Whitlock Article - Racist LeBron Vogue Cover? (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Wha?!?!?

You're Optimus Prime. You're Red, White, and Blue. You're supposed to be the happiest guy on Cybertron.

My whole view on life has changed for the worse. I'm going to go hook up with Megs.

LOL that's from the article. prime keeps it real! red white and blue and NO freakin flames!

 

[RebSaint]

There is an historical precedent for depicting blacks as apish, bestial, and animal-like. What makes the King Kong reference interesting is that here you have a black man with a very pretty white woman and he looks angry--which of course also taps into a lot of racist stereotypes about predatory black rapists which was a common sentiment in the Jim Crow South.

However, for the life of me I don't see how anybody could make these connections from looking at this photo, nor do I think it was Vogue's intent.

As others have pointed out, this "controversy" seems to be media-generated, which supports what I've said about the media; they're interested in conflict, controversy, and train wrecks.

Hopefully enough people will recognize that this "controversy" isn't a controversy at all and it's just beyond ridiculous.

 

[Optimus Prime]

As others have pointed out, this "controversy" seems to be media-generated, which supports what I've said about the media; they're interested in conflict, controversy, and train wrecks.

Hopefully enough people will recognize that this "controversy" isn't a controversy at all and it's just beyond ridiculous.

i think that's it's much ado about nothing. I haven't heard anyone talking about this at all

 

[TulsaSaint]

Did he reference "meet the browns" in his article? I didnt read it and dont want to.

Yes, he actually did. Believe it or not, his conclusion in the article was that this cover is not racist and that if black people want to complain about this sort of thing as racism, they should stop perpetuating stereotypes about themselves. And he specifically referred to "Meet the Browns" in detail and said that it's odd that black people don't complain about this black director perpetuating stereotypes. He said that apparently it's only racist when it's produced by while people for a white audience, and he thought that was a ridiculous double standard.

If you'd read the article instead of jumping to conclusions about the author, perhaps I wouldn't have needed to review it for you twice, eh?

 

[Taceo]

The controversial LeBron covers you may have missed!
C-Notes - The controversial LeBron covers you may have missed

 

[RABDOG]

man jason whitlock is always with this b.s....nobody gives a **** about labron and that cover...i'm sure you got some blacks and some whites that don't like the cover because it's a black man and a white woman, just like the T.O. comercial with the white chick and only having on a towel...but this is a none issue...jason whitlock is straight garbage...i give absolutly no credit to anything that he has to say about anything....

 

[CCL36]

no more ore less than white people, or asian people, or hispanic people, etc.....but then again, i beleive we all came from apes

I don't believe we came from apes but I wonder from an evolutionists standpoint are races in your opinion on different plauteus of the evolutionary chain? In essence is it possible that some races are less evolved according to evolution?

 

[buzd]

The controversial LeBron covers you may have missed!
C-Notes - The controversial LeBron covers you may have missed

This is my favorite:

 

[Saint Tillage]

Yes, he actually did. Believe it or not, his conclusion in the article was that this cover is not racist and that if black people want to complain about this sort of thing as racism, they should stop perpetuating stereotypes about themselves. And he specifically referred to "Meet the Browns" in detail and said that it's odd that black people don't complain about this black director perpetuating stereotypes. He said that apparently it's only racist when it's produced by while people for a white audience, and he thought that was a ridiculous double standard.

If you'd read the article instead of jumping to conclusions about the author, perhaps I wouldn't have needed to review it for you twice, eh?

First of all I didnt jump to any conclusions about jason "uncle tom" whitlock. I know what his game is thus why I didnt read the article. I knew it was some version of the same bs he always spews. Dont get mad at me because _______ didnt spend the night. Try less talking next time.

 

[TulsaSaint]

First of all I didnt jump to any conclusions about jason "uncle tom" whitlock. I know what his game is thus why I didnt read the article. I knew it was some version of the same bs he always spews. Dont get mad at me because _______ didnt spend the night. Try less talking next time.

You're right, it was DanChrism who originally said that Jason Whitlock "could make a weather report belittle black paper." My mistake. When you responded to my response to him, I thought it was the same person who'd made the original post I was answering. And beyond that, I'm not going to stoop to your childish level and trade insults. I'm through with you.

I still think it would make sense to read an article before complaining about it, and that goes for several people here. I'm a bit confused, though, as to how one person can think Whitlock is hyper-sensitive about race and thinks everyone's a racist and how someone else can think he's an "Uncle Tom."

 

[TulsaSaint]

I don't believe we came from apes but I wonder from an evolutionists standpoint are races in your opinion on different plauteus of the evolutionary chain? In essence is it possible that some races are less evolved according to evolution?

No. Absolutely, unequivocally, no. That was debated in the late nineteenth century, when scientists of the era made charts to explain why some races were smarter, stronger, and otherwise better than others, but it was all proven to be junk science pretty quickly. Oh, and although I suffered from a Christian school education in which evolution was not taught, I'm fairly certain that the theory of evolution does not believe that we came from apes. Rather, it says that we and apes both came from a common ancestor. Something I'm pretty sure you've been told on this board before.

 

[Saint Tillage]

You're right, it was DanChrism who originally said that Jason Whitlock "could make a weather report belittle black paper." My mistake. When you responded to my response to him, I thought it was the same person who'd made the original post I was answering. And beyond that, I'm not going to stoop to your childish level and trade insults. I'm through with you.

I still think it would make sense to read an article before complaining about it, and that goes for several people here. I'm a bit confused, though, as to how one person can think Whitlock is hyper-sensitive about race and thinks everyone's a racist and how someone else can think he's an "Uncle Tom."

You got snippy with me first T. Maybe they should have read the article then. Like I said I didnt need to read the article to know what direction he was going in.

 

[LSSpam]

I don't believe we came from apes but I wonder from an evolutionists standpoint are races in your opinion on different plauteus of the evolutionary chain? In essence is it possible that some races are less evolved according to evolution?

Practically speaking, no. There are some genetic differences between races, but from a biological perspective it's largely irrelevant.

There's strong evidence that the human species went through a population bottle-neck around 100,000 years ago. The reality is, from a genetic perspective, the amount of diversity in the human species is absurdly small. Chimpanzee, for instance, differ on average 1 in every 500 nucleotides, humans twice that.

Further, the variation within a race exceeds the difference between two races (on average). In other words, two random American-Caucasians will, in all likelihood, differ more then your average American-Caucasian and African-American.

It's important to understand that because even if there is a (what would amount to, practically speaking, marginal) "difference" in intelligence between one race and another race (highly debatable) the difference in intelligence between, let's say you and let's say me, would likely be significantly more then aforementioned gap.


To sum up, practically speaking, no, there are no meaningful evolutionary/genetic differences between the races. And for reference, if there were, the selection advantage would have gone to cannibalistic hunter-gathers (a lifestyle which, believe it or not, requires a high degree of cunning), not Europeans who were mostly selected for disease resistance during the Middle-Ages, not intelligence.

 

[RABDOG]

i read the article and it's the same stupid *** b.s. that jason whitlock always comes with....the dude is just garbage.....like i said.nobody gives a **** about that lebron cover....this is some made up b.s....that is all this is and more of the same from jason "garbage" whitlock...this dude is absolutley a mentally challenged jack*** in a shawn hannity, rush limbaugh vain.

 

[TulsaSaint]

i read the article and it's the same stupid *** b.s. that jason whitlock always comes with....the dude is just garbage.....like i said.nobody gives a **** about that lebron cover....this is some made up b.s....that is all this is and more of the same from jason "garbage" whitlock...this dude is absolutley a mentally challenged jack*** in a shawn hannity, rush limbaugh vain.

Right. The point is, I don't think Whitlock cared about the cover either. He didn't seem to think it was that big a deal.

Oh, and regardless of whether he's garbage or mentally challenged, one thing he certainly is is a lousy writer. I could barely get through that article, the writing style was so bad.