Open-Minded Liberals at it again

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 11:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Can't remember one in the last 5 years or so that even played the position.

Do find that to be racism?

I do not, but you should probably ask Pat; as he was the one that classified it as such.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-16-2017, 11:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: Can't remember one in the last 5 years or so that even played the position.

Do find that to be racism?

It gets labeled racism when applied to other professions.  If a certain profession is overwhelmingly comprised of a certain ethnicity then usually the call is for more "diversity".  In this Bfine asks a legitimate question, why is their no call for "diversity" in the NBA or NFL?  An even better question is why is there a call for diversity in those leagues, but only among the coaching staff and at the executive level, not among the actual players?

[GMDino]

(03-16-2017, 11:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not, but you should probably ask Pat; as he was the one that classified it as such.

That doesn't seem to be what Pat said. 

He said saying blacks are better than white is racist...not that having no white plays the position is racist. 

But I guess we'll have to see what he meant.

[*michaelsean*]

I vote that the Steelers and the Ravens begin the diversity movement at cornerback. How the hell does cornerback get a red squiggly line on a football board?

[GMDino]

(03-16-2017, 12:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I vote that the Steelers and the Ravens begin the diversity movement at cornerback.  How the hell does cornerback get a red squiggly line on a football board?

Jason Sehorn was within the last 20 years but doesn't look like he was ever all-pro.  Might have something to do with the knee injury he had two years in slowing him down.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SehoJa20.htm

This is a good article on how few white cornerbacks are.

http://www.complex.com/sports/2011/09/ghost-what-happened-to-the-white-running-backs-and-cornerbacks

Also gives a nice history of how blacks have dominated the position.

And some info on Sehorn and not making All Pro:

Quote:When it came to oddballs, Jason Sehorn (image 3, above) was the equivalent of a Canadian white guy winning NBA MVP two years in a row in a league dominated by American black men. Nicknamed “The Species,” Sehorn was a lanky, long armed, speedy, and athletic cornerback for the Giants from 1994-2002. Sehorn stood out, because at the height of his career he was the only starting white cornerback out of sixty starting corners in the NFL. Sehorn was both underdog and oddball. He played like the “majority” corners and often times much better. He never made a Pro Bowl but it’s pretty hard to make a Pro Bowl in the same conference as Deion Sanders, Darrell Green and Aeneas Williams. Sehorn retired in 2003 and we haven’t seen a white cornerback since. Technically it’s 2002, because Sehorn played safety in his last season.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't seem to be what Pat said. 

He said saying blacks are better than white is racist...not that having no white plays the position is racist. 

But I guess we'll have to see what he meant.

Standing by; however, not overly important, as the tangent is better suited for another thread. I merely introduced to counter someone who mitigated Murray and his associates being physically attacked.  

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2017, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Got it. So sometimes we must ignore facts if they appear racist. Or list for me all the white All Pro CBs in the last 20 years.

Men make better US Presidents than women. List any woman US President ever. 


Are we saying what makes them good is their race/sex?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2017, 01:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Men make better US Presidents than women. List any woman US President ever. 


Are we saying what makes them good is their race/sex?

I don't think that's a really good analogy.  In football we have professionals picking people based on talent.  Sure they make mistakes, but there are probably 150 CBs in the NFL and I don't know if any are white. even on the bottom of the depth chart.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2017, 12:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Jason Sehorn was within the last 20 years but doesn't look like he was ever all-pro.  Might have something to do with the knee injury he had two years in slowing him down.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SehoJa20.htm

This is a good article on how few white cornerbacks are.

http://www.complex.com/sports/2011/09/ghost-what-happened-to-the-white-running-backs-and-cornerbacks

Also gives a nice history of how blacks have dominated the position.

And some info on Sehorn and not making All Pro:

I mentioned him like 20 posts ago.  I get the feeling that sometimes you don't really listen to me.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 01:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Men make better US Presidents than women. List any woman US President ever. 


Are we saying what makes them good is their race/sex?

Well this would make sense if we had women US Presidents to compare to the men. We do have white cornerbacks to compare to blacks.

Of course we cannot say they are better because of their race; because that would be "racist".  We just accept it as a fact, such as the world is flat. But I will go out on a limb and suggest there have been President(s) elected because of race/sex (I know RACIST)

Being blind does not make one more aware.

[GMDino]

(03-16-2017, 01:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I mentioned him like 20 posts ago.  I get the feeling that sometimes you don't really listen to me.

Sorry.  I was on vacation until today and just saw the post.  The question about a white,all pro cornerback just caught my eye and curiosity.







































Plus I don't really care what you say.  

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2017, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well this would make sense if we had women US Presidents to compare to the men. We do have white cornerbacks to compare to blacks.

Of course we cannot say they are better because of their race; because that would be "racist".  We just accept it as a fact, such as the world is flat. But I will go out on a limb and suggest there have been President(s) elected because of race/sex (I know RACIST)

Being blind does not make one more aware.

As I asked

Quote:Are we saying what makes them good is their race/sex?

You don't actually have to answer it, it was rhetorical. 

Enjoy your debate with Dill. You have my answer to your question and comparing my response to the world being flat (luuuuulz) won't change it. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 01:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As I asked




You don't actually have to answer it, it was rhetorical. 

Enjoy your debate with Dill. You have my answer to your question and comparing my response to the world being flat (luuuuulz) won't change it. 

Yes, your answer is noted. Sometimes we must sacrifice accuracy for Political Correctness.

It's a tangled web we weave....

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2017, 01:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think that's a really good analogy.  In football we have professionals picking people based on talent.  Sure they make mistakes, but there are probably 150 CBs in the NFL and I don't know if any are white.  even on the bottom of the depth chart.

I appreciate you not comparing my position to thinking the world is flat. Here's a great article from the NYT that talks about this reality and points to stereotypes and division at a young age to why a number of positions in the NFL are so segregated. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/sports/football/at-some-nfl-positions-stereotypes-reign.html

Quote:Ozzie Newsome, the Baltimore Ravens’ general manager, said the lack of white cornerbacks reflected a failure to see possibilities.

“I was a pretty good quarterback growing up, but when it came to organized football, I knew I should become a wide receiver, because from everything that I was reading, all the blacks were getting their positions changed,” Newsome, a standout N.F.L. tight end from 1978 to 1990, said.

Once he became a receiver, the road to the N.F.L. became clearer. “Now you’ve got some heroes that you can look at; there is someone you can emulate who is black,” he said.


Young white athletes who might aspire to be N.F.L. corners can’t see themselves in that role.
“They’re going through the same thing that I went through when I wanted to play quarterback,” Newsome said. “ ‘Yeah, you can play cornerback, but by the time you get to college, they’re going to move you to safety.’

“I think the stereotype can affect your mentality. If you grow up not seeing something and hearing something your whole life, that starts to impact you: ‘I can’t do this, I’m not good enough to do that.’ And that becomes a part of your life.”


A similar phenomenon is seen in the kicking game. There are no African-American punters or kickers in the N.F.L. While white athletes shy away from cornerback because, in their minds, it requires too much athleticism, many African-American players eschew punting and kicking because it is not athletic enough.

If we suggest it is only race, I am asking what causes them to be better?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-16-2017, 02:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I appreciate you not comparing my position to thinking the world is flat. Here's a great article from the NYT that talks about this reality and points to stereotypes and division at a young age to why a number of positions in the NFL are so segregated. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/sports/football/at-some-nfl-positions-stereotypes-reign.html





If we suggest it is only race, I am asking what causes them to be better?

I've seen this argument before and I tend to agree with it.  Players are steered away from "non-traditional" positions by coaches.  It is interesting though, how we as human beings tend to more easily accept arguments regarding the differences in physical attributes by race and how conversely we are extremely uncomfortable by the same concept when applied to intelligence.

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2017, 03:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've seen this argument before and I tend to agree with it.  Players are steered away from "non-traditional" positions by coaches.  

In addition to that, there's also cultural stereotypes for which sports people play.

When I look at the lacrosse, hockey, baseball, tennis, and wrestling teams at my schools, they're very white. My school is about 31% white and 33% black, so it's not like it's just the make up of the school. Those sports tend to be dominated by white players at the professional.

Are white people naturally better at those sports? No, they're just more likely to grow up watching or playing them, so they are more likely to be the athletes in those sports.

Culturally, black Americans are more likely to grow up playing basketball and football, so they're over represented in those sports.

We have more MLB players than NFL players from Latin America and the Caribbean, some black and some latino. Why? Cause baseball is more popular there. 

Quote:It is interesting though, how we as human beings tend to more easily accept arguments regarding the differences in physical attributes by race and how conversely we are extremely uncomfortable by the same concept when applied to intelligence.

I hope it's because we recognize the effect poverty has on educational attainment, but the likely answer is just that people, whether knowingly or not, see the physical attributes as positive and intelligence as being too tied with eugenics. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-16-2017, 02:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I appreciate you not comparing my position to thinking the world is flat. Here's a great article from the NYT that talks about this reality and points to stereotypes and division at a young age to why a number of positions in the NFL are so segregated. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/sports/football/at-some-nfl-positions-stereotypes-reign.html

If we suggest it is only race, I am asking what causes them to be better?

(03-16-2017, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I hope it's because we recognize the effect poverty has on educational attainment, but the likely answer is just that people, whether knowingly or not, see the physical attributes as positive and intelligence as being too tied with eugenics. 

I really really didn't want to get involved in this conversation/thread, but...

While I agree that some of it is indeed stereotypes and division at a young age, I will challenge you to find this. Who is the last white person to hold the 100m dash record? There's no sports/stereotype/division there, it's literally just "who can run the fastest?"...

Since 1968 (when they started doing electronic timing) there have been 0. None.

If you want to put an NFL spin on it:
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/the-10-fastest-40-yard-dashes-in-nfl-combine-history-022516
- - - - - - -

As for genders, Katie Ledecky absolutely dominated the Olympics at swimming this last time, setting the world record in 400m freestyle. If that time, the fastest time a woman had ever swam that race, was put up against the men that year, she would have finished 43rd place.. out of 51.

- - - - - - - - -



I am not saying that one group is superior over another. I am saying there's some things one group does better, and some things a different group does better. Take sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Both diseases that disproportionately affect a specific group. It's not due to racism or stereotypes. It's simply because we're slightly different. Neither for better or worse, but denying it and thinking everyone is exactly the same with the same potential to succeed in everything is awfully silly.

[BmorePat87]

(03-16-2017, 07:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I really really didn't want to get involved in this conversation/thread, but...

While I agree that some of it is indeed stereotypes and division at a young age, I will challenge you to find this. Who is the last white person to hold the 100m dash record? There's no sports/stereotype/division there, it's literally just "who can run the fastest?"...

Since 1968 (when they started doing electronic timing) there have been 0. None.

If you want to put an NFL spin on it:
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/the-10-fastest-40-yard-dashes-in-nfl-combine-history-022516
- - - - - - -

As for genders, Katie Ledecky absolutely dominated the Olympics at swimming this last time, setting the world record in 400m freestyle. If that time, the fastest time a woman had ever swam that race, was put up against the men that year, she would have finished 43rd place.. out of 51.

- - - - - - - - -



I am not saying that one group is superior over another. I am saying there's some things one group does better, and some things a different group does better. Take sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Both diseases that disproportionately affect a specific group. It's not due to racism or stereotypes. It's simply because we're slightly different. Neither for better or worse, but denying it and thinking everyone is exactly the same with the same potential to succeed in everything is awfully silly.

To address the female/male comparison first since it is shorter, I don't think anyone disagrees that men and women are physically different.

To address the race component, the issue becomes using these clunky categories of race. White, black, and Asian. These divisions argue that skin color is the most determining factor of how to categorize people. It's something that we got sold on in the 1800's and didn't drop for a while. We lumped all white people into a category and generalized them and then did the same for black people and Asians. This, of course, ignores the huge genetic variety of various white, black, and Asian ethnic groups and the fact that there is no genetic basis for race (there's no common gene cluster for race). 

That said, there are absolutely physical differences between ethnic groups. Ethnic groups arise from only a select group of genetic variety being present in a population for many generations, influenced by environmental factors and stressors. It's flawed to lump all black people together. I may have more in common genetically with a black guy who is my height than I do with a white guy who is 6 inches taller than me. 

When we look at ethnic groups, however, we see some differences. Going to your reference to sprinting. West Africans tend to be the fastest sprinters while East Africans, along with Europeans, tend to held more records for long distance running. I read something like 95% of sprinting records are held by people who can trace their ancestry a West African ethnic group.

The ultimate determining factor in our physical ability is genetics, and our ethnicity, not race, shapes this. This is why I kept asking why being "black" makes one better at  a certain sport. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 02:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If we suggest it is only race, I am asking what causes them to be better?

Inherited traits. 

[GMDino]

Changing gears here.  Didn't want to start a new thread when this article from a few years ago covers the whole "we're being persecuted by the left" argument.


http://www.salon.com/2014/03/16/the_ultimate_guide_to_debunking_right_wingers_insane_persecution_fantasies/

Quote:Excerpted from “Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do”
Certain words should not be tossed around lightly. Persecution is one of those words.



Religious right leaders and their followers often claim that they are being persecuted in the United States. They should watch their words carefully. Their claims are offensive; they don’t know the first thing about persecution.

One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of real religious persecution in the world. In some countries, people can be imprisoned, beaten, or even killed because of what they believe. Certain religious groups are illegal and denied the right to meet. This is real persecution. By contrast, being offended because a clerk in a discount store said “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” pales. Only the most confused mind would equate the two.

We have worked hard in the United States to find the right balance concerning religious-freedom matters. Despite what the religious right would have Americans believe, this is not an issue that our culture and legal systems take lightly. Claims of a violation of religious freedom are usually taken very seriously. An entire body of law has evolved in the courts to protect this right. The right of conscience is, appropriately, considered precious and inviolable to Americans.


Far from being persecuted, houses of worship and the religious denominations that sponsor them enjoy great liberty in America. Their activities are subjected to very little government regulation. They are often exempt from laws that other groups must follow. The government bends over backward to avoid interfering in the internal matters of religious groups and does so only in the most extreme cases.


What the religious right labels “persecution” is something else entirely: it is the natural pushback that occurs when any one sectarian group goes too far in trying to control the lives of others. Americans are more than happy to allow religious organizations to tend to their own matters and make their own decisions about internal governance. When those religious groups overstep their bounds and demand that people who don’t even subscribe to their beliefs follow their rigid theology, that is another matter entirely.

Before I delve into this a little more, it would be helpful to step back and take a look at the state of religious liberty in the United States today. Far from being persecuted, I would assert that religion’s position is one of extreme privilege.

Consider the following points:

• Religious groups enjoy complete tax exemption, a very powerful and sought-after benefit.
• Unlike secular nonprofit groups, houses of worship are not required to apply for tax-exempt status. They receive it by mere dint of their existence. Houses of worship are assumed to be tax exempt as soon as they form. This exemption is rarely examined again and is revoked only in cases of extreme fraud (such as someone claiming that the entity he or she has formed is a church when it’s really a for-profit business).
• Houses of worship are free from the mandatory reporting obligations that are imposed on secular nonprofit groups. For example, secular groups that are tax-exempt must fill out a detailed financial form and submit it to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) every year. This document, called a Form 990, must be made available for public inspection. Houses of worship and ministries are not required to fill out and submit these forms.
• Religious entities are not required to report their wealth to any government agency. The question often comes up about how much money houses of worship raise every year or what the value of the land they hold is. There is no way of knowing this because they are not required to tell anyone.
• The IRS has the power to audit individuals and secular groups at the merest suspicion of wrongdoing or financial irregularities. Houses of worship, by contrast, are very difficult for the IRS to audit. This is so because Congress passed a special law governing church audits that requires the IRS to show heightened scrutiny before initiating such procedures. In addition, church audits must be approved by highly placed IRS officials.
• Religious groups enjoy a loud and robust public voice. They own television and radio stations all over the country (all tax exempt, by the way). They own publishing arms, and they maintain various outreach sites on the Internet. The ability of religious groups to proselytize and spread their theology is limited only by the imaginations of their leaders.
• Across the country, religious groups own a network of hospitals, secondary schools, colleges, social-service agencies, and other entities that often enjoy a cozy relationship with the government. Many of these institutions are subsidized directly with tax funds—even though they may promote religion. In recent years, religious groups that sponsor charitable services have seen themselves open to a host of new taxpayer assistance through the so-called faith-based initiative.
• Religious groups are often exempt from laws that secular organizations must follow. A house of worship or a ministry can fire employees at will if those workers violate (or are merely suspected or accused of violating) some tenet of the faith. A religious school, for example, could fire a woman who becomes pregnant out of wedlock. A corporation or a secular nonprofit would not be able to do this. In many cases, religious groups are free from following even basic laws designed to promote health, safety, and general welfare. Houses of worship are routinely exempted from laws designed to improve access to facilities for those with disabilities, for example. In some states, daycare centers and other facilities sponsored by religious groups are wholly exempt from routine inspection laws.
• Many religious groups engage in extensive lobbying on Capitol Hill and in the state capitals. Under federal law, there is virtually no regulation of their lobbying activities. Federal law exempts from oversight “a church, its integrated auxiliary, or a convention or association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal income tax return.” This means that, unlike other groups, religious organizations are not required to report the money they spend attempting to influence legislation or to register their lobbyists. In rare cases, some states have tried to impose minimal regulations, such as public financial-disclosure reports, on houses of worship. The religious groups often fight such laws and call them an infringement of their religious-liberty rights.
• Many legislators are quick to placate religious groups and the clergy. The results of their lobbying campaigns are often successful. In the 1990s, when some religious groups began to complain about experiencing difficulties with zoning issues and the ability to build houses of worship where they pleased, Congress was quick to pass a special law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This law essentially trumps local zoning regulations with a federal fiat—even though, for many years, zoning had been considered a matter best handled by local officials.
• Religious groups are often treated with special deference in cases of suspected law breaking. Anyone who doubts this need not look beyond the experience of the Roman Catholic Church during the pedophilia scandal. A secular corporation that engaged in such a massive cover-up and acts of deception would have found its top leaders behind bars. Yet in that scandal, only a handful of relatively low-level clergy were held accountable.
  
  

I have created this list not necessarily to criticize or call for changing these policies (although some of them are overdue for scrutiny) but to make the point that the leaders of religious organizations have very little reason to complain. Their position is an exalted one. They are well regarded by lawmakers, and their institutions are not only tax supported in some cases but are also beyond the reach of secular law.

What they are experiencing is not persecution; it is preferential status.

It is a very long article that I originally had copied here but it's better you go to the link and read on your own.
tl;dr
If your group/position holds great power within the structure of the US you are not being persecuted.  The "other" side isn't not being open minded.  You are being disagreed with.  Defend your position and stop crying.