Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 17, 2012

DJF: Controversy In Escobar’s Eye Black

Funny definitely isn’t the word I’d use, but it’s certainly odd that on the day where Brett Lawrie is declared a burgeoning icon in the city’s gay community, we might have a related incident on our hands, of a seriously ugly and unfortunate nature.

Above we have an image of Yunel Escobar taken on Saturday, which has been posted on Flickr by frequent Twitterer @James_in_TO. On the Flickr page he writes:

  For those whose Spanish isn’t fluent, have never seen Scarface or fail at google, Yunel’s eyeblack “TU ERE MARICON” translates to “You’re a faggot”. There are some small Spanish locales where it translates to “pussy” not “faggot” but that’s a very small possibility.

Ugh.

Now, to be entirely clear, I don’t speak Spanish, so I’m entirely taking this at face value and could absolutely be wrong about the interpretation or the context. I’ve already received a tweet from @BanditDeW, who explains, “All the latin players I ever played with used that as a generic curse word. Not a slur directed at a specific class.”

Thanks to Los.

Repoz Posted: September 17, 2012 at 05:33 PM | 253 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: jays

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Rants Mulliniks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4239345)
3 game suspension, his salary during that time is being donated to You Can Play and the GLAAD.


This sounds like a reasonable punishment to me. I'm off to have supper and make some salsa!
   102. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4239359)
You fix the things you can when you can. Not being called a n!gger or a f*ggot in our offices or in the supermarket or on our way home is a small battle, but one that makes the big one possible.

Sure, but is there any evidence that Yunel Escobar was targeting some specific gay person(s) rather than just being dumb (or even being pranked)? There's a big difference between targeting someone and merely displaying or saying a word. I've never been an Escobar fan, but for the most part, this was just the latest opportunity for people to engage in self-righteous preening.

What next? If some fan overhears a player use the word "c***sucker," should the player get a 3-game suspension for that, too?
   103. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4239366)
3 game suspension, his salary during that time is being donated to You Can Play and the GLAAD.


I like this. I never understand why guys don't do stuff like this more often. It's cheap money for Escobar and a great way to put his money where his mouth is. I'm more inclined to believe any apology is sincere when he does something like this.
   104. TDF, situational idiot Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4239377)
You fix the things you can when you can. Not being called a n!gger or a f*ggot in our offices or in the supermarket or on our way home is a small battle, but one that makes the big one possible.

Sure, but is there any evidence that Yunel Escobar was targeting some specific gay person(s) rather than just being dumb (or even being pranked)? There's a big difference between targeting someone and merely displaying or saying a word.
You're missing the point - IT DOESN'T MATTER. When you use a word like that, it doesn't matter if it's targeted at one particular person or not (though the phrase "you're a faggot" becomes nonsense if it isn't targeted at someone). It's ALWAYS offensive, and ALWAYS hurts those it smears no matter the context.

Something I've changed my mind about over the years is blacks calling each other "n!gger". If it's offensive (and if I called a black person that, I'm pretty sure I'd find out pretty quickly how offensive it is), it still causes harm to those in the group because it reinforces the negative connotations associated with it. If buddy X calls buddy Y his "n!gger", that still smears black person Z because it's a vicious, derogatory term.

The "small battle" isn't getting Escobar to not say "you're a faggot"; it's to get people to realize how offensive it is.
   105. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4239378)
This sounds like a reasonable punishment to me. I'm off to have supper and make some salsa!


Yeah, that works for me too. It's been nice semi-arguing with everyone!
   106. Danny Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4239379)
Wow.
As for that “some of my friends are gay” comment, I must give props to a reporter who followed up and asked him who. Escobar actually said “the person who decorates my house is gay … the person who does my hair is gay.” I don’t know if he had any other cliches at the ready, but good for him for his apparently happy life living in a television sitcom.
   107. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4239380)
Sure, but is there any evidence that Yunel Escobar was targeting some specific gay person(s) rather than just being dumb (or even being pranked)? There's a big difference between targeting someone and merely displaying or saying a word.


The dude has to take responsibility for stuff written on his face. If he literally had no idea what was written on his face, that would be one thing, but given the punishment and his acceptance of it, I'd say that's some evidence that he probably knew.
   108. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4239386)

Sorry, but I find 65 terribly offensive.

Is the Catholic Church perfect? Of course not - no human creation or institution run by humans, is.


What are we talking about here, the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos? Oh, well, you see, the Papists speak for the Almighty until they really screw up, at which point they're just another buncha regular Joes like you and me, prone to error, so let's put that behind us so the Church can get back to being The Almighty's representatives here on Earth. Gotcha, nice racket. No refunds.

The "No Jews" crack is specifically galling and juvenile (gee, much like the remark that is the basis of this whole thread). The Church has apologized for their behavior towards Jews, time and time again


So galling! They apologized! More than once! What more do these unsaved Christ-killing Jews want? Why we even said they weren't Christ-killers anymore a few years ago!

Hey man, you know how these Jews are, they just can't accept a gracious apology centuries after the fact. It's been half a century since you broke out the yellow stars again and they're still not satisfied. No wonder they aren't saved.
   109. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4239387)
You're missing the point - IT DOESN'T MATTER. When you use a word like that, it doesn't matter if it's targeted at one particular person or not (though the phrase "you're a faggot" becomes nonsense if it isn't targeted at someone). It's ALWAYS offensive, and ALWAYS hurts those it smears no matter the context.

Oh, please. I heard "n!gger" on HBO the other day. Is anyone demanding HBO suspend operations or punish the offending people?

Assuming Escobar wasn't pranked, he should have been fined and warned not to do it again. A 3-game suspension is ludicrous when compared to suspensions given for other behavior. In what universe is displaying the word "maricon" on a piece of eyeblack in writing so small that a zoom lens was required to see it somehow worse than throwing a punch or doing a lot of other things that have yielded no suspension or a lighter suspension? This suspension is just a P.C. overreaction to something that was essentially a non-story in the first place.

Woo-hoo! The self-righteous, thin-skinned people got their pound of flesh. On to the next "outrage."*

(* Well, maybe not. The goofy Speech Police in Canada are liable to bring Escobar up on charges. That would be great.)
   110. JJ1986 Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4239390)
Oh, please. I heard "n!gger" on HBO the other day.


It was on Sons of Anarchy on FX last week, which caught me by surprise. I didn't think they could say that on regular cable.
   111. Danny Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4239394)
The self-righteous, thin-skinned people

I am so outraged by your outrage!
   112. DA Baracus Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4239398)
I like this. I never understand why guys don't do stuff like this more often. It's cheap money for Escobar and a great way to put his money where his mouth is. I'm more inclined to believe any apology is sincere when he does something like this.


This assumes that he is the person who decided where the money would go, which probably isn't the case.

It was on Sons of Anarchy on FX last week, which caught me by surprise. I didn't think they could say that on regular cable.


FX at 10 is full of vulgarities.
   113. Dale Sams Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4239401)
It was on Sons of Anarchy on FX last week, which caught me by surprise. I didn't think they could say that on regular cable.


I remember a time when we could laugh and revel in our differences.
   114. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4239402)
Looks like there's lots of preening to go around.
   115. johnseal Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4239410)
I'm one of those non-athletic straight guys who got called 'faggot' at every possible opportunity in school, especially during PE. Consequently, I don't associate the word with camaraderie, gentle jibing, or harmless good fun. The guys (always guys) who called me 'faggot' were the same ones who spat on me, threatened me with fists or knives, and generally made my middle and high school life as unpleasant as possible.

On the plus side, the abuse taught me a lot about discrimination at an early age, as did that repulsive 'smear the queer' game they made us play in gym on rainy days.
   116. asdf1234 Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4239417)

You're missing the point - IT DOESN'T MATTER. When you use a word like that, it doesn't matter if it's targeted at one particular person or not (though the phrase "you're a faggot" becomes nonsense if it isn't targeted at someone). It's ALWAYS offensive, and ALWAYS hurts those it smears no matter the context.

Something I've changed my mind about over the years is blacks calling each other "n!gger". If it's offensive (and if I called a black person that, I'm pretty sure I'd find out pretty quickly how offensive it is), it still causes harm to those in the group because it reinforces the negative connotations associated with it. If buddy X calls buddy Y his "n!gger", that still smears black person Z because it's a vicious, derogatory term.

The "small battle" isn't getting Escobar to not say "you're a faggot"; it's to get people to realize how offensive it is.


Well, that's the point. It's no coincidence that members of the military, athletes who participate in symbolic warfare, or tough guys who work in grueling, dangerous fields are constantly insulting one another with every slur under the sun, faggot being mild as far as those go. Whether they're considered a light-hearted joke or a slur, the slurs' result is to desensitize the individual and strengthen the ego. When you're facing life's slings and arrows close up, that's both useful and adaptive. All of which is to say that when we treat something as shocking and outrageous, it will be used for the purposes of shock and outrage.
   117. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 18, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4239419)

Is the Catholic Church perfect? Of course not - no human creation or institution run by humans, is. But that doesn't mean the religion itself isn't based on real and good teachings.

The "No Jews" crack is specifically galling and juvenile (gee, much like the remark that is the basis of this whole thread). The Church has apologized for their behavior towards Jews, time and time again.

I find it deeply ironic that those who are anti-religion are so quick to play the "holier-than-thou" card.


Oh they APOLOGIZE for condoning, even assisting mass murder of Jews, time and time again over hundreds of years! Well in that case, I no longer have standing to attack an institution that contributed to the death of a grandparent and 10 (is it 12) half-uncles and aunts! It's all good now!

I'm not anti-religion, I'm anti the Catholic church.
   118. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4239446)
YOU don't get to decide what's offensive to someone else, and if a word is generally offensive (n!gger, faggot, kike) it's ALWAYS wrong to use it.

In addition to being disrespectful of pluralism, this is empirically wrong. The "n-word" is broadcast and used hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times per day. Hearers of the word are both black and white and presumably include more than a handful of racists and bigots.
   119. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4239449)
In a civilized society, I certainly have the expectation to not be offended.

It's the exact opposite. In a civilized society, you must not overstate your offense or demand special dispensation from others because of it.
   120. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4239463)
The issue really isn't "offense".

Read DiaBC at 98 and 100 - these slurs carry with them an implicit threat, and broadly directed anti-gay slurs carry with them a message of "stay in the closet" as well. The experience of such language is harmful in a way that isn't properly captured by "offense".
   121. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4239467)
Read DiaBC at 98 and 100 - these slurs carry with them an implicit threat,

I'd love to know what implied threat Yunel Escobar's eye black was supposed to be conveying. If not for some guy with a zoom lens who used this to get more Twitter followers, none of us would even be aware of it.
   122. smileyy Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4239469)
[110] Language filters on cable TV are self-imposed, not the result of any regulatory body.
   123. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4239471)
I'd love to know what implied threat Yunel Escobar's eye black was supposed to be conveying. If not for some guy with a zoom lens who used this to get more Twitter followers, none of us would even be aware of it.

Wow, this is dumb, even for you.

As if *no one* was in a close enough proximity to see the "message". Sheesh.
   124. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4239472)
Read DiaBC at 98 and 100 - these slurs carry with them an implicit threat, and broadly directed anti-gay slurs carry with them a message of "stay in the closet" as well. The experience of such language is harmful in a way that isn't properly captured by "offense".

And ... again ... this is belied by the heavy trafficking in the "n-word" that is now at least 15 years old.

A word cannot be a "slur" at all by the mere act of being placed into public commmerce or being otherwise uttered scattershot. And a word cannot cause harm merely by being a part of the language. More is required. (Which isn't to say Escobar's suspension isn't warranted, the immaturity and foolishness of what he did is worth 3 games by itself.)
   125. BDC Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4239473)
In addition to being disrespectful of pluralism, this is empirically wrong. The "n-word" is broadcast and used hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times per day. Hearers of the word are both black and white and presumably include more than a handful of racists and bigots

Of course (this is my constant theme) it's a little more complicated than that. Almost all of the widely broadcast uses of "n#####" are in a general sense artistic. This is true whether it's used in an August Wilson play, a Countee Cullen poem, a Quentin Tarantino film, or a hip-hop song. I think you'd actually find very little use of the word (in public discourse) that isn't somehow representational (a mode of representation that ultimately feeds on itself, because artists represent a culture that does a lot of representation of the word). And I think you find controversy over the word's artistic use whenever it seems to be unrealistic, or demeaning, or affected (as many have criticized Tarantino, for instance). In fact, the word rarely escapes controversy, except in rare cases like Cullen's "Incident," which can be taught to kids because it's so uncompromising and unambiguous.

I don't think I'm just being English-professory here. You do not hear preachers casually referring to their congregations as "n######." You do not hear the President refer to Henry Louis Gates as a "n#####."
   126. Rob_Wood Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4239475)
I cannot believe that some people are still not getting how hurtful and invasive this language can be. I am not typically supportive of zero tolerance policies, but here I think they are appropriate. A year or so ago an NBA player yelled an anti-gay epithet at a fan and was quickly fined by the league.

Let's all agree that this type of speech is inappropriate at best, and should be sanctioned quickly and severely. It's not about how the speech does not bother you but what it signals to everyone who encounters it. There are several posts in the thread that depict its potential damage and demonstrate why it should not be tolerated.
   127. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4239477)
I agree with that, BDC, but broadcasters of the word do not attempt to limit the universe of hearers to people able to make those kind of distinctions. The idea that if we allow certain derogatory words into widespread usage, crosses will burn and racist hells will unleaah has been discredited by the example of the last 15-20 years.
   128. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4239478)
Slurs like the ones talked about here have largely been driven "underground". I rarely hear them anymore. 30 years ago, I heard them regularly. I'd say that's a good thing.

Of course, the anonymity of the internet allows for people to defend such slurs much more readily than they might if in public.
   129. Eddo Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4239479)
In addition to being disrespectful of pluralism, this is empirically wrong. The "n-word" is broadcast and used hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of times per day. Hearers of the word are both black and white and presumably include more than a handful of racists and bigots.

Simply because a word is used doesn't make it no longer offensive.

In many (most?) of the films, songs, and shows that use "n#####", it is being used by one character to insult another, in the context of the plot! Your statement is like saying that since violent crimes are broadcast thousands of times per day, in films, songs, and shows, that they are acceptable in real life.
   130. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4239480)
I cannot believe that some people are still not getting how hurtful and invasive this language can be. I am not typically supportive of zero tolerance policies, but here I think they are appropriate. A year or so ago an NBA player yelled an anti-gay epithet at a fan and was quickly fined by the league.

Escobar didn't aim his remarks at anyone.
   131. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4239482)
Slurs like the ones talked about here have largely been driven "underground". I rarely hear them anymore. 30 years ago, I heard them regularly. I'd say that's a good thing.

Completely and utterly wrong, at least WRT to the "n-word," which has likely been heard by more ears more times in the last year than in the entirety of the Jim Crow era.
   132. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4239484)
Wow, this is dumb, even for you.

As if *no one* was in a close enough proximity to see the "message". Sheesh.

Get serious. The only person off the field who apparently saw the "message" was a guy with a zoom lens. The people on the field either didn't see it or didn't take any offense. Assuming Escobar knew what he was wearing, it was far more likely to have been a sophomoric "I'm with stupid!"-style joke than some nefarious homophobic message targeting a player or umpire. That this even needs to be explained is absurd.

***
You do not hear the President refer to Henry Louis Gates as a "n#####."

No, but you do hear the president refer to his grandfather as a "n!gger." But I'm sure Obama was just being artsy.
   133. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4239485)
130...How do you know?

131....You're wrong. I'm talking about how it's used, and by whom. I don't hear racists using it. I hear black people using it, all the time, which is different, but you, unsurprisingly, don't or won't get that. And that's ok, because you don't matter, when it comes to this subject.
   134. Morph Posted: September 18, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4239487)
Growing up in Queens, my friends and I would call each other all sorts of horrible things, in a very friendly way. Cultures can get really, really weird. Words that mean one thing to one group of people mean something different to another group, while society at large maintains baseline definitions for mass communication. We live in strange times. I will say, I've read certain articles with sentences like, "now we have a reason to despise Escobar as a person," or something to that affect, and this kind of rationalization is unhealthy, too. It's not as bad as the incident itself, but that kind of anger doesn't help, either. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. I think the problem is, we only say things like, "nothing occurs in a vacuum," after the initial rush to judgment (or revenge) has already done it's damage, too. Not to say Escobar has incurred any 'damage,' but we hurt ourselves when indulging in anger that comes easy.
   135. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4239488)
Joe, how do you know that there isn't a gay player on his team, on the other team (no puns intended), or an umpire, or on the groundscrew, or...there were plenty of people who saw it. That this even needs to be explained is, well, par for the course.
   136. BDC Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4239491)
you do hear the president refer to his grandfather

In a context where evil things he heard about his grandfather made him want to hurt and insult his grandfather's memory. What is so hard about accounting for context?

SBB, you do have a good point about the kind of saturation (largely via music) that makes a word less shocking the more it's heard. There too, context is everything. The direct use of "n#####" to demean someone else is still very much operative, and hasn't been anaesthetized by its general use in popular music. And it's still an extreme taboo, "fighting words," in all sorts of situations.
   137. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4239494)
Joe, how do you know that there isn't a gay player on his team, on the other team (no puns intended), or an umpire, or on the groundscrew, or...there were plenty of people who saw it.

You can be sure there were people who saw it, but that doesn't mean he aimed it a particular person. Merely throwing the word out to public eyes and ears is the "n-word" template.

   138. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4239495)
I hear black people using it, all the time, which is different,

Wait, 15 minutes ago, the premise was that words like maricon" and "n!gger" are offensive in every scenario. Make up your mind.

Joe, how do you know that there isn't a gay player on his team, on the other team (no puns intended), or an umpire, or on the groundscrew, or...there were plenty of people who saw it. That this even needs to be explained is, well, par for the course.

Hey, maybe Escobar is a member of the Klan and eats puppies for lunch. It's possible, but I'm going to stick with my theory in #132.
   139. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4239497)
Make up your mind.

I have.
   140. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4239499)
There too, context is everything. The direct use of "n#####" to demean someone else is still very much operative, and hasn't been anaesthetized by its general use in popular music. And it's still an extreme taboo, "fighting words," in all sorts of situations.

Sure. If Esocbar had aimed the slur at someone, he'd have (hopefully) got more than 3 games.
   141. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4239501)
In a context where evil things he heard about his grandfather made him want to hurt and insult his grandfather's memory. What is so hard about accounting for context?

You just got done claiming that:

Almost all of the widely broadcast uses of "n#####" are in a general sense artistic. This is true whether it's used in an August Wilson play, a Countee Cullen poem, a Quentin Tarantino film, or a hip-hop song.

... and further claimed that:

You do not hear the President refer to Henry Louis Gates as a "n#####."

If Obama can deliberately sling the word around, then maybe we should ease up on a guy who's been out of communist Cuba for less than a decade.
   142. DevilInABlueCap Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4239502)
Completely and utterly wrong, at least WRT to the "n-word," which has likely been heard by more ears more times in the last year than in the entirety of the Jim Crow era.


First: you can't prove this even vaguely, so stop that comparison right now.

Second: how a word is used (among the in-group v. as a way to denigrate, threaten or impugn a minority/underprivileged group) matters a hell of a lot. "Negro" and "colored" were used ubiquitously throughout the history of the US except for the last forty years or so. If you called me that today, you might get by with my verbally slapping you and calling you a racist p.o.s. Same if you called me "negroidess" or "negress". The smackdown might be literal in that case. I don't care how often MLK Jr. used it, I'd take incredible offense at being called a "negro" in anything other than a Spanish sentence.

Third: how often do you hear white people use the word n!gger? Leaving aside Louis CK, how many white artists use the word themselves? And how many of those use it outside of an artistic expression? If your answer is "none that I can think of" that explains how the word has massively changed.
   143. Harmon "Thread Killer" Microbrew Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4239505)
As a Jays fan, I wonder if this would have happened if Bautista were still in the dugout (assuming he wasn't).

Jose seemed to be trying hard to serve as Excobar's big brother, if you will, and could often be seen speaking demonstratively with Yunel throughout the last couple of seasons. Maybe if he had been around, he might have headed this off.

Just a thought.
   144. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4239517)
First: you can't prove this even vaguely, so stop that comparison right now.

Modern communications like iPods, video on demand, and the popularity of hip-hop virtually guarantee it. I went to junior and high school with my share of working class whites and crackers and I've heard the n-word more in the last week than in all that time. And that's a slow week; I've probably had workouts where that's the case. I'm thinking from 1982, after I'd left home, to 1991 and Menace II Society/Boyz N The Hood, I probably heard the word less than a dozen times. (*) That's one or two songs.

Second: how a word is used (among the in-group v. as a way to denigrate, threaten or impugn a minority/underprivileged group) matters a hell of a lot. "Negro" and "colored" were used ubiquitously throughout the history of the US except for the last forty years or so. If you called me that today, you might get by with my verbally slapping you and calling you a racist p.o.s. Same if you called me "negroidess" or "negress". The smackdown might be literal in that case. I don't care how often MLK Jr. used it, I'd take incredible offense at being called a "negro" in anything other than a Spanish sentence.

Of course -- because it was aimed at you. People in the thread have been talking of "offense" for remarks not aimed at them or, for that matter, any particular person.

Third: how often do you hear white people use the word n!gger? Leaving aside Louis CK, how many white artists use the word themselves? And how many of those use it outside of an artistic expression? If your answer is "none that I can think of" that explains how the word has massively changed.

Haven't kept track that closely, but I've seen Pulp Fiction at least 15 times and it's been running on Cinemax recently. How many times does Tarantino say it, 20? So in just that case, roughly 300 and 60 in the past month. That's the floor.

(*) That's probably an under-estimate because I'm probably forgetting some random movie where it's used a time or two, but it very well might not be.


   145. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4239525)
Can you read? The question was "outside of artistic expression...", and you tell us about dialogue from a movie.
   146. asdf1234 Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4239529)
Can you read? The question was "outside of artistic expression...", and you tell us about dialogue from a movie.


how often do you hear white people use the word n!gger? Leaving aside Louis CK, how many white artists use the word themselves?


And how many of those use it outside of an artistic expression?
   147. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4239534)
Yes, he ducked the meat of the question.
   148. BDC Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4239538)
I don't care how often MLK Jr. used it, I'd take incredible offense at being called a "negro"

It's interesting – just yesterday I was teaching Langston Hughes's poem "The Negro Speaks of Rivers" and I (your basic middle-aged white guy) had to spend quite a bit of time explaining the word: how it was neutral, often in fact used with pride, in 1922.

It's all about context. There are certainly cases where a black public figure slings "n######" in public to hideously insult another black public figure: Harry Belafonte called Colin Powell a "house n######," for instance. This was an insult, a monstrous one, one that Belafonte thought was the only one sufficient for his disdain for Powell. He was criticized sharply for it from all sides. But one cannot imagine Belafonte's use of the word somehow licensing it in other situations. (And the preface "house" gives the term a distinct contextual meaning, too; it's close [as Obama recognized] to "Uncle Tom," which has its own raft of associations.)

But I'll stop trying to explain this stuff to our nuanceless colleague Joe Kehoskie :)
   149. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4239539)
Can you read? The question was "outside of artistic expression...", and you tell us about dialogue from a movie.


That wsa the third of three questions. Can't you read?

How the hell do I know how often Tarentino or any other white person uses the word, other than through observation, which I discussed.

Try reading better.
   150. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4239542)
Yes, he ducked the meat of the question.

Sure he did.
   151. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4239545)
I read fine, Sugar. You didn't answer the question. It was one question, in 3 parts. You chose to ignore part 3, which was the important point being made, I'm quite sure. As are you, I'm quite sure.
   152. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4239551)
But I'll stop trying to explain this stuff to our nuanceless colleague Joe Kehoskie :)

Your current explanation is nonsensical. The idea that "context" explains or excuses Obama's use of the word "n!gger" to describe his African grandfather is silly.
   153. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4239561)
I fail to see why the people "defending" Escobar are self-identified conservatives. I'm conservative, and I see no reason why conservative philosophy would countenance painting ethnic slurs on your ####### cheeks. This guy is lucky he didn't get the #### kicked out of him, which is probably the appropriate punishment. I guess the usual habit of contemporary Republicans - baiting bigotry - is hard to break.
   154. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4239573)
I fail to see why the people "defending" Escobar are self-identified conservatives. I'm conservative, and I see no reason why conservative philosophy would countenance painting ethnic slurs on your ####### cheeks. This guy is lucky he didn't get the #### kicked out of him, which is probably the appropriate punishment. I guess the usual habit of contemporary Republicans - baiting bigotry - is hard to break.

First of all, no one is "defending" Escobar; just pushing back against the P.C. insanity that had people calling for Escobar to be suspended for the rest of the season before anyone even knew if Escobar knew what was on the eye black.

Second, "maricon" isn't an "ethnic slur."

Third, just who exactly was going to "kick the ####" out of Escobar for wearing a 2-centimeter message on his eye black? If anyone on the field saw it at all, they were most likely to believe either Escobar was being pranked or that Escobar was pranking the people close enough to read it. The idea that this was some sort of "implied threat" to the homosexuals of the world is utter insanity.

Dumb athlete did something dumb. News at 11.
   155. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4239575)
they were most likely to believe

When did you become the Wizard of Oz?

edit...nice edit, Joe, but the question remains.
   156. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4239584)
When did you become the Wizard of Oz?

Did anyone on the Blue Jays tell Escobar to remove the eye black? Did he get into a confrontation with any teammate(s), opponent(s), or umpire(s)? The answers apparently are No, no, no, and no.

edit...nice edit, Joe, but the question remains.

Huh? I didn't change anything; I simply added the last two sentences.
   157. flournoy Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4239588)
Modern communications like iPods, video on demand, and the popularity of hip-hop virtually guarantee it. I went to junior and high school with my share of working class whites and crackers and I've heard the n-word more in the last week than in all that time. And that's a slow week


Is this serious? If I've heard the word spoken aloud in the last five years, I can't remember it. It's certainly true that I don't listen to the type of music in which you'd find it, nor do I associate with people who would use the word pejoratively, but you make it seem as though exposure to it is ubiquitous and unavoidable. That's simply not the case.
   158. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4239593)
Did anyone on the Blue Jays tell Escobar to remove the eye black? Did he get into a confrontation with any teammate(s)

FTA: "And perhaps, as James suggests in his Flickr post, this explains why Escobar suddenly came down with a “flu” yesterday and was absent from Sunday’s game– or even Mike Wilner’s suggestion on Sunday’s post-game JaysTalk that he’s starting to believe some of the rumblings about the club souring on Escobar."
   159. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4239603)
FTA: "And perhaps, as James suggests in his Flickr post, this explains why Escobar suddenly came down with a “flu” yesterday and was absent from Sunday’s game– or even Mike Wilner’s suggestion on Sunday’s post-game JaysTalk that he’s starting to believe some of the rumblings about the club souring on Escobar."

What is that supposed to prove? He apparently wore the offending eye black for an entire game, without incident. (And the "rumblings about the club souring on Escobar" have been around for 6 months.)
   160. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 18, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4239615)
Second, "maricon" isn't an "ethnic slur."

Third, just who exactly was going to "kick the ####" out of Escobar for wearing a 2-centimeter message on his eye black? If anyone on the field saw it at all, they were most likely to believe either Escobar was being pranked or that Escobar was pranking the people close enough to read it.


YOU GOT ME. YOU WON THE ARGUMENT. MARICON ISN'T AN ETHNIC SLUR, ITS A SLUR AGAINST THE GAYS. WINNAR IS YOU!

More seriously, how can you defend this? This isn't the PC police. I don't care how small you write a slur on your face, its still a slur on your ####### face. Someone writes \"#### you Kikes" in 8 point font on their earlobe, its a slur and the offender deserves every bit of whatever punishment he receives. Gentlemen do not rationalize the acceptability of slurring others. You are a disgrace.
   161. PreservedFish Posted: September 18, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4239618)
Someone writes \"#### you Kikes" in 8 point font on their earlobe, its a slur and the offender deserves every bit of whatever punishment he receives. Gentlemen do not rationalize the acceptability of slurring others. You are a disgrace.


"Whatever punishment" ?
   162. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 18, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4239619)
More seriously, how can you defend this? This isn't the PC police. I don't care how small you write a slur on your face, its still a slur on your ####### face. Someone writes \"#### you Kikes" in 8 point font on their earlobe, its a slur and the offender deserves every bit of whatever punishment he receives. Gentlemen do not rationalize the acceptability of slurring others. You are a disgrace.

In your hysterics, you seem to have missed the very first sentence of the comment to which you're replying:

First of all, no one is "defending" Escobar; just pushing back against the P.C. insanity that had people calling for Escobar to be suspended for the rest of the season before anyone even knew if Escobar knew what was on the eye black.

From there, even if Escobar knew what was on the eye black, it's a big leap to infer malice rather than stupidity or a misplaced sense of jocularity. The idea that a 2-centimeter message on eye black — a message nobody in the stadium apparently saw except for one guy with a zoom lens — should be punished more harshly than throwing a punch or throwing a ball at someone is the height of P.C. silliness.
   163. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 18, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4239632)
I fail to see why the people "defending" Escobar are self-identified conservatives. I'm conservative, and I see no reason why conservative philosophy would countenance painting ethnic slurs on your ####### cheeks. This guy is lucky he didn't get the #### kicked out of him, which is probably the appropriate punishment. I guess the usual habit of contemporary Republicans - baiting bigotry - is hard to break.


Silly RINO, everyone knows that the Holy BIble, the book on which conservatism is based upon, is concerned largely with the icky wickedness of queers and abortion.
   164. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: September 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4239715)
"Gays may be gay but that doesn't mean they are a bunch of sissies that get their panties in a bunch over the silliest thing."

Of course the concern it's never just them. They are often too small to have much influence. It is their allies (or perhaps even exploiters) that MLB must worry about. These allies are political opportunists who will very much get their panties in a bunch.
   165. McCoy Posted: September 18, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4239726)
I don't know what you do for a living either, but in retail we call those loudmouth outsiders "customers" and care very deeply what they think.

To a certain point. We actually don't care what their opinion is we care what they buy with their money. If it is the customer's opinion that your store is dirty and they don't want to come in to buy anything and they don't buy anything then you need to listen to their opinion if enough people feel that way that you aren't meeting your desired goals. If it is the customers' opinion that they would like a string quartet playing in the corner of your shop when they come in but they come in a weekly basis anyway then you just say you'll think about it and ignore their suggestion.

Customers have a zillion opinions and suggestions and about 99% of them would cost you money with no net benefit gained. People are selfish creatures and they don't really care what effect their wants have on others they simply want what they want.
   166. PerroX Posted: September 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4239729)

Oh, look around you, all around you,
riding on a copper wave.
Do you like the world around you?
Are you ready to behave?
Outside of society, they're waitin' for me.
Outside of society, that's where I want to be.

   167. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4239741)

Completely and utterly wrong, at least WRT to the "n-word," which has likely been heard by more ears more times in the last year than in the entirety of the Jim Crow era.

Jesus ####### Christ, do you have no understanding of context whatsoever? Context matters. I'm quick to criticize music lyrics that are misogynist or homophobic, but not the n-word.

Someone's going back on "Ignore".
   168. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 19, 2012 at 07:39 AM (#4239851)
1. Context matters. It doesn't take a genius to tell when a word is being used in an historic sense vs. when it's being used condescendingly or insultingly. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to distinguish between the use of an insulting word by a member of the in-group and its use by a non-member. Not that the former use is always kosher, but whether it is or not in that case is just another part of the context, subject only to in-group discussion. Whereas a non-member using an insulting word in the latter scenario better have a good excuse for doing so.

2. Escobar's offense clearly falls into the latter category.

3. Escobar should have been told immediately by the Blue Jays to remove the offending message, and been told in no uncertain terms that if he ever did anything like that again, he'd been looking at a 14-day suspension without pay. He should also have been told immediately to issue a public apology.

4. This warning would have covered the remote possibility that Escobar simply didn't understand the full import of what he did. The threat of a 14 day suspension rather than a 3 day suspension would have made sure he got the message.

You can see this as PC or simply as a wish to protect your brand. We can argue about the former, but there's no alternative concerning the latter. To paraphrase Chief Justice Jackson, from the Blue Jays' POV, the first amendment is not required to be a suicide pact.

   169. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4239858)
MCoA is 100% correct. YOU don't get to decide what's offensive to someone else,
Right, but (speaking generally) I do get to decide whether a person's taking offense was reasonable or not. And I do get to decide that if someone is unreasonably to be offended (or claiming to be), that my reaction to them is to tell them to STFU. (Not to force them to STFU -- just to tell them.)



And you don't get stressed by the possibility of being fired for any misstep?

Not at all. It's pretty easy.
Right: like, when you're talking about a budge, don't say "niggardly" around morons. Easy. Or discuss peanut butter and jelly sandwiches around Hispanics. Easy.
   170. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:16 AM (#4239864)
Other Latin American players seemed as surprised as Escobar that the word was taken as a savage insult:

“It’s a regular word for us that we use all the time,” Omar Vizquel said....“We say that word very often, and to us, it doesn’t really mean that we are decreasing anybody or talking down to people or anything like that. It’s just a word we use on an everyday basis. I don’t know why people are taking this so hard and so out of place or out of proportion.”

“I’m really sad about the situation,” said Encarnacion through translator Luis Rivera, one of the team’s coaches. “[Escobar is] a great guy. I knew that he didn’t use that word to offend anybody. He used the word like we always use it.”

“In my house we call that word every 20 seconds,” Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen said Tuesday, as reported by the Associated Press. “I’ve got three kids. For us it’s like, ‘What’s up bro? What’s up dude?’ It’s how you say it and to who you say it.

“But that’s our country. We have to respect this country. Sometimes for us it’s funny, for other people it’s not.”


Also Casey Janssen was supportive:
Added Casey Janssen: “We’re going to help Yunel get through this … But I think it’s important to know how much impact those words have on society and how it’s a very serious matter and not one to joke about.

Janssen agreed that in the past, the word “faggot” has often been heard in clubhouses, and not only among Latin players.

“Unfortunately, at times the word can be used loosely,” he said. “But I think with situations that have happened over the years it’s just become a bigger deal. Those words aren’t taken lightly any more.”


Given all this, I'm thinking this is more of a cultural difference than an intended malice. Maybe the culture is wrong, but I don't see any evidence that Escobar is somehow a worse person than anyone else. I think anyone condemning him or saying he did anything other than make a faux pas is not being reasonable. If the Jays don't want Yunel, I hope the A's take him off their hands.
   171. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:18 AM (#4239867)
1. Context matters. It doesn't take a genius to tell when a word is being used in an historic sense vs. when it's being used condescendingly or insultingly. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to distinguish between the use of an insulting word by a member of the in-group and its use by a non-member. Not that the former use is always kosher, but whether it is or not in that case is just another part of the context, subject only to in-group discussion. Whereas a non-member using an insulting word in the latter scenario better have a good excuse for doing so.
This would be more compelling if it didn't come from someone who used the word "Shylock" as a slur and then resolutely defended it with the tenacity of a commenter refusing to admit that a Supreme Court case saying that it was copyright infringement to build a library of movies actually meant that it was copyright infringement to build a library of movies.
   172. flournoy Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:23 AM (#4239869)
Or discuss peanut butter and jelly sandwiches around Hispanics.


???
   173. Rants Mulliniks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:35 AM (#4239879)
The goofy Speech Police in Canada are liable to bring Escobar up on charges.


This isn't likely unless someone in particular launches an HR complaint - if that happens, its anyone's guess as to what the result might be.

A human rights tribunal ordered a Montreal man to pay $12,000 in damages to his homosexual neighbours for calling them "faggots", even after he had been acquitted of all charges related to the incident by a provincial court.

$12,000 in damages

I find this exceptionally troubling because a) the man had been acquitted in court, b) the HRT sessions are held behind closed doors without legal standards for evidence and testimony, and c) the punishment was not a fine, but a direct payment to the supposed victims.
   174. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:35 AM (#4239880)
   175. Dale Sams Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:54 AM (#4239888)
Yes, it's as bizarrely PC as it sounds.


"Opportunities...protocols of courageous conversations...data teams"

I just flick people, who talk like this, in the head as hard as I can.

This would be more compelling if it didn't come from someone who used the word "Shylock" as a slur and then resolutely defended it with the tenacity of a commenter refusing to admit that a Supreme Court case saying that it was copyright infringement to build a library of movies actually meant that it was copyright infringement to build a library of movies.


"No punctuation was harmed in the construction of this sentence."
   176. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:58 AM (#4239892)
Yes, that is bizarre. I guess what Escobar did was ok, now that I clicked on that link.
   177. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: September 19, 2012 at 08:59 AM (#4239893)
“In my house we call that word every 20 seconds,” Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen said Tuesday, as reported by the Associated Press.


Color me surprised!
   178. McCoy Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4239895)
You gotta love how Ozzie inserts himself into a controversy about something that has nothing to do with him.
   179. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4239899)
“It’s a regular word for us that we use all the time,” Omar Vizquel said....“We say that word very often, and to us, it doesn’t really mean that we are decreasing anybody or talking down to people or anything like that. It’s just a word we use on an everyday basis.


Well esse, either get your vocabulary up to civilized standards or get your third world ass back to Mexico. Comprende?
   180. Dale Sams Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:17 AM (#4239902)
You gotta love how Ozzie inserts himself into a controversy about something that has nothing to do with him.


Take this all the way, and it's racist and disrespectful of Escobar's culture to take him to task for this.
   181. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:20 AM (#4239904)
You can see this as PC or simply as a wish to protect your brand.

It's both. The Blue Jay and MLB approach is so very ... corporate. Office buildings want certain music played in the elevator, Starbucks wants certain music played in Starbucks, the Blue Jays want certain visuals in their broadcasts. Big ads for thievish welfare-queen banks and rapacious oil companies, si, si!; a goofy 2cm off-color motivational message under an employee's eyes -- oh, the horror! Dissent and individualism can only be in the corporate-approved form in a format co-optable by the corporation.(*)

These entities aren't standing up for anything other than their own pocketbooks. They're certainly entitled to do that, but it should be seen for what it is.

And, yes, "context" matters, but the important contextual distinction is "used as a slur against a particular person or persons," as against "aimed at no one in particular but broadcast or otherwise disseminated for public viewing." If we don't worry about the n-word being publicly disseminated, even as an insult, there's no reason to worry about "maricon" being publicly disseminated. If Escobar had aimed the word at a particular person or persons -- say he called an umpire that -- an entirely different situation would be presented.

(*) Look, Nick Swisher just rubbed a pie in Mark Teixiera's face in front of the cameras!!! The Yankees are so fun now!!!!
   182. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4239911)
But I think it’s important to know how much impact those words have on society

They have no impact on society and arguably a positive impact. The widespread dissemination of the n-word in the last 20 years has coincided with a greatly improved racial climate and a continually growing respect for civil rights, as seen in the dramatic increase in support for gay marriage.
   183. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:35 AM (#4239915)
from someone who used the word "Shylock" as a slur

Help me out here; how did Andy use "shylock" as a slur?

I've only ever heard it as slang for loan shark. As in, "Joey three-fingers is the neighborhood shylock. If you don't pay your weekly vig, he'll break your arm."

I'm struggling to think of another context that I've heard it used, where it could be considered a slur.
   184. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4239918)
Take this all the way, and it's racist and disrespectful of Escobar's culture to take him to task for this.

Yes. Yunel Escobar was culturally, if not racially, discriminated against. No question about it.

His ultimate offense was using street lingo of his culture in a way that "offended" segments of the Blue Jays' whitebread fan base and otherwise interfered with the corporate, Benettonish vibe the Blue Jays and MLB market.
   185. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4239920)
So are Neo Nazis.
   186. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:47 AM (#4239933)
Help me out here; how did Andy use "shylock" as a slur?
Andy used it as a synonym for greedy.

It was actually in the Hurricane Irene thread last year, and I believe it was originally in reference to merchants who "price gouged" during the storm, comparing them to OPEC in the 1970s, this mangling literature, history, and economics all in one brief argument. He then insisted that because he was applying the term to Arabs rather than Jews, it lost its anti-Semitic connotations.

(For the record, to forestall the strawman diversion: I NEVER accused Andy of being anti- Semitic; I accused him of thoughtlessly using a word. (Jack Keefe did accuse him of being Andysemitic, though.))
   187. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 09:49 AM (#4239937)
Andy used it as a synonym for greedy.

OK, that's a new one for me.
   188. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4239954)
The best comp for this is probably the NBA airbrushing Iverson's tattoos -- too street, too "black" -- when it featured him on the cover of various media guides and house magazines ca. 2001.
   189. Lassus Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:06 AM (#4239956)
I think SBB might actually be official Grand Official Emperor of Scare Quotes


The best comp for this is probably the NBA airbrushing Iverson's tattoos -- too street, too "black" -- when it featured him on the cover of various media guides and house magazines ca. 2001.

As the best comp, who specifically did the tattoos belittle?
   190. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4239960)
As the best comp, who did the tattoos belittle?

Nobody. That's why it's the best comp.

That episode and this one are merely different chapters in "The Collected Adventures of Whitebread."
   191. Lassus Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4239967)
different chapters in "The Collected Adventures of Whitebread."

This is basically how I think of your posts.
   192. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4239969)
Help me out here; how did Andy use "shylock" as a slur?


Andy used it as a synonym for greedy.

It was actually in the Hurricane Irene thread last year, and I believe it was originally in reference to merchants who "price gouged" during the storm, comparing them to OPEC in the 1970s, this mangling literature, history, and economics all in one brief argument. He then insisted that because he was applying the term to Arabs rather than Jews, it lost its anti-Semitic connotations.

(For the record, to forestall the strawman diversion: I NEVER accused Andy of being anti- Semitic; I accused him of thoughtlessly using a word.


The exact context of that comment of mine may be lost to history, and I certainly don't remember it in any great detail after all these months, but you'll note that in deference to a group member's sensibilities (i.e., yours), this "non-member" hasn't used that word subsequently.
   193. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4239970)
This is basically how I think of your posts.

Try reading them.
   194. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4239975)
Sorry, wrong thread.

   195. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4239998)
You can see this as PC or simply as a wish to protect your brand. We can argue about the former, but there's no alternative concerning the latter. To paraphrase Chief Justice Jackson, from the Blue Jays' POV, the first amendment is not required to be a suicide pact.

Then why did you insist that Woolworth's no longer present a white-only face to the public in the 1960s? (*) You didn't defer to its sovereignty over its "brand" then; nor did you worry about the impact of brand change on its business.

(*) Woolworth's and other businesses, of course, argued that integration would be bad for their brands and bad for business in those days.

   196. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4240019)
The exact context of that comment of mine may be lost to history, and I certainly don't remember it in any great detail after all these months, but you'll note that in deference to a group member's sensibilities (i.e., yours), this "non-member" hasn't used that word subsequently.
They're not lost to Google. But in any case, I haven't seen you use it since. (In fact, I hadn't seen you use it before then, either.)
   197. base ball chick Posted: September 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4240058)
what is interesting is that a lot of racial slurs that are against a certain ethnic group, even when they aren't used by non-members any more, are still remembered by members of that ethnic group.

i hadn't never even HEARD the word "shylock" before coming here and learned a lot when i looked it up. i hadn't never heard of plenty of other racial words neither. one of my husband's (latin ancestry born here) said something about "calling a spade a spade" and had no clue that the word "spade" was a racist word. WE sure remember. old memories die hard.

one of my gf took her toddler in for shots and kid was trying to climb on something and the (young White) doctor said something about how little kids climb like monkeys and my gf got mad a told him that was insulting calling her kid a monkey and he looked puzzled then said - oh you're a fundamentalist. i didn't know. sorry...
   198. zenbitz Posted: September 19, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4240064)
one of my gf took her toddler in for shots and kid was trying to climb on something and the (young White) doctor said something about how little kids climb like monkeys and my gf got mad a told him that was insulting calling her kid a monkey and he looked puzzled then said - oh you're a fundamentalist. i didn't know. sorry..


You have to be so smart to get in to medical school!!!
   199. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4240083)
You can see this as PC or simply as a wish to protect your brand. We can argue about the former, but there's no alternative concerning the latter. To paraphrase Chief Justice Jackson, from the Blue Jays' POV, the first amendment is not required to be a suicide pact.

Then why did you insist that Woolworth's no longer present a white-only face to the public in the 1960s? (*) You didn't defer to its sovereignty over its "brand" then; nor did you worry about the impact of brand change on its business.

(*) Woolworth's and other businesses, of course, argued that integration would be bad for their brands and bad for business in those days.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. For the Blue Jays to defend Escobar's actions in this case would have been branding suicide. Likewise with Woolworth's in the early 1960's, since Woolworth's was a national chain trying to preserve its national reputation, and its local branches' branding concerns were considered of secondary importance by Woolworth's itself. What else do you think I'm saying?
   200. BDC Posted: September 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4240088)
If we don't worry about the n-word being publicly disseminated, even as an insult, there's no reason to worry about "maricon" being publicly disseminated

I'm trying to think of an analogy for this position … it's like saying, "Philip Larkin wrote lines like 'They fuck you up, your Mum and Dad,' and he was once offered the position of Poet Laureate. Therefore, the appropriate way for me to address the Queen when I am introduced at Buckingham Palace is, 'So, Your Majesty, how the fuck are you?'"

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTony Oliva turns 76; Gardenhire: 'He should be in hall of fame'
(48 - 8:01am, Jul 23)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogChase Headley traded to New York Yankees from San Diego Padres - ESPN New York
(93 - 7:45am, Jul 23)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(826 - 7:40am, Jul 23)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(44 - 7:39am, Jul 23)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-23-2014
(2 - 7:35am, Jul 23)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(29 - 7:23am, Jul 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2721 - 7:04am, Jul 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogRangers' Yu Darvish Pushes for a Six-Man Pitching Rotation - NYTimes.com
(17 - 6:02am, Jul 23)
Last: Curse of the Andino

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(321 - 4:25am, Jul 23)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(46 - 3:02am, Jul 23)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogCowboy Monkey Rodeo taking the Minors by storm
(9 - 2:27am, Jul 23)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-22-14
(53 - 2:05am, Jul 23)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogTrading for Price would be right move for Cubs | FOX Sports
(73 - 1:52am, Jul 23)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogMLB: Astros telecasts catching on to advanced metrics
(12 - 12:24am, Jul 23)
Last: jwb

NewsblogFSAZ: D-backs cut off McCarthy’s cutter controversy
(26 - 11:08pm, Jul 22)
Last: billyshears

Page rendered in 0.6740 seconds
52 querie(s) executed