FanDuel - WFBC

September 02, 2011

Football Ref Attacked by Players, Coaches: After he made a personal foul call, a referee at a youth football game for 13- and 14-year-olds in Sarasota, Fl., was attacked during the game last weekend by players and several coaches -- including some who kicked him while he was on the ground. "It was unbelievable," said parent Debbie Ismail. "Very bad, poor sportsmanship." Battery on a referee is a felony under Florida law punishable by four years in prison.

posted by rcade to football at 11:45 AM - 68 comments

Despicable.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:13 PM on September 02

Where was Mike Greenwell at the time?

posted by yerfatma at 12:22 PM on September 02

This is insane!

posted by BornIcon at 01:29 PM on September 02

Seeing stories like this makes me sad.

On another note, does the battery law actually specify referees? Do they consider it a hate crime or something?

posted by bender at 01:38 PM on September 02

Wow. There are a few people in that video who need to be arrested. It also sounds like the league is taking action on their own.

Don't mind the elephant.

posted by Atheist at 01:56 PM on September 02

Nice tackle by the kid, though.

posted by rcade at 02:11 PM on September 02

Don't mind the elephant.

Huh?

posted by NoMich at 02:17 PM on September 02

I think he's suggesting that people from Florida are prone to violence and criminality.

posted by rcade at 02:53 PM on September 02

I like how Florida has its own category at Fark.

posted by NoMich at 02:55 PM on September 02

Don't mind the elephant.

I hardly think the style of play of the outside linebacker is relevant here.

posted by yerfatma at 03:12 PM on September 02

Some big ass 13 and 14 year olds.

Hope the felony charges stand. Anything else will not send the message that these folks need to hear.

That is one mighty big elephant, gonna be hard for some to ignore. Sad indeed.

posted by dviking at 04:10 PM on September 02

It is relevant when you look closely at the video and you see a gang of players who all happen to be outside line backers tackling one particular referee who is wearing the same stripes just like all the other referees.

posted by Atheist at 04:19 PM on September 02

Don't be coy, Atheist. Are you saying he was attacked because he was white and they were black? If so, just say it, so the issue can be addressed.

posted by bperk at 04:22 PM on September 02

I do not know why he was attacked, and I am not saying anything other than it is very sad regardless of the motivation. I just watched the video and couldn't help but notice a couple of things.

There were several refs only one was white, the one who was attacked.
The team who was attacking has black and white players but only black players are attacking the ref.

For all I know, the ref may have said something or whatever but it is hard to imagine a call, bad or not, being the sole motivation for an attack like that. I mean bad calls happen all the time, numerous players going after a ref over one?

Seems like something else is going on here which is the elephant in the room I guess only I noticed. Frankly I am mad at myself for not being able to ignor the elephant as it makes me feel guilty as if I am looking with elephant detection glasses that evidently nobody else has.

posted by Atheist at 05:00 PM on September 02

Are you saying he was attacked because he was white and they were black? If so, just say it, so the issue can be addressed.

I think he was, just cheekily :-)

The team who was attacking has black and white players but only black players are attacking the ref.

and don't forgot at 18 seconds, when one black guy stomps on the refs head another white man comes to his aid, only to be attacked by multiple black guys and pushed offscreen as others then pull the ref to his feet.

Not sure the source of the fight, but it's pretty clear it became racial very quickly. If it wasn't about race and was only about the official, why did they all pounce on the other white guy?

posted by bdaddy at 06:44 PM on September 02

Apparently, two of the three men charged in the incident are brothers, and their mother died a week ago. One of the league officials is saying this was way out of character for them and the league had heard no complaints about the team.

posted by wfrazerjr at 08:49 PM on September 02

two of the three men charged in the incident are brothers, and their mother died a week ago

Sorry for their loss, but unless the referee killed her, this excuse is nothing but that...an excuse. A poor one, at that...

posted by MeatSaber at 08:54 PM on September 02

I double my call for the felony charges to stand. Your mother dies so you look for chances to play out racial hatred?

I hate to admit that I clearly saw the elephant as well, but it is pretty hard to ignore. If this were reversed these gentlemen would be facing hate crime charges.

I do feel sorry for the 13/14 year olds that were brought up in a manner that allowed them to make the decisions they made. Some parents need to be held accountable as well.

posted by dviking at 09:26 PM on September 02

Youth sports attract a small minority of completely insane people with no idea of how to acceptably behave. I experienced this coaching young kids in Y basketball.

Anyone who thinks this is racial needs to open their eyes to the large number of parent incidents involving whites.

Calling this racial because of 10-20 seconds of video is ridiculous. A videocamera shot across the field did not make you omnipotent.

posted by rcade at 09:42 PM on September 02

rcade, your elephant detection glasses clearly need a prescription update.

posted by cl at 11:25 PM on September 02

Anyone who thinks this is racial needs to open their eyes to the large number of parent incidents involving whites.

Guess I missed the thread regarding the all white group of players/coaches that attacked the only black ref on the field.

I never said, nor did anyone else, that this was the only racial incident to ever occur. I do, however, think it's hard not to see the likelihood that racial undertones are present here.

posted by dviking at 01:16 AM on September 03

Guess I missed the thread regarding the all white group of players/coaches that attacked the only black ref on the field.

There have been numerous news accounts of white players/coaches/parents attacking referees during/after hockey games.

It just happens that most (all?) referees were white in these cases.

In the video above, do we know which person was the head referee, or announced the personal foul call? If one of the black referees/umpires made the call, and then they attacked the white referee, I could see where someone could call it racial. But if the announcement came from the white referee, what would you expect the angry players to do? Turn and start attacking the other officials?

posted by grum@work at 09:53 AM on September 03

According to a new story, referee Jayme Ream was being verbally abused by coaches after making several penalty calls and someone threw water at him.

Ream ejected the coaches and then terminated the game entirely, a coach confronted him and threw a water bottle at him and Ream punched him, knocking him to his knees. The filmed brawl followed.

See anything about race in that story or in the comments by Ream or anyone else? I don't.

I do, however, think it's hard not to see the likelihood that racial undertones are present here.

That's your standard -- a likelihood? How about sticking to actual evidence instead of leaping to assumptions because of the races of the people involved? I see no reason to think that a black referee who ended a game because of sideline abuse and punched a coach -- possibly in self-defense -- would not have sparked the same incident.

posted by rcade at 11:17 AM on September 03

When I read the headline why did I assume it was black perpertrators? And why did it turn out to be black perpertrators?

posted by Dales1971 at 12:53 PM on September 03

If it wasn't about race and was only about the official, why did they all pounce on the other white guy?

Could it be because he got in the middle of the attack to try to stop it? Or that he was one of the coaches of the opposing team? Why do we have to take those very likely possibilities off the table? I see both black and white people milling about that are not attacking or being attacked.

posted by bperk at 01:47 PM on September 03

Some years back I read of a survey that was posed to American citizens. The question was asked: "You are walking down a city street and several blocks ahead you see a group of males standing around on a corner. Are you more likely to alter your route to avoid the group of males if they are black males or white males? The vast majority (including BLACK Americans!!) answered they were more likely to change route if it was a black group."

Why would the black Americans change their route? Are they racist against their own color? No, it's Because even they know who poses a greater risk to their safety. They have common sense.

According the the FBI stats, it is something like 50 times more likely that a black male will commit interracial violance than a white male. Don't take my word for it. Don't believe me. Look it up for yourself like I did. The government breaks down the violent crimes by race. HEY, I know that isn't politically correct!!! I know it hurts your liberal feelings. It's just a fact. Deal with it.

posted by Dales1971 at 02:06 PM on September 03

Dales,

This is bordering on being outright trollish. There are numerous ways to interpret the significance of that data actually, consequent on numerous variables in which the issue of race is interwoven throughout. Even if we try to leave that type of analysis out of it and look just at the numbers (a generous move given that we don't know anything about the controls of this "survey"), more important is the issue of why these numbers are so out of proportion, and what or who on a societal level contributes to that phenomenon; that is, unless you think skin color determines how violent someone is (common sense?).

I know this hurts your fallacious reasoning in the quest for an easy answer. Sorry.

posted by brainofdtrain at 05:26 PM on September 03

That's your standard -- a likelihood?

Well, yeah, my standard, and the majority of posters on this tread...I wasn't the first, or the last, to mention the huge elephant standing on the field.

But if the announcement came from the white referee, what would you expect the angry players to do? Turn and start attacking the other officials?

One of your worst questions ever! Obvious answer is that I'd expect them to not attack any of the officials. Is that expecting too much out of minority youths? I don't think so, and it's why I posted earlier that I do feel sorry for the kids that were brought up so poorly that they thought their actions were in the realm of acceptable. Some parents should be held accountable.

I'll stick with my opinion that the probability that this incident has racial undertones is fairly likely. And, that if the colors were reversed we'd be hearing screams of hate crimes, and would probably have already heard from Jesse Jackson. I will also stand with my opinion to fully charge the adults involved, paying absolutely no attention to the excuse of their mother dying recently. I do hope I'm wrong about the racial intent of the players and coaches, nothing in watching that video numerous times changes my feelings.

posted by dviking at 05:34 PM on September 03

According the the FBI stats, it is something like 50 times more likely that a black male will commit interracial violance than a white male. Don't take my word for it. Don't believe me. Look it up for yourself like I did.

This is the part where a person would actually link to those "FBI stats".

You know, so people don't think he's being a baiting troll.

But if the announcement came from the white referee, what would you expect the angry players to do? Turn and start attacking the other officials?

One of your worst questions ever! Obvious answer is that I'd expect them to not attack any of the officials. Is that expecting too much out of minority youths?

Did you read the article? It wasn't "minority youths" that attacked the referee. It was three adults initially, and then a kid jumped in after.

But the point is that if the adults felt rage towards a specific referee, maybe that rage is towards the referee and not the colour of his skin. What I'm saying is that if the referee had been black and they were just as angry with him as they were with the referee in the story, are you suggesting they wouldn't have acted the same way?

posted by grum@work at 06:29 PM on September 03

When I read the headline why did I assume it was black perpertrators?

If you read a headline about a crime and assume the perpetrators are black, there's a simple answer to your question.

I'll stick with my opinion that the probability that this incident has racial undertones is fairly likely.

That's your right, but it's an opinion you won't be voicing here. Thanks for the elephant, Atheist. People need to take their unsourced prejudiced bullshit theorizing elsewhere.

posted by rcade at 07:31 PM on September 03

Did you read the article?.....

Well, yes I did, and watched the video several times, however, none of that matters as your question didn't refer to this story. You gave a hypothetical that I thought was odd as the clear answer is that the youths should have been able to resist violence regardless of what skin color the official was.

rcade, it's your site, so you can call the rules, however, there have been far more racially involved threads on this site in the past. Whatever.

posted by dviking at 10:31 PM on September 03

Well, yes I did, and watched the video several times, however, none of that matters as your question didn't refer to this story.

Huh?

I asked that if the youths were going to attack an official because they were angry, they'd attack the official that made the call. In this case, that official was white. I'm saying that he was attacked because of his call/position, not because of his race. My hypothetical was that if they attacked a white official that had nothing to do with the call, then it would have been racial.

This was a case of angry people attacking someone they didn't agree with, not black people attacking someone because they were white. It's despicable that they attacked him, period.

And violence upon officials isn't a racial thing in most cases, as there are MANY cases of same-race attacks in amateur sports (coaches on umpires, fans/parents on hockey referees).

posted by grum@work at 03:11 AM on September 04

That's your right, but it's an opinion you won't be voicing here.

Rcade, are you saying that only opinions you approve of may be posted? Since its your site, I guess you can do as you please. But I fail to see how such a policy is fundamentally any different from the Catholic Church's (thankfully now defunct) Index Expurgatorius or any other form of censorship. All it will accomplish in the end is shutting down a healthy exchange of opinion that just might persuade some holders of narrowly formed opinions to reexamine their assumptions. And that would be tragic.

posted by billinnagoya at 07:41 AM on September 04

rcade, has to hold down the fort or else SpoFi becomes the Yahoo message board with racist comments everywhere. Who wants that? There are ways to talk intelligently about race, but people making assumptions about race should be questioning them not embracing them. Why would the black Americans change their route? Are they racist against their own color? No, it's Because even they know who poses a greater risk to their safety. They have common sense.

The answer to this is "yes." Black people hold many of them same prejudices as white people.

posted by bperk at 08:40 AM on September 04

All it will accomplish in the end is shutting down a healthy exchange of opinion that just might persuade some holders of narrowly formed opinions to reexamine their assumptions. And that would be tragic.

Anyone who ends their post with " HEY, I know that isn't politically correct!!! I know it hurts your liberal feelings. It's just a fact. Deal with it.", isn't looking for a rational discussion.

When it comes to racial, political, or religious views, I don't think there has been a single case of someone changing their mind because of what someone wrote on a sports website.

If I can't convince someone that wins are a terrible method of judging the success of a pitcher, I don't think anyone's going to change racial/political/religious views any time soon.

posted by grum@work at 10:50 AM on September 04

There's nothing in any news coverage of this story to indicate that race played a factor. No witnesses said racial slurs were yelled, nor did any say racial discord influenced the incident. The only reason race was made an issue is because the assailants are black and the referee is white.

To those who think we're missing out because I'm not going to let this place become YouTube, I ask this: Tell me what I could say that would convince people that the Sarasota incident wasn't fueled by anti-white racism or a predisposition towards criminality by blacks.

There's nothing healthy about making knee-jerk assumptions ahead of the facts involving race. Those thoughts are poison. As for censorship, any Internet forum that does not censor some commentary on race turns into this. It's a video of a black athlete assaulting a white ref in a basketball game. You don't have to click it to know exactly what the comments are like.

posted by rcade at 10:52 AM on September 04

As for censorship, any Internet forum that does not censor some commentary on race turns into this.

Christ on a rubber crutch, good work not being evil, Google.

posted by yerfatma at 02:44 PM on September 04

There's nothing healthy about making knee-jerk assumptions ahead of the facts involving race.

Agreed. And there have been some pretty stupid comments made on the subject here. However, I didn't think those made by dviking--the individual you threatened to censor--were of that nature. Rather, it seems to me that your assumption that his question is steeped in racist ignorance is no less of a "knee-jerk" reaction than that of those who see every incident of black-on-white violence as racist and evidence of black inferiority.

Where you draw the line is up to you. But, please, just make sure you are not crossing the line between legitimate moderating of a subject into self-righteous censorship.

posted by billinnagoya at 06:11 PM on September 04

I mentioned the elephant in the room because I did not want to jump to conclusions if nobody else noticed it. Evidently others did. rcade challenged me not to be coy and say it so it could be discussed. So I did, but it appears that was as I thought politically incorrect. If the entire team or a mixture of white and black players attacked the ref I would say race was not a factor, but as I said, there are white players on the team but only black players attacked the ref, and there were other refs but they were black and evidently immune from the anger of the black players who did the attacking. The only white players and people on the field seemed to be trying to stop the attack. Also there were plenty of black people on the field trying to put a stop to the attack. I am not saying anything regarding the motivation, just making an observation of facts that others can draw their own conclusions from.

Why on earth is this stuff so taboo. Reasonable people should be able to discuss this openly.

posted by Atheist at 06:42 PM on September 04

I shouldn't have directed my comment to end the race stuff at one user. It was intended as a general warning that I was just going to start deleting comments of that nature. Sorry, Dviking.

posted by rcade at 06:55 PM on September 04

The vast majority (including BLACK Americans!!) answered they were more likely to change route if it was a black group.

The vast majority of Americans also love American Idol, Coors Lite and Olive Garden. You'd be an idiot if you let the tastes of the vast majority of Americans dictate what you eat, drink and watch on television, but you're apparently A-OK with letting them dictate how you relate to your fellow human being based on the color of their skin. You're an original humanitarian genius, that you are.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:09 PM on September 04

Reasonable people should be able to discuss this openly.

They are. Let us know when you care to join.

posted by yerfatma at 09:15 AM on September 05

I am not saying anything regarding the motivation, just making an observation of facts that others can draw their own conclusions from.

Ah, the classic "I'm not saying, but I'm just saying..." defence.

The "fact" that you forgot to point out (as rcade has a couple of times) is that no where in the video or follow up news reports is there absolutely any mention of any racial overtones about the attack.

No racial slurs (either way) or indication that someone was being racist (or responding to racism).

Instead of taking the obvious observation (angry testosterone-driven jock types over-react to sports), you wanted to imply (without saying, of course) that there was some racial component to the attack.

This then brought out the first-post idiocy later on in the thread.

If ANY of the participants had given ANY indication that there was ANY racial component to the attack, then it would be worth discussing.

But there wasn't any, and it's not because the media wouldn't report it, because you know that they'd leap on any opportunity to milk even more sensationalist stories out any event.

posted by grum@work at 10:42 AM on September 05

Wow. Well, let me say that when I first read the headline, I immediately thought of all the sporting events that I've attended in which I've wanted to do the exact same thing. It did not immediatlely occur to me, however, that this would be a youth sporting event.

That said, I did not assume anything regarding the racial makeup of the participants in the clip I had yet to watch. Truth be told, if anything, I probably pictured a white population prior to watching. After seeing the clip, the alluded to "elephant" was pretty damn obvious. I believe there's a very good chance that anyone claiming not to have noticed it at all is most likely lying. That's not to say one couldn't watch and not consider this aspect, but the chances are fairly remote.

Now, "Dales" attempted (and I'll be optimistic or naive, your choice) to present a "perspective" based on factual data (unfortunately not shown) regarding societies feelings of security when presented with a given scenario. "brainofdtrain" took exception with the conclusions drawn from the supposed data and while I will agree that, yes, many factors other than ethnicity (socio-economic background, education, familial status, etc.) can likely all correlate to the behavior in question, those same factors can generally be found to have a strong correlation with ethnicity. As for my own beliefs, I'm of the opinion that ignorance begets ignorance and can be found across all ethnicities. Back to Dales scenario, the first thing that occurred to me when I read the conditions of the "group" were: how are they dressed? How are they acting? What is their age? If I see a group of middle-aged black males in business attire, I'm not very likely to feel threatened or alter my course. Conversely, if I see a group of unkempt white males wearing wife-beaters and trucker caps, having loud unintelligible discourse while downing Milwaukee's Best...well, you get the idea. Again, in my opinion, the bottom line is ignorance.

Regarding censorship, if it can be avoided, it should be. That's not to say there will never be a need to restrict comments of a given nature, however, I haven't seen it get too ugly on this particular site.

The idea of "political correctness" is always mentioned when having a discussion of this nature. I may be on my own here, but I believe it is a cancer that has all but completely destroyed the possibility of open, honest, rational, logical, discourse. Admittedly, I'm not extremely well travelled, but I can't imagine any society, other than America, being so dictated by what someone may percieve as offensive. Political correctness now trumps common sense. We've become so intent on NOT having any ethnic bias that we continue to perpetuate that very thing. Why do feel the need to pretend that we are "all the same" in every way? We aren't, and that's OK. We should be celebrating that which makes different and unique instead of ignoring our differences or pretending they don't exist.

Sorry for the sermon, but until we can have open dialogue without the blanket of political correctness we will continue to spin in this same, fruitless cycle.

posted by SooperJeenyus at 11:22 AM on September 05

"Political correctness" is another way of saying simple decency. To communicate better, we avoid insulting each other. When we communicate publicly for a potentially global audience, we avoid insulting them, too. It's not so hard to rein it in, and we all benefit from more connection and less division. It makes no sense to take a stance against community and respect.

posted by Hugh Janus at 11:48 AM on September 05

Yea, political correctness = simple decency the way cutting off your testicles = birth control. But don't worry, my guess is the mojority will preach, and may actually believe, the same message you're sending. Status quo.

posted by SooperJeenyus at 12:06 PM on September 05

First, let me state that I'm okay with rcade censoring the site if he chooses to, I just thought that what had been presented in this thread was fairly bland compared to other discussions I remember in the past.


Grum, your initial question was: But if the announcement came from the white referee, what would you expect the angry players to do? Turn and start attacking the other officials?

I think that is a poor question as clearly the players (or coaches) shouldn't have attacked anyone. As to no racial slurs being thrown, one, the video is form across the field, hard to know what was said, two, I wouldn't expect any news station to address it due to the PC nature of our society. I do stand by my thoughts that if this were reversed the media/Jesse Jackson types probably would have been all over it. My opinion, you are welcome to have yours.

Back to the original thread, I'm glad that the league is banning all of the involved for life. From reading further into the links, it seems as most of those coaches probably should not have been coaching in the first place. The kids deserve better, and I hope their school coaches will provide that for them.

posted by dviking at 12:15 PM on September 05

I wouldn't expect any news station to address it due to the PC nature of our society.

You must be kidding.

The media has no problem inventing conflict where it doesn't exist, and would definitely report it if there was some.

You're suggesting that there were racial slurs being used, and that people wanted to tell the media, but they decided not to report it?

That's a pretty ridiculous thing to believe, when it seems more reasonable to assume that there wasn't any racial component involved.

I'm just asking for one shred of evidence that suggests it was a racial attack. Not every attack between people of different races is because of racial issues.

Yea, political correctness = simple decency the way cutting off your testicles = birth control. But don't worry, my guess is the mojority will preach, and may actually believe, the same message you're sending. Status quo.

My favourite part about people who use "political correctness" as a derogatory statement is that the majority of them are white, middle-class, males who feel that it hinders their ability to express themselves the way they want to.

Maybe that's the "elephant" in the room?

posted by grum@work at 12:49 PM on September 05

I think that is a poor question as clearly the players (or coaches) shouldn't have attacked anyone.

Yes, that's obviously how it should go. But the question didn't assume that. It assumed that the people were so angry with the call/play that they couldn't control themselves and wanted to lash out physically (something that has happened to many people).

I do stand by my thoughts that if this were reversed the media/Jesse Jackson types probably would have been all over it.

Really? Can you show me an example? I'm curious to see where "Jesse Jackson types" showed up after a brawl and insisted there were racial overtones without any being reported by the press or police.

posted by grum@work at 01:04 PM on September 05

My favourite part about people who use "political correctness" as a derogatory statement is that the majority of them are white, middle-class, males who feel that it hinders their ability to express themselves the way they want to.

Maybe that's the "elephant" in the room?

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. A valid point and no doubt that occurs. My issue is not nearly as much with individuals, though, so much as it with governemt entities, corporate catering, and various media outlets. As to your second comment:

Can you show me an example? I'm curious to see where "Jesse Jackson types" showed up after a brawl and insisted there were racial overtones without any being reported by the press or police.

I don't have a dog in that particular fight, and it isn't necessarily a brawl, but I'll play devil's advocate:

How about Al Sharpton calling for the crucifixion of the Duke lacross team?

posted by SooperJeenyus at 01:35 PM on September 05

How about Al Sharpton calling for the crucifixion of the Duke lacross team?

It was reported in the news that the female's testimony stated one of the men yelled "We asked for whites, not niggers."

Whether that is true or not, it was provides at least some example of something that indicates race/racism.

Of course, once that word makes it into the media, certain undesirables will swoop in and exacerbate the situation.

I'm still looking for an example where "Jesse Jackson types" showed up at an incident and insisted there were racial overtones without any being reported by the press or police.

posted by grum@work at 02:20 PM on September 05

Who exactly does "certain undesirables" refer to?

posted by SooperJeenyus at 03:08 PM on September 05

Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere. A valid point and no doubt that occurs.

No doubt it occurs? I don't know how to break it to you, but blubbering and bellyaching about so-called "political correctness" is ubiquitous -- far more prevalent than instances of anything that could actually be called "political correctness".

My issue is not nearly as much with individuals, though, so much as it with governemt entities, corporate catering, and various media outlets.

Okay, since you've moved the goalposts, you can no doubt provide a large number of citations of such "political correctness". Or even a small number.

I've had the same observation as grum: that those who reflexively shout, "Political correctness!" are overwhelmingly white, most often male, and transparently concerned with protecting their dubious right to express slurs and insults directed at those they regard as inferior, without having anyone call their behavior what it is. The irony is that these folk apparently expect the targets of their witticisms to have kevlar hides, while they themselves are wounded to the quick at the mildest criticism. When I was a kid, if I'd said some of the things that the anti-PC crowd come out with, my mother would have done a lot worse than be mildly critical...and if I'd suggested that she was out of line for curtailing my freedom of expression? The dear lady is dead, but still, I shudder to think of it.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:38 PM on September 05

Okay, since you've moved the goalposts, you can no doubt provide a large number of citations of such "political correctness". Or even a small number.

In fact I can, I would point to the outrage sparked over the recent legislation passed in Arizona regarding the ability of the police to ask for proof of citizenship after having legal contact with a given person. I might cite Jalen Rose paraphrasing the law on ESPN without fully disclosing the content in its entirety. That, of course, would make his point useless.

Moreover, I couldn't help but notice your reference to overwhelmingly white, most often male as well as grum's referral to white, middle-class, males. I might ask whether or not your keen insight is so penetrating as to reveal other observations made concerning ANY OTHER group of people but I suspect the laws of political correctness will prohibit you from expressing, or even acknowledging that such observations exist.

Furthermore, I think it's interesting that grum pointed out the phrase:

one of the men yelled "We asked for whites, not niggers."

while failing to mention that it was precluded by this comment:

"short d--k white boys,"

made by the accuser.

I mention the disease of political correctness and you assume it must be tied to issues of ethnicity when in reality it's much more complex and far reaching than that. The fact that one makes that assumption without considering any alternative is telling. But I welcome the discourse, so long as it's honest, logical, and insightful. I have no agenda here.

posted by SooperJeenyus at 07:01 PM on September 05

Who exactly does "certain undesirables" refer to?

Anyone who attempts to turn personal tragedy or community issues into political hay.

posted by grum@work at 07:02 PM on September 05

I might ask whether or not your keen insight is so penetrating as to reveal other observations made concerning ANY OTHER group of people

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

I'm asking, because you obviously understand that someone who had previously been the target of slurs (blacks, gays, women, etc) would probably not be the predominant group to complain about "political correctness" when people get called out for making those slurs.

but I suspect the laws of political correctness will prohibit you from expressing, or even acknowledging that such observations exist.

"Laws of political correctness"

Oh, you are being deliberately obtuse (or are just trolling).

Got it.

Furthermore, I think it's interesting that grum pointed out the phrase:

one of the men yelled "We asked for whites, not niggers."

while failing to mention that it was precluded by this comment:

"short d--k white boys,"

made by the accuser.

Does it matter? Either phrase makes it a racial issue, which was my counter to you suggesting Sharpton's role in the matter wasn't precluded by any racial component.

I mention the disease of political correctness and you assume it must be tied to issues of ethnicity when in reality it's much more complex and far reaching than that. The fact that one makes that assumption without considering any alternative is telling. But I welcome the discourse, so long as it's honest, logical, and insightful. I have no agenda here.

Yes, you do.

It's to define "political correctness" as a "disease", or an intrusive "law", when it's simply a matter of treating people with respect that they deserve.

What other alternative is there than "political correctness"? How else is it used, except to complain about issues of ethnicity, race, gender, or sexual preference?

posted by grum@work at 07:14 PM on September 05

In fact I can, I would point to the outrage sparked over the recent legislation passed in Arizona regarding the ability of the police to ask for proof of citizenship after having legal contact with a given person. I might cite Jalen Rose paraphrasing the law on ESPN without fully disclosing the content in its entirety. That, of course, would make his point useless.

So, break it down for those of us who didn't watch Jalen Rose on ESPN: he said what, exactly, and this was so-called "political correctness" how, exactly? For that matter, how exactly do you define "political correctness"?

Moreover, I couldn't help but notice your reference to overwhelmingly white, most often male as well as grum's referral to white, middle-class, males. I might ask whether or not your keen insight is so penetrating as to reveal other observations made concerning ANY OTHER group of people

This phrase doesn't make any sense to me. What are you trying to say?

Furthermore, I think it's interesting that grum pointed out the phrase:

one of the men yelled "We asked for whites, not niggers."

while failing to mention that it was precluded by this comment:

"short d--k white boys,"

made by the accuser.

And what do you think is interesting about it? That when one side throws mud, the other responds in kind? That doesn't exactly support what you seem to be angling at, i.e., that both parties are equally interested in starting a mudfight.

I mention the disease of political correctness and you assume it must be tied to issues of ethnicity when in reality it's much more complex and far reaching than that. The fact that one makes that assumption without considering any alternative is telling.

It's not an assumption. It's an observation based on years of watching certain people dress themselves up and pose as brave free speech warriors, when in fact they are transparently interested in protecting the status quo, i.e., their dubious privilege to incivility without reproach. Don't you find it the least hypocritical that you want to protect this "freedom of speech" on the part of the so-called "politically incorrect", but your knee-jerk reflex is to try and squash anyone who calls them the rude and incivil? I guess sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander after all.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:48 PM on September 05

Anyone who attempts to turn personal tragedy or community issues into political hay

And do the "Jesse Jackson types" you were inferring about qualify? Does Al Sharpton?

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Answering a question with a question (one that doesn't give an answer to the original), brave indeed.

Does it matter? Either phrase makes it a racial issue

Precisely. And yet, you chose to highlight only one side of the debate.

What are you trying to say?

I'm trying to say it's much safer to speak about a group of people when the group is comprised of white males than when it contains anyone else. That it's more....politically correct, gasp!

what do you think is interesting about it?

That only a slur made by the resident "white males" was highlighted, the one made by the accuser was conveniently omitted. But, these types of topics often lend to quotations of convenience.

It's an observation based on years of watching certain people

I ask again, do your observations include anyone other than "white, middle-class males?"

How else is it used, except to complain about issues of ethnicity, race, gender, or sexual preference?

You yourself just provided three examples of "how else". But, considering race is a misnomer used to define ethnicity, I'll consider it to be only two.

Yes, you do.

No, I don't. I'm merely offering my own assessment as to why situations pertaining to the article and the original discussion will continue to elicit this type of debate. Thank you, though, for proving my point.

posted by SooperJeenyus at 08:44 PM on September 05

Moreover, I couldn't help but notice your reference to overwhelmingly white, most often male as well as grum's referral to white, middle-class, males. I might ask whether or not your keen insight is so penetrating as to reveal other observations made concerning ANY OTHER group of people but I suspect the laws of political correctness will prohibit you from expressing, or even acknowledging that such observations exist.

Conservative Christian, right wing Republican, straight, white, American males. Gay bashin', black fearin', poor fightin', tree killin', regioal leaders of sales Frat housin', keg tappin', shirt tuckin', back slappin' haters of hippies like me.*

Just to reveal a few.

* Todd Snider

posted by Folkways at 09:14 PM on September 05

Conservative Christian, right wing Republican, straight, white, American males. Gay bashin', black fearin', poor fightin', tree killin', regioal leaders of sales Frat housin', keg tappin', shirt tuckin', back slappin' haters of hippies like me.*

So....no then?

Though, to be clear, I'm obligated to identify with straight, American male, and sometimes keg tappin' and, when occasion dictates, shirt tuckin'.

Be sure to thank Todd for the representation.

posted by SooperJeenyus at 09:22 PM on September 05

This phrase doesn't make any sense to me. What are you trying to say?

He's saying you profile white males but take offense on the profiling of other races. If I'm being obtuse it's not deliberate. There's a case to be made for civility of speech without assigning motives to those who disagree with your assessment of what is civil.

I read some comments before I got a chance to see the video but I don't see how we can be assigning this fight to race tensions. The ref who made the call got attacked by those he made the call against. No other reasons were given and I think that would be a pretty big detail to leave out of a story.

posted by tron7 at 02:02 AM on September 06

I'm trying to say it's much safer to speak about a group of people when the group is comprised of white males than when it contains anyone else.

So you're expecting the majority to be treated the same as historically persecuted minority groups? People have more license to talk about a group they belong to than one they don't. Since it's largely a white male dominated culture in the U.S., there are more white males in the conversation engaging in self-mockery and self-criticism.

If this bothers you, wait 50 years until this country is majority minority. The white male pity party is going to be huge.

posted by rcade at 08:37 AM on September 06

He's saying you profile white males but take offense on the profiling of other races.

I don't know that it is profiling. Being the dominant group means that white males rarely experience discrimination in any real sense, so why would they be sensitive to it? Unfortunately, a lot of people don't bother with the whole empathy thing, which is a pretty important part of recognizing the problem with throwing out political correctness if you don't suffer directly from some discrimination. Political correctness means not telling nigger jokes, not saying black people are criminals and thugs, and expressing any other offensive stereotypes of a group. I'll take that any day, even if some people feel put out that they can't express their own thoughts. What's great is that there are a lot of white males, including on this thread, who get it, and have no problem with such limits either.

posted by bperk at 08:41 AM on September 06

tron7:

He's saying you profile white males but take offense on the profiling of other races.

He's wrong.

If I'm being obtuse it's not deliberate.

You're not obtuse at all, just wrong in this case.

There's a case to be made for civility of speech without assigning motives to those who disagree with your assessment of what is civil.

And there's a case to be made for recognizing the blatantly obvious, i.e., that the usage of the phrase "politically correct" as a bully stick to stifle attempts to create civility FAR outstrips any incidence of so-called "political correctness" to deny rights to others. Or, also in the blatantly obvious category, that those who suddenly become brave free speech warriors speaking out against so-called "political correctness" in defense of their right to tell fag jokes, are conspicuously indifferent to the state of free speech in other circumstances.

Here's another thing to think about, on the subject of profiling white males: one of the main handicaps to any coherent dialogue on subjects like race or privilege is the resistance of people who are in a position of comfort to any change in, or even discussion of, the status quo. Once upon a time in this country, issues like racism could get raised and actually get a hearing and some thought; now, anytime the issue comes up, there are a lot of comfortable people whose reflex is to make it all go away by saying things like, "Oh, every group has jerks, every group has racists." While that's technically true, it doesn't mean the situations are comparable or that we've reached some insane parity -- yet you see this reaction over and over again, this reflexive "I don't want to be made uncomfortable" selfishness in those for whom the status quo is comfortable, no matter how miserable it is for their fellow human beings. Someone else, in this case Richie of the blog Crimitism, said it much better than I could:

I mean, everyone experiences racism, right? Like, when you're at a job interview, the guy doing the hiring is going to stereotype everyone. He thinks the black guy's a criminal, he thinks the Arab guy's a terrorist, he thinks the Mexican guy is an illegal immigrant, and he thinks the white guy likes football. Everyone is stereotyped, so we're all equal! LET IT GO!

Does that make any sense?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:15 AM on September 06

Yeah, I understand that. I was with you and Grum in the debate throughout the thread but when I see stuff like:

My favourite part about people who use "political correctness" as a derogatory statement is that the majority of them are white, middle-class, males who feel that it hinders their ability to express themselves the way they want to.

I don't see how that helps your argument in a thread decrying the assignment of motives. Are you just trying to bludgeon someone to your point of view? How do you find this helpful?

posted by tron7 at 10:26 AM on September 06

I don't see how that helps your argument in a thread decrying the assignment of motives. Are you just trying to bludgeon someone to your point of view? How do you find this helpful?

But I talked about motive, too -- specifically with reference to people who shout "political correctness" because they are comfortable and don't want the status quo threatened. I don't think it's true that you can't ever discuss motive, or that it's always okay to assign motive to some groups (white males) and not to anyone else; it's that if you do, you have to have something to support it. It seems like in most cases of claims of political correctness, the situation largely speaks for itself: someone makes a nasty, bigoted comment, someone else says some version of, "That's a nasty, bigoted comment", and the first person (or a bystander) accuses the second person of "political correctness". It says something about how thoroughly the dialogue has been abused that anyone ever takes these charges seriously in such situations...or, perhaps, it says something about...motive?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:08 AM on September 06

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) is commemorating 9/11 by screening a virulently anti-Muslim documentary about the Park51 community center project in the Capitol building today. In the press conference kicking off the event, West blamed multiculturalism for making America vulnerable. "My fear is that maybe we could end up forgetting what happened on 9/11 because of political correctness or the desire to be a multi-cultural America,," he said.

An example of someone using the phrase "political correctness" as a tool for hate. However, this person is not a middle-class, white male.

posted by grum@work at 01:10 PM on September 07

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.