[JRutledge]

Originally posted by bgtg19
Wow, who knew that ... timeouts (!) ... were the problem with society? Let me just suggest that it is not the *form* of discipline that is the/a cause of the problem, but rather the absence of discipline altogether. There are responsible ways to handle discipline using (a) exclusively timeouts and other forms of non-physical discipline (as I am using on my children); and (b) spankings and other forms of both physical and non-physical discipline (as my parents used on me). I am a healthy and balanced person (although the occasional coach and fan doesn't necessarily see it that way!) and my children appear to be healthy and balanced. Just because my children do not get spanked does *not* mean that they get to do whatever they want....

Well you have not convinced me. We live in a society that has abandoned many of the things that used to work, for a new age way of thinking. I cannot and will not say it is just about spanking, but something is wrong when these kids do not fear any authority. Parents allow their children to behave in all kinds of way that was never acceptable when I was growing up (and I am 32 btw). I could not even imagine myself calling an elder by their first name. But all I see is adults allow that kind of interaction with kids because they want to be liked. So if they are disciplined without a belt, I am not seeing the result of that behavior in many kids today. Not all, but many.

Originally posted by bgtg19
Since the original post was to Whitlock's article, let me observe that Whitlock did *not* say that the incident itself occurred because of race. He suggested that Stern's response to the incident was informed by race and culture considerations. Although I agree that, as a general matter, Whitlock is more ready to see race in situations than I am, I am not ready to dismiss his observations altogether. Whitlock wrote: "We're witnessing a clash of cultures. A predominately white fan base is rejecting a predominately black style of play and sportsmanship."

There was not cultural consideration as to why a fight took place. Maybe the way certain individuals would respond has some issues of culture involved, but we live in a society that makes fans they say and behave in any way, shape or form because they are a fan and pay money to attend the games. And we are in a culture that makes radio hosts say just about anything about a human being that because he cannot hit a home run with the bases loaded when we want them to.

Originally posted by bgtg19
Another forum participant suggested that sportsmanship has no color. On this point, I tend to agree more with Whitlock. I think there are differences in "sportsmanship" -- while I should also quickly point out that many differences cannot be, and should not be, explained by race. Sportsmanship, to me, is about showing respect for the game, for your opponent(s) and for yourself (collectively, as a team, and individually). I recognize that there are differences in what this means. Can the exuberance that an athlete shows for a good play s/he made cross the line and show disrespect? I think so. Can exuberance be "innocently intended" and not meant for disrespect? I think so.

Let's take the codes out of what you are saying. Are you telling me that Black inner city kids have a lack or respect for the game? And the suburban kid with the money is respectful and respects the game more? What are you saying here?

Originally posted by bgtg19
I just think that all of us -- fans, players and other interested parties (including officials) -- ought to not be so quick to take offense. If a guy screams after he blocks my shot in a pick-up game, I think he's a little nuts (after all, it doesn't take much to block my shot...), but whatever. If a person shouts an insult at me, that's really her/his problem, not mine.

Yeah right.

Originally posted by bgtg19
When Charles Barkley says that "We are first men," I agree with him, but when he says that "if you challenge me I'm going to respond because I am a man" (paraphrasing), I disagree with him. I think I am being an authentic man by being in control of myself and staying disciplined to my values.

I heard the entire interview on PTI where he made those statements. Barkley did not say a response with violence. He said that he would respond to someone throwing something in his face. He also said that if he threw something in someone's face, he would expect it to be on. Barkley was making it clear to everyone that it is easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterbacking this issue. I know as a man I would not just allow anyone to do something physical to me and I sit back and do absolutely nothing, because you just do not respond to violence with violence. I will assume that the folks saying that also feel we should have not gone to war after 9/11 or feel that the death penalty is immoral in all situations as well. Aren't those situations a response to violence? But our society supports those in most cases and we sit back and say almost nothing in opposition. But when someone response to personal violence, that is wrong.

Originally posted by bgtg19
I just think that all of us -- fans, players and other interested parties (including officials) -- ought to not be so quick to take offense.

I can only speak for myself. I was not offended by the article, I was saddened for the man that he really thinks this boils down to a culture of music, instead of maybe a larger societal issue. The last time I checked, the term "gangsta" came from a culture that has embraced violent people and societies. Remember the Sopranos is a hit show and almost every movie that has guns blasting or cars and buildings blowing up is what this culture supports. One of the most popular movies in the Hip Hop Culture is Scarface. I have seen that movie probably a hundred times and I have yet to see any African-Americans in that movie or Hip Hop music in the background.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Nov 23rd, 2004 at 03:22 PM]