Irvin is Incredibly Stupid

[Cowboyz1]

I agree with this totally

Telling this to most white people who did not grow up in a broken home from a ghetto neighborhood might pass.

 

But I grew up in a ghetto neighborhood from a broken home so this won't pass with me. me AND you... know better.

 

 

Operative word there was "Opportunity" and your point is well taken. I have freinds from Oak town and wow. No chance there.

[Cowboyz1]

Just curious cowboyz1, Do you think that MI should be reprimanded? I'f so what should the punishment be?

 

 

 

To be honest, I think he shouldn't be on television, but America has Marv Albert syndrome in that we forget that the guy we are listening to pulled a Mike Tyson on a womans back and we still don't give a crap. In MI's case he was caught with coke. In my view he is done. I loved the playmaker on the field but man. How are we to say on one hand that we want our young black kids to stay away from drugs but parade their ideals in front of them with high paying jobs and millions with coke dripping from their noses. Doesn't make much sense to me. It just seems to say, see I can do it and keep my job. Bad message.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Cowboyz1

[Caveman_Nick]

 

Can you imagine the outrage and sports radio blather if some white commentator said of, say, Mike Vick or Donovan McNabb, "He doesn't look like he's that type of smart, intellectual quarterback, but he is. Some white man down in that line somewhere..."

 

But rock-smoking knuckleheads like Irvin can get away with it. Why? Because white men can't jump.

 

 

 

Isn't that guy's name Rush Limbaugh? And didn't he get fired? For saying much less?

[Azazello1313]

When you’re the minority then everything is magnified

 

good post. i single this out because it really stood out to me. it's a reality that people who whine about "reverse" racism seem to fail to recognize. i think it's a LOT harder for a black person to be color-blind than it is a white person, because when you're a minority, everything racial IS magnified. i suppose that's part of the reason why we, as a society, tend to excuse a racist comment from irvin while we end jimmy the greek's career for saying the same thing.

 

but still, a racist comment is a racist comment. you don't defeat the ignorance of racial stereotyping by defending and glorifying some racial stereotypes while decrying others.

[Azazello1313]

To be honest, I think he shouldn't be on television, but America has Marv Albert syndrome in that we forget that the guy we are listening to pulled a Mike Tyson on a womans back and we still don't give a crap. In MI's case he was caught with coke. In my view he is done. I loved the playmaker on the field but man. How are we to say on one hand that we want our young black kids to stay away from drugs but parade their ideals in front of them with high paying jobs and millions with coke dripping from their noses. Doesn't make much sense to me. It just seems to say, see I can do it and keep my job. Bad message.

 

 

interesting that a guy like harold reynolds gets canned instantly from ESPN for, what, hugging some chick a little too provacatively? allegedly? and that guy is awesome, one of the best, most well-spoken ex-player sports analysts out there. he is the anti-irvin. but irvin the cokehead gets busted with "his brother's" pot in his car, says any number of stupid things on the air, makes racist comments....and somehow he's treated with kid gloves. i don't really get it.

[Squeegiebo]

good post. i single this out because it really stood out to me. it's a reality that people who whine about "reverse" racism seem to fail to recognize. i think it's a LOT harder for a black person to be color-blind than it is a white person, because when you're a minority, everything racial IS magnified. i suppose that's part of the reason why we, as a society, tend to excuse a racist comment from irvin while we end jimmy the greek's career for saying the same thing.

 

but still, a racist comment is a racist comment. you don't defeat the ignorance of racial stereotyping by defending and glorifying some racial stereotypes while decrying others.

 

 

Two things are patently obvious to me, and I would think should be no-brainers for everyone:

 

(1) Whining about a double-standard in this context shows an amazing ignorance or short memory. There is no double standard when you are dealing with completely different situations. The history of the white man in America is a hell of a lot different than the history of the black man (or white or balck woman) in America. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not wipe the slate clean. And while Az is right that the goal is a color-blind society in which all stereotypes are decried, there is still some understandable frustration in the groups who until very recently were subject of legal discrimination. So, while Irvin's comments are not helpful to anyone and should be criticized, it is not a double standard that makes it more acceptable than what Jimmy the Greek said.

 

(2) Michael Irvin is a total and complete moran and should never have been given his TV job in the first place.

[Savage Beatings]

Two things are patently obvious to me, and I would think should be no-brainers for everyone:

 

 

 

Don't even get us started about women!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...just kidding there kitten

[Vet]

Marv Albert...

 

 

Marv Albert got fired and was off the air for a few years before he was given a second chance.

[Azazello1313]

Whining about a double-standard in this context shows an amazing ignorance or short memory.

 

well, yes and no. obviously there's no comparing the experience of white people and black people when it comes to living with the realities of racial stereotyping. but at the same time, it's a legitimate beef to say, hey, if racial stereotyping is bad when i do it, why isn't it bad when he does it? maybe it's immature and whiny, but on some level it's still a legitimate question. why isn't it bad when he does it? because i think we as a society need to emphasize that it IS bad when he does it, even if maybe he has a better excuse.

[Squeegiebo]

well, yes and no. obviously there's no comparing the experience of white people and black people when it comes to living with the realities of racial stereotyping. but at the same time, it's a legitimate beef to say, hey, if racial stereotyping is bad when i do it, why isn't it bad when he does it? maybe it's immature and whiny, but on some level it's still a legitimate question. why isn't it bad when he does it? because i think we as a society need to emphasize that it IS bad when he does it, even if maybe he has a better excuse.

 

 

Not saying that it isn't bad. Saying that it doesn't warrant the same level of outrage.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

should'nt this be in the tailgate?

[jjpro11]

im not reading through all of these posts.. but he needs to be fired already. he's gotten away with too much and espn just looks stupid now more than ever. if its a race thing then hire another black man. there are plenty of former black football players well qualified for the job. he is actually to the point that he is embarrassing his own race.

[Cowboyz1]

Vick, yet another example of being boneheaded and bolstering Spain's argument. Blacks just can't keep doing this and expect to be trusted by Corp America. He needs to take a page from J. Robinson on how to let the fans heckles and slurs roll off your back and absorb the pain for the next guy. He has got to be bigger then that. Take one for the team and stop being so selfish! I know it's gonna hurt but dang it, thicken up or the struggle will continue to get harder as you only get a feel good for the bird, in trade for pissing away millions of dollars and many more hearts and minds. Not to mention the point of reference you just gave every GM, Corp Sponsor and others that are looking to say, "see", see what happens when you trust one of them. Yes, the responsibilities are enormous but the rewards are great.

[Squeegiebo]

Vick, yet another example of being boneheaded and bolstering Spain's argument. Blacks just can't keep doing this and expect to be trusted by Corp America. He needs to take a page from J. Robinson on how to let the fans heckles and slurs roll off your back and absorb the pain for the next guy. He has got to be bigger then that. Take one for the team and stop being so selfish! I know it's gonna hurt but dang it, thicken up or the struggle will continue to get harder as you only get a feel good for the bird, in trade for pissing away millions of dollars and many more hearts and minds. Not to mention the point of reference you just gave every GM, Corp Sponsor and others that are looking to say, "see", see what happens when you trust one of them. Yes, the responsibilities are enormous but the rewards are great.

 

Your post seems to equate Corporate America with white, and what you are saying is that if "they" act like the white man wants, the white man will throw a nice juicy bone to "one of them." Interesting.

[Cowboyz1]

Your post seems to equate Corporate America with white, and what you are saying is that if "they" act like the white man wants, the white man will throw a nice juicy bone to "one of them." Interesting.

 

 

 

NO, I am saying that Corp America (the affluent), don't wish to put their name with individuals that flip people off on National TV. Nor do I want my son to see that sort of stuff while watching a football game. Act like a professional that’s all. Don't do anything that would disgrace yourself or your family. Now how hard is that to understand? My Dad would flat out kick my a$$ if I embarrassed him by losing my cool like that and my mom would ware it out when he got done with it. There are times and places for everything and flipping someone off after a loss on National TV is not the time, nor the place period.

 

Rewards meaning progress in overcoming racial bias.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Cowboyz1

[Squeegiebo]

NO, I am saying that Corp America (the affluent), don't wish to put their name with individuals that flip people off on National TV. Nor do I want my son to see that sort of stuff while watching a football game. Act like a professional that’s all. Don't do anything that would disgrace yourself or your family. Now how hard is that to understand? My Dad would flat out kick my a$$ if I embarrassed him by losing my cool like that and my mom would ware it out when he got done with it. There are times and places for everything and flipping someone off after a loss on National TV is not the time, nor the place period.

 

Rewards meaning progress in overcoming racial bias.

 

 

Getting pissed and flipping off the crowd is hardly a racial thing.

[Cowboyz1]

Getting pissed and flipping off the crowd is hardly a racial thing.

 

 

 

It is when you are a black role model on National Television!

[Squeegiebo]

It is when you are a black role model on National Television!

 

 

Only if you look at him and see a black man rather than just a man.

[Cowboyz1]

Only if you look at him and see a black man rather than just a man.

 

 

 

Please, don't insult my intelligence. Ryan Leaf did the same sort of thing, however, he is white and the repercussions of his actions don't affect his Race one bit. Why, because there are 32 white owners and millions of Americans, that accept that as an exception and not the rule. Unfortunately, blacks can't say the same do to our "violent" and "ill-tempered" disposition or so they say. All I am saying is that we as minorities have to protect against the smallest of occurrences that can bring negative attention to ourselves. We have enough negative attitudes to deal with already!

[Cowboyz1]

{generalization coming up} how come whitey is almost always a better tipper than blackie? and its not just blackie. its beaners, canadians, any people from south america, eurotrash, etc. why?????

again, this is a generalized comment and i have had my share of bad tips from white trash, as well as great to excellent tips from some of the groups listed above. but, in general, theres no one like whitey. why?

 

 

 

God gave us a choice, Money or Pipe. We chose pipe. No pun intended.

 

 

Seriously though, we didn't get anything extra for being servants, so why should you expect any different treatment? You should be thankful your not serving for free.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Cowboyz1

[wiegie]

God gave us a choice, Money or Pipe. We chose pipe.

 

hey a$$hole, not all black men hit the crack pipe

 

 

 

Now, on a serious note, this thread seems like an appropriate place for me to repost my old simple algebraic equations that demonstrate that racism affects minorities more than it affects majorities:

 

The following is somewhat of a repeat of a post I made a few years ago. I no longer have the original document and the thread is no long since deleted, so I made up a new example:

 

In a perfect world, no one would be a racist and if anyone made racist comments everyone would act to make that person accountable for being a racist.

 

Yet in our world, people are racists. And, as spain untiringly points out, there seems to be a double-standard in our society so that if white people make racist statements there is a public outcry, while there is usually no such outcry if black people make racist statements.

 

Why is this? Well will be expend time and energy fighting white racists but are much less willing to expend time and energy fighting black racists?

 

Well, let's look at a very very simple model of how racism can affect people.

 

Assume that the other people can be either of the majority race (W) or the minority race (B ) to make things simple assume that the population consists 90% of W's and only 10% of B's.

Next, assume that 90% of both W's and B's are non-racists (N), but that 10% of each group is racist (R ).

Assume that a person's salary (S) is dependent upon how other people perceive and report his work-ethic/ability. If a person is a non-racist of any race, they will report a person's work-ethic/ability as being what it really is. If a person is racist, then they will only report a person of the opposite race's work-ethic/ability as being 90% of what it really is.

Finally assume that the people determining the salaries are randomly distributed among the entire population.

 

If there is no racism, then everyone will be judged solely on his own work-ethic/ability, therefore a person will earn 100% of what he should earn. But what if there is racism, then a person's salary will no longer be 100% of what it should be, because some people of the opposite race will report that you aren't as good of a worker as you really are.

 

So now we can look so see how people of either race will be affected by racism.

 

The following calculations show what percentage of his "true" salary a person will actually receive if he is of type B:

 

S = .9W + .1B

S = .9(.9N+.1R) + .1(.9N + .1R)

S = .9(.9*1 + .1*.9) + .1(.9*1 + .1*1)

S = .9(.9 + .09) + .1(.9 + .1)

S = .9(.99)+.1(1.0)

S = .891 + .10

S = .991

S = 99.1%

 

So we see that a "B" will earn on 99.1% of what he really should be earning.

 

So what about a worker of race "W"?

 

S = .9W + .1B

S = .9(.9N+.1R) + .1(.9N + .1R)

S = .9(.9*1 + .1*1) + .1(.9*1 + .1*.9)

S = .9(.9 + .1) + .1(.9 + .09)

S = .9(1) + .1(.99)

S = .9 + .099

S = .999

S = 99.9%

 

So we see that "W's" are also hurt by racists of type "B" because in the face of racism they only earn .1% less of a salary than what they would earn if there was no racism by B's against W's.

 

So (as spain notes) racism hurts both B's and W's and should not be tolerated.

 

BUT, we can see that members of group B are hurt 9 times as much by racism than are members of group W.

 

So, if someone in society is going to try to fight racism, which type of racism will they first go after? More than likely they will first fight racism against B's because B's are hurt a lot more by racism than are type W's.

 

As always, this model is much simpler than the real world. It may over or understate the magnitude of the differences in the effects on racism against B's versus racism against W's, but it almost certainly gets the answer right.

 

People fight against anti-B racism more than the fight against anti-W racism because B's stand to lose a lot more than W's stand to lose from allowing racism to continue. (I'm not saying spain has to like it, but it does make sense).

 

(p.s. I think my calculations were correct, let me know if I made a multiplication error or a typo somewhere

Edited November 28, 2006 by wiegie

[Rovers]

Two things are patently obvious to me, and I would think should be no-brainers for everyone:

 

(1) Whining about a double-standard in this context shows an amazing ignorance or short memory. There is no double standard when you are dealing with completely different situations. The history of the white man in America is a hell of a lot different than the history of the black man (or white or balck woman) in America. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not wipe the slate clean. And while Az is right that the goal is a color-blind society in which all stereotypes are decried, there is still some understandable frustration in the groups who until very recently were subject of legal discrimination. So, while Irvin's comments are not helpful to anyone and should be criticized, it is not a double standard that makes it more acceptable than what Jimmy the Greek said.

 

(2) Michael Irvin is a total and complete moran and should never have been given his TV job in the first place.

 

 

Actually, both the Irish and Italians dealt with horrific racial bias in the mid nineteenth century in this country. The Irish, deported from Ireland on the famine boats because the English land owners didn't want to pay for Englands' "head tax" on their confiscated property in Ireland put them on boats that were not sea worthy. Those that were lucky enough to survive the trip most often starved in NYC and Boston. The orphans were shipped off to farms in the midwest, often to be worked like slaves were in the south. Remember the "No dogs or Irish allowed" signs? The Irish enlisted in the Union Army just so they could eat, and were used as cannon fodder.

 

Just making the point that racial bias in this country was not soley based on skin color historically, just as the holucaust was not an exclusively anti Jew, anti sematic event. However, both the Irish and Italians did two things.... they were whites, in which they obviously had little (no) choice in terms of making that determination, but as importantly, held onto their ethnic heritage while assimilating into this country's mainsteam sociatile norms. Black culture conversley does all it can do to remain seperated from mainstream "assimilation" with the whole uncle Tom vs. "authentic black" debate. Good students get called out in many minority communities as not being "black enough".

 

I think this is more observation than judgement on my part, but am open to debate/critisism on it. Wearing one's pants under their ass is as far as I know, a black cultural thing, based on jail time spent without a belt to hold one's pants up. That isn't my opinion, but rather what I have read. The "cop killer" rap songs further hurt the blacks in this country, which seems to only propogate the anti-black image, although an aguement could be made about those songs being protest songs as well..... but it's almost a chicken and egg arguement from where I sit.

 

I don't for a second make any attempt to claim the problem rests soley or even primarilly on black culture, but it does seem to be a sort of self fullfilling prophecy of sorts, which damages the ultimate goal of a skin-invisable society. Sure, I have my biases.... everyone does, or they are lying. What is interesting to me is that of my friends, regardless of ethnicity or color, it is invisable. It simply doesn't matter. Having said that, if I'm walking down a street at night in NYC, and I see three guys in suits on one sode of the street, and three guys in gang colors on the other..... guess which side I'm going to walk on? That has ZERO to do with skin color. It's self preservation. If the guys in suits are black, and the gang bangers are white, I make the same choice.

 

Back on topic (?) lol, Irvin should have lost his job based purely on his obvious and demonstrated stupidity long before now, regardless of his drug abuse history, behavioural problems and racist remarks.

 

On a side note.... is being a player a prerequisite to being a head coach? With the premise that it isn't, and blacks make up 16% of the population, why is there such an outcry for more black coaches? Given that demographic, based on numbers, why aren't there more white players? Is it fair to say that blacks are better athletes and whites are better coaches? If not, why not?

[kcmast]

I like many aren't offended whatsoever by what Irvin said, i'm offended of knowing if the race card role was reversed, there'd be outrage about those types of comments.

 

Read my mind.

[kcmast]

Skipping down here, can we at least agree that men are superior athletically and intellectually?

 

My 2 daughters may not agree though

[Rovers]

Skipping down here, can we at least agree that men are superior athletically and intellectually?

 

My 2 daughters may not agree though

 

 

LOL.... I had to go to this "sensitivty" training while in the USAF. The male (loosely used terminolgy here) instructor tried to convince the attendees that the ONLY reason female athletes weren't able to physically compete with males was soley due to societal biases. There are all kinds of wackos out there.