Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    Seems like he might have been right about how good he is.

    Lin clearly has a lot of talent. I would argue he likely had a lot of talent as a high school kid.

    His biggest problem as a freshman was strength, which I'm sure is not unusual for freshman..and once again, something college coaches should have spotted.

    College coaches obviously make mistakes. But all of them? It's just crazy. And he's proven there's a different explanation than basketball talent.
    He might have been right about having the potential to be good, but major conference schools aren't distributing scholarships to players whose development past a bench player won't hit until they leave school.

    The league has had lots of players who developed as walk-ons or coming from schools without full scholarships. Did they end up as good as Lin? I don't know, because he hasn't proved to me to be much more that someone who is capable of playing in the NBA and had a streak of serendipity in a big market.

    It would be foolish to say that NO racial bias could possibly be involved, because that denies the reality of life nowadays. However, it is probably more likely to say that his numbers really weren't so superior as to say that race could be the only possible reason.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      Seems like he might have been right about how good he is.

      Lin clearly has a lot of talent. I would argue he likely had a lot of talent as a high school kid.

      His biggest problem as a freshman was strength, which I'm sure is not unusual for freshman..and once again, something college coaches should have spotted.

      College coaches obviously make mistakes. But all of them? It's just crazy. And he's proven there's a different explanation than basketball talent.
      Hindsight might prove him to be right about his potential, but that doesn't mean his potential was obvious coming out of high school and his first season in college kind of shows that. When I was younger, like middle school, there was a guy at my school that absolutely dominated all the competition, but while schools did come to watch him the best he got was Webber St. If we go back a little further there was another guy who was a pretty good ball player, never saw him play in high school though. He didn't get any scholarships, walked on at Purdue, and earned a full scholarship and was a starter for the next 3 seasons.

      Sometimes everyone just misses. Just cause you are great in high school doesn't mean coaches are going to think you can make it at college, and sometimes everyone completely overlooks you. While I am sure there are racist coaches at the college level, we are talking about a mass conspiracy of 100's of coaches not paying attention cause he is Asian. Sorry, I can't believe that. No one gave him a scholarship because no one believed he was worth it not because of his race, but because of his skills and/or physical ability. He proved them wrong, good for him, but don't try to tell me he had to prove them wrong because of racism.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

        Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
        This is the most biased post I have ever seen on this board. Which sports do you speak of? American basketball? Certain events at track and field? The sports world is a big world...It's not that whites in America aren't good at basketball (Larry Bird?), it's that generally they pursue other sports professionally like Kstat points out because there is a conception out there that whites are no good at basketball and blacks are far superior. For every person that says blacks are better athletes because of track and field and basketball, one could point out strong man competitions and sports like hockey that are dominated by mostly whites. Tell me a professional hockey player isn't a bad *** athlete, and I will laugh at you...

        Hell even pro football isn't as dominated by blacks as some people would think...The two whitest teams met in the Super Bowl a few years back, the Patriots and the Packers. Welker ripped the white receiver stereotype to shreds how many years in a row? Regardless when my Pacers step on the floor, they are only one color, and that is blue and gold. Same thing with the Colts, one color, and that is white and blue.
        Blacks don't care about hockey, baseball, strong man competitions, swimming, golf, polo and a lot of other sports. But if blacks cared about those things they'd probably dominate those sports too. If you'd find it funny that someone says hockey players aren't bad *** athletes don't mind me laughing at you by trying to insinuate football isn't dominated by blacks.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

          Originally posted by Magic P View Post
          Blacks don't care about hockey, baseball, strong man competitions, swimming, golf, polo and a lot of other sports. But if blacks cared about those things they'd probably dominate those sports too.
          I am willing to bet if a study was done you would find that in the USA economic situation plays a bigger role than skin color.

          Also blacks don't dominate soccer, and there are 100's of millions of blacks world wide who love soccer.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            I am willing to bet if a study was done you would find that in the USA economic situation plays a bigger role than skin color.

            Also blacks don't dominate soccer, and there are 100's of millions of blacks world wide who love soccer.
            Third world nations don't have the same resources and opportunities as Europe/America. I bet if they could eat the same diet and have the same resources the soccer gap would close greatly.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

              Maybe racial bias played a role in Lin's situation, maybe it did not. I guess I am just soooo sick of people CONSTANTLY pulling the race card. The vast majority of NBA jobs are occupied by minorities, the players union is represented by a minority, coaches are part of minority groups and guess what, many, many tickets are bought by whites (you know, the people who were too biased to give poor Jeremy a shot).

              Look, I get it. I teach American History. We have a long history of racial bias and discrimination. Guys in the early days of the league such as Bill Russell et. al. CERTAINLY faced discrimination. America has since evolved. We have elected our first minority president, people of all different ethnicities have served in Congress and other high profile jobs.

              It just gets frustrating, for a guy who makes 25 million dollars over the next 4 years doing something he loves, to pull the race card and say it held him back. 50 years ago? Sure, I buy that. Today, with minority groups essentially dominating this industry, no, sorry, not buying it.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                Third world nations don't have the same resources and opportunities as Europe/America. I bet if they could eat the same diet and have the same resources the soccer gap would close greatly.
                That's a far cry from saying they would be superior. And by the way, it doesn't take many resources to play soccer. You need a ball and a field. Amazing how Kenyans can dominate every long distance running event with such puny "resources and opportunities."

                Again, it's a lame argument. If you want to claim one group of people is genetically superior in one aspect, you open the door to say they're inferior in another.

                Most of the same people who think black people are superior athletes will turn around and say they're academically inferior, to balance things out, or flat out dumb, and naturally prone to committing crimes. There are stats to back those up too, right?

                It's no less racist to say "they're good at sports, and there's nothing wrong with saying that because that's a positive thing," because in the back of your mind you're thinking "but we're smarter and more evolved."
                Last edited by Kstat; 04-08-2013, 06:00 PM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  That's a far cry from saying they would be superior. And by the way, it doesn't take many resources to play soccer. You need a ball and a field. Amazing how Kenyans can dominate every long distance running event with such puny "resources and opportunities."

                  Again, it's a lame argument. If you want to claim one group of people is genetically superior in one aspect, you open the door to say they're inferior in another.

                  Most of the same people who think black people are superior athletes will turn around and say they're academically inferior, to balance things out, or flat out dumb, and naturally prone to committing crimes. There are stats to back those up too, right?

                  It's no less racist to say "they're good at sports, and there's nothing wrong with saying that because that's a positive thing," because in the back of your mind you're thinking "but we're smarter and more evolved."
                  Notice I mentioned diet too, not just resources. Do these athletes in third world nations have the same access to nutritional info that those in first world countries do? When you're running up and down a field the size of three football fields stamina is a necessity, therefore eating the right foods is a necessity. Notice blacks in America are far superior basketball players than any one else because they have the same resources and opportunities as their counterparts. Other factors play a part in this equation as well.

                  Of course if someone or a group of people are strong in one area they most likely will have weaknesses in other areas, thus the saying show me your strengths and I'll show you your weakness. Such thinking would only offend a liberal who think men and women and all races should be equal in everything. Men and women think and see the world differently and I guarantee the same is true when it comes to race, therefore the different races have different strengths and weaknesses.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                    Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                    Third world nations don't have the same resources and opportunities as Europe/America. I bet if they could eat the same diet and have the same resources the soccer gap would close greatly.
                    Evidently we need to start feeding our national soccer team what the rest of the U.S. normally eats then?
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      He might have been right about having the potential to be good, but major conference schools aren't distributing scholarships to players whose development past a bench player won't hit until they leave school.

                      The league has had lots of players who developed as walk-ons or coming from schools without full scholarships. Did they end up as good as Lin? I don't know, because he hasn't proved to me to be much more that someone who is capable of playing in the NBA and had a streak of serendipity in a big market.

                      It would be foolish to say that NO racial bias could possibly be involved, because that denies the reality of life nowadays. However, it is probably more likely to say that his numbers really weren't so superior as to say that race could be the only possible reason.
                      We aren't talking major conference schools here. We're talking Division one schools. In fact, we're talking some Ivy league schools suggesting that he play in Division III. We're talking coaches admitting they "didn't realize how quick his first step is because he didn't look athletic."

                      I know he was an "All State" player in California, and I'd like to see how many of those get no scholarship offers from Div I teams. (I don't know.) I also know he was a winner in high school, even knocking off a nationally ranked high school team. Suggesting to me he was proving himself if people were paying attention.

                      NBA teams certainly have an excuse. He's a kid from an Ivy league school. I saw him in college. I was extremely impressed with him, but even I'll admit that the likeability factor when watching him play, played a large role in that. But the game I saw, he was outstanding. To the point that, when I saw him, I just figured he was a multi-talented kid who could have gone anywhere he wanted, and just took the opportunity to go to Harvard. Then come to find out no school wanted him....just crazy.

                      If someone can come up with a reason for the school thing though, other than race, I'd be willing to hear it. But sorry, I think the idea that he was ACTUALLY not good enough to play for a division one school is crazy. It's pretty obvious he was.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                        The problem is racism is a highly socially constructed, socially charged concept that we don't know has any basis in fact from any scientific standpoint. At best it's inconclusive, but it seems highly dubious from a genetic standpoint based on current research.

                        I don't know what I think about Linn's assertion. But the I would suggest the idea that he's proposing might be better termed passive/subconscious discrimination based on the stereotypical expectations that some posters have referred to. In other words, it's not some active, maliciously racist conspiracy or coincidence that so many programs potentially overlooked him.

                        One post talked about players like Wang Zhi Zhi, etc, etc in the NBA. I'd point out that none of them were Asian - American. They'd all played professionally in China. 19 Asian - American D1 players out of 4,184 (.4%). Additionally no D1 coaches and only 1 D2. (http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article...ge-3258007.php)
                        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                        -Emiliano Zapata

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                          Evidently we need to start feeding our national soccer team what the rest of the U.S. normally eats then?
                          lol somebody needs to email Klinsmann...this is the break-through we have been waiting for!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                            Notice I mentioned diet too, not just resources. Do these athletes in third world nations have the same access to nutritional info that those in first world countries do? When you're running up and down a field the size of three football fields stamina is a necessity, therefore eating the right foods is a necessity. Notice blacks in America are far superior basketball players than any one else because they have the same resources and opportunities as their counterparts. Other factors play a part in this equation as well.

                            Of course if someone or a group of people are strong in one area they most likely will have weaknesses in other areas, thus the saying show me your strengths and I'll show you your weakness. Such thinking would only offend a liberal who think men and women and all races should be equal in everything. Men and women think and see the world differently and I guarantee the same is true when it comes to race, therefore the different races have different strengths and weaknesses.
                            Ok then, so please enlighten me. In what areas are blacks inferior to whites?

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              Again, it's a lame argument. If you want to claim one group of people is genetically superior in one aspect, you open the door to say they're inferior in another.

                              Most of the same people who think black people are superior athletes will turn around and say they're academically inferior, to balance things out, or flat out dumb, and naturally prone to committing crimes. There are stats to back those up too, right?

                              It's no less racist to say "they're good at sports, and there's nothing wrong with saying that because that's a positive thing," because in the back of your mind you're thinking "but we're smarter and more evolved."
                              But people should never make the second argument in this case. Just because someone is better at X sport it doesn't mean that he's dumber / prone to commit crimes or less evolved. That's what a society has to battle if it wants to eradicate racial strife. Those very thoughts of "balancing this out".

                              There is nothing to balance out in reality. People commit tons of their time in a particular activity and thus become great at it.

                              However, there is something that has been scientifically proved to be different. Bone structure. Forensic scientists and anthropologists are able to determine a person's race by looking at human skeleton. Those differences are most apparent in the skull, the teeth and the limbs but there are present elsewhere as well. Mineral density can also be different.

                              Here are some interesting articles on this:

                              http://www.cof.org.cn/pdf/2009/5/Eth...20apparent.PDF

                              http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wor...ians-compared/

                              http://www.constructal.org/en/art/TH...0ATHLETICS.pdf

                              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754757/

                              However, all of this does not change anything about a human being. It doesn't influence how good he will be in any particular field. It doesn't makes one smarter or dumber. As a society we have to battle the reasons that make us thing that a person's skeletal structure determines how good he will be at anything and if he is smart or dumb. That's what has to change.

                              We shouldn't try to censor science because its discoveries are challenging our society. We should simply change the society in order to accept what has been proven to be true and move forward.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Jeremy Lin talks about how race led colleges, NBA to snub him on 60 Minutes

                                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                                Evidently we need to start feeding our national soccer team what the rest of the U.S. normally eats then?
                                There is a reason that the US is not strong in "soccer". You don't practice it enough. You don't love the sport as much as most people outside of the US do. Heck, you are not even calling it by its normal name
                                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X