espn pti: 'if the suns were in the finals like a lot of us think they should be'

[conqueso]

Except those black communities are usually doing it in retribution towards the racist policies of whites. It's a vicious cycle. The ones most likely to be bigoted towards others (the young and poor) are the ones who get pulled over, followed in stores, have people cross to the other side of the street, etc. However, these people have much less influence in society than say police officers (not saying that all officers are racist of course), judges, employers, etc. That's where true systemic racism exists, and that's where it hurts the most.

Also, on an earlier point you made about colleges, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to look at an applicant's race during the selection process. The whole point of a university is to foster a broad range of debate and intellectual discussion with people of different backgrounds. Don't forget that colleges also weight the applications of religious minorities and rural students for the very same goal.

Racism:
I agree that racism is a vicious cycle, but I don't think you can excuse black-against-white racism by saying it's just about retribution unless you also say that white-against-black racial profiling by police is retribution for the disproportionate amount of violent crimes perpetrated by minorities. I don't think you can excuse or justify racism by saying "it's okay if we do it to them because they did it to us first" for two reasons: 1) who actually knows who did what first, and 2) racism is not a rational or reasonable self-defense against racism.

Schools:
I think you are assuming that the whole point of a university it to have diversity. There are many recognized benefits which may be derived from a lack of diversity, as with same-gender and same-race schools. And even in those ins utions where diversity is a part of their particular mode of education, you cannot say that making decisions based on race is not racist. That's axiomatic. We can debate whether that racism is justified, but it doesn't change its essential nature.

You're right that systemic racism is not necessarily by the majority; that's why I said "dominant" race.

You explained that Dirt's definition of racism, which required discrimination by the majority against the minority, was a notion of systemic racism, which you said by definition cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race. When you used the word "dominant" to support a view of majoritarian racism, you made it synonymous with "majority." I still don't see how Dirt's definition is systemic racism at all.

You also are correct about the existence of systemic racism within individual communities that can flip the roles found within the larger society. I don't know that I would characterize the dynamic as "animus," however.

Discrimination without even a minute amount of animus is the type of discrimination that the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasoning. Without animus, discrimination cannot be said to be "bad" or "wrong," it can only be said to be "natural" or "necessary."

[Extra Stout]

You explained that Dirt's definition of racism, which required discrimination by the majority against the minority, was a notion of systemic racism, which you said by definition cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race. When you used the word "dominant" to support a view of majoritarian racism, you made it synonymous with "majority." I still don't see how Dirt's definition is systemic racism at all.

In the case of systemic racism against blacks in the United States, the majority race is also the dominant race, so that is perfectly germane to McGirt's point.

However, I used the term "dominant" as opposed to "majority," because there are plenty of historical examples of where a minority race or ethnic group has been nevertheless culturally and socioeconomically dominant.

[conqueso]

In less pedantic langauge, white people never have to live in a black America unless they choose to do so, but black people have no choice but to live in a white America.

I'd hardly call Harlem or South Central "white America." But even if you are correct, two question must be asked: Is it possible for a non-dominant culture to ever live in a society where they have no choice but to live within the dominant culture? and, is this type of arrangement even harmful at all?

[conqueso]

In the case of systemic racism against blacks in the United States, the majority race is also the dominant race, so that is perfectly germane to McGirt's point.

However, I used the term "dominant" as opposed to "majority," because there are plenty of historical examples of where a minority race or ethnic group has been nevertheless culturally and socioeconomically dominant.

Right. And in light of your last point, how can a definition of racism which restricts it to majority-against-minority be in accord with a type of racism which allows for minority-against-majority racism?

[Extra Stout]

Discrimination without even a minute amount of animus is the type of discrimination that the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasoning. Without animus, discrimination cannot be said to be "bad" or "wrong," it can only be said to be "natural" or "necessary."

This is an important point in the dialogue about systemic racism: the basic type of discrimination the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasonong, which cannot on an individual basis be castigated as "bad" or "wrong," can nevertheless reinforce existing inequities among racial and ethnic groups.

[gospursgooo]

Just because Kornheiser can speak on the radio doesn't mean that I give a about what he says.

Next!

[Extra Stout]

I'd hardly call Harlem or South Central "white America."

Our basic governmental, economic, and social ins utions in the United States of America are Eurocentric.

But even if you are correct, two question must be asked: Is it possible for a non-dominant culture to ever live in a society where they have no choice but to live within the dominant culture? and, is this type of arrangement even harmful at all?

No, and yes. Black people will always be at some disadvantage in the United States of America, unless wealthy, powerful, and culturally significant white people assimilate wholesale into black culture, which is never going to happen.

I'm not saying that it is fixable, just acknowledging that the dynamic exists.

[Extra Stout]

Right. And in light of your last point, how can a definition of racism which restricts it to majority-against-minority be in accord with a type of racism which allows for minority-against-majority racism?

Think, for example, of Mexico, where the gallegos make up a small minority of the population, but hold an overwhelming share of economic and political power, and cultural influence.

[sleepybum]

Meh... I've had the living kicked out of my by a group of black guys and I certainly felt like it was reverse discrimination. I got severe bruising, a concussion, blacked out for 2 days and could've easily died had I fallen badly on the concrete or my friend not come out of the store to stop the kicking. All because I was standing in the wrong part of the sidewalk on MLK day.

I'm pretty sure it was in retaliation for something that had happened to these guys, but that didn't make me feel much better about it. Raleigh NC seemed pretty racist all around when I was up there.

I'm Italian and my grandfather was an immigrant working in a coal mine. He got all the discrimination and I've received none of the benefits of being a minority. I think I'm actually in one of the smallest minorities in the US.

It really is all bull , though. Just realize a large portion of the population are assholes regardless of color. Seems silly to get so offended or over-analyze. Some group of people will not like you without a good reason no matter what you look like.

[ImpartialObserver]

Except the fact that we beat your ass 7 ing times on your home court in the last 3 series. Pretty arrogant to think you would have taken a prospective game 7. We own your asses, and will until D'Antoni is dumped, and you get a coach that understands their is a defensive component to the game, and you don't win trophies without it.

You are one of the few Spurs fans that has actually repeatedly voiced their confidence in beating a full strength Phoenix in that series, and supported it with analysis.

For a lot of non-Spurs fans, it's telling that so few Spurs fans expressed similar opinions instead choosing to back the enforcement of a rule that really had nothing to do with the actual basketball being played on the court.

[Spurminator]

You are one of the few Spurs fans that has actually repeatedly voiced their confidence in beating a full strength Phoenix in that series, and supported it with analysis.

For a lot of non-Spurs fans, it's telling that so few Spurs fans expressed similar opinions instead choosing to back the enforcement of a rule that really had nothing to do with the actual basketball being played on the court.

The vast majority of Spurs fans felt, going in and afterwards, the Spurs were the better team based on matchups and history. If the conversations devolved into an analysis of NBA rules it's because Suns fans couldn't stop ing about the suspensions.

[conqueso]

Our basic governmental, economic, and social ins utions in the United States of America are Eurocentric.

And African Americans are as much a part of this culture as European Americans. If we were talking about displaced tribal Africans here being forced to conform to Western modes of living, then Eurocentrism and its detriments to African culture would be relevant. But when you use the term "white America," you aren't referring to Western governmental, economic, and social ins utions, because those same ins utions are inclusive of all who are have been a part of the culture for a significant amount of time, regardless of the race of the people that ins uted them.

No, and yes. Black people will always be at some disadvantage in the United States of America, unless wealthy, powerful, and culturally significant white people assimilate wholesale into black culture, which is never going to happen.

If whites assimilated "wholesale" into black culture, that black culture would then be the dominate culture and would disadvantage white people in the same way. I'm not sure that it would take a such a large scale assimilation...perhaps just a recognition of the inherent value of black culture. Large segments of white America have done such, with the assimilation of white people into black musical culture, for instance.

This is an important point in the dialogue about systemic racism: the basic type of discrimination the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasonong, which cannot on an individual basis be castigated as "bad" or "wrong," can nevertheless reinforce existing inequities among racial and ethnic groups.

Yeah, I agree, but once you make this recognition, it begs the question of whether those inequities can, or even should, be eliminated. If they are caused (and not just reinforced) by the essential nature of the human mind, how are they supposed to be eradicated? And if inequity is an inevitable fact of life, is it necessarily bad? In other words, are we taking for granted that inequality is more harmful than the alternative, and if so, how do we justify that assumption?

[conqueso]

Think, for example, of Mexico, where the gallegos make up a small minority of the population, but hold an overwhelming share of economic and political power, and cultural influence.

Yes, I agree that systemic racism can emanate from the minority. Which is why I still don't think a definition of racism that restricts the practice to the majority is "systemic" racism. But even beyond all of this, refusing to classify racial discrimination against whites as "racist" because whites are not a part of the minority can't be a notion of systemic racism, since systemic racism can (and does) exist in both white/majority and black/minority cultures. Under Dirt's definition, an entire component of systemic racism is ignored, which is my point.

[Obstructed_View]

You are one of the few Spurs fans that has actually repeatedly voiced their confidence in beating a full strength Phoenix in that series, and supported it with analysis.

For a lot of non-Spurs fans, it's telling that so few Spurs fans expressed similar opinions instead choosing to back the enforcement of a rule that really had nothing to do with the actual basketball being played on the court.

Since that rule was constantly cited by Spur-hating fans from all over the country as some great injustice that was the difference in the series, despite San Antonio winning game one in Phoenix and winning game six short-handed, who gives a what those non-Spurs fans think? Any basketball fan that watches the games knows the Spurs were the better team, have Phoenix's number AND that the rule was enforced fairly and correctly.

[Extra Stout]

And African Americans are as much a part of this culture as European Americans. If we were talking about displaced tribal Africans here being forced to conform to Western modes of living, then Eurocentrism and its detriments to African culture would be relevant. But when you use the term "white America," you aren't referring to Western governmental, economic, and social ins utions, because those same ins utions are inclusive of all who are have been a part of the culture for a significant amount of time, regardless of the race of the people that ins uted them.

Black people have been allowed to participate in the mainstream socioeconomic ins utions of the United States for less than a half-century.

In the years leading up to that point, ins utional racism, specifically segregation, led to cultural divergence between blacks and whites. Integration led to a substantial dismantling of the existing parallel ins utions of segregated black culture, because they could not compete with the dominant culture. For example, black businesses, which could not have competed with white businesses on account of inequitable access to capital, could flourish on account of segregation; however, when that barrier was lifted, the residual inequalities contributed to their failure when exposed to direct compe ion from white businesses for the black dollar.

If whites assimilated "wholesale" into black culture, that black culture would then be the dominate culture and would disadvantage white people in the same way. I'm not sure that it would take a such a large scale assimilation...perhaps just a recognition of the inherent value of black culture. Large segments of white America have done such, with the assimilation of white people into black musical culture, for instance.

It would take an enormous assimilation, because there are substantial differences. I'm not talking about culture in terms of artistic expression; I'm talking about culture in terms of the entire way of thinking that pervades how society is conducted. Black and white America have distinct ideas about that sort of thing, and since we usually don't realize that, we tend to talk past one another.

Yeah, I agree, but once you make this recognition, it begs the question of whether those inequities can, or even should, be eliminated. If they are caused (and not just reinforced) by the essential nature of the human mind, how are they supposed to be eradicated? And if inequity is an inevitable fact of life, is it necessarily bad? In other words, are we taking for granted that inequality is more harmful than the alternative, and if so, how do we justify that assumption?

You can't ever fully eliminate it. You can reconsider some of your assumptions in how you view people, but sometimes in your ongoing cognitive functioning, maintaining "enlightened" views on race is going to take a back seat to some other priority.

[Dilldoe]

if the suns were in the finals i'd be at sunsfans.net trolling. haha

[ImpartialObserver]

The vast majority of Spurs fans felt, going in and afterwards, the Spurs were the better team based on matchups and history.

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.

[Extra Stout]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.

It is more of an accomplishment to beat a team at full strength than to beat it shorthanded, and that can cause some disappointment when the opponent finds itself shorthanded, even though it might have rendered itself that way though the stupidity and lack of poise of its own players.

[Dilldoe]

haha you needed help to beat the suns...the kings wouldnt need that...ha ha ha

[conqueso]

Black people have been allowed to participate in the mainstream socioeconomic ins utions of the United States for less than a half-century.

In the years leading up to that point, ins utional racism, specifically segregation, led to cultural divergence between blacks and whites. Integration led to a substantial dismantling of the existing parallel ins utions of segregated black culture, because they could not compete with the dominant culture. For example, black businesses, which could not have competed with white businesses on account of inequitable access to capital, could flourish on account of segregation; however, when that barrier was lifted, the residual inequalities contributed to their failure when exposed to direct compe ion from white businesses for the black dollar.

I don't think this comment is relevant to my point. In response to your comment that black people have no choice but to live in white America, I responded that the notion of "white America" as an exclusive socio-economic ins ution of white origin that systematically excludes blacks and prohibits them from doing what they want to do is flawed. The reason I tried to give in my last post was, essentially, that what you are calling "white America" is actually an amalgamation of black and white cultures, and not the culture of whites forcibly imposed on blacks. The fact which you point out that the parallel socio-economic ins utions were dismantled during desegregation/integration is true, but I don't think that black-only grocery stores (or whatever) owned by blacks being replaced with integrated grocery stores owned by whites forces blacks to live in some other race's culture. They're the same stores, selling the same goods for the same purposes; the culture is the same, and the blacks didn't have to "adapt to [the socio-economic ins utions] of the dominant race" because there was nothing new to adapt to. In other words, the culture didn't change, just the race of the owners of some of those ins utions. I think we're talking about two different types of culture here, which has led to this confusion, but when you claim that the adaption that occurred was "discordant" to the minority, I don't think that discord had anything to do with systemic (or otherwise) racial discrimination against black culture.

It would take an enormous assimilation, because there are substantial differences. I'm not talking about culture in terms of artistic expression; I'm talking about culture in terms of the entire way of thinking that pervades how society is conducted. Black and white America have distinct ideas about that sort of thing, and since we usually don't realize that, we tend to talk past one another.

While I don't think White American culture and Black American culture are very divergent in terms of an "entire way of thinking," even if that were the case, I don't see how this condition "disadvantages" blacks. If blacks are discriminated against simply because they think differently, then I can see your point, but I don't believe that's the type of discrimination you are talking about. I would hardly call the "disadvantage" of being a part of the minority who think a certain way in a country whose government is predicated on majority-rule is a "racist" condition. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

You can't ever fully eliminate it. You can reconsider some of your assumptions in how you view people, but sometimes in your ongoing cognitive functioning, maintaining "enlightened" views on race is going to take a back seat to some other priority.

Yeah, I agree with this pretty whole-heartedly, since it makes sense to me that the human mind, which functions by means of discrimination, is bound to subconsciously categorize based on such a immediate sensory factor as skin color. I do not question that, when taken too far, this tendency can create patent, harmful racism. What I question is whether an "enlightened" view of race is actually an elimination of all racial distinctions in the mind, or even an assimilation of disparate cultures.

[Extra Stout]

conqueso, the closest thing I think I can relate it to is what you or I would go through if we moved to a foreign country. That's not a totally accurate analogy, but maybe it's close.

In a foreign country, we would be forced on a daily basis to adapt to cultural norms and expectations different from what we are used to. Some things would be the same, be familiar, but a lot of things would be strange. And to some degree, no matter what degree of success we might attain, we would always still be foreigners in that country in some way.

So to a white person, America can be home in a way it can't to a black person. A black person, unless he is going to spend his whole life around other black people, with very limited opportunities for advancement, has to figure out how to deal with white people every day. He has to get used to how white people do things, much as you or I would have to get used to how British people do things if we lived in Britain.

A white person does not have to get used to how black people do things unless he chooses to surround himself with black people.

Now, there are plenty of blacks who can make that adjustment. There are also plenty who can't, just like you might find a white guy who, if you sent him to England, would have an unfortunate episode because "it isn't like America." The difference is that the guy probably can get ahead in the US without those coping skills, because there is a path to success within his comfort zone.

Finding that path within his comfort zone is less likely for a black person.

This is a very different kind of obstacle than racial bigotry is, because what do you do about it?

[JMarkJohns]

*Just passing through*

[exstatic]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.

Why would we think that?
2003 2 games won in PHO
2005 3 games won in PHO
2007 2 games won in PHO

We OWN the hardwood Phoenix plays on.

[Spurminator]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.

That's not how I remember it. I remember most fans wishing they could play the Suns at full strength, but admitting that the NBA had no choice on how to enforce the rule.

[smeagol]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.

Stop kicking you own ass trying to bring the bookie odds as a reason why the Suns woulda/coulda/shoulda beat the Spurs. Since when are the oddsmaker a good barometer of who should win a series? You have been owned by chump on another thread about this same topic and you keep coming back for more?

Reality is they couldn't beat the SPurs. Amare and Boris were suspended one ing game. You guys had six others to prove your so-called superiority and simply couldn't.

Suns fans have to be the lamest of all NBA fans. By far.