Bull S%@& Racial incident mars high school game

[blacken700]

a day in the life of 333386

[Overload]

Racism?

It's not like they said "Remember the Alamo"...

[Soul Crusher]

Racism?

It's not like they said "Remember the Alamo"...

We used to yell "Howard Beach" back in the day or "Remember Bernie!" when the thugs got uppity.   

[OzmO]

what ever mr no balls.i think it had to do with race and was classless.i least i have the balls to give my opinion and not play little games      

dude your track record of answering questions in general is horrible.  So don't expect me to immediately answer yours.   

If you can explain to me how this article and debate has anything to do with class I will answer your question.  However, you already know what my answer will be and whether its yes or no, it has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not its racism.

[blacken700]

as soon as they started the winning coach knew what it was about and he was right there.if you want to deny  it that's fine.but the coach was there and he knew the situation

[Shockwave]

as soon as they started the winning coach knew what it was about and he was right there.if you want to deny  it that's fine.but the coach was there and he knew the situation

Is it possible the Coach was just covering his ass? No, of course not, no one today is scared shitless of other people freaking out over nothing, no one at all....... 

[OzmO]

as soon as they started the winning coach knew what it was about and he was right there.if you want to deny  it that's fine.but the coach was there and he knew the situation

the coach was smart enough to know that anything else might have cost him his job is this hypersensitive country we live in.  BTW  High school boys do classless things all the time, what isn't tolerated is racism.  what happen here was far from racism no more than a American of Mexican origins waving a Mexican flag at the game.

[blacken700]

the coach was smart enough to know that anything else might have cost him his job is this hypersensitive country we live in.  BTW  High school boys do classless things all the time, what isn't tolerated is racism.  what happen here was far from racism no more than a American of Mexican origins waving a Mexican flag at the game.

that's your opinion,seems alot of people had a differant opinion,they witnessed it live,and your looking at a 1 minute video

[OzmO]

that's your opinion,seems alot of people had a differant opinion,they witnessed it live,and your looking at a 1 minute video

I don't give shit what the majority of people think.  What you just said suggests you do.  The people sounding off on this are the pussy libs, he same hyper sensitive bunch who probably advocate scoreless soccer games.

Blacken are you one those?  I don't think you are. Personally I think you are just taking a contrary stance on this for the fun of it.  you know it's not racism.   

It's ok to agree with the getbig conservatives every once in a while.   

[blacken700]

I don't give shit what the majority of people think.  What you just said suggests you do.  The people sounding off on this are the pussy libs, he same hyper sensitive bunch who probably advocate scoreless soccer games.

Blacken are you one those?  I don't think you are. Personally I think you are just taking a contrary stance on this for the fun of it.  you know it's not racism.   

It's ok to agree with the getbig conservatives every once in a while.   

ookk you caught me 

[OzmO]

ookk you caught me 

Heheh.  I knew it 

[headhuntersix]

Gimme a break Blacken is definitly in the "everybody gets a trophy crowd". Anybody realize that as we pansify this country more and more, its a major national security risk. Kids are fat because mom and dad can't kick their asses off the couch. Kids get bullied and can't do anything about it like kick the shit out of the bully because they'd go to jail on charges. Instead they either klebold and harris their classmates or kill themselves.

[Mr. Magoo]

This is what i said:

If we run around worrying about what people "mean" by everything they say then we will not be able to talk to each other at all.

 You said:

We can, and very much do, run around worrying about what people intend to mean apart from what the words people use actually do mean.

And i said:

.....Maybe we shouldn't.  because when we do, we often make it out to be something its not.

So what was your point again?

I wasn't going to respond, but seeing where this thread went, I think I'll jump back in

My point is that intention is very important in daily conversation. We DO "worry about what people mean by everything they say" and yet we still are able to talk to each other (I talked about how examining intention in daily conversation allows us to have meaningful conversations that would otherwise go nowhere. This is called "conversational implicature" that has been documented and studied intensely). Knowing intention (and therefore examining intention) is a necessity to have daily conversation. The part above in bold that you originally said is simply false.

Now to relate this back to the "USA" shout. It might be false to say that the shouting was racist, but it is also cannot be inferred that the shouting was not intended to be racist. They may well have meant it to be racist, and the other team (or whoever it was that took the shouting to be racist, I don't really care who) may have made a valid conversational implicature. That is, once again, correctly inferring something not by the literal meaning of what was said, but by the fact that it WAS said.

[OzmO]

I disagree because there are 2 parties involved in any communication.  The person that said it and the person it was direct to.  The person it was directed to has to shoulder the responsibilty of how they react to it.  If we run around worrying about what everything is meant by a given assertion that opens the door to a plethora of possible misunderstandings....lea ding to not being able to talk to each other at all.  People can then craft what ever they want from what was said and give it their own meaning.  That's why the face value of what's said is very important.  And in this instance what those boys said was NOT racist.  Whether they meant it or not is not the issue here.  They could said blank blank blank and meant it to mean a racist statement but in the end it would have been racist.

What hey did do was nationalistic, not racism.  Who ever took as racist is on them, nothing more.  Those who took it as racism need to look in the mirror.  Now With that being said, what those boys did was not good and they shouldnt do it. 

[Mr. Magoo]

I disagree because there are 2 parties involved in any communication.  The person that said it and the person it was direct to.  The person it was directed to has to shoulder the responsibilty of how they react to it. If we run around worrying about what everything is meant by a given assertion that opens the door to a plethora of possible misunderstandings....lea ding to not being able to talk to each other at all.  People can then craft what ever they want from what was said and give it their own meaning.  That's why the face value of what's said is very important.  And in this instance what those boys said was NOT racist.  Whether they meant it or not is not the issue here.  They could said blank blank blank and meant it to mean a racist statement but in the end it would have been racist.

What hey did do was nationalistic, not racism.  Who ever took as racist is on them, nothing more.  Those who took it as racism need to look in the mirror.  Now With that being said, what those boys did was not good and they shouldnt do it.  

Once again. We ALREADY do this. It's a fact, it's been studied, etc. We already do "run around worrying about what everything is meant" by the person who said it, etc etc. THIS is how we get through daily life. Your conditional is false (conditionals are false when and only when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. The antecedent is true "we do run around worrying about what is meant" and the consequent is false, it is not the case that we are not able to talk to each other at all). This is not a debatable point.

 I'll give you an easy example, maybe what I'm saying isn't making any sense without examples. You're in a car with your buddy, he's driving he runs out of gas, says "shit, i'm almost out of gas, do you know where the nearest gas station is?" You know where the nearest gas station is, but you also know it's closed and he won't be able to get gas there. Does he want directions to that particular gas station? (Logically= yes, conversational implicature= no)

The face value of what is said IS important. It's very important. So is filling in the gaps, by means of conversational implicature, context, etc etc.

If the issue is "was their actions racist?" then the issue is definitely their intentions. Were there clearer ways of being racist? Of course. Was this a less clear way of being racist? Maybe. Was it intended to be racist? I don't know, but it cannot be inferred that it wasn't intended to be racist. It depends on context, the fact that it was said (despite logical meaning), etc etc. Welcome to language.

[OzmO]

Magoo, my point is we do this too much.  And beucase we do this too much "blank blank blank" can be construed as racism.  Thats creates a ridiculous world and thats where we have been heading.   We cant say merry christmas becuase it might offend someone.  What they said wasn't racist. Simple as that.

We need to grow some thick skin and take responsibilty for how we react to what is said to us. 

[Mr. Magoo]

Magoo, my point is we do this too much.  And beucase we do this too much "blank blank blank" can be construed as racism.  Thats creates a ridiculous world and thats where we have been heading.   We cant say merry christmas becuase it might offend someone.  What they said wasn't racist. Simple as that.

We need to grow some thick skin and take responsibilty for how we react to what is said to us.  

I'll stop bugging you after this  

but, you said 1) "what they said wasn't racist", that is a very different statement from 2) "they werent racist by saying it". I think the difference highlights some of the arguments in this thread. Would you agree that it's possible #2 is false while #1 is true?

[OzmO]

I'll stop bugging you after this 

but, you said "what they said wasn't racist", that is a very different statement from "they werent racist by saying it". I think the difference highlights some of the arguments in this thread. Would you agree that it's possible #2 is false while #1 is true?

Mr. Magoo, its all good.  I enjoy discussions like these (especially because/when they don't digress into ad hom) and respect your view points even though i may not agree with them.

I can see where the 2 statements can be taken as different but i can also see where they can be taken as the same.  maybe you can give an example showing how they are different. 

[Mr. Magoo]

Mr. Magoo, its all good.  I enjoy discussions like these (especially because/when they don't digress into ad hom) and respect your view points even though i may not agree with them.

I can see where the 2 statements can be taken as different but i can also see where they can be taken as the same.  maybe you can give an example showing how they are different.  

To restate, the two sentences are 1) what they said wasn't racist, and 2) They weren't racist by saying it.

To be clear, I am saying that #1 may be true, while #2 is false.

Example. Let's see.... I'll stick with a modified version of this case. Let's say 2 teams, one white, one hispanic. White team shouts "Remember the Alamo" and does it angrily (obviously angrily, mean expressions, etc, whole works), while staring directly at and motioning at the other team while doing so.

Logically speaking "remember the alamo" is simply saying that the alamo should be remembered. Logically speaking, there isn't anything inherent in the words themselves of being racist. So sentence #1 "what they said wasn't racist" can be true. The words they said was "remember the alamo". Now, most people would respond "yes but you have to consider why they said it", which would bring up sentence #2. "They weren't racist by saying it". This can be false. They could have clearly meant it to be racist (and in my hypothetical here, such a team probably would mean it as racist).

That is a clear case where sentences #1 and #2 can be different and separated. I'm not saying this present case is as clear, it clearly isn't. But there is a difference in the meanings of  1) What they said wasn't racist (or "The words they used were not racist") and 2) They weren't racist by saying it ("they didn't intend it to be racist" or "it wasn't racist simply by virtue of being said")

so my original question. Would you agree that it's possible, in this case (not my hypothetical), that #2 is false, while #1 is true? (would you agree that it is possible that 1) The words they used were not racist but 2) It was the case that they intended it to be racist

[OzmO]

Ok i see.

"What they said can be construed as racist, but what they said wasn't racist."

How's that?

Who needs to take responsibility for how they reacted?  (which is my point all along in our conversation  )

[Soul Crusher]

Ok i see.

"What they said can be construed as racist, but what they said wasn't racist."

How's that?

Who needs to take responsibility for how they reacted?  (which is my point all along in our conversation  )

Were you not the guy melting done all over the place on the Koran issue on this same type of thing? 

[OzmO]

Were you not the guy melting done all over the place on the Koran issue on this same type of thing? 

what do you mean?

[Mr. Magoo]

Ok i see.

"What they said can be construed as racist, but what they said wasn't racist."

How's that?

Who needs to take responsibility for how they reacted?  (which is my point all along in our conversation  )

The part I bold is my original point. I'll grant you the 2nd part.

Who needs to take responsibility for how they reacted? I don't agree with the question. I think you are asking whether it was a valid inference to make (considering context, the fact that it was said despite logical meaning of what was said, etc) that the action (shouting USA USA) was racist. Or to put it in a different way, Was whoever construed it as racist justified in construing it as racist?. Is that what you are asking? If It is, then my answer is "I don't know, I wasn't there, it depends, but we cannot go on logical meaning of the words alone.

[Soul Crusher]

what do you mean?

You kept saying that the reaction of the savages should have been taken into account, despite the fact that soldiers factually dd nothing wrong correct?  

What's the difference here?  

[haider]

To restate, the two sentences are 1) what they said wasn't racist, and 2) They weren't racist by saying it.

To be clear, I am saying that #1 may be true, while #2 is false.

Example. Let's see.... I'll stick with a modified version of this case. Let's say 2 teams, one white, one hispanic. White team shouts "Remember the Alamo" and does it angrily (obviously angrily, mean expressions, etc, whole works), while staring directly at and motioning at the other team while doing so.

Logically speaking "remember the alamo" is simply saying that the alamo should be remembered. Logically speaking, there isn't anything inherent in the words themselves of being racist. So sentence #1 "what they said wasn't racist" can be true. The words they said was "remember the alamo". Now, most people would respond "yes but you have to consider why they said it", which would bring up sentence #2. "They weren't racist by saying it". This can be false. They could have clearly meant it to be racist (and in my hypothetical here, such a team probably would mean it as racist).

That is a clear case where sentences #1 and #2 can be different and separated. I'm not saying this present case is as clear, it clearly isn't. But there is a difference in the meanings of  1) What they said wasn't racist (or "The words they used were not racist") and 2) They weren't racist by saying it ("they didn't intend it to be racist" or "it wasn't racist simply by virtue of being said")

so my original question. Would you agree that it's possible, in this case (not my hypothetical), that #2 is false, while #1 is true? (would you agree that it is possible that 1) The words they used were not racist but 2) It was the case that they intended it to be racist

goddamn, i thought the bible covered this 2000 years ago. Simply put: sin is in the intentions.

If i yell 'jew' at someone who is jewish, it isn't simply the word which determines whether what I said was offensive or not. It is the intention, which can be deduced from the context, the manner in which it was said, etc. Can we get to the next thread already?