496 replies to this topic

[dirtynine]

Yeah sorry but no, bigots are bigots. You can hide behind an overly literal interpretation of the Bible all you want, I'm still gonna call you an ignorant bigot. His opinion is unmitigated garbage and it's time we stop tiptoeing around the crap spewed by conservative Christians. He has a right to his (incorrect and totally backwards) beliefs, but I also have a right to protest having to hear them on ESPN. Shame on them if they stand behind him. 

 

Oh, and his basketball analysis/rumor-mongering sucks too.

 

How's he being a bigot, though?  He's not saying Collins should be discriminated against.  He said he'd show tolerance to Collins' way of life and had no problem with anything he was doing in the public realm - only that Collins' personal views conflicted with his (Broussard's) own chosen religious deity.  If you don't want it on ESPN, that's fine, but that's also your opinion. 

 

Again for context, I personally support Collins and I, personally, think Broussard's views *are* incorrect.  But are we really going to police everybody's personal belief systems and opinions just because they're on TV?  Who cares what he thinks? 

[cromulence]

Police everyone's belief system? Certainly not, I'd go totally insane. Object when they broadcast their hateful (and hell fucking yes practically calling him a heathen is hateful) beliefs on a national stage? Fuck yes. Why are you so willing to eat up and accept his BS? Just because he couched his disapproval with platitudes like "showing tolerance" you think it's acceptable for him to declare this man and the THOUSANDS of others like him a sinner who's going to hell? Maybe that's where we differ - you're willing to shrug and just roll with his moronic diatribe, whereas I'd like to see some progress in our culture. And I think a great way to get there is to stop shitting ourselves over respecting people's idiotic religious beliefs and call out wrong-headed, judgmental speech when we see it. Just because Broussard has convinced himself that Jesus is his savior doesn't mean I have to accept his proselytizing on my TV. Maybe it's time to re-think what tolerance really is - declaring your righteous disapproval of others isn't fucking tolerant, even if you're literally tolerating them by not attacking them physically.

 

He's a bigot.

[dirtynine]

Police everyone's belief system? Certainly not, I'd go totally insane. Object when they broadcast their hateful (and hell fucking yes practically calling him a heathen is hateful) beliefs on a national stage? Fuck yes. Why are you so willing to eat up and accept his BS? 

 

I'm not willing to eat anything, I let unimportant crap like ESPN bobblehead opinions slide past and move on.  Especially when he didn't really say anything other than "I don't, personally, like what this guy does."

 

 

Just because he couched his disapproval with platitudes like "showing tolerance" you think it's acceptable for him to declare this man and the THOUSANDS of others like him a sinner who's going to hell? 

 

I'm missing this a little because hell and sinning, as concepts, can only mean something to people who believe in them.  If you, Jason Collins or anybody else don't buy into this stuff, than how does it matter what somebody else says?  I happen to think "hell" is a fairytale, so why would I care that somebody I don't give a shit about (Brossard) thinks a third person is going there?  It's all 100% worthless to me.  People talking about sinners and hell is, to me personally, a really helpful signal to tune them out fast.  

 

 

Maybe that's where we differ - you're willing to shrug and just roll with his moronic diatribe, whereas I'd like to see some progress in our culture. And I think a great way to get there is to stop shitting ourselves over respecting people's idiotic religious beliefs and call out wrong-headed, judgmental speech when we see it. 

 

We might differ, but it's not because I roll with anything Broussard is saying.  It rolls well past me into the land of complete irrelevance.  Kind of like the obviously mentally ill guy who rides his bike through my neighborhood yelling insults at minorities.  Some people don't deserve to be taken seriously, and shouting back at them only makes everybody stupider.  So to your point, I see a great way to make progress here is to actually ignore crap like this completely, and make a note about the source for future reference.  IMO calling this minuscule stuff out and having some protracted, hand-waving debate  every time is actually "shitting ourselves over it", to use your term. 

 

Just because Broussard has convinced himself that Jesus is his savior doesn't mean I have to accept his proselytizing on my TV. Maybe it's time to re-think what tolerance really is - declaring your righteous disapproval of others isn't fucking tolerant, even if you're literally tolerating them by not attacking them physically.

 

He's a bigot.

 

Don't accept it. Who's saying you should?  "Accept" does not equal "heard it and did not immediately rant in the other direction".  And again, why give this guy's approval or disapproval any extra power?  

 

He's a nothing. 

[dirtynine]

...and I *definitely* draw a distinction between his right to use words to express personal disapproval, and a physical attack.  One shows tolerance, the other does not.  Tolerance is not asking everybody to think everybody else is just peachy.  It's *tolerating* them even though they might bother you personally. 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I'm missing this a little because hell and sinning, as concepts, can only mean something to people who believe in them.  If you, Jason Collins or anybody else don't buy into this stuff, than how does it matter what somebody else says?  I happen to think "hell" is a fairytale, so why would I care that somebody I don't give a shit about (Brossard) thinks a third person is going there?  It's all 100% worthless to me.  People talking about sinners and hell is, to me personally, a really helpful signal to tune them out fast.  

 

This is where I'm in total agreement, and why I said I didn't have a problem with what he said. If I boil it down, he said: "He can do whatever he wants, I just don't think he's a Christian, just like a fornicator isn't a Christian." 

 

Since, to me, Christian is a private club of strange people who believe in imaginary nonsense, saying that Collins isn't part of that club isn't an example of bigotry, it's just a clash of belief systems. He isn't excluding Collins from his club because he's gay, per se, he's excluding him because he doesn't agree with his rigid interpretation of his little book to which he ascribes undue importance, just as fornicators don't. (However, religion is really murky for me - they seem to be able to get away with a lot of shit I would call discriminatory. For example, being a priest is a good job. Why can't women have it? Why isn't that discriminatory?) 

 

As long as he doesn't believe Collins should be denied any rights guaranteed under the constitution, or fundamentally treat him any differently, Broussard isn't being discriminatory. I guess you could call him a "bigot," since he believes Collins is less in some way than he is, but then aren't many of us bigots for believing others are in some way less than us?

 

In fact, I would say Broussard sees Collins in the same way I see Broussard. Because Broussard is a fundamentalist Christian I don't think he's a "smart person," but, hey, he can believe whatever he wants as long as it doesn't affect me or other people who can't defend themselves. Similarly, Broussard seems to be saying, "hey, Collins can be gay if he wants, I just don't think he's a 'Christian,' but he can go fornicate and sin just like all the other fornicators and sinners."

 

Whatever. 

 

And, yeah, I think anyone can tell anyone else they're going to hell. Who gives a shit? That's freedom of speech in my book. 

[dirtynine]

In fact, I would say Broussard sees Collins in the same way I see Broussard. Because Broussard is a fundamentalist Christian I don't think he's a "smart person," but, hey, he can believe whatever he wants as long as it doesn't affect me or other people who can't defend themselves. Similarly, Broussard seems to be saying, "hey, Collins can be gay if he wants, I just don't think he's a 'Christian,' but he can go fornicate and sin just like all the other fornicators and sinners."

 

Yeah, your post (and this this excerpt particularly) is exactly where I'm at.  You put it better than I was able to.  

 

Whatever. 

 

Yep.  Sometimes this attitude is the only way to keep ESPN's crap from succeeding.  

[PBDWake]

 

I'm missing this a little because hell and sinning, as concepts, can only mean something to people who believe in them.  If you, Jason Collins or anybody else don't buy into this stuff, than how does it matter what somebody else says?  I happen to think "hell" is a fairytale, so why would I care that somebody I don't give a shit about (Brossard) thinks a third person is going there?  It's all 100% worthless to me.  People talking about sinners and hell is, to me personally, a really helpful signal to tune them out fast. 

Just because a person doesn't subscribe to the belief that the person is espousing does not make what that person is saying any less, at best, disparaging, and at worst, hateful. Saying that a person is "walking in open rebellion against God" is not, and should not be, interpretable as anything other than derogatory. We certainly wouldn't accept it if an ESPN analyst were up there saying that African Americans skin is darkened by their sins, but he doesn't think it should stop them from being able to play sports. Sticking a qualifier on the back end of that sentence does not excuse the first half, and disagreeing with the basis for an ignorant comment does not make the comment any less hurtful.

 

So yes, I agree that Jason Collins is not going to hell. Even if we don't buy into it, millions of people do. And those millions of people will use that as a reason to get out, spend money, and do all sorts of things in the name of stopping the sin. And the more that viewpoint is expressed publicly and NOT condemned, the more empowered those who hear and agree feel.

 

I don't feel Broussard should lose his job over this. I think he should really get one of those Champ Kind "Why don't you sit this one out?" chats about Jason Collins, especially because I think ESPN put him up there knowing there was a chance he'd say something like this. But let's not pretend that when a person is wrong, it takes away the power of what they say to cause actual damage.

Edited by PBDWake, 01 May 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[dirtynine]

I don't agree. Neither his tone nor his language was derogatory. Incorrect and nonsensical, but not derogatory and not even really disrespectful.  It's like hearing some idiot say that because Collins rejected the post-game lasagna meal, he's living in open rebellion to their own personal god, Garfield.  I'm saying that it's a choice to be hurt by something that immaterial.  

 

In general, I wish more people would choose not to be offended by stuff that's not worth their time. 

[PBDWake]

First off, as idiotic as that statement would be, it's still derogatory. It's derogatory in a really stupid and nonsensical way, but it is.

 

And once again, even if the comment itself cannot hurt you by those very words, allowing the attitude itself to go unchecked can, and will, be hurtful. It's happening right now. Scale matters. Telling someone "Hey, don't be mad because Christians say you're going to hell because hell doesn't exist!" is a mighty nice salve for those in states where that attitude has led to DOMA-esque legislation and defeated Same Sex Equality laws. It's totally their choice to be hurt by it. The only way you're going to change that is by making it clear spreading that attitude is not acceptable.

 

*edit*

To further follow it up with a reference to the homosexual community as opposed to the african american one... look at the 90s, and the history of the homosexual community and AIDs. People were coming out nationally, and without any malice or anger, spreading the attitude that AIDs was a homosexual disease, and the implication that if you had it, you were gay, and vice versa. We know it wasn't true, and back then, a lot of people could easily find out the science behind it as well. It doesn't mean it didn't create a large and hurtful stigma towards the LGBT community at large. Hell, remember the crowds cheering when Magic told everyone he wasn't gay? "Gays have AIDs, Gays are going to hell". The phrasing is different, the stigma is different, but the effect is the same. For the people that believe it, it creates an attitude where gay people are almost treated as lepers.

Edited by PBDWake, 01 May 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[dirtynine]

Fair enough - I'm obviously not a fan of people coming down on other people for no real reason other than spectacle.  Which I think is what this really was all about.  Personally I try to ignore the spectacle and not give outlets like ESPN the satisfaction of my attention.  It's debatable that strong corrective debate might make things better faster; my instinct is that they won't. But I can understand the position.  

 

Anyway, I'm really proud of Collins (and Robbie Rogers before him, who deserves a ton of credit too).  

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

First off, as idiotic as that statement would be, it's still derogatory. It's derogatory in a really stupid and nonsensical way, but it is.

 

I totally see the point you're making, and understand that point of view. 

 

One of the differentiating points for me is that Broussard isn't distinguishing between gays and "fornicators." I'm curious, if this had randomly come about that Broussard had said he felt that fornicators, people having sex outside of marriage, were walking in open defiance of God, would you have been as offended? Would you have come to the defense of the fornicators? Would he have been a "bigot"?

 

I can understand the argument that people having sex out of wedlock isn't exactly a protected class, but that's part of what I'm getting at. What Broussard said ISN'T similar to "African Americans are walking in open defiance of God," because that's not something you can find in the silly book. Since it's the book that's dictating the belief, and he's only saying Collins is not a Christian, not that he shouldn't be allowed to do whatever else he wants, it doesn't bother me. 

 

It's indicative of the exact problem with organized religion, but it's not Broussard's "fault," if that makes sense. 

[PBDWake]

I totally see the point you're making, and understand that point of view. 

 

One of the differentiating points for me is that Broussard isn't distinguishing between gays and "fornicators." I'm curious, if this had randomly come about that Broussard had said he felt that fornicators, people having sex outside of marriage, were walking in open defiance of God, would you have been as offended? Would you have come to the defense of the fornicators? Would he have been a "bigot"?

 

I can understand the argument that people having sex out of wedlock isn't exactly a protected class, but that's part of what I'm getting at. What Broussard said ISN'T similar to "African Americans are walking in open defiance of God," because that's not something you can find in the silly book. Since it's the book that's dictating the belief, and he's only saying Collins is not a Christian, not that he shouldn't be allowed to do whatever else he wants, it doesn't bother me. 

 

It's indicative of the exact problem with organized religion, but it's not Broussard's "fault," if that makes sense. 

A) I didn't use "African Americans are walking in open defiance of God", instead I made sure to use the "African Americans skin is darkened by their sin", which IS something people have actually interpreted as being in the Bible, along with the idea that all of Canaan's descendents should be the lowest of servants, going back to the Curse of Ham. It's obviously bullshit justification used by bigots to create a soapbox for a racist point of view, but it existed, and people stood on the soap box for a long time, just as people will with homosexuality.

 

B) Fornication is a choice. Sexuality is not. If you want to criticize people's CHOICES, then that's more reasonable than criticizing someone for something they cannot control. It is not an equal comparison in the least. And even then, I would have felt uneasy about him going on the air and criticizing someone like Tom Brady having a child out of wedlock, and implying he was going to hell.

 

C) Having those viewpoints is a protected freedom. As distasteful as anything I've mentioned IS, I cannot say that he does not have a right to believe those things. But should he have the right to espouse those points of view over the airwaves without criticism? No. He should not. And he should not be free of backlash, both publicly, and from his employer, if what he says is deemed hurtful and offensive.

[JimBoSox9]

If saying someone is going to hell for something they can't control isn't hate speech, I don't know what is. I don't really get why we need to add all the complexity and contortions to defend Brusssard. The right to express his opinion is between him and his God*, but everything after that is up for grabs.


*Its actually pretty fun to imagine all the religious bigots showing up to the gates of heaven all smiles and happiness before getting condemned to hell for being a lifelong intolerant asshole.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Eh, i think I'm probably wrong. I think I was blinded by the silliness of (basically) "going to hell" as a condemnation.

Still, i think ignoring crap like this might be more effective than giving the speaker credence.

[joe dokes]

The issue is more about ESPN culture than Broussard, IMO. He's entitled to his opinions -- and obligated to endure criticism for them. But the forum was granted to him by ESPN, which has a pathological need to turn everything into a "there's two sides to this CONTROVERSY" debate, even if the view of one "side" is shared by only a very small part of ESPN viewers (not to mention society as a whole, but that's another issue, I suppose). 

Actual players might have some insight into this; and their opinions might (*might*) be of some value.  But the Biblical angle is irrelevant to the discussion.  If I was the producer, the ground rule would be, "If you can't address this with anything other than the Bible, go on the 700 Club.  We don't let Jewish commentators go on PTI and bitch about how many players eat ham sandwiches and shellfish." 

 

This is all about ESPN, whose busines model depends on generating heat, not light.

 

If ESPN was around in 1974, there'd be a "debate" about Frank Robinson's debut as manager -- because they could find someone, anyone, to take the "other side."

 

If ESPN was around in 1969, there'd be a "debate" about whether the moon landing was real, for the same reason.

 

If ESPN did "WarCenter" in he early 40s, they would remind everyone that the German economy improved dramatically during Hitler's first 10 years on the job.

[DrewDawg]

If ESPN did "WarCenter" in he early 40s, they would remind everyone that the German economy improved dramatically during Hitler's first 10 years on the job.

 

ESPN WarCenter would be off the charts awesome.

 

"And coming up after the break, today's Top 10--let's get ready to Rommel!!!!"  

 

"ESPN WarCenter FantasyWatch--Matthew Berry is moving Mussolini out of his Top 10."

[JimD]

It'd be fun to watch the reaction of their panel of experts when consensus MVP favorite Yamamoto gets completely schooled by Nimitz at Midway.

[gtg807y]

It'd be fun to watch the reaction of their panel of experts when consensus MVP favorite Yamamoto gets completely schooled by Nimitz at Midway.

Especially embarrassing since he'd been at the top of Mel Kiper's Big Board since 1939.

[DrewDawg]

"After the break, we jump to PTI where the boys will discuss why Japan cannot hold the early leads.  After Pearl Harbor they were such a commanding favorite before the US rallied back.  After that, discussion on whether or not the Allied victory in the Pacific is tainted by their use of an unknown substance, dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

[ifmanis5]

Who was the Tim Tebow of WWII? Has to be an American, obviously. MacArthur or Patton I'm guessing.

[DrewDawg]

Private Ryan.

 

Everyone going way overboard for one person, out of relation to actual accomplishments.

[joe dokes]

Who was the Tim Tebow of WWII? Has to be an American, obviously. MacArthur or Patton I'm guessing.

 

MacArthur and Patton were actually good at their jobs in WWII.

 

I think Charles Lindbergh better captures the mix of past success, present tense failure, hero worship and divisiveness.

[TheYellowDart5]

Who was the Tim Tebow of WWII? Has to be an American, obviously. MacArthur or Patton I'm guessing.

 

He's not American, but Montgomery would be my choice. Horribly overrated, victories credited to him that were more reflective of mistakes made by the other side/thanks to numerical and qualitative advantages, beloved by the press and citizenry while hated by his fellow generals ... sounds pretty Tebow-esque to me.

[ifmanis5]

Private Ryan.

 

Everyone going way overboard for one person, out of relation to actual accomplishments.

Yeah, this is on the money. Patton and MacArthur are more in the Kobe and Favre area.

 

EDIT: Monty as Peyton Manning may have some merit.

Edited by ifmanis5, 03 May 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[DrewDawg]

"Coming up next on WarCenter: Interleague play--the Germans take on the Soviets on the frozen tundra in a match that was inconceivable not 2 months ago."

[JimD]

"After the break, we jump to PTI where the boys will discuss why Japan cannot hold the early leads.  After Pearl Harbor they were such a commanding favorite before the US rallied back.  After that, discussion on whether or not the Allied victory in the Pacific is tainted by their use of an unknown substance, dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

 

"On the other side, Boomer, you have to credit the U.S. Navy.  Nobody would admit it at the time but you know that Nimitz was telling his guys in the war room that Wake Island and Midway were must-wins - no navy has ever come back from an 0-3 deficit to win a war."

Edited by JimD, 03 May 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[joe dokes]

"And while Allies and Axis powers battle it out, lets go to Pedro Gomez to see what plans are in store to return the Lakers Austro-Hungarians to their accustomed spot atop the world standings."

[ifmanis5]

Chris Berman's predictable list of terrible classic rock WWII nicknames:

 

Hyman G. Rickover Beethoven and tell Tchaikovsky the news

Adolf Hitler with your best shot

Hideki Mr. Tojo risin'

[JimBoSox9]

Patton is unquestionably the Bill Belichick of WarCenter.  When he slapped the private TMQ would have 10,000 words about it up the next day.  He just keeps winning, and the sharp knives stay in the drawer.  

[joe dokes]

Patton is unquestionably the Bill Belichick of WarCenter.  When he slapped the private TMQ would have 10,000 words about it up the next day.  He just keeps winning, and the sharp knives stay in the drawer.  

 

 

Boomer, the troops HATE their General

[LuckyBen]

"After eight days off, a rusty Miami squad lost Game 1 of the Eastern semis Monday night to the undermanned Bulls."

 

Of course it's all about Miami.

[blueline]

"After an 8 week break following the Battle of France, a rusty Luftwaffe lost Game 1 of the Battle of Britain to an undermanned RAF, and will now shift their focus to London."

 

 

Of course it's all about Hitler.

Edited by blueline, 07 May 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[santadevil]

David Schofiled believes John Madden should just act like every other manager, because of the loss last night against Toronto.

 

http://espn.go.com/b...closer-too-soon

 

Terrible article David!

[joe dokes]

David Schofiled believes John Madden should just act like every other manager, because of the loss last night against Toronto.

 

http://espn.go.com/b...closer-too-soon

 

Terrible article David!

 

He might have been attempting satire there, because that would go against everything the guy usually writes.  I also think he thinks Rodney sucks, but that's another story.

[Lose Remerswaal]

What does he think of Joe Maddon?

[santadevil]

What does he think of Joe Maddon?

Wow, I'm awesome.

That article didn't read like satire to me.

[ifmanis5]

On Sportscenter this morning- TEN minute segment on NBA fashion. What NBA players wear to their postgame press conferences took TEN minutes. And after that, a FIVE minute segment on NFL headband trends. After that, it was their NHL playoff recap. That was one minute. At most. #DeadGiveaway

[DrewDawg]

Next on ESPN's WarCenter---We spin around the Axis to see what the High Command is wearing in this new year.  Boots, hats, we've got it all covered.  It may be winter in the Fatherland, but style still matters.  Then we'll send it over to PTI for a spirited 30 second debate to see what Tony and Michael think about The Battle of the Bulge--turning point or just poorly name battle?

[JimBoSox9]

"Next up, the Battle of the Bulge. Last week, Tony, we were sitting right here and we both said Germany was done. This series was over and USA had their sights on Japan in the finals. Now, it looks like the whole playing field has changed. Tony, tell me, this surge by the Germans, is it SOMETHING or NOTHING?"

"Oh, it's something. Just look at the numbers. You're talking 8 infantry divisions, 5 armored divisions. This isn't a parade! Germany means business. They're not acting like its over. If you caught that Goebbels press conference last night, he didn't seem like a beaten guy. The Reich is carrying themselves with a lot of confidence"

"Tony, get a grip. This is NOTHING. One setback doesn't let you toss out everything that happened since Normandy! I think you're going to see Patton start to earn some playing time back, and a month from now we're going to be talking about this minor blip, MINOR, Tony, minor blip in the road"

[gtg807y]

Wilbon would be making references to his personal friendship with Eisenhower, such as times they've had dinner together. And he would call him "Dwight," not Ike. Because they're close personal friends.

[JimD]

On D-Day, WarCenter would tease Operation Overlord but forced viewers to wait 20 minutes for highlights, leading off instead with a yet another discussion about 'Tankgate' and whether Patton really did tape Rommel's training manuevers in North Africa.

[DrewDawg]

Spy planes were legal we just flew them at the wrong altitude!!!

[coremiller]

Skip, how will General MacArthur's refusal to give Private Tebow a command affect troop morale going forward?

[HurstSoGood]

Who was the Tim Tebow of WWII? Has to be an American, obviously. MacArthur or Patton I'm guessing.

That's a gimme... John Basilone.  He served in the Army for 3 years before joining the Marines and, as Gunny, earned the Medal of Honor and Navy Cross (posthumously) for heroism at Guadalcanal.  Dude then got paraded around in the War Bond Circus before returning to duty and getting killed on the first day of battle at Iwo Jima.  If that doesn't sound like Tebow and his career, I don't know what does.

[DrewDawg]

Not too many hockey highlights, but damn, did you know X-Games Barcelona is coming up and some dude is going for his 8th straight medal in some event, which, in the commercials for these games, was mentioned alongside the Celtics winning 8 straight titles and UCLA winning 7 straight?

[joe dokes]

This is an actual caption under a picture on the front page of ESPN.com:

Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless discuss whether it's appropriate to compare Nick Saban to Satan.

 

 

 

Words fail me.

http://espn.go.com/c...-devil-comments

[Darnell's Son]

ESPN.com has had the "Jackson trumpets Jordan over Kobe in new book" as a headline for three days now. Does Disney own the company that published the book? It's not like he's saying Pippen was better than Kobe. Saying Jordan is better than anyone(especially another guard) isn't news.