NFL to present new resolutions to Rooney Rule, which includes draft-related incentives (1 Viewer)

My argument boiled the situation down to its core. Compared apples to apples, as it were.

You're trying to argue reparations and "white privilege".

Wrong is wrong.

Discrimination is wrong. Whether to the detriment of people of color, or ANYONE ELSE. It's wrong.

Let's at least agree to argue about the same thing.
Oye addressed this in his reply to Hercules
there is a substantive difference between simplifying and over-simplifying
you removed the context from your equation and context is foundational to this discussion
 
And therein is the difference in our positions.

I assert that in no circumstances is discrimination acceptable, and you believe that given the proper situation, it is.

At that point the circumstances become entirely subjective, and therefore suspect.

Wrong is wrong, and your arguing otherwise is subjective upon condition.
and speaking of over-simplification...
it's very difficult to say what's 'wrong' bc there is no 'right' in this regard
there is zero chance that a majority could come up with a consensus about what 'best' or 'most qualified' would be
every metric used to select a coach/gm is discriminatory in some aspect
 
See, I like this a lot. Because one of the problems, as others have mentioned, is that the feeder pools for head coaches lack qualified minority candidates. This could encourage teams to hire and develop more PoC coaches at the lower levels, which in theory would trickle up to the head coach ranks eventually.

It's similar to the situation with black quarterbacks. Over the last 10-12 years you've seen a couple of black quarterbacks who have succeeded with the right coaching around them in the NFL. More importantly, those players inspired young black athletes to aspire to play QB, and the smart coaches realized that there are talented guys who are capable of playing the QB position. So in the last decade you've seen many more black starting QBs at the high school and college level. Of course that eventually made its way to the NFL, which is a copycat league. And now in 2020, the "elite tier" of NFL QBs includes four black guys and Drew Brees.

So anything the NFL can do to build up the downstream talent pool of minority position coaches, the more likely it is that we'll see PoC in head coach roles in the near future.
This is still a challenge. I think the coordinators along with the subsequent hires in the last SB are perfect examples. Eric Bienemy ( I know I spelled his name wrong) is the current coordinator of the hottest offense in the league over the past two years and a former player (from Louisiana) but a WR coach with the Pats got a job over him. No owner can be made to hire someone they don't want to but I think they need to be incentivized to give guys more than token interview. A good GM/Owner should not get locked into the OC or DC trends but focus on finding a good coach. Also, I don't think most former star players want to be coaches, especially a former QB. I think they want to be part of the ownership or decision making part (Elway, Manning possibly) because the see the big picture.
 
And therein is the difference in our positions.

I assert that in no circumstances is discrimination acceptable, and you believe that given the proper situation, it is.

At that point the circumstances become entirely subjective, and therefore suspect.

Wrong is wrong, and your arguing otherwise is subjective upon condition.

So a special education student doesn't deserve accommodations?

I taught a girl who was 90% blind and the district paid for a full time aide for her and a machine that enabled her to read notes and text, which had to be pushed around on a cart. Did she not deserve that?

I had a couple of students who were wheelchair-bound and another who needed a walker. Two of the three were poor and their wheelchair and walker were paid for by the state and fed. Without it, they couldn't come to school - should they have not received these?

I've had a *ton* of students who were on free or reduced lunch - should they all of just been denied food because they didn't have money for it?

I had a cousin born to a heroin-addicted mother. They had no money and the state paid for this baby to have the drug administered so that she didn't die of withdrawal. Should she have been allowed to?

I've had kids who were diagnosed with anxiety and depression and bi-polar disorders - incl to the point of being suicida - again, poor, and were given support and medication without having to pay.

The list goes on and on.

Is it still your contention that "in no circumstances is discrimination acceptable, and you believe that given the proper situation, it is."

These are all examples of some kids getting some things that other kids didn't. It's discrimination. If you think all of these are unacceptable, then I suppose isn't anywhere to go after this.

But each of these are valid, however 'subjective' they are. And I don't think that "subjective" mutually inclusive with being "suspect"
 
please explain
1st i want to see if you understand the difference between racial and racist
2nd i want to see if you can back up the 2nd part of your contention (the 'purports' part)

If you're telling me that a resolution which prefers one skin color over another isn't racist by the simplest definition, then I would argue that you're the one who doesn't understand what he's talking about
 
So a special education student doesn't deserve accommodations?

I taught a girl who was 90% blind and the district paid for a full time aide for her and a machine that enabled her to read notes and text, which had to be pushed around on a cart. Did she not deserve that?

I had a couple of students who were wheelchair-bound and another who needed a walker. Two of the three were poor and their wheelchair and walker were paid for by the state and fed. Without it, they couldn't come to school - should they have not received these?

I've had a *ton* of students who were on free or reduced lunch - should they all of just been denied food because they didn't have money for it?

I had a cousin born to a heroin-addicted mother. They had no money and the state paid for this baby to have the drug administered so that she didn't die of withdrawal. Should she have been allowed to?

I've had kids who were diagnosed with anxiety and depression and bi-polar disorders - incl to the point of being suicida - again, poor, and were given support and medication without having to pay.

The list goes on and on.

Is it still your contention that "in no circumstances is discrimination acceptable, and you believe that given the proper situation, it is."

These are all examples of some kids getting some things that other kids didn't. It's discrimination. If you think all of these are unacceptable, then I suppose isn't anywhere to go after this.

But each of these are valid, however 'subjective' they are. And I don't think that "subjective" mutually inclusive with being "suspect"
You're equating race with disability and with economic hardship. I make no such assumption. Any decision that is BASED ON RACE is therefore racist, and in my mind wrong.

If a person is disabled, accomodations should be made, of course. If a child (or adult for that matter) is hungry and without means to feed themselves, of course they should get assistance in that regard. In neither case was race mentioned. The INDIVIDUAL is in need, not their skin color.

Your argument seems to equate race with both disability and poverty, unless I misunderstand...
 
If you're telling me that a resolution which prefers one skin color over another isn't racist by the simplest definition, then I would argue that you're the one who doesn't understand what he's talking about
Please feel free to argue your point (definitions, examples, historical context, et al)
saying something is not the same as arguing a point
 
If a person is disabled, accomodations should be made, of course. If a child (or adult for that matter) is hungry and without means to feed themselves, of course they should get assistance in that regard. In neither case was race mentioned. The INDIVIDUAL is in need, not their skin color.

Your argument seems to equate race with both disability and poverty, unless I misunderstand...

you do misunderstand

I am saying we make *all sorts* of discriminatory decisions, in all walks of life, for all sorts of things.

I quoted what you said, which was:

in no circumstances is discrimination acceptable, and you believe that given the proper situation, it is.

I am arguing that "given the proper situation(s), discrimination is acceptable.

You said it was not, "in no circumstances... acceptable"

But now you are saying it is.

In some cases, being black is a greater disadvantage than a physical disability. Redlining and housing discrimination, for example, was really only applied to black families, not physically disabled whites.

It depends on what we are talking about. It, in itself, is not a disability (though someone earlier who argued that black people have lower IQs because DNA) but it can be a bigger impediment, in some areas, than a disability.

I am equating nothing.

I'm arguing the same as I always have - there's a lot of subjectivity/gray. You said "subjectivity" is "suspect." But subjectivity is now okay for things like disability and financial need/poverty and special needs/education? So why not other areas of life where discrimination has been negative. Like gender or ethnicity, for example?

I'm glad to see that your position isn't as inflexible as you initially said.

You acknowledge there *is* subjectivity and discrimination. And *in some cases* it's okay.
 
This thread really belongs on a political forum. However, I agree that progressive tax rates and preferential treatment for those with physical and mental disabilities are far different from preferential treatment or discrimination based on race. We have laws prohibiting the latter. As a matter of law, we can do one and not the other.

As an aside, I do think that socioeconomic background or class can be a factor in school admissions, which would help inordinately African-American and Latin students. However, such a policy would be focused on individuals rather than race-based outcomes. For example, I do not think that a minority student whose parents are professionals and who attended the best schools--think President Obama's daughters--should receive preferential treatment with admissions in the best colleges so that some degree of racial diversity at the school can be achieved. However, it seems to me that the youngster from an impoverished background and a modest school who was able to score 1200 on a SAT and who hungers for an education is a better admissions candidate than the student from the best schools with a materially higher SAT score.

But I am now getting off the topic.
 
You're equating race with disability and with economic hardship. I make no such assumption. Any decision that is BASED ON RACE is therefore racist, and in my mind wrong.

If a person is disabled, accomodations should be made, of course. If a child (or adult for that matter) is hungry and without means to feed themselves, of course they should get assistance in that regard. In neither case was race mentioned. The INDIVIDUAL is in need, not their skin color.

Your argument seems to equate race with both disability and poverty, unless I misunderstand...

How can you not see that you are baiting your own trap?
 
If you're telling me that a resolution which prefers one skin color over another isn't racist by the simplest definition, then I would argue that you're the one who doesn't understand what he's talking about

racial, not racist

is the NFL's position that the black head coaches are less capable than white head coaches? Or that white head coaches are less capable than black coaches?

I've looked at all sorts of definitions of "racism" the last 20 years for work. And I'm trying to see what you're alleging is "racist" here.
 
This thread really belongs on a political forum. However, I agree that progressive tax rates and preferential treatment for those with physical and mental disabilities are far different from preferential treatment or discrimination based on race. We have laws prohibiting the latter. As a matter of law, we can do one and not the other.

The point I was responding to was that "discrimination is never okay". That point has changed. I would also add, though, that these "laws" are broken all the time. Housing discrimination, for example, still happens today. For reasons based on race. Good luck battling that in court.

As an aside, I do think that socioeconomic background or class can be a factor in school admissions, which would help inordinately African-American and Latin students. However, such a policy would be focused on individuals rather than race-based outcomes.

There are absolutely differences, including class-based. But if you want to talk about 'university admissions' then you need to consider the very nature of racially segregated schools in the country. Schools, entire districts. Poorer teachers. Fewer resources. Fewer classes. Lowered standards. Plenty of others - were designed explicitly around race and still present in education today. I think you're narrowing it do suggest that 'racialized discrimination' doesn't play a major, major role in pre-secondary education which absolutely influences post-secondary education options.

Race-based has always played a role. It's obviously not the only factor, but it's also not negligible. It's widespread and generational - especially in places like the west coast and northeast, places that are considered bastions of liberal tolerance. But their schools are more segregated and educational outcomes, based on race, even more disparate than is found in the South.

And I don't think this is off topic at all. Sports is a reflection of society.
 
racial, not racist

is the NFL's position that the black head coaches are less capable than white head coaches? Or that white head coaches are less capable than black coaches?

I've looked at all sorts of definitions of "racism" the last 20 years for work. And I'm trying to see what you're alleging is "racist" here.
Any situation where one race is being pushed over another, having rewards for doing so, is racist, regardless of which race it is. There has to be a better way. I’ve even given some ideas earlier in this thread.
 
I don't want to get in the middle of this crossfire. However, though the common definition of racism is belief that a particular race is inherently superior, a broader definition of the word is discrimination based on race. I would not use the word racism or racist to describe what the NFL seems to be proposing or affirmative action, but broadly speaking, it can be argued that a policy that discriminates or favors based on race is racist. Agreed that the word racism usually connotes the belief that one racial group is superior to another, and here I would stay away from the word racist. But I understand how technically the word might be used, though I understand that its usage can be provocative.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom