The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

This has been a story in NorCal, but apparently it has made national news, and it's obviously relevant to current events.  So:

DeMarcus Cousins (who has played the majority of his career in Sacramento) sent a tweet to Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear, and here was the response:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZi7JJ4UMAAKL88?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Now, let's give a little backstory.  Napear has had a daily drive-time show on the Kings flagship radio station for decades, and while Cousins was in Sac, Napear criticized him very heavily.  Last year, when Cousins criticized Raptors fans for cheering Kevin Durant's injury, Napear said of Cousins, "This guy is the rudest, crudest, most vile player that I have ever been around in my 31 years in the NBA."  They have a poor relationship, to say the least.  So Boogie's tweet was definitely bait.  And Napear took ALL of it.

Boogie's tweet in response (https://twitter.com/boogiecousins/status/1267303520643899398) was "Lol as expected."  But then something else happened:  Kings legend Chris Webber followed up (https://twitter.com/realchriswebber/status/1267452141448368128) with, "Demarcus we know and have known who grant is. The team knows as well. I’ve told them many times.  They’ve seen it. They know who he is."  Then former Kings player Matt Barnes (who grew up in Sac) tweeted (https://twitter.com/Matt_Barnes22/status/1267314041350848513), "Would expect nothing less from a closet racists" (sic).

Napear was put on administrative leave from the radio station, then fired the next day.  Napear also "resigned" from his play-by-play job with the Kings.

Before we get into the All Lives Matter discussion, it is worth mentioning that Napear has defended Donald Sterling on his radio show, saying that a man who hired a black GM and black head coach could not be racist.  Napear also repeatedly criticized Colin Kaepernick for his protests during the anthem.  And given the comments of those former Kings players, this is more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation.

---

So, I know that some people will object to the very concept of an "All Lives Matter" response even being a straw in the first place.  The thing is, after 6+ years of "All Lives Matter" being used almost exclusively by people who ideologically oppose the actions of Black Lives Matter activists, it has reached a level of extra meaning that phrases like "Separate But Equal" have.

Now, no one would say that they are against equality, right?  And "Separate But Equal" inherently calls for equality!  But we all know that there is a subtext behind the literal meaning of the words in that phrase.  And that's now the case with "All Lives Matter": the subtext is that black people should stop complaining and asking for special treatment.  In this specific case, Napear himself used that phrase to antagonize a player he dislikes who asked him about BLM.  Napear knew what he was doing, and his response was crafted carefully.

“All lives matter” has ALWAYS had the same undertone as “Separate but equal”

All lives matter is a stupid thing to say to begin with. When i see it i immediately think people are either stupid or malicious.

And yet I think it is a very appropriate comment. There was the shooting of Justine Diamond by a black police officer who was on the edge, very similar to what happened but in reverse. I really do sympathize, and yet I also see it as part of a culture that overall is very on edge and armed to the hilt.

This may be one of those things where you don't have the same historical context in Australia as in the US.

The best analogy i saw was the fire fighter pointing the fire hose at the house that isn't on fire because "all houses matter"

I think everyone knows now Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well or also, not Black Lives Matter more than any other lives.  I think the message was miscommunicated and convoluted in the beginning that could have been clarified by adding a "too" to the end of BLM, but then people did use the All Lives Matter slogan maliciously after that.

Yes very true. We are an even younger country than the USA, we are still going through some growing pains, although maybe not to the same extent purely because of history and relative isolation (and just pure numbers of people). Racism is still a scar on our history, and it is still ongoing - for a long time the flippant, casual kind was tolerated (the old "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me") but Harry Connick Jr's slapdown on Hey Hey It's Saturday alerting us to the offense nature of blackface was a (welcome) wake up call to the deficiencies of our culture.

Oh, and that was tolerated because we naively thought like we never really had really bad stuff like slavery... until films like Rabbit Proof Fence alerted us to the history of the stolen generation and other equivalent atrocities.
 
We are working on it... it is far from perfect, but we are looking at ourselves and trying to work out how it should be better. If there's a death related event, even more so.

I realize that people don't try and ever understand a different person's perspective but when white people hear Black lives matter slogans it seems more like a separating term than equality just the way when a white person says "All lives matter" blacks take it as a slam on them. I do agree that "too" helps define that but the truth is until we quit pointing out how we are different with labels then we will never be the same. We can't all ever be African Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans, or white Americans but we can be Americans.  

I learned in marriage counseling many years ago that what I say isn't what the other person actually hears. Perspective has a huge impact on our understanding. We suffer this tremendously in society as a whole but I don't think we are that far apart for the most.

That was made abundantly clear from the beginning.  Others such as Fox and Trump were the ones claiming the implied too was an implied only.  And even on this board when that was pointed out ad nausium folks on the right continued to distort the meaning.

::)

No, obviously it wasn't made abundantly clear from the beginning, but please continue to know what confused people around the nation were thinking Mr. Telepathy.  That doesn't even matter anymore, everyone knows what it means now.   

The firefighter example is pretty good, but I've even heard a better example.


Imagine a mother grieving the death of her child.  At the funeral, she speaks and said "my child was special."  And then someone stands up and blurts out "all children are special."

That's the tone that "all lives matter" conveys.  OF COURSE ALL LIVES MATTER.  That was never a question and it was never anything anybody said except as a response to "black lives matter".  Black communities are in crisis with their lives being devalued by their society, the police, their government.  All lives are not.





Or wandering out of the desert dying of thirst, you say "I need water".  And the person walks away saying "Everyone needs water" is a pretty good one, too.

I do think that early on, people who did agree with the BLM movement might see "All Lives Matter" as a sort of middle ground; a way to try to support protesters without offending opponents.  They were wrong, but earnestly so.  So the appropriate course of action is to explain why that seemingly innocuous phrase "All Lives Matter" just serves to trivialize the issue.

But that time has passed.  Anyone saying "All Lives Matter" in 2020 knows that means they oppose BLM activists.  Even if you are a veteran who has personally been wounded and lost your own blood to protect our land, "Blood and Soil" has a very specific meaning that goes beyond the definition of the words.

I agree.  And early on, I fell into that same category.  When the BLM movement first started, my initial reaction was "Well no duh, all lives matter."   But as the "all lives matter" retort has evolved, I now see that it does trivialize the issue.  At 100% face value, all lives DO matter.  However, when used as a rebuttal to the slogan "Black Lives Matter", I think that "All Lives Matter" has just become an excuse to be lazy and to not have to take an unbiased look at the subject. 

This is a wonderful, understanding, and nuanced take. 

It's totally cool to feel something, evaluate yourself and how it makes others feel, and evolve.  Good for you.

Getting fired for tweeting "All lives matter", is ridiculous. Our society is a bunch of sensitive pussies. Always looking for something to be upset about.

nope .. wrong take

I think getting fired for tweeting "All Lives Matters" is wrong too but I think there is more to the story. It sounds like he has a history although I don't know what that is. The funny part to me is that "All Lives Matters" or "Blue Lives Matters" or whatever is somehow offensive to blacks but saying "Black Lives Matters" isn't supposed to be construed that way. People pick and choose what rules they want to be offended by.

We are becoming a society that kills people in the media who have a different view... especially if they are white. The backlash Drew Brees has faced for giving his opinion in an interview where he was asked is stupid. He didn't attack anyone and I'm willing to bet he has helped more black families than most black professional athletes.

Did you read the funeral analogy?  If you can understand why “my child was special “ isn’t offense but the response “all children are special “ in context is offensive and rude, then you have the cognitive ability to understand why the hashtag #blacklivesmatter in response to the acquittal of Zimmerman was not offensive and the retort #alllivesmatter was offensive.

No and I haven't read any dissertation either. People hear a slogan and form an opinion. Sometimes it's Nike's "Be Like Mike" or Wendy's "Where's the Beef?" which draws people in and then there's one's like Time Warner: “Enjoy Better” which makes no obvious sense. It's not the fault of the person hearing it for not getting it. Well it use to not be. I'm betting you and Spider think all people should get anything involving minorities.

BTW .. Zimmerman was innocent of the law just like everyone thought from the beginning so anything resulting from that seems pretty artificial.

This all lives matter shit needs to stop.   Because NOT ALL lives matter!!   Thugs, looters, rioters and corrupt cops lives don't matter!!!   If you're out there using your authority to kill innocent people, if you're ransacking stores, if you're burning down buildings, if you're basically destroying other peoples lives, then you need to pay with your own!!!

Tommy, sit this one out. 

Your stance on race isn't the voice we need right now.

It's not even an issue of "not getting it."  There are multiple people telling you the subtext and you simply refuse to accept it as valid.

So it's not like you don't know people will react in the manner they are... you are saying that you simply don't care.  Which is ultimately the root of the problem in the first place.

How do you feel about the acquittal of the officers charged with police brutality against Rodney King?  Were they proven as innocent as Zimmerman?  Were any protests or reform that resulted from the outcome of that trial also "artificial"?

The Rodney King situation was bad all the way around.  It's not even a close comparison to Zimmerman. The police and DA thought that what Zimmerman did was "legal" based on the law and decided not to charge him. They were later forced to charge him, another DA was appointed and yet he was found not guilty. I think everyone thought the police in the King situation were extremely overboard. The protests were justified but the rioting and looting were not. It's never ok to hurt innocent people in order to get people to listen.

Look ... most everyone agrees that OJ Simpson killed two people and yet no one rioted or looted. That's how a civilized society acts when they don't get what they want.

Those situations are the exact opposite of each other.  They shouldn't be used to compare.  Instead, you should be using them to contrast.

The LA Riots were a response to a continued problem that the people of that community were facing.  The LA police were terrorizing those neighborhoods and finally, that community had video evidence of exactly what they'd been complaining about.  The police being exonerated in the face of such damning evidence was proof that the deck was rigged against that community.  They rioted.

OJ was the opposite.  He was found not guilty, specifically in response to the Rodney King stuff.  That community was sticking it to the justice system.

White people didn't riot because what would they be rioting? 

That's what I think the disconnect is with you, CF.  People aren't rioting because a cop killed a black man.  They're rioting because the system continues to allow it, protect those people, and do nothing about it.  The system didn't care until rioters made them care.

Your argument was that a Not Guilty verdict meant that anything resulting from that event was pretty artificial.  Both the LAPD cops and George Zimmerman were found to have been justified in their use of force.  So what's the difference?

The jury didn't, much like the jury in the Zimmerman case.

Do you think the reason OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife was because of racism?  Or did he kill his ex-wife for the same reason that thousands of domestic abusers kill their significant others?

Systemic racism was not an underlying cause in Nicole Brown Simpson's murder, just like it was not an underlying cause in Caylee Anthony's murder.  That's why there were no riots or protests when those verdicts came back Not Guilty.

My disconnect goes much farther than that. I do not believe in systematical racism to begin with. Blacks took over the NFL because they played better. The CEO leading Lowes is a black man who was better at his job. I've literally grown up with black kids from the projects. They have slept in my same bed as me in elementary, middle, and high school. Some have succeeded and others are dead. Just like my white friends. Life choices has more to do with opportunity than the color of your skin but I'm not supposed to say that even though I grew up poor white trash. That's why I love Ben Carson, Sheriff David Clarke and former police officer Brandon Tatum. They tell the truth about how they've grown up from the hoods and didn't experience the "victim" issues that are being protested.

I implore all of you to watch this. I don't expect you to agree with it but it will at least give you the opposite point of view (that I have a hard time expressing) and with no racism attached.

https://www.prageru.com/video/how-to-end-white-privilege/



 

Well, then.  That's the underlying problem. 

Maybe you'll come around eventually, but your stance on this stems from that issue -- we can both agree on it.  There's really not much more to discuss if that's the case.

The first step in solving a problem is admitting that the problem exists, so there may actually be hope for you someday after all.

Nah...who am I kidding?

This seems to happen frequently when systemic racism is brought up between opposing parties.  CF says he doesn't believe in systemic racism and you pretty much respond with, "if you don't believe it then there is no discussion."  In the entirety of the other thread I created with the WSJ article, there wasn't much factual evidence that systemic racism exists in 2020.  In fact, I gave various reasons why it doesn't exist, hoping to get some evidence from the other side to contradict me.  Instead I receive a philosophical debate with out much factual substance.  I'm pretty sure neither of you watched the video he posted, if you did than kudos for trying to see things from another perspective, that's all I've been trying to do.  I think the video CF posted does a good job of the opposite perspective on the issue.

Tenshot is correct. I knew it was useless but at least I tried. There are a lot of blacks who have differing opinions than CNN or pandering Chuck and Nancy. 

Denying the systemic racism that exist in the USA requires the same blindness and/or prejudice level as denying the holocaust.  

The evidence of its existence is overwhelming.  You choosing to be blind to it or denying it doesn’t disprove its existence it only proves your own racism.  

And honestly, I would give as much time to a video "proving" there's no systemic racism as I would to a video "proving" there was no holocaust. It's a non-starter.

Racism is so deeply ingrained in american culture and society that the idea that it isn't systemic is absurd. It's peak white privilege to argue the contrary. And even to bust out the "black friends" to justify the belief is the cherry on top. And it isn't limited to black people, latinx people, asians, all have seen first hand parts of this. I've seen it first hand.

I mean.  CF is just factually wrong.  It's the coldest of cold takes.

But it makes me understand his position: These protests are just uppity people making a big deal out of nothing.  They're protesting a non-problem.

If that's the case, I'm sure that this protesting seems excessive.  But it means that I can't really engage the debate anymore because we aren't operating on the same set of facts.

You can't really debate the solution, when you can't agree that there exists a problem.  I actually feel pretty good about it.  It's so much clearer.  My talking in circles has become exhausting, but I get it now.

Deflection with no substance or facts.  I'm asking for a factual discussion and you're promoting cancel culture.  Your false equivalence of the holocaust is pretty laughable though.  You say the evidence is overwhelming, but you and everyone else have not done the one thing I've asked...show me the overwhelming evidence!

You literally just said a bunch of buzzwords.  Substance, show me the systemic racism.  

I have to ask if semantics may be part of the disagreement here. You guys realize systemic and systematic are different things? They look to be used interchangeably in the thread.

I meant systemic, I edited my posts to reflect that.

One means widespread and the other means deliberate.  

There is both systemic AND systematic racism within police departments.  

I can agree there is a problem. However, feel free to find and post the stats on the police killing unarmed black people versus black people killing black people. One is a small percentage of a percentage. And one is a high percentage. It's hard to take BlackLivesMatter seriously when they don't focus on the majority of black lives lost. In the BlackLivesMatter vs AllLivesMatter house burning scenario. The house on fire is is actually black on black crime, not black people killed by police.

If you go to the doctor for a heart attack and they find an ingrown toenail. Which one are they going to treat more seriously?

If you find an old car in a barn that you are going to restore. Are you going to get the engine and transmission working or are you going to change the hubcaps?

If BlackLivesMatter was serious, they would focus on the real reasons for the enormous amount of black lives lost. So yes, I can agree that a problem exists. But you don't want to focus on the real problem that kills the most amount of black lives.

Unless you're making a nice fresh fruit salad, those apples and oranges don't belong in the same bowl.

If BlackLives really Matter, then they absolutely do need to be compared. Unless of course you mean that BlackLives only Matter when they are killed by the police or white people. I guess all the thousands upon thousands of other black lives don't matter. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Go ahead Stroke, look up the numbers and post them. That will tell you if BlackLives really Matter or if it's just a racially motivated political stunt.

Completely irrelevant.

Name one time an ordinary citizen murdered someone in front of three police officers and wasn’t arrested on the scene?  Because that is what happened with Floyd.  

We have in multiple thread over multiple years.  I am not reposting facts you refuse to accept, your racism is not worth my time. 

So your proof of systemic racism is multiple threads over multiple years on a Miami Dolphins message board in the off-topic section?  You refuse to have a factual based discussion with me or anyone else on here regarding this matter, then call me a racist as some sort of walk off home run?  Thank you for showing me your elitism, that you have such a morally high character that I can't even have a discussion with you, because "I'm not worth your time."

“The untrained mind keeps up a running commentary, labeling everything, judging everything. Best to ignore that commentary. Don’t argue or resist, just ignore. Deprived of attention and interest, this voice gets quieter and quieter and eventually just shuts up.”--Socrates

So first off, black on black crime even being brought up in a thread about policing and systemic racism is just a straw man that will get you ignored any time it's brought up. Zero relevance, nothing.

About systemic racism in the justice system, it took me about 20 seconds to find a lengthy explanation with examples and links to peer reviewed studies that support the position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/

Also extremely lazy to even ask for it rather than just google it.

I have posted many times that despite evidence that black and white people use illegal drugs at the same rate, black people are arrested FAR more often.  If systemic racism doesn't exist, how is this possible?

This is the problem with many of the statistics y'all are citing to "prove" racism is imaginary: you think these statistics are proving that the cops aren't racist, but the argument you are actually making is that the cops' racism is justified.

Don't believe me?  In your chosen examples of "factual evidence," try substituting "brunettes" or "green-eyed people" or "people born on Tuesdays" for "blacks." Would these observations still make sense?  Do you ever wonder why we have these kinds of studies correlating crime or intelligence with race, but not, say, foot size?

Racism.

Why are you all so hostile towards me?  I have been respectful to all of you since bringing this topic up.  If you want to convince someone of your point of view, up until now, you've all done a terrible job at presenting it.

No at all lazy, I need to see where you are coming from, which sources.  Was it lazy of you to not see this from another point of view?  CF can't even get you guys to watch a damn 3 minute video.  I'm going to actually read your bias article you posted, I'm going to scrutinize it, and if there is still strong, non-bias evidence you may have even convinced me, we'll see.  Give me a little time and I'll respond.  

And just to be specific here:


this is proof of systemic racism


this is proof of systemic racism


this is proof of systemic racism


this is proof of systemic racism


this is proof of systemic racism


this is proof of systemic racism

Do i seriously need to list it all? I'm surprised there aren't riots more often.

Thread subject? Are we talking about racism? Or BlackLivesMatter vs AllLivesMatter? It's two different things

One is a subset of the other.