothing at all like calling someone the N word. It just doesn't happen in the same context.

Wake up. TODAY, people don't use the N word unless it's hateful, but 50 years ago that wasn't the case. 50 years from now, I suspect the word faggot will not be used in the same way it is today. I think that's the whole point here, isn't it? That knowing what we know about what the word implies and the negative connotations associated with it, and the fact that it hurts a particular group of people, shouldn't we try to "do better"? You associate the N word with hate, but your grandfather probably didn't. It's just how he would've referred to a black person. So just because you don't associate the word faggot with hate, isn't it fair for you (and others) to try and be sensitive to the fact that others might? You're confusing timing differences as an argument as to why one is ok and the other isn't. 50 years from now it won't be acceptable to say either word.

 

[IthacaMatt]

No, I don't. And I'm on the side saying he should be fired -- you're the one saying he was misunderstood (i.e., that he used the term "faggot" correctly and everyone else is overreacting).

No, I'm not. I agree that he should have been fired. I didn't defend him in any way.

What I disagree with is you and Richmond and jec and a couple other people trying to turn this into a gay rights thing, when what it is is a sports thing.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Wake up. TODAY, people don't use the N word unless it's hateful, but 50 years ago that wasn't the case. 50 years from now, I suspect the word faggot will not be used in the same way it is today. I think that's the whole point here, isn't it? That knowing what we know about what the word implies and the negative connotations associated with it, and the fact that it hurts a particular group of people, shouldn't we try to "do better"? You associate the N word with hate, but your grandfather probably didn't. It's just how he would've referred to a black person. So just because you don't associate the word faggot with hate, isn't it fair for you (and others) to try and be sensitive to the fact that others might? You're confusing timing differences as an argument as to why one is ok and the other isn't. 50 years from now it won't be acceptable to say either word.

I don't care if it was 100 years ago, the N word never meant anything other than a black person. That's a fact.

What Townie and others were saying was that Redskins has a secondary meaning, i.e. a second listing in the dictionary, as it were. So does "fag" or "puzzy". Those terms are politically incorrect and have been for 20 years, but they still exist in that context in society.

The N word does not exist in any context other than discriminatory usage, if used by white people. That has been the case for 50 years.

Your argument has been entirely based on false equivalence. If this were a debate, you would have lost long ago.

 

[RichmondCuse]

I don't care if it was 100 years ago, the N word never meant anything other than a black person. That's a fact.

What Townie and others were saying was that Redskins has a secondary meaning, i.e. a second listing in the dictionary, as it were. So does "fag" or "puzzy". Those terms are politically incorrect and have been for 20 years, but they still exist in that context in society.

The N word does not exist in any context other than discriminatory usage, if used by white people. That has been the case for 50 years.

Your argument has been entirely based on false equivalence. If this were a debate, you would have lost long ago.

Wow - I hate to break this to you, but per dictionary.com, the definition of "Redskin" is:

noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.

That's the only definition given. So I'm not sure what secondary meaning you're referring to. But yea, I should stop because clearly I already lost this debate.

 

[Townie72]

Wake up. TODAY, people don't use the N word unless it's hateful, but 50 years ago that wasn't the case. 50 years from now, I suspect the word faggot will not be used in the same way it is today. I think that's the whole point here, isn't it? That knowing what we know about what the word implies and the negative connotations associated with it, and the fact that it hurts a particular group of people, shouldn't we try to "do better"? You associate the N word with hate, but your grandfather probably didn't. It's just how he would've referred to a black person. So just because you don't associate the word faggot with hate, isn't it fair for you (and others) to try and be sensitive to the fact that others might? You're confusing timing differences as an argument as to why one is ok and the other isn't. 50 years from now it won't be acceptable to say either word.

Well, one thing is obvious. You don't know a single thing about what it was like 50 years ago.

The N word was certainly not part of any conversation I ever heard 50 years ago. Far from it. It was an insult of the highest order. It was a reason for immediate fisticuffs.

Working class whites may have used that term, especially in the South to refer to colored people (which was then the approved word). But no one I knew was calling anyone that. Unless they were looking for an immediate reaction.

Where do you get this stuff from? Television? The movies?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Yup. You got it. Didn't take long for people to basically say a coach calling his players fairies and throwing basketballs at them is the same kind of thing as a coach raping children in the showers.

And everyone sure loves being a victim these days, so if your coach throws a basketball at you I guess it means your entitled to the same amount of sympathy as a victim of sexual abuse...

I think that's the appropriate attitude to take to the Rutgers basketball scandal if you want to remain politically correct...

Fact is Judge said practices were worse under Martin at Kansas State. How come ESPN didn't mention that? Maybe because it doesn't fit their agenda. That should end this scandal its honestly the dumbest scandal every I don't see how anyone can actually be outraged.

And hundreds of hours of practice went into making that tape and I don't see anything that bad. Just saw a coach who crossed the line.

The only difference is they've got video for Rutgers. Can you imagine how some of these coaches treat their players?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Wow - I hate to break this to you, but per dictionary.com, the definition of "Redskin" is:

noun Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive.
a North American Indian.

That's the only definition given. So I'm not sure what secondary meaning you're referring to. But yea, I should stop because clearly I already lost this debate.

There's a freaking sports team 100 miles from where you live. I know they suck, but they do exist. "Now stop being such a faggot and go back to sucking that dick", as Louis CK says in the clip above.