Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Was ESPN’s Apology and Reaction to Racist Comments Appropriate?

Was ESPN’s Apology and Reaction to Racist Comments Appropriate?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On Friday, ESPN’s mobile website included the following headline “Chink in the Armor” to refer to new New York Knicks’ sensation Jeremy Lin’s poor game against the Charlotte Hornets.

An ESPN anchor person also used the term on ESPN News. Reaction around the sports world and the Internet grew quickly, and ESPN.com had to work quickly to address the racist comments by its employees.

ESPN addressed the issue by apologizing for the comments. Today ESPN issued a statement that it fired the employee responsible for the mobile headline and suspended the ESPN News anchor for 30 days.

Were the actions taken by ESPN enough for Jeremy Lin, sports fans, and ESPN fans, to feel comfortable that the network took the offensive comments seriously? For the most part, I think ESPN acted quickly and appropriately. ESPN took the ultimate action against its mobile employee by terminating him. ESPN never defended the actions of their employees and conducted their own investigation into the matter without delay.

While I don’t quite understand why ESPN only suspended the ESPN News employee, they must have good reasons. Hopefully, those reasons will be communicated to the public soon (unless there’s a legal reason they are not allowed to do so).

There have been other high profile cases of racist or offensive speech by radio hosts and commentators. One of the most famous on air incidents in recent years was that of Don Imus who called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.” Initially, CBS only suspended Imus but, after a public outcry, the radio station fired him. Many people and critics felt that CBS took too long to fire Imus.

One thing is clear; ESPN has a good legal team and public relations staff. The legal team and public relations staff must have provided good counsel to ESPN executives, since the network didn’t delay their response to a potentially damaging incident. The network has obviously learned the public relations nightmare that can occur when action to offensive speech is not addressed earlier.

I’m sure many people will argue that ESPN is responsible for the horrible comments that were aired publicly. I disagree. ESPN trains its leaders about diversity within the network, and I’m sure the network has provided all their employees with diversity training and made them aware that offensive and racist speech will not and cannot be tolerated. I don’t feel the company can force every employee to be decent human beings. That’s an impossible task.

What a company can do is address individual cases of offensive speech. ESPN did that. What more could the network do?

While I agree that they did handle the matter appropriately, the company should donate money to groups that fight discrimination. It would be a nice gesture if ESPN donated $250,000 to those groups. Maybe they will still do that but they didn’t mention it in their press release.

The company should also improve its diversity program and retrain all their employees immediately. It’s obvious that some employees aren’t complying with company policies. A new round of diversity training would help to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future and would help the company to defend itself if a rogue employee acted like a racist again!

Please note: Sportmentary quotes an offensive headline issued by ESPN and it’s for journalistic integrity only!

Photo Credit – NY Daily News

Powered by

About Sportmentary

  • http://viclana.blogspot.com/ Victor Lana

    Sport, thank you for handling this difficult topic so well. Thanks also for being a great new voice here in BC Sports!

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Vic, I appreciate your comments. I love BC and it’s provided me with a community where I can share my love and passion for sports.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    The differences seem obvious. The news anchor used a cliche during a live conversation that if spoken about any other player wouldn’t have been noticed. In fact, his use of “chink,” while admittedly insensitive, could be argued was because he wasn’t thinking about Lin’s race, which is what people claim they want. The headline writer, a job that frequently uses double entendre to shock and draw in readers, had the time to reconsider his use of the word.

    I don’t think your editorial note is needed because the context for using the word was apparent.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Thanks for your comment El Bicho. You made some good points!

  • Zingzing

    I, for one, think that while using the word “chink” in the context of Lin, especially in the headline (where puns have become something of a norm), was definitely stupid, it was probably not racist in intent. The writer was probably fired for the embarrassment he caused, not because he’s a racist (like Imus is). It’s the sad state of journalism today that that kid will probably have a tough time landing another gig because he will be perceived as a racist. But that’s the reality. Espn did what it had to do.

    But who among us hasn’t said something innocent but stupid at 2:30 am?

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Good point but there’s been a lot of offensive comments recently against Lin and Asian Americans. Most of those comments have been tolerated and disgusting. Maybe now, sports writers and the media will be more careful about what they print!

  • Dan

    Several layers of insanity here, but one is that someone can innocently (depending on whatever hazy, evolving, definition of “racism” is), lose a career.

    Will we now need to refer to the word “chink” as the “C word”? Naturally the phrase “chink in the armor” will need to go.

    C’mon progressives! Let’s fret over this. Scour the texts, ban movies and books that reference the offensive phrase. More sensitivity training.

    Probably ought to rethink fining ESPN a quarter mill though. They would just hike their subscription price.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Clearly, comments regarding Lin were getting edgier and edgier and the ESPN employee should have known that the headline was offensive.

    I never said they should be fined as the FTC doesn’t have that ability in this case. I said it would be a nice gesture if ESPN donated that amount.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan, It’s not a question of banishing the phrase entirely from the English language and you know that perfectly well.

    In this context, it was offensive. Even if it was an innocent mistake or oversight, you can’t just leave a headline like that up and expect no-one to take umbrage.

    It’s essentially no different than if you were to decide on a pirate costume for a Halloween party even though you were aware that your hostess’s parents had been murdered by Somali pirates.

    I realize that in Dan World, racism is always the correct response, but isn’t there some room for tact?

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Dr. Dreadful, I agree with you. There’s no room for reference to any person’s race when it comes to talents on the court. too bad that ESPN’s former employee didn’t do a double take before posting the headline. It’s obvious that person wanted to garner attention and they did. Now they’re looking for a job in a bad economy and they’re in a competitive industry. Hopefully that person will learn a lesson from all of this.

  • http://www.sportsreviews.com/ Angie Davis

    yeah I think that comment was very racial one. But thats why no matter how you feel about someone or something you have to keep things like that to your self.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Angie, what you say is true, especially when you’re working for the largest sports network and your comments are seen by the public. I think the best approach an employee can take is to think about how your comments will reflect on your employer. Had that approach been taken by the ESPN employees, I’m confident that the headline never would have been published!

  • Dan

    “Now they’re looking for a job in a bad economy and they’re in a competitive industry. Hopefully that person will learn a lesson from all of this.”—Sportmentary

    Since the guy said it wasn’t intentional and apologized, and Jeremy Lin accepted and also said that he thought it “probably wasn’t intentional” as well, I suspect that the “lesson learned” is roughly equal to the lesson a young child who is punished for accidentaly wetting the bed learns.

    A constant low level anxiety. Not quite terror, but a realization that we live in an age of racial aggression, severe and Orwellian, that is disguised as “tolerance” and “equality”.

    The word “honky” is supposed to be a pejorative for whites. If there was a white basketball player who became very angry at a game and made a scene, and a ESPN scroll writer wrote that the player got “honked off”… would that be grounds for firing? Throwing 250g at race hustlers?

    Of course it wouldn’t.

    The concept of racism is a social construct that demonizes a healthy racial instict in whites, but not others, for the purpose of dispossesing them of their heritage, culture, and geographical space.

    Some argue that by United Nations definition it is genocide.

    However, I’m somewhat in the grip of “Linsanity” myself. He’s a great story in a somewhat dull sport. His being Asian will be a big part of the story whether you would like it or not. If basketball were dominated by white players instead of blacks, we might be hearing a lot about a “triumph over racism”, and “breaking color barriers”.

    With this incident and the previous break from Rush Limbaugh for simply stating the opinion that some in sports media are “desirous” of seeing Donavan McNabb do well, ESPN has set a tone of coersive thought control among their employees.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Dan,
    If ESPN ran “Honked Off” story I would be offended. To me a person’s race should not figure into their accomplishments.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    if that story would offend, you are way too sensitive, although the guy should be fired for writing such an idiotic headline

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan, I’ve never even heard the expression “honked off”. Did you just make it up?

    In any case, you’re presenting a false equivalency here. The fact is that while white men make up a lesser percentage of the NBA playing cohort than they once did, there are still a lot of them. Therefore, if some immature sportswriter were seeking a pejorative term for, say, Dirk Nowitski, “honky” would probably not be the one that sprang immediately to mind. It would most likely draw instead on Nowitski’s German nationality.

    (And yes, as Sportmentary said, if a black journalist made a “honky” reference about Nowitski then it would be grounds for offense.)

    In contrast, there are very few Asian players in the league and so “chink” is an obvious one. It’s a subtle distinction but one which I suspect is far from lost on you.

  • Dan

    Yes, “honked off” is an expression for getting angry. And no, no one would be fired for using it in reference to a white player. (double standard)

    relative percentages of different races in the league doesn’t have a logical bearing on racial insults.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I never said they did, Dan. Again, I think you know perfectly well what I was getting at. You’re not stupid.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    hey Dr. I understand what you were getting at!

  • Dan

    Ok, so according to Dr. Dreadful the amount of offense to be taken is relative to the proportion of your race in the league. So then puns and indirect reference to racial pejoritives of black players should be the least offensive, since blacks comprise a majority of the players.

    So then a scroll that described a black player who played selfishly as being “niggardly” with the ball would be less offensive than the “honked off” white guy, and much less offensive than the “chink in the armour” of the asian?

    is that it?

  • Zingzing

    I’ve never heard the term “honked off” either, but apparently it does exist… Still, getting from “honked off” to “honky” is a little bit more difficult than “chink” to “chink”. And “niggardly” has a rather unfortunate resemblance to another word that has little contextual meaning in conjunction with that other word, but it’s just too close these days. The word’s been ghettoized, for lack of a better term in these circumstances…

    Still, Dan is just playing his “woe is the white race’s lot in this life” bit, even if this was a rather stupid controversy to begin with. It was a stupid headline (although not as stupid as “honked off” would have been for other reasons), but the writer’s life is seriously messed up right now, and he doesn’t really deserve that. Everyone makes mistakes,

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    I still don’t understand how the writer didn’t see that the term “chink” would be considered racist. I think the writer was definitely using the slang term and trying to be funny. Most people know that terms is racist and wrong. I also don’t think ignorance in this case can be tolerated by ESPN. They had to act and act quickly.

  • Zingzing

    If he thought it would be considered racist, I doubt he’d have used the term. He probably didn’t think about the term in that way, as the other use of the entire phrase is rather obvious in the context. The only other possibility, unless you think he’s a racist, is that he saw where the new York post and other tabloids were going with their puns, such as “amasian!” and took it one step too far. Trying to be funny is one thing, but I really doubt the guy thought about it that way. And if he would put that much thought into it, I doubt he’d not think about what a bit of casual racism would do for his job. The guy didn’t think. That’s all that happened.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    What I’m saying is that he should have known better. I think he obviously new the word Chink in this case was a reference to Lin as an Asian. the fact that he didn’t realize it’s a derogatory term, is ignorant and he deserved to be fired. I agree that there are other uses for the term but he was trying to directly relate that to Lin as being Asian and at best, that’s always crossing a fine line!

  • Zingzing

    He definitely should have known better. And he certainly does now. If it’s his job to make up headlines, he certainly did not do his job well there, and it caused his employer public embarrassment and he was fired for cause.

    But do you think he wrote that with malicious racist intent? I seriously doubt it. I think he made a stupid mistake at 2:30 am on a Friday night. He was probably on auto drive at that point. This story has nothing but victims, but one did it to himself. A fatal flaw, a tragedy in this man’s life…

  • Dan

    Sounds as if Zingzing has a different hierarchy of racial insult than does Dr. Dreadful, and handyguy thinks Sportmentary is hypersensitive for thinking “honked off” would be offensive to describe a white guy.

    Interesting how the false concept of racism is applied and perceived differently. Pretty much what I expected. Still, its a safe bet that the black and asian “insults” would get the writer fired, whereas the “insult” of the white wouldn’t.

    the colloquialism “honked off” can be googled for anyone who would like to familiarize themselves with it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    handyguy?

    Not only does it seem like you’re making up what Doc has said, it seems like you’re making up entire participants in this “discussion.”

    I googled “honked off,” by the way. It’s a pretty damn obscure expression.

    Glad you’re always around to stick up for “the white,” Dan.

  • Dan

    my comments are being blocked. again. as is usual.

  • Dan

    Jordan if Doc wants to clarify what he’s said he can. I only stated what I believe he means.

    A “damn obscure expression” is still a known expression. Is that upsetting to you somehow?

    I mistakenly said handyguy instead of El bicho. I apologize for the distress it has caused you.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan, I’m on comments editing duty tonight and I can’t see anything of yours that’s being shunted into the spam collection.

    We’ve been having technical issues with comments lately. Try rebooting your computer and trying again. Failing that, it may just be the site’s spam blocking software being fussy. Happens to all of us occasionally.

  • Zingzing

    If you can comment enough to say your comments are being blocked, it’s an automated thing and a fault of the system. It’s got nothing to do with you or what you have to say. You’re just paranoid.

    And if someone made an anti-white racist comment on espn or another such network/outlet, it would probably have consequences. Funny how that rarely seems to happen though. I guess other races just know better, or maybe they never got a taste for blatant racism.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Would this be a good moment to mention the case of Shirley Sherrod?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To turn Dan’s argument upside down, though with a twist I’m certain Dan would approve of, I find it kinda amusing that so many “whites” on this site are against racism. Ask most black motherfurckers, and they’ll swear till they’re blue in the face — sorry, wrong coloring and wrong expression — that most honkeys are racists through and through. They know nothing, of course, of the BC contingent, so we can’t really take ‘em Niggers at their word.

    Be that as it may, I’m rather honored by some of my black friends when they tell me point blank that I’m “not white,” and that’s in spite of the evidence staring them in the face.

    Go figure!

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Rather highlights how fundamentally meaningless the whole concept of “race” is, doesn’t it, Rog?

  • Dan

    Thank’s for the notice of the “technical issues” Dr. Dreadful.

    I guess the factual reality of technical issues along with the absence of any complaint from me that my being blocked because of something “to do with me or what I have to say” makes zings accusation of paranoia just his normal silly hostility.

    Even though his opinions on how “rare” racist comments are directed at whites is uninformed, at least he can grasp the lunacy of firing the ESPN writer for an unintentional slight. I think.

  • Zingzing

    So #28 wasn’t a complaint? Seemed like one. What else could you be trying to say, I wonder…

  • Dan

    Dr. Dreadful, if the concept of race were really “fundamentally meaningless” then it wouldn’t be a constant focus of lawsuits, persecution, and obsession.

    Race is important, that much is obvious.

  • Dan

    Didn’t say #28 wasn’t a complaint. Just not one based on paranoia. You jumped to that conclusion.

  • Zingzing

    No, doc, sherrod was a totally different situation… She didn’t cause that shit, someone else did. Although I guess it is a case of someone getting crucified for innocent comments. In that case, she was totally innocent. Editing’s a bitch. Whoever did that should be forced to pay her lost salary. She’ll be okay though. This guy may have more troubles,

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    exactly what comments got blocked?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “I find it kinda amusing that so many “whites” on this site are against racism.”

    So are we to believe from your comment you are for racism? That’s even more amusing

  • Zingzing

    So you thought there were technical issues then, right? “usual” technical issues, yeah? Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion, but you must admit your comment looks like someone complaining about censorship. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but c’mon, man, don’t play dumb… If you didn’t intend that, I don’t really know why you’d write that. Maybe you stepped into the same trap as the “chink in the armor” guy did. It’s 2:30.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Is that upsetting to you somehow?

    Not at all, Race Defender. Carry on fighting the good fight.

    Doc has clarified and reclarified his remarks, but it didn’t seem to make a difference to you.

    And yes, race is important to you and other like-minded individuals.

  • Dan

    The recording of Shirley Sherrod relating how she used her public office to discriminate against a white farmer was revealed by Breitbart in order to demonstrate the approval of the NAACP audience to Sherrods admission of racism.

    Sherrods subsequent redemption and enlightenment was also included in the tape that Breitbart highlighted, as has been pointed out many times.

    Sherrod was not the focus of criticism in Breitbarts highlight.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    zing, I honestly think Dan was just expressing frustration with not being able to get his comment(s) to go through. I felt the same way myself last week until I realized that nobody could post. At least as an editor I can kvetch about it in the Yahoo group.

    The headline in question, which would have been innocuous (though corny) in other contexts, took on a racially-charged aspect (intentional or not) because of the ethnic origin of Jeremy Lin. This happens with language all the time, and Dan knows that.

    For instance, Dan might be in the habit of greeting a very old friend with the phrase, “Hello, you old bastard” and in the context of their friendship that would be fine. If, however, he were to walk into a job interview and greet the interviewer that way, well, let’s just say he should probably keep checking the classifieds.

    And I brought up Sherrod because she was that elusive creature, a black woman who was fired for being racist towards whites, although it later turned out that she wasn’t.

  • Dan

    Jordan, you are wrong (big surprise!)Doc did not clarify his remarks. The comment of mine that has you so peculiarly worked up was my attempt to understand what he meant.

    That’s why I followed my assessment with the question. “Is that it”

    And Jordan, race is important to you too. Otherwise you wouldn’t annoyingly harrass me everytime I express my opinion on the subject.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    The recording of Shirley Sherrod relating how she used her public office to discriminate against a white farmer was revealed by Breitbart in order to demonstrate the approval of the NAACP audience to Sherrods admission of racism.

    And if you had read the UNEDITED speech that Sherrod gave – not the EDITED version that Breitbart broadcast, but the UNEDITED version – you would have found that she was describing her journey OUT of racism, just as I’ve described on this site my own journey out of racism.

    But never mind – I realize that the very idea that you might have been fed a lie and that you believed it is too terrible to contemplate, so you’ll just ignore all this and keep telling your like-minded fine fellows at stormfront.org just how racist all the blacks are.

  • Dan

    Glenn, as I’ve said here and before, Sherrods description of her “journey out of racism” was IN… as in “included” in the “EDITED” Breitbart version.

    Talk about “playing dumb”.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    @ # 37:

    Dan, “meaningless” and “important” aren’t mutually exclusive terms. For instance, the NBA is fundamentally meaningless, but it is nevertheless very important to a lot of people.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So…Dan – if Breitbart had INcluded everything in Sherrod’s speech, you wouldn’t be saying that she used her position to discriminate…because in the UNEDITED version she makes clear that she did NOT discriminate.

    Have you even seen the UNedited version? It doesn’t look like you have.

    So which is it, Dan? Are you trying to cover up the fact that you believed a lie? Or are you lying to cover up the fact that you falsely accused someone of racism?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Dan, I annoyingly harass you because it’s fun. You predictably pop up whenever race is mentioned and do your loyal duty, so perhaps this is my cross to bear.

    Doc’s comments were clear to me, so I’m not wrong. Your attempt would be better served had you given him an honest reading rather than your incessant search for subtext that’s not there.

  • Dan

    #49 That’s a good point Dreadful. But if you’d examine yourself on a deeper level I think you would find that you are invested heavily in a specific perspective about race.

    Glenn, you don’t remember, but we’ve already been through this. You can not be made to understand that you are informed by a edit of

  • Jordan Richardson

    By the way, Dan, I’m trying to get a wine stain out of a white tablecloth. Any tips?

  • Dan

    ….the Breitbart Edit. The edited version of the Breitbart Edit is made to make it seem as if Breitbart was framing Sherrod, so they cut out the part where she seeks redemption. He wasn’t. You don’t care though. That’s fo sho!

  • Dan

    Jordan, I think you annoyingly harass me because you’re a zealot. you’ve already made it clear that you don’t intend a rational discussion.

    I don’t mind. your inability for civility, invokes a certain dark ages, Victorian Era type mentality that I hope is conveyed to readers who stumble on to this conversation.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Dan –

    You can begin your education on Breitbart’s heavily-edited version here, where you will find from Anderson Cooper of CNN:

    Cooper: “The fact is, there was no applause when Ms. Sherrod was talking about the white farmer. Breitbart’s claim that the audience was applauding as she “described how she maltreated the white farmer” is demonstrably false. Contrary to Breitbart’s claim, the audience does not applaud or cheer at any point during the story about her interaction with the farmer. On his July 21 show, CNN’s Anderson Cooper aired comments about “applause” Breitbart made on John King, USA and noted, “The fact is, there was no applause when Ms. Sherrod was talking about the white farmer.” He added: “You know, Breitbart also said today that there were cheers over racist comments. Again, the facts do not bear him out.”

    And HERE is the full speech.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Oh no no, I don’t have an inability for civility. I just choose not to be civil with racist nutbags who routinely nose into discussions with the ugliest of intentions.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I do hope my invocation for the “dark” ages doesn’t offend you, though. Chalk it up to my zealotry.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ohhhh, Dan! –

    The edited version of the Breitbart Edit is made to make it seem as if Breitbart was framing Sherrod, so they cut out the part where she seeks redemption. He wasn’t.

    Oh? Then if Breitbart showed the whole unedited video (which he didn’t), he would have to have shown the part where Sherrod describes her journey out of racism, and where she indeed helped that white family…and it would have been clear – as the link to the full video in my previous comment makes indisputably clear – that she wasn’t racist, that she was telling a story of anger at injustices against her in the past, and how she was able to overcome that anger to help those who needed help.

    IF Breitbart had shown the whole video, none of this would have been an issue at all! And Fox News (and several other news organizations) would not have jumped on the bandwagon to also broadcast the edited version of the speech!

    So…what’s going to be your next excuse? You of course cannot allow yourself to admit you were wrong in the least, so I’m curious to see how you’re going to continue to double-down on this one.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jordan –

    Why, I’m shocked! Shocked, I say! You’ve got an inability for civility, and a Victorian mindset to boot! I never woulda thought you had it in you!

    Reminds me of the time I was accused of being the greatest threat to democracy – heck, you’re almost – almost – down to my level now. I know this because Dan says so!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Yep, that’s me. Rude prude to the core.

    Give me a few more months, Glenn. I’m sure I can beat you in a race (!!!) to the bottom if I try hard enough.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    John, try using some salt on the wine stain. Wow, a guy goes to sleep for a few hours and then sees 50 comments posted :) Dan, I think any comment that would be published (Like honked off) would have to viewed in context. If honked off was used in a manner to make fun of someone’s race then it would be offensive just like the term “chink” was used in this case.
    Zing, I agree that the ESPN writer might not have had malicious intent to be racist. Just because writer doesn’t intend to be racist doesn’t mean they weren’t.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Dr. Dreadful, if the concept of race were really “fundamentally meaningless” then it wouldn’t be a constant focus of lawsuits, persecution, and obsession.

    Race is important, that much is obvious.”
    #37, Dan

    I think Dan’s got something there, except I would amend it to read: “Self-declarations of absence of ‘racially-motivated’ behavior is even more ‘important,’ meaning ‘significant’ or ‘telling.'”

    I’m certain, however, that El Bicho will put his own twist on these words, as only El Bicho can.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    @60

    But you are the greatest obstacle to true democracy, Contrarian. All liberals are.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog – say that with a smile!

    BTW – did you hear that 25% of all GOP campaign donations so far came from just five individuals? But corporations are people, my friend, and money IS freedom of speech!

    (Jefferson’s rolling over in his grave right now)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    But if you’d examine yourself on a deeper level I think you would find that you are invested heavily in a specific perspective about race.

    Oh, I don’t mind admitting that, Dan. My specific perspective is that race as a concept is silly and that skin colour, or what continent one’s ancestors happen to have come from, shouldn’t be used as the basis for which we treat anyone.

    I call that plain humanity, which in my book is well worth investing in.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Roger, why exactly do you think that liberals are the “greatest obstacle to true democracy”? On face value it seems an absurd statement.

  • Igor

    It’s evident that the real threat to America is not the racism that has always been with us, but the uncontrolled spread of bad cutrate sports writers searching for new puns among old slang.

    Stop them before they type again!

  • Trane

    here’s the headline writer’s response.

    much more thoughtful than the rush to the judgement of the writer of this column. I hope people treat him with the same zero tolerance when he makes a mistake that he is willing to show others

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Trane, if you actually read my article you would see it was about how I thought ESPN handled the situation. I think they did a good job. mistake or not, ESPN had to take the action they did. I would hope that most people would understand that using the term “Chink” to refer to Lin is racist even if it wasn’t intended that way. The author was using that terms as a pun, like many other journalists were in the weeks leading up to that comment. He though he was being funny by using the wordChink. If Lin weren’t Asian, would he have chosen that word? Of course not!

    Nothing in my article attacks the writer of that comment. It only addresses how I thought ESPN handled the situation!

  • Trane

    Sport, if you read the article, point to where he said he was trying to be funny. He wrote “I wrote the headline in reference to the tone of the column and not to Jeremy Lin’s race. It was a lapse in judgment and not a racist pun.” The phrase has been used plenty of times before so to act like it was solely about race reveals your own ignorance on the matter.

    Thinking that ESPN’s rush to cut the guy loose to save face was the correct move does involve the writer. Not sure how you can separate the two.

    If the guy needed to be suspended to appease the delicate PC crowd is one thing, but to fire the guy regardless of his character and past behavior is a sad commentary on the state of this country. Some of use don’t walk on water like you

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Trane, did the guy use the word “chink” to refer to Lin as an Asian? Of course. Is that word derogatory? Of course. Was ESPN right in firing the guy? Of course? Even if the intent wasn’t there, it’s racist. Using the word chink to refer to an Asian person is racist!

  • Zingzing

    The headline was racist, but the intent was not. There should be some distinction there. If the intent wasn’t there, there SHOULD be a distinction. Guy got fucked by his stupidity, not any presumptuive racism.

    As a writer, you should know your words can fuck you up. Have some leniency. I hope the stance you’re taking on this doesn’t come back to haunt you. He had 6 years of sports journalism under his belt and he writes one idiotic headline and you want to bury him under a cloud of racism. He’s not a racist, but you feel the need to name him so?

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Zingzing, I thought my comments and article were clear. The article didn’t focus nor ridicule the writer of the headline but addressed if ESPN handled the matter appropriately. I a thought they did. They didn’t have a choice!

    I know I’m not perfect and in old blogs (no longer operational), I apologized publicly when I was wrong. The difference is that my blog is mine not an employer’s!

  • zingzing

    the article didn’t focus on the writer, but your #73 did. i agree with you on espn’s handling of the situation. i just don’t agree that you should be calling the writer a racist.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Zingzing, point taken. Let me clarify. While the author probably isn’t a racist, the term he used is at the very least derogatory and could be considered racist. ESPN had no choice but to act on that and they did so appropriately.

  • Dan

    “My specific perspective is that race as a concept is silly and that skin colour, or what continent one’s ancestors happen to have come from, shouldn’t be used as the basis for which we treat anyone.”—Dreadful

    No need to recite the mantra Dreadful, I was coercively indoctrinated in the same dogma. It needs to be that way because the perspective one sees from empirical evidence and using ones own logical judgement is quite opposite. That is why, for instance, voluntary segregation in housing patterns persists so overwhelmingly. Whites still choose to “treat” people differently whenever they still have the freedom to do it.

    But I guess the turning point for me was the realization that “race realism” is firmly supported overwhelmingly in the scientific community, as I have pointed out many times to no refutation other than Jordans imbecilic twittage.

    Glenn, as I’ve said, we’ve already been through the Sherrod discussion. If I ever develop alzheimer’s I’ll be happy to argue about your misunderstanding at length… again. In the meantime, if you would like a real example of a “heavily edited” or “deceptively edited” tape that had much graver consequences than the refreshing dismissal of a fat, racist, governmental parasite, see “Rodney King”.

    The argument by sportmentary that the writer should have been fired without regard to his intent makes my hyperbolic call to remove the word “chink” from the vocabulary seem sensible. If you can be fired without regard to intent, why take the chance? Who knows when there will be a thin skinned asian among a group that a writer might reference?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But “race realism” aside, Dan, isn’t it the case, though, that when it comes to human relations, how you decide to relate to people is a matter of personal choice (as an exercise of personal freedom), and that’s even the case, or especially the case, if the evidence runs to the contrary?

    Say you’re a genius, pretty much a company of one. By your own criterion, that would make you a recluse, since it would be “beneath you” to relate, on equal terms, with the rest of humanity, which is “sub-standard.”

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    Dan, I think you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t know the writer’s original intent. Millions of people didn’t either. What most of us knew was that the word and phrase used was derogatory and offensive. Let’s say I run a red light and injure someone. Should I be prosecuted? Sure. Even if my intent wasn’t to injure someone and I’m a good guy? Of course. In this case, intent never mattered. What mattered is that the writer was negligent in his use of the phrase and injured his employer’s reputation (ESPN). Once again, the point of my article was to examine if ESPN handled the matter correctly. I believe they did!

  • Dan

    Sportmentary, Just look at the words Roger just put in my mouth. He thinks that I think I’m a genius, that I can’t relate to the rest of humanity because I find it “substandard”.

    You see, Roger built a strawman Caricature in order to… well, I don’t really know why. It’s common though.

    After reading you’re response, I don’t think I’ve pulled a “Roger”. You said intent doesn’t matter because I guess you figure the offense was serious enough to send a message. As serious as “running a red light and injuring someone”.

    I understand you. I’m not judging you, I think most people have agreed with you on this thread.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I haven’t put any words into your mouth, Dan, just took your argument at face value and ran with it. Haven’t even denied “race realism” either.

    Can’t you see that?

  • Igor

    #77-Dan: inspires me to exercise some Dan Realism and ignore anything that Dan says about human relations.

    “… the turning point for me was the realization that “race realism” is firmly supported overwhelmingly in the scientific community, …”

    Huh? Where?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “What mattered is that the writer was negligent in his use of the phrase and injured his employer’s reputation (ESPN)”

    ESPN’s reputation wasn’t ruined, unless you are foolish enough to think they only hire people who never make mistakes.

    I am not surprised they fired him because they wanted to nip the controversy in the bud ASAP (good thing this isn’t about a Japanese player or I couldn’t have used that phrase) but to see so many people desperate for vengeance and unwilling to allow for redemption is a sad commentary on society.

  • Dan

    “inspires me to exercise some Dan Realism and ignore anything that Dan says about human relations.” —Igor

    I would be happy for you to do that as well.

    Yes, El bicho “nip it in the bud” will need to go as well. Who knows when that phrase will offend?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I have pointed out many times to no refutation other than Jordans imbecilic twittage.

    You pointing something out and you having a valid point are two completely different things, Dan. Your “scientific support” for “race realism” has always been a joke, so the only two sane responses are to ignore you or to respond with a little “twittage.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan’s World:

    “… the turning point for me was the realization that “race realism” is firmly supported overwhelmingly in the scientific community, …”

    Just like global cooling, and creationism are both supported overwhelmingly in the scientific community, hm?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    No need to recite the mantra Dreadful, I was coercively indoctrinated in the same dogma.

    I wasn’t.

    It needs to be that way because the perspective one sees from empirical evidence and using ones own logical judgement is quite opposite.

    Then explain to me how I came to the opposite conclusion.

    That is why, for instance, voluntary segregation in housing patterns persists so overwhelmingly.

    Empirical evidence and logic have little or nothing to do with that.

    Whites still choose to “treat” people differently whenever they still have the freedom to do it.

    You’re projecting, Dan. And poisoning the well. Just because you feel that you’re being coerced to “treat” people the same doesn’t mean everyone else feels that way. But you’ve set your world up so that everyone who doesn’t express the same opinions on race that you do really does feel as you do but isn’t admitting it. This may help you keep your brain in a nice tidy condition but it isn’t the way things really work.

    But I guess the turning point for me was the realization that “race realism” is firmly supported overwhelmingly in the scientific community

    No, it’s firmly supported only by those few members of the scientific community with identical views to you.

    as I have pointed out many times to no refutation other than Jordans imbecilic twittage.

    It’s been refuted many times. You just choose to pretend it hasn’t.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But even if it weren’t a joke, Jordan — and I tried to give him the rope — there are still some valid distinction to be be made.

    I tried to give Dan as much credit as I possibly could, but he’s surely blind to certain things.

  • Dan

    Harrumph.

    “You’re projecting, Dan. And poisoning the well. Just because you feel that you’re being coerced to “treat” people the same doesn’t mean everyone else feels that way”—-Dreadful

    Feels what way Dreadful? I don’t recall saying I “feel” some certain way. I think maybe You are projecting.

    I’ve demonstrated that race realism is based on, and firmly supported by mainstream science. You are the one who pretends otherwise. It always goes the same way this conversation is going, with your projecting bizzare character aspersions and totally neglecting the scientific evidence. That’s not refutation.

    Except maybe in “Dreadful World”.

  • zingzing

    maybe you could find some of this mainstream scientific support and show it to us. that would be more scientific of you. if you’ve got the science, show it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    As to the so-called “evidence,” even the difference between a chimp and a human is infinitesimal from the DNA standpoint.

    So when Dan brings in that kind of argument to make it apply across humanity at large, he’s making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Only extreme self-centeredness could make a person do that. Better yet, a form of self-worship.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’ve demonstrated that race realism is based on, and firmly supported by mainstream science.

    No, you haven’t. You’ve just come up with the same nonsense time and time again, popping your little head up each time the issue of race is brought up and making the same dumb remarks behind the cover of “Dan.”

    IIRC, you brought up the New Century Foundation and/or the National Policy Institute last time you discussed “race realism” and your sources, along with the subsequent “research,” were found wanting – to say the least. Hardly “mainstream” science; more like white supremacists masquerading as objective observers.

    And leaving all that aside, even if the scientific community did “support” race realism, you never quite get around to why that matters or what that means.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Feels what way Dreadful? I don’t recall saying I “feel” some certain way. I think maybe You are projecting.

    Bullshit, Dan. Almost your entire body of commentary here expresses the way you “feel” about the subject.

    I’ve demonstrated that race realism is based on, and firmly supported by mainstream science. You are the one who pretends otherwise. It always goes the same way this conversation is going, with your projecting bizzare character aspersions and totally neglecting the scientific evidence. That’s not refutation.

    I’m with zing in that we first need to see this “mainstream science” in order to know what it is that we are supposed to refute. (I have a sneaky feeling I know what will happen after that, but I’ll keep it to myself for now so that I don’t get accused of projecting even more bizarre character aspersions.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “And leaving all that aside, even if the scientific community did ‘support’ race realism, you never quite get around to why that matters …” Jordan Richardson, #92

    Precisely!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And I meant it in the larger sense, beyond the concern of what the so-called “scientific community” may or may not think.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I did find one discussion where Dan talks about when he became “racially aware” and describes the ideas he discusses as coming from the standpoint of a “white advocate.”

    Dan likes/liked to tout “The Bell Curve” as his “mainstream evidence,” as well as this bit from a 1994 edition of the Wall Street Journal.

    And when someone attacked The Bell Curve, guess who was there up in arms?

    Dan ignores, as usual, the countless mainstream scientific refutations of The Bell Curve and the pseudoscientific background of the book.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Speaking of The Bell Curve, guess who just referenced the author of that particular book? Yep! You guessed it – Rick Santorum!

    And on a different note, I wonder if Dan’s aware that we human beings share 60% of our genes with fruit flies? Now if he were racist against fruit flies, I could understand since they only share 60% of our genes….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jordan – sorry, #97 was meant for you, not Doc (though he’d probably find it interesting, too).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    @97

    Eugenics is the next logical step for good ole Rick.

  • Dan

    “Bullshit, Dan. Almost your entire body of commentary here expresses the way you “feel” about the subject”

    Nope, You’re full of it. Race realism only suggests an alternative to white racism for why there are group differences in socioeconomic and other outcomes. The way I “feel” about people of other races is something that, besides being irrelevant, is only a projection of your imagination.

    Jordan posted “this bit” from the wall street journal. It is even titled “mainstream science on intelligence”. There is nothing to refute. That is mainstream thinking by the people who know best. Check their credentials. No one argues with them except for race denial cranks like yourself.

    And that is old news. The Human Genome Project has come much further in exposing the reality and significance of race.

    Roger, the fact that humans and chimps are so different when their DNA profiles are so similar demonstrates how very minute differences in DNA have profound consequences. That seems to go against your “no differences” dogma.

    Seriously, you people really, really take this race thing too seriously. Your hatred demonstrates how vulnerable the orthodoxy is.

    I can’t think of any subject that would make me so uncivil. It’s kind of funny because none of you lefties ever misses an opportunity to trample on other peoples sacred cows. I can understand it though since so much of modern liberalism depends on the demonization of “oppressors” for the benefit of “victims”. That’s a false paradigm, which is why you can’t give it up for truth.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    It’s kind of funny because none of you lefties ever misses an opportunity to trample on other peoples sacred cows.

    If racism is one of the sacred cows of the right, then I’m putting on my cleats and I’m a-gonna play trampoline all over that particular sacred cow! And since Rick Santorum calls us the “Party of Woodstock”, I’m going to play Jimi Hendrix’ version of the Star Spangled Banner while I’m doing it!

  • Zingzing

    Do you have anything that’s not behind a paywall, Dan?

  • Jordan Richardson

    The Human Genome Project has come much further in exposing the reality and significance of race.

    “Reality” and “significance” are two different things, Dan. I take it that “significance,” especially for a “white advocate” such as yourself, takes on a VERY different meaning than can be drawn by the HGP’s data.

    As to if there is “nothing to refute” from the “mainstream” material, there’s ALWAYS a possibility for refutation. Without sourced data, the compiled list pulled from one of your earlier posts is rather difficult to discuss reasonably.

    you people really, really take this race thing too seriously.

    And this is hysterical coming from you, “white advocate.”

  • Jordan Richardson

    Also, if “race realism” is your sacred cow, I hope to be having one hell of a BBQ.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Did someone say BBQ? Is Dan’s sacred cow a Holstein? You know, one of those bi-racial black-and-white cows?

    I’m there! I’ll bring the micro-brewskis – I like Arrogant Bastard Ale, with the motto “You are not worthy!”, or a good IPA.

    And nobody better show up with Budweiser – I’ll toss you out on your can! You can come with Coors, even though they’re a conservative-supporting brand (it’s a Southern thing – it was a long time before we could get it legally east of the Mississippi (see Smokey and the Bandit)).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t buy into that “lefty, liberal mentality,” Dan, so you had better come up with another account as to why you and I happen to disagree here.

    In addition, I find it ironic you speaking of “tak[ing] race thing too seriously.”

  • troll

    #102 – this recent piece (pdf) published in the (non-peer reviewed at the time of this publication) journal Medical Hypotheses probably summarizes Dan’s claim to scientificality

  • Zingzing

    just read a bit of that and decided to look up the scientific response to the paper’s authors. These theories are for the most part rejected by mainstream science (and both authors have been harping on the same thing for decades and have been using the same flawed reasoning and criteria, according to the criticisms I read.) That’s probably why they published in a non-peer reviewed journal… Because the scientific community does not “firmly support” these claims.

    If Dan has some peer reviewed scientific papers written by people not mostly dismissed as crackpots by the scientific community, that would be helpful. Thing is, the people peddling this shit are always going to be dismissed. I don’t know why Dan thought he could trick anyone into thinking otherwise. Maybe he fooled himself into it.

  • troll

    …probably some colored genes slipped into his family along the way rendering him less than competent when it comes to understanding basic scientific concepts

    – sorry Dan…my trollish nature got the best of me

  • Igor

    I think this is another URL that gives Dans arguments: Mainstream Science on Intelligence

  • zingzing

    the title of that paper may be “mainstream science on intelligence,” but, “With a few exceptions, the list of cosigners” has been criticized as “a Who’s Who of those theorists […][whose] research supports the conclusion that group differences on intelligence tests reflect genetic differences.” (schlinger)

    that paper was also signed by the same two who wrote the first linked paper. it’s also just a statement printed in the wall street journal as a response to the criticisms of “the bell curve” paper.

    so it’s not really “mainstream science on intelligence,” it’s just titled that.

  • zingzing

    that’s not a link i put in there to the wall street journal. and that’s probably not either. for the love of god, get rid of those things, or change the color so we can know which ones are ads and which ones are real links the author of the comment intended…

  • Igor

    ZZ: yes, you’re right. I was just trying to put forward the ‘Dan’ URL.

    I looked carefully at the list of cosigners for a familiar name and only found “Garett Hardin”, well-known author of “Tragedy Of The Commons”, a rightist document and rallying point. I was never comfortable with Hardin’s argument since I’ve experienced many ‘commons’ that were successful.

  • Zingzing

    Well, good of you to find a working link to it. But it looks like Dan (R) (the “R” stands for racist!) has fucked off, as usual. He’ll surface again the next time racism in the news calls him from whatever slime he inhabits. I do love Dan though… Every website needs a racist or two to keep things lively.

  • Dan

    “If Dan has some peer reviewed scientific papers written by people not mostly dismissed as crackpots by the scientific community, that would be helpful”—Zingzing

    The publication “Psychology, Public Policy, and Law” is generally considered a prestigious, peer-riewed, scientific journal. It is the official publication of the American Psychological Association. The two crackpots who were published in the link troll provided (thanks troll) were featured in it 3 years prior in a similar compilation of arguments in a paper entitled Thirty Years Of Research on Race…

    Scientific truth continues to talk, but few are listening.

  • Dan

    Top refutational honors, so far, go to Igor, because he didn’t recognize many names on the list of signatories to the “Mainstream” paper.

  • Dan

    I think whitey got put on the hop again in a new scandal involving Jeremy Lin and an ice cream treat made in his honor. Someone slipped up and put fortune cookie crumbles in it.

    What do you think Sportmentary? should heads roll?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, Dan –

    Right now I’m living in a third-world nation – I normally go days without seeing another white person. And I’m happy here – in fact, most people who have spent time both here and in America will tell you that the people are generally happier here.

    Why are they happier? It isn’t because of the poverty – the poverty’s pretty bad, much worse than anywhere in America – but the fact that they are generally happier means that all our power, all our riches stateside doesn’t make one happy.

    But you’re making this discussion about racial intelligence, aren’t you? Okay, then try this one on for size. The Filipino national hero/icon, their version of Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln and Nathan Hale all wrapped up into one, is Jose Rizal.

    Jose Rizal was an ophthalmologist, sculptor, painter, educator, farmer, historian, playwright and journalist. Besides poetry and creative writing, he dabbled, with varying degrees of expertise, in architecture, cartography, economics, ethnology, anthropology, sociology, dramatics, martial arts, fencing and pistol shooting. He was also a Freemason.

    Yes, you read all that right. He was a true polymath – and he was conversant in twenty-two languages, too. On top of all this he was the Spanish colony’s most powerful voice for independence…

    …and he was executed by the Catholic church – martyred, really – at the age of 35.

    Now think about that, Dan – this guy didn’t have a drop of that oh-so-precious white blood in him…but I defy you to find anyone in American history who compares, particularly given the fact that he accomplished all this by the age of 35.

    Your turn.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    I think the difference with the ice cream flavor is that it was to honor the player and the only location that they had it was the Harvard location. The company did react by withdrawing the flavor amid scandal.

    I’m confused that you wouldn’t find using the word “chink” the way it was use as being offensive.

    All these theoretical arguments about race is beyond the premise of my article. Did ESPN handle the matter correctly? Yes they did!

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m confused that you wouldn’t find using the word “chink” the way it was use as being offensive.

    Then you don’t know Dan, the “white advocate,” very well.

  • zingzing

    “Scientific truth continues to talk, but few are listening.”

    so how exactly is it “firmly supported overwhelmingly in the scientific community” then?

    you say that that was the turning point for you, but there is no firm support, not to mention overwhelming support, for this kind of stuff in the scientific community. at any rate, these kind of theories, and the two authors you’re so fond of, are severely criticized, as is their “g” thing as a measure of intelligence.

    it seems as if your epiphany is based upon some ridiculously wrong shit, dan. there is no “overwhelming” or “firm” support. so why do you think there is?

  • Dan

    “If racism is one of the sacred cows of the right, then I’m putting on my cleats and I’m a-gonna play trampoline all over that particular sacred cow!”—Glenn

    Glenn, your capacity for befuddlement is boundless. I was talking about racism being one of *your* sacred cows. I’m the one trampling.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “All these theoretical arguments about race is beyond the premise of my article.”

    So what? You’ll have better luck lassoing a tornado than you will trying to control what goes on in the comments

  • Dan

    “I don’t buy into that “lefty, liberal mentality,” Dan, so you had better come up with another account as to why you and I happen to disagree here.”—Roger

    Well, more important than agreeing is that you recognize that I have a legitimate viewpoint. There isn’t any chance for agreement if you insist I’m arguing from a irrational, hate based perspective.

    Before the concept of racism evolved in to a complex, situational, ambiguous, and creepily ethno-masochistic exercise, it used to be widely accepted as doing harm to others based on race. I would be in the clear if that were still the case. Unlike, say, Shirley Sherrod, I would never even need to fight the impulse.

    Like Casper the Friendly Ghost, We are both white, and “kind to everyone we meet”.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, Dan #122 –

    Look at what you said in #100:

    It’s kind of funny because none of you lefties ever misses an opportunity to trample on other peoples sacred cows

    Gee, it sure looks like you were referring to other peoples’ sacred cows. A-trampling I will go….

    But why do we liberals take racism so seriously? Oh, I don’t know – maybe it was the Holocaust. Or maybe it was the centuries of slavery, followed by decades of Jim Crow. Or maybe it was the “Trail of Tears”. Or maybe it was the ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Rwanda, and Bosnia, and dozens of other places around the planet.

    If you’ll look at all the greatest crimes against humanity over the centuries, Dan, most of them have at least some racial motivation behind them…and some have purely racial motivation behind them.

    So maybe we liberals are trying to prevent such crimes against humanity, such genocides and institutionalized prejudices by changing the perception of humanity as a whole. Think about it, Dan – when has there ever been a time when interracial marriage been as socially-acceptable as it is now? NEVER.

    So that’s your choice, Dan – you’re presently on the side of those whose kind of “research”, whose kind of claims have been used by those who supported institutionalized prejudice. Is that really the side you want to be on? Is it really?

  • Dan

    Glenn, why would racism be a sacred cow of mine? I’m the one poking holes in racial orthodoxy. I think you need to review the meaning of “sacred cow”.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m the one poking holes in racial orthodoxy.

    Is that what you think? I think you’re blathering on about your cause like an evangelical preschooler trying to convert his heathen neighbours. It’s all kind of creepily adorable, but the facts don’t lead to the conclusions you think they do.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan, the mere publication of papers supporting genetic/IQ correlation in peer-reviewed scientific journals doesn’t qualify your theory as “mainstream science”, not does it automatically mean that they are correct.

    Revisiting one of the favourite discussion topics between you and I in the past – Piltdown Man – would seem apt here. Papers on Piltdown also appeared in a variety of respected scientific publications, including the Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, Nature and the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Yet, as we now know, Piltdown Man was a fraud, fallen for in a cultural climate desperate for early man to have had a British component.

    The conclusions of Hernstein, Murray, Watson, Rushton, Jensen and others continue to be examined and debated and are far from being generally accepted. Other studies of race and intelligence have been conducted and found no correlation, particularly when corrections are made for environmental factors. Several of these studies even date from the 1920s and 1930s, the zenith of white supremacism in the West.

    Two obvious reasons to be wary of “Bell Curve”-type findings are the very measures used: race and IQ. Who, exactly, decides what race study participant Joe Q. Public belongs to? I know people paler than I am (and I’m from England) who self-identify as black, and I have several Japanese-American friends who could quite easily pass as Asian or European. Most of these studies seem to ask the participants themselves to identify their race, which isn’t exactly an objective measure.

    As for IQ, it’s far from being the only method of measuring intelligence, and its validity as an empirical standard continues to be hotly debated.

    All we really know for sure is that African-Americans consistently score lower than white Americans and Asian Americans in IQ tests, and have for a long time. Since IQ has also been found to correlate statistically with things like crime, economic status, health and even which state you happen to live in, I’m not ready to toss out environmentals just yet.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    To add to Doc’s list of environmentals, take a distinct segment of a population, make slaves of them for centuries, then put them under Jim Crow for decades more, and all the while tell them that they’re inferior as an entire race…

    …and with all the detrimental effects this would have on their generational psychology, you really expect that within one or two generations they’d score every bit as high as everyone else?

    Get real, Dan. Knowledge is one thing…but understanding is something of a completely different order – and you don’t have it.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    My experience isn’t scientific but at my school in Canada, made up of upper middle class students in a public school, there were Jewish, Asian, Indian, Black, Polish, Ukrainian, etc, etc. Most of my classmates form these groups went on to college and to be professionals. I think socio-economic factors far outweigh, racial factors in determining success. Take an African American and send him to Harvard, he might just become a the President of the United States of America!

    I really hate some of these discussions of race and success, which has absolutely nothing to with racist comments by morons. When someone uses the N word or now the C word, it is racist and action must be taken agaisnt that speech.

  • Zingzing

    Dan, you’re not “poking holes in racial orthodoxy,” you’re bringing up hundred year old racist thought. Even if you’d like to make it seem that you’d only want to separate people based on race because some people of other races are on average are supposedly less intelligent than the average white person, one would think you’d like to move to Tokyo based on that criterium.

    You predicate your racism on scientific “data,” yet you don’t follow that data to it’s end. You should be watching some anime and going all kawaii on us, but instead, you just spread ugly racism. This kind of “science” is just an excuse you use.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    One more point. The Nazis used a propaganda campaign against Jews, telling the public that my people were the devil and had horns. They presented evidence, pictures of Jews drinking blood (actually wine), with horns (pictures obviously doctored) and the public bought into that nonsense. Anyone, even an evil group of people can provide evidence and kill 6 million innocent people or enslave a nation of black people or segregate them because they think they are inferior. Intelligent and good people, refute that crap and demand more form society. I’m sick of this type of argument by some people in the greatest nation on earth but time and time again, some people like to consider one group intellectually inferior to another. That breeds hatred and there’s no place for that.

  • Igor

    This thread has convinced me of one thing: racism is alive and flourishing in America.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Igor –

    Go Down South for a while and get to know a few of the whites. If you’re able to subsume yourself into the role of provincial rube, they might begin to trust you – especially if you occasionally grumble not-so-nicely about what this or that African-American (say it with a bit of sarcasm) did to you…

    …and pretty soon they’ll open up to you, and you’ll see what I’ve been writing about for so long. Then you’ll need to go home and take a shower while you wonder just what made those people so stupid.

  • Dan

    “Dan, the mere publication of papers supporting genetic/IQ correlation in peer-reviewed scientific journals doesn’t qualify your theory as “mainstream science”—Dreadful

    No, that link was provided for zingzing because he said it would be “helpful”. The paper that I qualified as demonstrating that the theory of “race realism” is firmly supported by mainstream science was the editorial: “Mainstream Science on Intelligence”. Mainly because that paper was designed to do what I’m doing here: demonstrate to anti-racists that the truth looks, objectively, to be pretty much like their worst fear.

    When you mentioned Piltdown, I thought of the irony of how you now take a position that is less consistent with Evolution Theory, in that population groups, separated geographically for 40 to 100 thousand years, might evolve in divergent ways.

    It’s my observation that the intrusion of ideological bias in science corresponds to the level of certainty in the field. In that way, the study of race differences has progressed far beyond the more abstractly theoretical studies like climate change and evolution.

    The racial classification difficulties you bring up have not been a problem for quite a while since modern technology allows for a statistical analysis of genetic markers that produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. That is how the theory that race is simply a social construct was falsified.

    Other studies have repeatedly demonstrated that people self identify very accurately. But genetic markers can give precise percentages even of mixed ancestry.

    Glen, your “detrimental effects”, “generational psychology”, theory loses persuasive punch when you consider that there are plenty quite a few high IQ blacks who predictably, have positive societal outcomes at the same rate and predictability as whites. It is only where they cluster on the distribution curve that is different. Your theory doesn’t predict outcomes as accurately as IQ.

    Sportmentary, way to toss in the hitler card. Feel free to continue coupling emotionalism and vindictiveness. It is revealing.

  • http://www.sportmentary.com Sportmentary

    The Hitler card is fact. You KKK types try to tell people that other races are inferior to whites. That’s complete nonsense!

  • Dan

    “You KKK types try to tell people that other races are inferior to whites.”—Sportmentary

    Sport, since I have only mentioned here the long established scientific reality of racial differences in tests of intellectual ability, I can only infer that your assignment of the word “inferior” is a value judgement you are making about the significance of intelligence to the overall worth of people.

    While you are entitled to your opinion, It is not one that I necessarily agree with. I can think of many intelligent people I don’t consider “superior” at all. And I can think of people I don’t consider intelligent who have other traits I admire and even envy.

    A recent study of young women 18-25 years of age found that about half would prefer large breasts to a high IQ. A third said they would gladly swap. Evidently, intelligence is not a trait they value much.

    So judging by your intelligence supremacist issues, and your zeal to punish people regardless of innocence or guilt, I would have to say that you have more in common with your perception of “KKK types” than I do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There is no escaping making “value judgments,” Dan, especially as regards the kind of “facts” you’re talking about.

    What would be the point of making a reference to any such “facts” if it weren’t for the value judgment we append to them?

  • zingzing

    i think we’re all smart enough to see through dan’s bs here. a very pathetic attempt to turn his crap inside out.

    (and most of us around here have seen the extent of your further racist bs in other comment threads, and i don’t know why you’d bother to pretend otherwise.)

  • Dan

    “This thread has convinced me of one thing: racism is alive and flourishing in America.”—Igor

    A-men brother! That is why I think it is important to get the truth out. Perhaps someday, white people will no longer be scapegoated and persecuted for the naturally disparate societal outcomes of non-whites.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Perhaps someday, white people will no longer be scapegoated and persecuted for the naturally disparate societal outcomes of non-whites.”

    Whom exactly are you defending here, Dan? The Wall Street traders who have come up with the derivatives, the captains of industry (surely a term no longer applicable), doctors, lawyers, successful professionals? I believe you ought to come clean here if I’m to understand your gripe.

    Personally, I may be against capitalism as essentially an exploitative system, but that’s neither here nor there. And to the best of my knowledge, it’s part of American psyche to value and admire true success. African-Americans do so. Damn it, even liberals, and I ain’t one, do so!

  • Dan

    “There is no escaping making “value judgments,”

    No one said there was, just that value subjective.

    “What would be the point of making a reference to any such “facts””

    responding to character assasination and the challenge to be “refuted”.

    “and most of us around here have seen the extent of your further racist bs in other comment threads, and i don’t know why you’d bother to pretend otherwise.)”

    I think it’s mostly your imagination. You don’t understand the extent of your brainwashed conformity. Although I have noticed that sometimes, things you describe as racist are simply true.

    “Whom exactly are you defending here, Dan?”

    Who does the conventional wisdom blame for racial disparities in societal outcomes?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    All value judgments are subjective. The inferences we draw from facts are subjective.

    Character assassinations? Be specific. Who is being targeted?

    Your third repartee is misdirected. It’s from the mouth of zing.

    As to your last point, I’m not concerned with conventional wisdom. Needless to say, the genes are a factor, and so is environment and equal opportunity. I’m too ignorant to assign accurate ratings to each of the factors except to say it’s a mixed bag; and I’m quite happy to leave it that way.

    And you still haven’t said who precisely is being targeted. Whites in general?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Glen, your “detrimental effects”, “generational psychology”, theory loses persuasive punch when you consider that there are plenty quite a few high IQ blacks who predictably, have positive societal outcomes at the same rate and predictability as whites. It is only where they cluster on the distribution curve that is different. Your theory doesn’t predict outcomes as accurately as IQ.

    That’s bovine excrement. Take a group of high-IQ kids from inner-city poverty areas and they will NOT perform as well as high-IQ kids from the ‘burbs. Read here and here.

    But I know I’m wasting my time – you’ve made up your mind that people with darker skin are somehow inferior and no amount of research and common sense can tell you otherwise.