Did i say the person saying it was a bigot or racist?

I think some of you blow your whistles to hard and its depriving your brain of much needed oxygen. Seems like i said that someone saying "Hey you are a bigot." is a racist remark in and of itself.

I may make some boring, bland comments, and does that make me boring or bland. No -- dealing with that statement as it is and as it stands alone is a racist statement.

Youm might let a coach call you a bigot and laugh it off because hey it could be true -- but to me thats a personal attack and a racist one at I am going to toss him for that.

Thanks, Rut. I've been getting this strange de javu throughtout this thread. I've finally realized that it reminds me of the "Diversity" episode of The Office where the idiot boss randomly tells people, "Don't say that, it's offensive." about clearly non-offensive remarks. I'm at a complete loss to understand why people claim calling somebody a bigot is a racist remark. By calling somebody a bigot, you are accusing them of exhibiting bigoted behavior or expressing bigoted attitudes. In other words, you're attacking that person's character; you are not, however, discriminating or exhibiting prejudice based on that person's race.

A character attack from a coach will earn him just as rapid a dismissal as a racist remark, however.

Please, explain to me in small, easy to understand words (because I'm a bear of very little brain) why a coach calling you a bigot is a racist remark. As I understand it, racism by its very nature is not about character, it's about race. So where do you find the racism in this comment?

You gotta be kidding.

You pull the race card. It's your trademark.

Anybody that don't know that just hasn't been paying attention.

Well, you've got a completely black team playing a completely white team, and a black coach telling a white referee that he's a bigot? Now whatintheheck does that coach think that official could <b>possibly</b> be bigoted at? Assistant coaches, in general?

How about you telling me that in small, easy to understand words?

He may be accusing you of being racist. But that, in itself, is not a racist remark. It's a character attack, to be sure. But not automatically racist.

Well, I'm not sure if I understand your logic, but I know where you're coming from now anyway.

Thanks.

Now feel free to go reply to Nevada's treatise. :D

LOL, I'm at 32,000 words and still going. I'll post it when I'm done. :p

Good luck. My eyes glazed over and I passed out at about the 900-word mark.

There should be a Forum rule requiring Nevada to post a warning with every one of his dissertations- <i>"CAUTION- may cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy equipment while reading"</i>. :D

I can only aspire to such garrulous verbosity. Though sometimes I think I give him a run for his money. :cool:

I can answer that for deecee.

Read every post I've written in this thread. I explained it over and over. If for some reason you can't find one of my posts, let me know and I'll be glad to explain it one more time.

Jim,
Yes, it would probably be perceived as racist, because few bigots know they are....
mick

Nope. You missed the point, Dan. Why did my post quote you first? Since I was sarcastically responding to what you said. I even put the :rolleyes: .

I would have issued those Ts myself. I would have even made that last one flagrant.

You are the one who is flip-flopping. In one thread you tell me that it is having rabbit ears to do something about someone saying "bullsh!t" and then in this thread you praise the official for taking care of business. You can't have it both ways.

"Why don't you go figure out exactly what your position is & get back to us when it's all clear to you."---Back at ya.

I didn't express surprise; on the contrary my observation is that it happens all the time on levels small, large and everywhere in between.

Advantage is gained when the accusation causes change-of-behavior and that change-of-behavior favors the accuser. Again, happens all the time, but only when the accused allows it to happen.

I agree institutions and structures are more important than ignorant or manipulative actions. I don't think I've empowered the individual accuser in anything I've said.

I'm not offended when accused of something I'm not guilty of...but I still have to address it to keep it from becoming something it is not.

And I'm not addressing racism and only racism, but the actions of anyone who uses any hot-topic issue...race, gender, religion, politics, sexual preference, etc, etc, etc...in an attempt to gain influence or advantage of any type. Not that complicated...

Enjoying the discussion...:)

Good point and I agree. Except for "politics" maybe. That might be a little bit of a stretch; I've never been called a "f***ing Republican" out on the court before. :)

As an official, I think that you kinda expect the normal attempts by coaches or players to gain an advantage by whining at or trying to work you. That type of behavior almost comes with the territory, like it or not. You can either deal with it or not also, but at least you usually try to control it somewhat through warnings, "T"s etc. When it gets into the topics that you mentioned above though, then the person doing the yapping is making their attempt to influence the official way too personal; it's turned from a means of trying to influence a call into an outright attack. It's kinda like the old rule of thumb- "let 'em attack the uniform but not the man inside the uniform". Iow, it's almost like the difference between a "misdemeanor" and a "felony; different degrees of seriousness carrying different penalties.

One type of behavior is usually just a normal part of the game, even though most of us might wish that it wasn't. The other type of behavior has no place in the game imo.