September 02, 2011

Where was Mike Greenwell at the time?

posted by yerfatma at 12:22 PM on September 02, 2011

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, 2011

Nice tackle by the kid, though.

posted by rcade at 02:11 PM on September 02, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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

posted by cl at 11:25 PM on September 02, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

Who exactly does "certain undesirables" refer to?

posted by SooperJeenyus at 03:08 PM on September 05, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011

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, 2011