Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Joseymack says:
I think the answer is:
C. Makes life tougher if you allow it to
I think the answer is:
C. Makes life tougher if you allow it to
ESPN--double standard unless they fire Michael Irvin?
- Thread starter Bill V
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
joseymack--
In many ways, both. Yes, there are ways that things may be tougher for blacks--but man, what I wouldn't give to be able to take advantage of affirmative action. And when things don't go right for me, what I wouldn't give to have a crutch like "the man" to blame it on.
But I think that's beside the point of my original post. It has nothing to do with what Irvin said, or how ESPN then handled it. What Irvin said was definitely (IMHO) more racist than anything Limbaugh said. Therefore, if ESPN canned Limbaugh, then I think they are compelled to can Irvin. (The Jimmy the Greek situation, as well as the Bryant Gumbel situation, really don't come into play directly, as those were different employers, who may have different standards for their on-air personalities. But because Limbaugh and Irvin are/were both ESPN employees, and both comments were made on ESPN (one was TV, one was ESPN radio--but they're both broadcasted by ESPN), their treatment of these two individuals is a direct apples-to-apples comparison, and one that ESPN is looking pretty biased on.
Rush was fired for saying that the media is biased to want to see black athletes succeed, even if they're not very good. Based on this situation, it sounds like that should be revised to say that ESPN wants to see black ex-athletes succeed, even if they're not very good.
In many ways, both. Yes, there are ways that things may be tougher for blacks--but man, what I wouldn't give to be able to take advantage of affirmative action. And when things don't go right for me, what I wouldn't give to have a crutch like "the man" to blame it on.
But I think that's beside the point of my original post. It has nothing to do with what Irvin said, or how ESPN then handled it. What Irvin said was definitely (IMHO) more racist than anything Limbaugh said. Therefore, if ESPN canned Limbaugh, then I think they are compelled to can Irvin. (The Jimmy the Greek situation, as well as the Bryant Gumbel situation, really don't come into play directly, as those were different employers, who may have different standards for their on-air personalities. But because Limbaugh and Irvin are/were both ESPN employees, and both comments were made on ESPN (one was TV, one was ESPN radio--but they're both broadcasted by ESPN), their treatment of these two individuals is a direct apples-to-apples comparison, and one that ESPN is looking pretty biased on.
Rush was fired for saying that the media is biased to want to see black athletes succeed, even if they're not very good. Based on this situation, it sounds like that should be revised to say that ESPN wants to see black ex-athletes succeed, even if they're not very good.
TomT
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with an activist supporting blacks that where deliberately mistreated because of their race/color. I do have a problem with an activist blaming all their problems on white people when most of the problems blacks face today are brought on by themselves. Blacks cannot simply blame whites for problems such as high rates of teen pregnancy, high rates of fatherless children, high crime rates and high school dropout rates.
Bill Cosby said it best: "For me there is a time . . . when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it's almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us."
Bill Cosby said it best: "For me there is a time . . . when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it's almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us."
Jeff C
Well-Known Member
joseymack, that's just it. It was in the past. When I was applying for jobs down here at school, I applied at a chain business and after my interview, the manager told me that I would not get the job because he has to keep a percent of his staff as "non-white". I kept interviewing and ended up getting a job I like, but the point is, I shouldn't be passed over because I'm not a minority.
My best friend had a job at a chain store back home. He came down here and worked at the same store for a year with no problems. Then they got a new manager, a black woman. She began hiring her friends from Tuskegee, 20 miles away (a 30min drive at least), and giving them all the hours. My friend was getting literally one shift a week and went from being up front to just working in the back. This happened to him, and two other employees, both white. They all quit at the same time.
Any of this seem fair and equal?
My best friend had a job at a chain store back home. He came down here and worked at the same store for a year with no problems. Then they got a new manager, a black woman. She began hiring her friends from Tuskegee, 20 miles away (a 30min drive at least), and giving them all the hours. My friend was getting literally one shift a week and went from being up front to just working in the back. This happened to him, and two other employees, both white. They all quit at the same time.
Any of this seem fair and equal?
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Bill V is right. Rush postulated that maybe in the media's zeal to see more, successful black QB's that maybe McNabb isn't looked at as critically as he should be. That's what he said. And you know what...HE WAS SO RIGHT. He called the media the "Spade" that it is, and of course, no one can handle that.
Easier or tougher, don't really know. I do know that my brother-in-law who at one point in his career was in a management position to do the hiring for many service technicians and office personel for a MAJOR cable TV provider. He told me that when a job was to be posted, he HAD to make an effort, that was tracked, to recruit... anyone that wasn't white before he could post the job in the paper, or monster.com or where ever. This didn't mean only black people, it meant anyone besides someone who is white. He's one mgr. of many in a HUGE company. I'd be willing to speculate that he wasn't the only one made to 'recruit' new hires in this way. Is that a level playing field?
Jose Santana
Active Member
I hear all you guys and getting passed over for a job based on race is bad and I don't agree with it but it happens to minorities all the time... you can debate this, but I think it's a hard fact that most whites don't want to acknowledge. So for every affirmative action hire there are 2 more that don't get hired because they are black or minority
And for the record i cannot believe they fired these TV guys for the stuff they said. I don;t think it was bad at all.... We have differences and talking about them is OK
joseymack
And for the record i cannot believe they fired these TV guys for the stuff they said. I don;t think it was bad at all.... We have differences and talking about them is OK
joseymack
Jose Santana
Active Member
I hear all you guys and getting passed over for a job based on race is bad and I don't agree with it but it happens to minorities all the time... you can debate this, but I think it's a hard fact that most whites don't want to acknowledge. So for every affirmative action hire there are 2 more that don't get hired because they are black or minority
And for the record i cannot believe they fired these TV guys for the stuff they said. I don;t think it was bad at all.... We have differences and talking about them is OK
joseymack
And for the record i cannot believe they fired these TV guys for the stuff they said. I don;t think it was bad at all.... We have differences and talking about them is OK
joseymack
tom prudhomme
Active Member
You are probably waaay too smart. Companies are being forced to hire blacks & lowered the achievement scores to reach that goal. Yea, dummy down the MF company / agency to appease the naacp / jj / AS.
Jeffrey Travis
Well-Known Member
I yearn for the days of when George Jefferson and Archie Bunker were the norm and lines like the following we common place in a movie (The Original Bad News Bears in 1976).
Tanner Boyle: What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch of jews, spicks, *******, pansies, and a booger eating moron.
Which was replaced in the remake with:
Tanner Boyle: Great. First we have to play ball with a girl? What next? A cripple?
Yet, they had much more worse language than the original.
So what have we learned here boys and girls - swearing, good. Racial politcal incorrectness, bad.
Tanner Boyle: What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch of jews, spicks, *******, pansies, and a booger eating moron.
Which was replaced in the remake with:
Tanner Boyle: Great. First we have to play ball with a girl? What next? A cripple?
Yet, they had much more worse language than the original.
So what have we learned here boys and girls - swearing, good. Racial politcal incorrectness, bad.
