I agree with the NBA fining him. However, I think the whole world needs to grow up at some point. Words are just words.
DG for 3
this may not be a chic thing to say, but has anyone ever considered that using the N word or the F word maybe not sooo bad in the sense that by avoiding these terms we give them more importance than what they are worth?
my thinking may be a bit over rational, but just wondering. i've seen these thoughts suggested, they may or may not reflect my own, but i was just wondering for a point of discussion.
"Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman
No, that's not where I was going. My issue is that Stern is acting like a dictator setting whatever number he wants to extract. It's really a control issue IMO. The NBA is not a normal employer and Kobe and other athletes are basically gagged. Unlike most private people Kobe cannot go elsewhere to get a similar job, particularly due to the CBA. That's the difference. Stern is a control freak and he's sending a message to the rest of the league. That's all this is.
As for some kind of punishment, I agree with that. But a 100K fine is extreme and smacks of arrogance. Why not 100 million? What is the arbitrary limit? What if a rookie backup said the same thing? Is Stern going to treat them equally and take the guy's retirement?
Again, I'm not defending anything Kobe said...
All I kept thinking while reading this thread was:
Weenie is a very sensitive guy, and it angers and saddens him that everyone isn't just as sensitive as he. An admitted male feminist, Weenie is ever vigilant against anti-progressive attitudes. Though he seldom comes into personal contact with the working classes, he keenly feels the pain of their oppression nonetheless . Weenie's chief antagonists are Troglodyte, Evil Clown, Capitalista and sometimes Ideologue. Because of his natural petulance Weenie can easily be goaded into battle, but he is encumbered by a tendency to throw temper tantrums when severely pressed.
Glad to see Indiana is still Indiana
I feel that I may regret commenting in this thread for a number reasons, one of which is that it is dancing on the "thread locked" line already, but...
That's your opinion, not a statement of absolute truth that can or should define these issues, as your "period" ending suggests. Having had both words thrown at me on multiple occasions, I can tell you my opinion based on personal experience. I do not think the comparison is even remotely ridiculous and the emotional impact of these situations and my reaction to them were substantially the same.
Back to basketball-ish: I am often bewildered by the arbitrariness of NBA fines and I hope for consistent enforcement of these things too. However, freedom of speech is about being free of government interference in what one can say, it does not protect you from whatever legally allowed consequences may result from what you say. That includes your employer deciding that what you have said reflects badly on the company and punishing you accordingly - especially when you've agreed to it beforehand in the form collective bargaining agreements and contracts.
I think the Iverson situation was a little different in that it was a mutual exchange of insults initiated by the fan (though I do think his fine should have been higher and I bet it would be today in the post-brawl NBA), whereas Kobe directed his ire toward someone who is essentially a co-worker/superior.
"Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus
"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire
"Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider
TIL Pacers Digest doesn't censor out **********. George Carlin is like, 'what?'
It seems like Kobe, and KMart before him, used the term as an emasculating, diminutive insult rather than a reference to lifestyle or genetic predisposition. Obviously the term has its roots in ignorant hatred (and bundles of sticks). You'd think Kobe would know better since he's Tiger 2.0 before Tiger figures it out. The fine will probably be appealed and lowered. It's a lose-lose either way.
I don't think he should have been penalized at all, but just for perspective sake for those saying it's excessive, fining Kobe $100 grand, is like someone making $50,000 a year getting fined $185.
You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....
The term ***got is not an exclusive insult to gay men. I wish this country was smarter.
You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
The term n***er is not an exclusive insult to black people. Feel free to explain that to everyone you use that word against.
Take 7 mins of your life and watch this (NSFW):
It's from Louie C.K.'s show Louie. It seems crude at first, but I promise that if you stick with it, it will hit you like a brick.
Last edited by FlavaDave; 04-14-2011 at 02:00 PM. Reason: NSFW tag
The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
Subscribe via iTunes
Personally, I think the fine should be for disrepecting the ref or the game... and should be consistent with other fines levied for that offense with any other player. What word he chose to do it is for his own personal PR hit.
Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
You can't say the same about the word ***got. Its totally different. The world describes an emasculation of the male persona. A sissy if you will. Its like when you are a kid and you and your friends are crossing a busy street and one kid is scared to go. You would all chide him and call him a ***got. That does not mean you are calling him a gay. Its just that stereotypically gays exhibited behaviors that are considered emasculate.
So one word was used to define a race for just being, the other was used to define behavioral patterns.
You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
...and you admit that while technically a non-exclusive term, it's still exclusive to one race, while the other word, while also technically a non-exclusive term, isn't. The difference being...what?
I generally never called my friends fa**ots when I was little. Didn't really hear it from them, either. Of course, that's just me.