 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Ozzie the mouth
folifan19
June 22, 2006 at 05:34PM View BBCode
It does seem excessive. But why should his punishment be any less severe. He's the manager. If anything it should be more severe. I know this isn't the business world, but in the business world, aren't management types held to a higher standard?
FuriousGiorge
I thought Ozzie's apology was (relatively) sincere. His continued blasting of Mariotti actually helped, making it seem less like he was toeing the company line and more like he was honestly sorry about using that word. Personally, I'd like to see the White Sox suspend Ozzie themselves for 3-5 games. That would send the proper message about how the organization feels about tolerance. It's one thing to use that word in the clubhouse in a joking manner. We've all done it (and I'm not proud of it, but I have too). But to aim it directly at another person, as a derogatory remark, is unacceptable.
June 22, 2006 at 05:48PM View BBCode
That's true - unfortunately, with managers/head coaches it rarely works that way. They're treated like the players more than like the management.I thought Ozzie's apology was (relatively) sincere. His continued blasting of Mariotti actually helped, making it seem less like he was toeing the company line and more like he was honestly sorry about using that word. Personally, I'd like to see the White Sox suspend Ozzie themselves for 3-5 games. That would send the proper message about how the organization feels about tolerance. It's one thing to use that word in the clubhouse in a joking manner. We've all done it (and I'm not proud of it, but I have too). But to aim it directly at another person, as a derogatory remark, is unacceptable.
rkinslow19
fag
June 23, 2006 at 02:09AM View BBCode
Originally posted by max_fischer
Originally posted by rkinslow19
we could battle about the exact meaning of "homophobic", which can mean both fear of homosexuals, and prejudice against homosexuals, but I contend that common use of the suffix phobia is understood to mean "fear of"
Yet another case of the media inflating a story by using buzzwords
No, you're 100% wrong. Guillen is a loose cannon who does serious damage to his organization every few weeks just by doing interviews. Now he's stepped it up by using a term that is, by its very definition, homophobic. It's a derogatory term based on sexual orientation. Of course it's offensive, especailly when used in anger in a testosterone-laced environment such as a baseball clubhouse.
Also, why should Guillen be allowed to abuse the media like that? Sportswriters have a job to do, and the good ones are critical sometimes. If anyone lacks "courage" here it's Guillen and those who are defending him.
fag
rkinslow19
you guys are unbelievable.
getting your panties all in a bunch over a little cuss word. it's not even four letters. pussies
June 23, 2006 at 02:14AM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Originally posted by rkinslow19
mariotti IS a fag
ESPN was earlier billing it as a homophobic word. what a joke.
Originally posted by rkinslow19
we could battle about the exact meaning of "homophobic", which can mean both fear of homosexuals, and prejudice against homosexuals, but I contend that common use of the suffix phobia is understood to mean "fear of"
Yet another case of the media inflating a story by using buzzwords
You have a college education? Unbelievable. Max is dead-on. Do I even need to mention that displaying such patently homophobic behavior could be taken as a sign of Ozzie's own insecurity---and, it follows, fear?
Here's a good one: [url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/wires/06/20/2010.ap.bba.white.sox.ejections.0098/]Ozzie and David Riske get ejected after Riske beans Chris Duncan---in the seventh inning of a game the White Sox won 20-6[/url].
you guys are unbelievable.
getting your panties all in a bunch over a little cuss word. it's not even four letters. pussies
FuriousGiorge
If his beef was with Michael Wilbon, and he had called him a n____r, would THAT have offended you?
June 23, 2006 at 02:18AM View BBCode
Incredible.If his beef was with Michael Wilbon, and he had called him a n____r, would THAT have offended you?
FuriousGiorge
[Edited on 6-23-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
June 23, 2006 at 03:13AM View BBCode
Well congratulations then. You are truly a king among men, to not be offended by hearing other people slurred based on their race or sexual orientation. The rest of the world truly must be too sensitive, if a white heterosexual male is not offended by derogatory terms for black people and gay men.[Edited on 6-23-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
rkinslow19
You could call me a whitebread cracker nazi, and I wouldn't give two shits.
Was it inappropriate? Only for the airwaves. Do you really think this is the first time Ozzie has said the word? Is Jay Mariotti offended? No! He's a sportswriter, and I'm sure this is nothing out of the ordinary. It's only a big deal only because the media was involved.
I can't even begin to imagine what is said in the NFL trenches, or between a first baseman and baserunner, or in the privacy of your own homes. No one cares what is said. Each of us has talked shit at some point, used words that are not "politically correct". That's life. Happens everyday. You're bound to get called worse commuting to work.
I, for one, think it's refreshing that someone speaks their mind
June 23, 2006 at 03:50AM View BBCode
I knew you would act all high and mighty and bring up the race card. I'm white. So what. Do I care if someone gets called a n____r? No. A fag? No. Chink, Kike, Mick, Kraut, Red? No. Calling someone stupid, fat, too old, too young, ugly, whatever, I don't care.You could call me a whitebread cracker nazi, and I wouldn't give two shits.
Was it inappropriate? Only for the airwaves. Do you really think this is the first time Ozzie has said the word? Is Jay Mariotti offended? No! He's a sportswriter, and I'm sure this is nothing out of the ordinary. It's only a big deal only because the media was involved.
I can't even begin to imagine what is said in the NFL trenches, or between a first baseman and baserunner, or in the privacy of your own homes. No one cares what is said. Each of us has talked shit at some point, used words that are not "politically correct". That's life. Happens everyday. You're bound to get called worse commuting to work.
I, for one, think it's refreshing that someone speaks their mind
FuriousGiorge
I've called people those names. Some of them. Friends, people with whom I have a rapport. They've called me names back, in jest. It's how we act when we get together. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OZZIE GUILLEN. I'm not getting up in arms because you call your friends these words. I couldn't care less.
But understand this - the second you use one of these words in anger, as a derogatory term aimed at someone else, you've crossed a line. Ozzie knew it, that's why he apologized. Not because "the media" made it into a story, but because IT IS a story. The idea that a person would use a word that we all understand to be a derogatory term for a gay man, and aim it towards someone as an insult, should be offensive to everyone. I feel like I've said this many times before in many other arguments, but it's an important point so I'll say it again - context matters. It's not simply the word, it's the way it's used. It is the attachment of meaning to the word, that somehow being a "fag" makes you less of a human being, which is exactly how Ozzie used it. Intuitively, you understand this. You would never use one of your buzzwords that you listed in this way, at least I hope. Because this is not about being PC about words - this is about the sort of context you attach to those words, and whether you are using them to denigrate entire groups of people.
June 23, 2006 at 04:21AM View BBCode
You still don't seem to grasp the issues here, but that's understandable, because you're a 21 (22?) year old white kid who has zero personal experience with the hurtfulness of certain words. You've never been called a name in anger which comes attached with generations of ugly stereotypes. Your position of moral righteousness is, in a nutshell, on extremely shaky ground.I've called people those names. Some of them. Friends, people with whom I have a rapport. They've called me names back, in jest. It's how we act when we get together. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OZZIE GUILLEN. I'm not getting up in arms because you call your friends these words. I couldn't care less.
But understand this - the second you use one of these words in anger, as a derogatory term aimed at someone else, you've crossed a line. Ozzie knew it, that's why he apologized. Not because "the media" made it into a story, but because IT IS a story. The idea that a person would use a word that we all understand to be a derogatory term for a gay man, and aim it towards someone as an insult, should be offensive to everyone. I feel like I've said this many times before in many other arguments, but it's an important point so I'll say it again - context matters. It's not simply the word, it's the way it's used. It is the attachment of meaning to the word, that somehow being a "fag" makes you less of a human being, which is exactly how Ozzie used it. Intuitively, you understand this. You would never use one of your buzzwords that you listed in this way, at least I hope. Because this is not about being PC about words - this is about the sort of context you attach to those words, and whether you are using them to denigrate entire groups of people.
rkinslow19
I disagree with you on so many levels. What are you, white and in your late 20's? I've spent the last four years living at/around USC, in a neighborhood that is as economically and racially charged as you will find anywhere. It's not as if I've lived a sheltered life. You say that I'm maintaining a position of "moral righteousness". It's completely the opposite. I really could care less. Period. I only entered this thread to poke fun at people who were taking this seriously. I'm not sure if people picked up on my post in which I used "panties in a bunch" and "pussies". It was intentional, to see how you would all react.
I'm half drunk and not in shape to get into an argument like this. maybe tomorrow
[Edited on 6-23-2006 by rkinslow19]
June 23, 2006 at 06:06AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
You still don't seem to grasp the issues here, but that's understandable, because you're a 21 (22?) year old white kid who has zero personal experience with the hurtfulness of certain words. You've never been called a name in anger which comes attached with generations of ugly stereotypes. Your position of moral righteousness is, in a nutshell, on extremely shaky ground.
I've called people those names. Some of them. Friends, people with whom I have a rapport. They've called me names back, in jest. It's how we act when we get together. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OZZIE GUILLEN. I'm not getting up in arms because you call your friends these words. I couldn't care less.
But understand this - the second you use one of these words in anger, as a derogatory term aimed at someone else, you've crossed a line. Ozzie knew it, that's why he apologized. Not because "the media" made it into a story, but because IT IS a story. The idea that a person would use a word that we all understand to be a derogatory term for a gay man, and aim it towards someone as an insult, should be offensive to everyone. I feel like I've said this many times before in many other arguments, but it's an important point so I'll say it again - context matters. It's not simply the word, it's the way it's used. It is the attachment of meaning to the word, that somehow being a "fag" makes you less of a human being, which is exactly how Ozzie used it. Intuitively, you understand this. You would never use one of your buzzwords that you listed in this way, at least I hope. Because this is not about being PC about words - this is about the sort of context you attach to those words, and whether you are using them to denigrate entire groups of people.
I disagree with you on so many levels. What are you, white and in your late 20's? I've spent the last four years living at/around USC, in a neighborhood that is as economically and racially charged as you will find anywhere. It's not as if I've lived a sheltered life. You say that I'm maintaining a position of "moral righteousness". It's completely the opposite. I really could care less. Period. I only entered this thread to poke fun at people who were taking this seriously. I'm not sure if people picked up on my post in which I used "panties in a bunch" and "pussies". It was intentional, to see how you would all react.
I'm half drunk and not in shape to get into an argument like this. maybe tomorrow
[Edited on 6-23-2006 by rkinslow19]
sycophantman
Words have power, and they are often a step away from violence when the words in question are slurs of this nature. You obviously don't like it, but this is our society, it is unacceptable to use a term directly towards someone as charged as fag. For many people who look up to Ozzie, this is a confirmation of all the hateful thoughts that may be swirling around in their diseased mind.
You have heard about how New York got their crime problem turned around, haven't you? This is the one where Guiliani and his staff implimented a program directing the police force to focus on the littlest of crimes, under the belief that the bigger crimes are always encouraged to occur in an envirnoment where the smaller crimes are tolerated. Lo and behold, it actually worked and Times Square is actually a semi-safe place to walk. This theory holds true for crimes of prejudice and hate, it starts with demanding that people who have access to the media are not allowed to spew hate throughout the airwaves, and it continues in every town in America, where decent folk speak up against the local bigots who always have a rude word and something to throw at the local 'fag'.
Don't dismiss this as a media creation just because it's only words, a stance like that shows that you have enjoyed one too many keg parties, my friend...
[Edited on 6/23/2006 by sycophantman]
June 23, 2006 at 10:33AM View BBCode
Rkinslow, you seem to be taking the position that simply saying something offensive is no reason to get upset, that anything short of physically beating someone because they are too black, gay, jewish, etc. is perfectly alright.Words have power, and they are often a step away from violence when the words in question are slurs of this nature. You obviously don't like it, but this is our society, it is unacceptable to use a term directly towards someone as charged as fag. For many people who look up to Ozzie, this is a confirmation of all the hateful thoughts that may be swirling around in their diseased mind.
You have heard about how New York got their crime problem turned around, haven't you? This is the one where Guiliani and his staff implimented a program directing the police force to focus on the littlest of crimes, under the belief that the bigger crimes are always encouraged to occur in an envirnoment where the smaller crimes are tolerated. Lo and behold, it actually worked and Times Square is actually a semi-safe place to walk. This theory holds true for crimes of prejudice and hate, it starts with demanding that people who have access to the media are not allowed to spew hate throughout the airwaves, and it continues in every town in America, where decent folk speak up against the local bigots who always have a rude word and something to throw at the local 'fag'.
Don't dismiss this as a media creation just because it's only words, a stance like that shows that you have enjoyed one too many keg parties, my friend...
[Edited on 6/23/2006 by sycophantman]
max_fischer
You have now gone too far with this.
June 23, 2006 at 10:47AM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by max_fischer
Originally posted by rkinslow19
we could battle about the exact meaning of "homophobic", which can mean both fear of homosexuals, and prejudice against homosexuals, but I contend that common use of the suffix phobia is understood to mean "fear of"
Yet another case of the media inflating a story by using buzzwords
No, you're 100% wrong. Guillen is a loose cannon who does serious damage to his organization every few weeks just by doing interviews. Now he's stepped it up by using a term that is, by its very definition, homophobic. It's a derogatory term based on sexual orientation. Of course it's offensive, especailly when used in anger in a testosterone-laced environment such as a baseball clubhouse.
Also, why should Guillen be allowed to abuse the media like that? Sportswriters have a job to do, and the good ones are critical sometimes. If anyone lacks "courage" here it's Guillen and those who are defending him.
fag
You have now gone too far with this.
FuriousGiorge
I disagree with you on so many levels. What are you, white and in your late 20's? I've spent the last four years living at/around USC, in a neighborhood that is as economically and racially charged as you will find anywhere. It's not as if I've lived a sheltered life. You say that I'm maintaining a position of "moral righteousness". It's completely the opposite. I really could care less. Period. I only entered this thread to poke fun at people who were taking this seriously. I'm not sure if people picked up on my post in which I used "panties in a bunch" and "pussies". It was intentional, to see how you would all react.
I'm half drunk and not in shape to get into an argument like this. maybe tomorrow
[/quote]
I think all the booze has addled your brain.
You have zero personal experience with having a slur, generally accepted to refer to a group that you belong to, being used as an insult. You tell other people to stop being so sensitive or whatever you think it is you're saying. That is moral righteousness. "How dare people be offended by this slur that is not aimed at me in any way! I'm not offended, so they have no right to be offended either." The fact that you think living "in a neighborhood that is as economically and racially charged as you will find anywhere" gives you any sort of perspective about how hateful words and prejudices can be is laughable in its delusion. Your ground is no longer shaky; you are now actually falling through free space.
[Edited on 6-23-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
June 23, 2006 at 03:10PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by rkinslow19[/i]
I disagree with you on so many levels. What are you, white and in your late 20's? I've spent the last four years living at/around USC, in a neighborhood that is as economically and racially charged as you will find anywhere. It's not as if I've lived a sheltered life. You say that I'm maintaining a position of "moral righteousness". It's completely the opposite. I really could care less. Period. I only entered this thread to poke fun at people who were taking this seriously. I'm not sure if people picked up on my post in which I used "panties in a bunch" and "pussies". It was intentional, to see how you would all react.
I'm half drunk and not in shape to get into an argument like this. maybe tomorrow
[/quote]
I think all the booze has addled your brain.
You have zero personal experience with having a slur, generally accepted to refer to a group that you belong to, being used as an insult. You tell other people to stop being so sensitive or whatever you think it is you're saying. That is moral righteousness. "How dare people be offended by this slur that is not aimed at me in any way! I'm not offended, so they have no right to be offended either." The fact that you think living "in a neighborhood that is as economically and racially charged as you will find anywhere" gives you any sort of perspective about how hateful words and prejudices can be is laughable in its delusion. Your ground is no longer shaky; you are now actually falling through free space.
[Edited on 6-23-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
FuriousGiorge
June 23, 2006 at 04:31PM View BBCode
I'll let that be the last word. I think it sums this argument up nicely.
scaffdog
June 24, 2006 at 04:30AM View BBCode
Guillen echos the sentiments of probably most of his players and the other players in the league, he just isnt smart enough to keep it to himself.
max_fischer
Says who? Says you? Who the hell asked you?
June 24, 2006 at 01:46PM View BBCode
Originally posted by scaffdog
Guillen echos the sentiments of probably most of his players and the other players in the league
Says who? Says you? Who the hell asked you?
rkinslow19
5) Which incident do you find more troubling?
36.3% Guillen berates rookie pitcher in dugout for not hitting a batter
32.6% Neither is troubling
31.1% Guillen uses homophobic slur against newspaper columnist
June 24, 2006 at 10:50PM View BBCode
Thought you guys would find this interesting. According to an ESPN SportsNation poll of ~76,000 people:5) Which incident do you find more troubling?
36.3% Guillen berates rookie pitcher in dugout for not hitting a batter
32.6% Neither is troubling
31.1% Guillen uses homophobic slur against newspaper columnist
Dean
:lol::lol::lol::lol: Great stuff, very overly sensitive. Are you Jay Mariotti?
June 25, 2006 at 03:00AM View BBCode
Originally posted by max_fischer
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Originally posted by max_fischer
Originally posted by rkinslow19
we could battle about the exact meaning of "homophobic", which can mean both fear of homosexuals, and prejudice against homosexuals, but I contend that common use of the suffix phobia is understood to mean "fear of"
Yet another case of the media inflating a story by using buzzwords
No, you're 100% wrong. Guillen is a loose cannon who does serious damage to his organization every few weeks just by doing interviews. Now he's stepped it up by using a term that is, by its very definition, homophobic. It's a derogatory term based on sexual orientation. Of course it's offensive, especailly when used in anger in a testosterone-laced environment such as a baseball clubhouse.
Also, why should Guillen be allowed to abuse the media like that? Sportswriters have a job to do, and the good ones are critical sometimes. If anyone lacks "courage" here it's Guillen and those who are defending him.
fag
You have now gone too far with this.
:lol::lol::lol::lol: Great stuff, very overly sensitive. Are you Jay Mariotti?
max_fischer
Why would it be "interesting" that a totally unscientific Internet poll of meatheads who visit sports websites suggests that said meatheads have no firm opinion about this?
June 25, 2006 at 01:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
Thought you guys would find this interesting. According to an ESPN SportsNation poll of ~76,000 people:
5) Which incident do you find more troubling?
36.3% Guillen berates rookie pitcher in dugout for not hitting a batter
32.6% Neither is troubling
31.1% Guillen uses homophobic slur against newspaper columnist
Why would it be "interesting" that a totally unscientific Internet poll of meatheads who visit sports websites suggests that said meatheads have no firm opinion about this?
youngallstar
Guillen is awesome just because he abuses the media. Like Is said before Ozzie is a breath of fresh air as far as interviewing goes. He doesnt give two shits that some panzy with thin skin gets offended by what he says and I respect him for that.
June 25, 2006 at 07:07PM View BBCode
Originally posted by max_fischer
Originally posted by rkinslow19
we could battle about the exact meaning of "homophobic", which can mean both fear of homosexuals, and prejudice against homosexuals, but I contend that common use of the suffix phobia is understood to mean "fear of"
Yet another case of the media inflating a story by using buzzwords
No, you're 100% wrong. Guillen is a loose cannon who does serious damage to his organization every few weeks just by doing interviews. Now he's stepped it up by using a term that is, by its very definition, homophobic. It's a derogatory term based on sexual orientation. Of course it's offensive, especailly when used in anger in a testosterone-laced environment such as a baseball clubhouse.
Also, why should Guillen be allowed to abuse the media like that? Sportswriters have a job to do, and the good ones are critical sometimes. If anyone lacks "courage" here it's Guillen and those who are defending him.
Guillen is awesome just because he abuses the media. Like Is said before Ozzie is a breath of fresh air as far as interviewing goes. He doesnt give two shits that some panzy with thin skin gets offended by what he says and I respect him for that.
FuriousGiorge
Oh wait, no they haven't. Everyone and his mother thinks Ozzie went over the line, and Ozzie's shtick will become his ruin as soon as the White Sox begin to lose.
[Edited on 6-25-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
June 25, 2006 at 07:09PM View BBCode
I guess the days when a little bit of decorum in the public sphere was considered a virtue have long since passed.Oh wait, no they haven't. Everyone and his mother thinks Ozzie went over the line, and Ozzie's shtick will become his ruin as soon as the White Sox begin to lose.
[Edited on 6-25-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
youngallstar
Not even close.
June 25, 2006 at 07:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by folifan19
Guillen's "offense" is equal to that of John Rocker, and he should receive a similar punishment.
Not even close.
youngallstar
decorum in the public sphere. Yeah, thats great, and boring, and scripted, like always. Im glad someone is being real when they give an interview these days and not saying everything theyre interview coach would like them to say.
June 25, 2006 at 07:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
I guess the days when a little bit of decorum in the public sphere was considered a virtue have long since passed.
Oh wait, no they haven't. Everyone and his mother thinks Ozzie went over the line, and Ozzie's shtick will become his ruin as soon as the White Sox begin to lose.
[Edited on 6-25-2006 by FuriousGiorge]
decorum in the public sphere. Yeah, thats great, and boring, and scripted, like always. Im glad someone is being real when they give an interview these days and not saying everything theyre interview coach would like them to say.
youngallstar
Nice job over reacting to someone saying "fag" whisky and Max. George Carlin would punch you in the face if he were here right now.
Is this one of those deals where you can only be gay to call someone a fag and it be okay? And where you can only be black to call someone the n word and it be okay? If so, excuse me while I go throw up.
June 25, 2006 at 07:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Originally posted by rkinslow19
mariotti IS a fag
ESPN was earlier billing it as a homophobic word. what a joke.
Originally posted by rkinslow19
we could battle about the exact meaning of "homophobic", which can mean both fear of homosexuals, and prejudice against homosexuals, but I contend that common use of the suffix phobia is understood to mean "fear of"
Yet another case of the media inflating a story by using buzzwords
You have a college education? Unbelievable. Max is dead-on. Do I even need to mention that displaying such patently homophobic behavior could be taken as a sign of Ozzie's own insecurity---and, it follows, fear?
Here's a good one: [url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/wires/06/20/2010.ap.bba.white.sox.ejections.0098/]Ozzie and David Riske get ejected after Riske beans Chris Duncan---in the seventh inning of a game the White Sox won 20-6[/url].
Nice job over reacting to someone saying "fag" whisky and Max. George Carlin would punch you in the face if he were here right now.
Is this one of those deals where you can only be gay to call someone a fag and it be okay? And where you can only be black to call someone the n word and it be okay? If so, excuse me while I go throw up.