THIS is what black people be talking about…

[Housh]

USA Today and other publications do this shit because they don’t have anything else to write about.

The issue is we don’t need 40 of these dumbass articles around when Brian Flores and other REAL diversity issues are present. Seems like they just picked the 1st team alphabetically that didn’t have a POC as a coach and decided to make an article.



I think there’s a difference between simply not personally knowing any black ppl to put on your staff and purposely not hiring qualified black ppl, simply because they are black.

I love the nuance of the NFL and how they understand the diversity issues are a problem and drbsyvw acknowledged themselves that black coaches are locked out of these jobs. But writing random articles of a random staff with no POC as coaches and implying they are racist is stupid. This Amore lady obviously doesn’t follow the team either because she doesn’t even know we had Marvin Lewis. Damn idiot

[*michaelsean*]

So what’s the right number? They certainly have a higher percentage of black coaches than the general population. Is it based on the exceptionally high percentage of black players in the league which absolutely nobody has a problem with? Everyone just conveniently overlooks the number of black players making insane amounts of money when complaining about NFL diversity. How come Pittsburgh doesn’t have a white diversity problem?

[TecmoBengals]

Nancy's opinion is a .

[NUGDUKWE]

Okay I didn't read the article. But the idea isn't that the Bengals ownership or staff itself is racist. The idea would be that if there is some bias in the NFL as in the country that subtly gives white people a little leg up over people of color that it causes a butterfly affect that can have a large impact. If coaches of color get slightly less chances and or there resumes are viewed slightly less than white coaches they won't have the same opportunity to build a solid resume. So not that Cincinnati is only targeting white coaches or overlooking better resumes but rather a symptom of the entire system.

[leonardfan40]

Wow! After 16 years of Marvin we have to listen to this garbage after just making a super bowl?!?!

Diversity hires should not make winning take a back seat. We just went to the super bowl. If you are making the right hires and winning then you are doing something right. Anyone that thinks this organization would hurt their chances of winning to avoid a diversity hire is stupid and clearly knows nothing about the franchise.

I’ve never got the feeling we picked Marvin for his skin color and never got the feeling we picked anyone else, white/black/other for their skin colors. Exactly the way it should be. Hire the right person for the job. And don’t click on clickbait.

[Frank Booth]

Marvin Lewis and his staff were here from 2003 to 2018. Eat my ass

[TheFan]

(10-02-2022, 11:50 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Okay I didn't read the article. But the idea isn't that the Bengals ownership or staff itself is racist. The idea would be that if there is some bias in the NFL as in the country that subtly gives white people a little leg up over people of color that it causes a butterfly affect that can have a large impact. If coaches of color get slightly less chances and or there resumes are viewed slightly less than white coaches they won't have the same opportunity to build a solid resume. So not that Cincinnati is only targeting white coaches or overlooking better resumes but rather a symptom of the entire system.

So you didn't read the article but somehow know the intricacies of what the article is or is not trying to say? 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2022, 11:56 AM)Frank Booth Wrote: Marvin Lewis and his staff were here from 2003 to 2018. Eat my ass

Yeah taking a couple year snapshot and basing an opinion on it is just stupid. I’d still like to know what the right number is and what that’s based on.

[*jason*]

(10-02-2022, 11:50 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Okay I didn't read the article. But the idea isn't that the Bengals ownership or staff itself is racist. The idea would be that if there is some bias in the NFL as in the country that subtly gives white people a little leg up over people of color that it causes a butterfly affect that can have a large impact. If coaches of color get slightly less chances and or there resumes are viewed slightly less than white coaches they won't have the same opportunity to build a solid resume. So not that Cincinnati is only targeting white coaches or overlooking better resumes but rather a symptom of the entire system.

You can tell that very few read the article... One poster literally made the same points the article did. But yeah; I read that a few days ago. I didn't think toou h of the article. It didn't attack the team. Just pointed out there aren't black coaches in positions that typically produce HC candidates. I don't see many of these white coaches getting too many calls about vacancies either so it's a non issue.

[NUGDUKWE]

(10-02-2022, 11:56 AM)TheFan Wrote: So you didn't read the article but somehow know the intricacies of what the article is or is not trying to say? 

I understand the ideas of systematic racism. I also understand that you can't have a conversation about race in this country without people getting butt hurt and trying to flip the script and play the victim. You also can't say anything unless it's worded exactly right you can't say black lives matter because all lives matter. Every Bengal fan should know this team isn't blatantly racist but they are part of a society that does have racial bias.

[Housh]

(10-02-2022, 11:50 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Okay I didn't read the article. But the idea isn't that the Bengals ownership or staff itself is racist. The idea would be that if there is some bias in the NFL as in the country that subtly gives white people a little leg up over people of color that it causes a butterfly affect that can have a large impact. If coaches of color get slightly less chances and or there resumes are viewed slightly less than white coaches they won't have the same opportunity to build a solid resume. So not that Cincinnati is only targeting white coaches or overlooking better resumes but rather a symptom of the entire system.

With these issues it’s hard because you can’t really measure “diversity” any other way than counting how many individual POC you have. And that just isn’t fair.


If i owned a business and i was judged off how many whites i hired or be labeled a racist, i wouldn’t like that. In my personal life i know about like 1 white person and it’s not like i go out my way to avoid white ppl. My childhood neighborhood just didn’t have any, and most of my army friends passed.



I also don’t like the idea of mandating you interview x amount of POC. Because then we see what happened to Brian Flores where teams are just hosting him just to check a box, because that’s disrespectful and demeaning when you have a solid NFL resume like Brian does.



I think the eventual answer is to go by an honor system, but to actually take accusations of bias/racism seriously.

[Destro]

That's bait. Are you not used to the media hating on the Bengals for any and every reason? With success, they have to find new drums to beat. haters gonna hate.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2022, 11:35 AM)Housh Wrote: USA Today and other publications do this shit because they don’t have anything else to write about.

The issue is we don’t need 40 of these dumbass articles around when Brian Flores and other REAL diversity issues are present. Seems like they just picked the 1st team alphabetically that didn’t have a POC as a coach and decided to make an article.



I think there’s a difference between simply not personally knowing any black ppl to put on your staff and purposely not hiring qualified black ppl, simply because they are black.

I love the nuance of the NFL and how they understand the diversity issues are a problem and drbsyvw acknowledged themselves that black coaches are locked out of these jobs. But writing random articles of a random staff with no POC as coaches and implying they are racist is stupid. This Amore lady obviously doesn’t follow the team either because she doesn’t even know we had Marvin Lewis. Damn idiot

They actually have five non-white coaches.

I’ve read everything you’ve written in the last week or so and even though I disagreed with you on one aspect I think you are eminently fair. I’d much rather hear a black person’s honest opinion than some random white lady (a ginger no less) looking to earn her SJW stripes.

[WiregrassBenGal]

If I say anything about any topic related remotely to this, I'll get accused of benefitting from being a product of white privilege. So, I'll say this; this whole race thing won't get resolved until 400 years from now, if we haven't destroyed ourselves by then.

[Housh]

(10-02-2022, 12:03 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I understand the ideas of systematic racism. I also understand that you can't have a conversation about race in this country without people getting butt hurt and trying to flip the script and play the victim. You also can't say anything unless it's worded exactly right you can't say black lives matter because all lives matter. Every Bengal fan should know this team isn't blatantly racist but they are part of a society that does have racial bias.

I mean….


If your group of ppl is being systematically locked out of a job field that group is indeed a victim. They aren’t “ playing the victim”. If player A and player B have the same resume but have different odds at being a head coach and those odds appear to revolve solely around their skin color then they ARE a victim of bias and/or racism.


VICTIM DEFINITION
“a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

1 key word and 1 key phrase in this definition. 1st one is the word “Harmed.” The harm CAN be emotional, financial, AND physical. Most jobs even say PERCEIVED harm can be bad. Meaning you can tell a race joke at work that i find offensive and they’ll count that as harm. So if the majority of black coaches PERCEIVE they aren’t getting a fair shake then they are victims. (Yeah i know that’s a can of worms but I’m just going by the definition.)

2nd is a phrase and that is “as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.” Even if the harm is by “some other event”, such as Zac Taylor by random chance having the least diverse staff, it still counts as harm in the NFL’s eyes.


So by the definition the NFL has historically victimized black and coaches.(allegedly)

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2022, 12:30 PM)Housh Wrote: I mean….


If your group of ppl is being systematically locked out of a job field that group is indeed a victim. They aren’t “ playing the victim”. If player A and player B have the same resume but have different odds at being a head coach and those odds appear to revolve solely around their skin color then they ARE a victim of bias and/or racism.


VICTIM DEFINITION
“a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

1 key word and 1 key phrase in this definition. 1st one is the word “Harmed.” The harm CAN be emotional, financial, AND physical. Most jobs even say PERCEIVED harm can be bad. Meaning you can tell a race joke at work that i find offensive and they’ll count that as harm. So if the majority of black coaches PERCEIVE they aren’t getting a fair shake then they are victims. (Yeah i know that’s a can of worms but I’m just going by the definition.)

2nd is a phrase and that is “as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.” Even if the harm is by “some other event”, such as Zac Taylor by random chance having the least diverse staff, it still counts as harm in the NFL’s eyes.


So by the definition the NFL has historically victimized black and coaches.(allegedly)


I never understood shaming ppl for being actual victims. I understand Jussie Smollett and hating those types of fakers but I’d love to believe most ppl aren’t pulling a smollett just because they failed or missed out on a job.

I think you read what he wrote backward

[Housh]

(10-02-2022, 12:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think you read what he wrote backward

Me too.


I cut out the last part that was kinda putting words in his mouth

[BengalYankee]

(10-02-2022, 11:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Now we know why they introduced the White Helments

Looks White AND Black to me. 

[NUGDUKWE]

(10-02-2022, 12:30 PM)Housh Wrote: I mean….


If your group of ppl is being systematically locked out of a job field that group is indeed a victim. They aren’t  “ playing the victim”. If player A and player B have the same resume but have different odds at being a head coach and those odds appear to revolve solely around their skin color then they ARE a victim of bias and/or racism.


VICTIM DEFINITION
“a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

1 key word and 1 key phrase in this definition. 1st one is the word “Harmed.” The harm CAN be emotional, financial, AND physical. Most jobs even say PERCEIVED harm can be bad. Meaning you can tell a race joke at work that i find offensive and they’ll count that as harm. So if the majority of black coaches PERCEIVE they aren’t getting a fair shake then they are victims. (Yeah i know that’s a can of worms but I’m just going by the definition.)

2nd is a phrase and that is “as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.” Even if the harm is by “some other event”, such as Zac Taylor by random chance having the least diverse staff, it still counts as harm in the NFL’s eyes.


So by the definition the NFL has historically victimized black and coaches.(allegedly)

Michealsean is right. I wasn't saying people of color are playing the victim. I was saying you can't say racial bias exists because people try and turn it around and play the victim by saying that your calling them or a specific organization/entity blatantly racist rather than having an open conversation.

[*jason*]

(10-02-2022, 12:37 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Looks White AND Black to me. 

Yes... But much like the staff, it's mostly white.