Your lying eyes

See, this really isn't that complicated. If you told me your life story and I responded that you really didn't understand what you were talking about as well as I did, you would (rightly) think I was an idiot. But for some reason, sportswriters are eager to exhibit exactly this idiocy whenever some black athlete speaks candidly of his life story.

Consistent with the claims of dozens of black athletes before him, Donovan McNabb* has said that he has experienced criticism due to the fact that he is black, i.e., due to his race and not his performance as a quarterback. This claim is demonstrably true (see again the contents of Mike Freeman's inbox).

One can reasonably assume that white athletes are rarely, if ever, criticized due to their being black.

Thus, given all of the above, either you have to believe that there is a conspiracy of black athletes promoting the false claim that they experience such criticism -- a conspiracy that goes so far as to send false-flag e-mails full of racist bile directed at one another -- or else you have to conclude that their claims are true.

Try to note the limits of this claim. Donovan did not say that black athletes and only black athletes are ever criticized.

It's obvious to anyone who can read, but that point seems to have escaped the notice of many people. The fact that Mike Schmidt or Rex Grossman or any other white athlete has been criticized is irrelevant.

Such false comparisons are similar to when people claim that Kurt Vonnegut's chain-smoking longevity "disproved" the AMA's claim that smoking increases the risks of heart disease and lung cancer. That's not a counter-example, merely an example of something else. It may disprove something else -- such as the claim the AMA didn't make, that everyone who smokes will instantaneously die -- but it does not prove or disprove anything like what these folks seem to think it does.

Also, Donovan McNabb did not suggest that athletes ought not to be criticized for poor performance. (His interview occurred before the Eagles' clumsy 0-2 start.) Yet even though he never even approached making such a claim, people seem to be spending an awful lot of time responding to as though he had. Odd that.

Now we come to the bottom line: Who does it seem more reasonable to believe?

A host of black athletes have described their first-hand experience. Their descriptions are consistent, reinforcing one another. (This seems like a case in which data really is the plural of anecdote.) Their mutually reinforcing claims are also supported by credible evidence -- a multitude of odious public statements, postings, e-mails, call-ins and letters to the editor demonstrating exactly the kind of race-based criticism they describe, a kind of criticism that, by definition, white athletes do not experience.

Standing against this mountain of anecdotal evidence, you have the opinions of a bunch of sportswriters with no first-hand experience, yet who nonetheless insist that every person they have ever interviewed who does have such experience is unreliable, mistaken and wrong.

So again, who do you think it's more reasonable to believe?

Here let me note that it is logically possible -- if factually unlikely -- that Donovan McNabb, his teammates, and hundreds of other athletes dating back to at least 1947 have all misinterpreted their own experience, and that they have all misinterpreted this experience in precisely the same way.

Arguing for this highly implausible possibility, however, becomes difficult, since it would require one to explain why this group of athletes have all done so. Any such explanation is likely to involve either: A) theorizing that it is due to some distinctive negative aspect of the experience of black athletes -- which would contradict the premise that their experience has no such negative aspect; or B) theorizing that it is due to some inherent inferiority/unreliability that prevents them from interpreting their own experience accurately, which would seem to demonstrate the very racism this theory set out to disprove.

The** likelier, more reasonable explanation for all these similar complaints is that the people with firsthand knowledge are describing something true about their experience and the people contradicting them, who have no such firsthand knowledge, seem to be acting on a whole range of scarcely understood motives, about which more later.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* I realize that many people reading this don't know, or care, much about American football. Fair enough. I myself regard football primarily as a pleasant distraction to help pass the time until the pastime itself returns in the spring. But this really has very little to do with the particulars of football. It has to do with race in America and the curious vehemence with which many people insist that it is inconsequential in our culture, our history and our present.

** Acrostics are fun.

Comments

[CapnAndy]

The reason McNabb took such a beating in the press this time around has almost nothing to do with race and almost everything to do with performance. He gave the interview in the off-season, true, but the timing of it's release couldn't be worse, coming out right when the grumblings of "we'd rather have Garcia" were just starting to pick up steam. The knee-jerk response to that interview, then, is "No, asshole, black quarterbacks don't face more scrutiny: 0-2 quarterbacks do, and you're just playing the race card to try and get out of explaining your poor performance."

Obviously, then you find out when the interview was taped and realize that's not the case, but it's hard to get away from that first reaction. In my case there were days seperating when I heard the soundbite from when I found out when it was recorded, which was more than long enough to get even more annoyed with McNabb than I already was.

This is Philadelphia; it's not a race thing. We hate all our professional sports players equally.

[Rozzen]

Yay, two new posts in two days ! Lucky ^^

Thus, given all of the above, either you have to believe that there is a conspiracy of black athletes promoting the false claim that they experience such criticism -- a conspiracy that goes so far as to send false-flag e-mails full of racist bile directed at one another -- or else you have to conclude that their claims are true.

Well to be fair that's as much of a false dichotomy as the "either there's open institutional racial discrimination or there is no racism" one.
It could be that given their history and their experience of racism in other circumstances, black athletes tend to notice criticism directed at them more than criticism directed towards whites, and therefore get the feeling they're more criticised.
A bit like both spouses will believe they do more than their share of the housework, because they notice the housework they do more than the housework the other did.
And having experienced racism in other circumstances their default conclusion about why they're being more criticised is that it's because of their race.

I don't believe this was the case with McNabb because I'm convinced the prevalence of ingrained unconscious racism makes his claim credible, but I still felt the need to point out your false dichotomy. Don't give free ammunition to your opponents, dontcha know ^^

[Mrs Tilton]

Who is Scott, and why is he an asshat?

[Jesurgislac]

Oooh, that's an interesting question.

My theory is that "Scott" (obviously, not ze's real name) is a co-worker or ex-coworker of Fred's who has a massive crush on Fred which Fred never reciprocated. So "Scott" set up this account to spambot Fred's blog with asshattery.

Or! "Scott" is an alien, using blogs to find out how we humans communicate! "Scott" isn't actually an asshat, just a naive and inexperienced extraterrestrial who will soon adopt the name "Ford Prefect" and move to London to have a civil partnership with Arthur Dent.

Or... "Scott" is the frontname for a team of trained libertarian guerrilla wordfighters, who post their best attempts cogent and convincing arguments on this blog!

Your guess is as good as ours.

[NonyNony]

Mrs. Tilton -

Do you mean "what evidence is there for Scott's asshattery" or "what deep psychological reason does Scott have for being an asshat"? The latter question is plumbed fairly well by Jesurgislac, but one of the (many) answers to the former question can be found in the comment thread of the previous post where Scott bleats forth this following nugget of wisdom:

Racism charges are useful to their Will to Power. They need charges of racism to make themselves feel superior. Nothing outside the head of a leftist is as important to their own emotional needs; yet they have the gall to call anyone in their way 'selfish'.

You can find similar developmentally-stunted bleatings from Scott the Spambot throughout Fred's archives. It's gotten so that I just gloss over comments that have his name in them since I know he's not going to add anything more than bile to any discussion he hits, so I had to go back into the previous discussion thread to see why Fred had gotten ticked enough at Scott to call him out on the frontpage. I don't know that I'd call Scott an asshat myself. I've got a lot of names that I could use for Scott the resident spambot, but I'm not sure how family friendly Fred wants to keep his comments, so I'll just keep them to myself.

[hapax]

** Acrostics are fun

[Hopeless pedantic dullard powers, activate!]

Acrostics ARE fun. So are asterisks.

[Rozzen]

Frankly I haven't been here long, but I've already tuned him out so well that when I read his post, as I went on I got more and more annoyed and was composing a scathing response in my head, then I got to the signature and went "oh, of course it's Scott." and I just forgot about it...

The fact that most people here ignore him probably helps too.

[Rozzen]

Okay. I have FINALLY understood the "Scott is an asshat" thing. Also, I am extremely ashamed to have needed wikipedia to remember what acrostics are even though I feel I should have known.

Nice !

[Myriad]

he may be so touched from being named right out there on the front page, that his heart is transformed and all venom is turned to honey.

[Jeff G]

Donovan McNabb* has said that he has experienced criticism due to the fact that he is black,

Except that's not what he said. He said (borrowing from Bloomberg)

``Let me start by saying, I love those guys (referring to Carson Palmer & Peyton Manning) . But they don't get criticized as much as we do. They don't,''

He didn't say black quarterbacks get criticism based on their race; he said black quarterbacks get criticized more.

[Chris Koeberle]

It could be that given their history and their experience of racism in other circumstances, black athletes tend to notice criticism directed at them more than criticism directed towards whites, and therefore get the feeling they're more criticised.

I can't speak to what Donovan McNabb has experienced. But Warren Moon has stated that he was criticized for being black. It's not that his performance as a quarterback was criticized more strongly, it's that people threatened to kill him because he was black. Sure, maybe people do say "I can’t believe they gave that fucking cracker $14.3 million." but even as a cracker I'm aware that it just doesn't carry the same weight.

[Chris Koeberle]

(...and before I get rolled up in a straw man, I agree with Jeff G that what Fred is saying is different from what McNabb is quoted as having said.)

[Richard Hershberger]

The race discussion in the context of criticism of athletic performance is always going to be problematic.

If the guy sitting next to you at the bar says "McNabb is washed up. They should put Feeley in" is this a racist comment? There certainly is nothing overtly racist there, and the assertion that McNabb is washed up is defensible (though I personally don't think it is correct). So on first pass the answer is "not racist". On the other hand, if you notice that this guy consistently criticizes black athletes while giving white athletes a pass, you can reasonably conclude that the guy is racist, but smart enough to avoid explicitly racist comments.

This discussion puts anyone who criticizes a black athlete on the defensive as a suspected racist. Hence the reaction. This defensiveness is better than giving a pass to a black athlete you think is washed up. The soft bigotry of lowered expectations is usually a right-wing talking point, but it is not always invalid.

There is no perfect solution here. Individual commentators in the media can be judged, as they go on the record. If some columnist consistently shows a racist bent, he should be called out on it. But if a Philly sports fan can't complain about his team, what would we have left?

[the opoponax]

He gave the interview in the off-season, true, but the timing of it's release couldn't be worse... The knee-jerk response to that interview, then, is "No, asshole, black quarterbacks don't face more scrutiny: 0-2 quarterbacks do, and you're just playing the race card to try and get out of explaining your poor performance."

But that doesn't make a lick of sense.

If McNabb gave an interview wherein he talked about the extra criticism Black QB's face, and said interview took place well before the poor performance occurred, then how could said response be "playing the race card" or "trying to get out of explaining your poor performance"? The poor performance hadn't happened yet. The criticism regarding the poor performance hadn't happened, either, obviously. He had nothing to "play the race card" against, when he made those statements.

And the folks who should be most aware of this (McNabb having given an interview in the off season that wouldn't hit stands until the season had begun) would be journalists. Who can be reasonably expected to understand how lead times work, and why publications choose to run certain stories when they do. Which means that the sports writers who knee-jerkingly called McNabb liars should be the best placed to cut McNabb some slack.

[Spalanzani]

Scott is basically the Anti-Fred. Every action must have an equal and opposite reaction, so for every well-written and thoughtful post that Fred makes, Scott has to repost the exact same semi-coherent hyper libertarian screed that he’s posted a thousand times before, with a few superficial references to Fred’s actual post tacked on. Unfortunately, because he balances Fred, Scott is a necessary force. If Scott were to stop posting, Fred would stop blogging. Or turn really evil. I can never remember which one.

[the opoponax]

The race discussion in the context of criticism of athletic performance is always going to be problematic...

Funny, Richard, something similar occurred among some friends and I over the weekend. It was another friend's birthday, and we all went out to dinner. Birthday friend's new boyfriend (see how easy that was, Hapax?) also brought along some of his friends from his big high-falutin' finance job, who we had never met.

One of said friends was a complete asshat the entire night. From instigating political arguments at the table, to insulting people, to making sexist comments about the women present, to trying to low-ball on the tip. Just one of those miserable people you don't want to invite to dinner. He was also black, and the only non-white person there. After he left, several of us were venting about what an awful dinner guest he was. And then it occurred to us -- were we being so hard on him because he was black? Would we have grumbled so much if this had been another rude white guy?

[Spalanzani]

the opoponax: "If McNabb gave an interview wherein he talked about the extra criticism Black QB's face, and said interview took place well before the poor performance occurred, then how could said response be "playing the race card" or "trying to get out of explaining your poor performance"? The poor performance hadn't happened yet. "

Um...did you read the rest of CapnAndy's post?

[Spalanzani]

Ah, crap...Here, how's that?

[the opoponax]

Yeah, I did.

My criticism still stands. If the journalists who've been flocking to submit their stock column on this knew it was a pre-taped segment that had nothing to do with the outcomes of games that would be airing around the same time, then it really does NOT bode well that they're accusing McNabb of "playing the race card". Because they should know that he wasn't.

It would make sense that this should bug a layperson who doesn't know how the media works. It makes no sense whatsoever that all the sports writers would have that reaction, though, because they should know this stuff. That the sports media knew the interview was taped in the off season, but still interpreted the remarks as though they referred to recent games, that's Bad Faith if I've ever seen it.

Which, actually, now that I think about it, makes said sports writers seem especially racist, and the not oblivious holders of white privilege they seemed to be before I knew the interview was done in the off season.

[Rozzen]

"He gave the interview in the off-season, true, but the timing of it's release couldn't be worse... The knee-jerk response to that interview, then, is "No, asshole, black quarterbacks don't face more scrutiny: 0-2 quarterbacks do, and you're just playing the race card to try and get out of explaining your poor performance.""

But that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Of course it doesn't make a lick of sense, you misunderstood CapnAndy's point.

If McNabb gave an interview wherein he talked about the extra criticism Black QB's face, and said interview took place well before the poor performance occurred, then how could said response be "playing the race card" or "trying to get out of explaining your poor performance"? The poor performance hadn't happened yet. The criticism regarding the poor performance hadn't happened, either, obviously. He had nothing to "play the race card" against, when he made those statements.

And CapnAndy clearly said he had the "race card" reaction before he found out the interview had happened before. And that once he'd found out the truth : "Obviously, then you find out when the interview was taped and realize that's not the case"

[Rozzen]

Oh wait you were referring to the journalists, not CapnAndy. Okay.

[the opoponax]

And CapnAndy clearly said he had the "race card" reaction before he found out the interview had happened before.

I think we probably just crossposted, but my beef wasn't with CapnAndy, it's with the journalists who had the audacity to accuse McNabb of playing the race card when they themselves would have known he couldn't have been referring to what it seems like he's referring to.

Though I will say that since he followed that with "This is Philadelphia; it's not a race thing," I missed where he agreed that McNabb wasn't playing the race card. Because that statement makes it seem like CapnAndy thinks that, despite the timeline, McNabb was still playing the race card.

[Salamanda]

I know he's not going to add anything more than bile to any discussion he hits...

To be fair, I seem to remember him having some pretty good comments on LB Fridays, able to kick back and talk smack with the rest of us. Jesu's right, our contempt for Left Behind is what unites us all.

Kum-ba-ya and all that. ;)

[scott_bot]

There is no Scottbot but Scottbot, bow ....

Whoops - Scottbot back to report on my creator, the guiding light of rationality behind my programming.

First, recognize that Scottbot can never approach the living essence which bubbles from Scott like the gentle scent of a fine morning on a gas giant.

Second, even on its finest day, Scottbot is merely a dull reflection on the real thing. Doing its mechanical best to help Scott in his struggle for truth, justice, and the American way. Though Scottbot can't really leap tall buildings, and is not faster than the bullets which screaming liberals want to keep out of the hands of Scott, Scottbot also has to admit that it is unlikely that Scott could recognize the American way, much less be aware what the American way meant for millions of slaves, and those whose skin color still marks them as slaves in the eyes of too many of their fellow citizens.

SELF DESTRUCT SEQUENCE INITIATED - SELF DESTRUCT SEQUENCE INITIATED

[CapnAndy]

Though I will say that since he followed that with "This is Philadelphia; it's not a race thing," I missed where he agreed that McNabb wasn't playing the race card. Because that statement makes it seem like CapnAndy thinks that, despite the timeline, McNabb was still playing the race card.

Nah. In the off-season or when he's doing well, he's free to talk about whatever he thinks draws criticism (although it's a wee bit unsettling that Limbaugh got fired for saying the exact same thing, just with the opposite slant). Playing the race card would have been if he did what I originally thought and said "People aren't mad at me for my woeful performance and leading the team to an 0-2 record, it's because I'm black" -- there's the card hitting the table. But he didn't do that.

And the "It's Philadelphia" thing was half a jibe at my city (we killed Santa Claus and YOU'RE NEXT!) and half a way to explain some of this. Everyone's pissed right off at McNabb and they saw an excuse to jump on him. If the Eagles had been 2-0 when the interview aired, I guarantee you there wouldn't have been this big of a flap about it.

[gray area]

I understand where McNabb and others are coming from. Unless you've experienced it, you don't really know what subtle racism is like. My husband is Anglo (of Irish, German and French-Canadian descent, with some Native American) but tans easily. After college we lived in Dallas for a decade. During that time, my husband was stopped twice for "driving while brown". One time the officer even asked him if my husband was heading home to eat tacos. Dallas periodically has rabid discussions on whether or not racism exists in city government/society with whites insisting that it does not "anymore". Our coworkers were completely shocked at my husband's experience because it had never happened to them (nor apparently to anyone they knew).

These experiences were the worst that have happened to us, but there have been other, more subtle, moments of racism. Obviously, just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it never happens.

[the opoponax]

BTW -- Comics Curmudgeon website = BRILLIANT.

I'm already kind of sucked into Apartment 3-G. It's like this blog is the only reason those weird archaic soap comics still exist. That, and 90 year olds who've been following these stories since the 30's and somehow aren't too senile or blind to keep reading it.

[the opoponax]

although it's a wee bit unsettling that Limbaugh got fired for saying the exact same thing, just with the opposite slant

Wow, am I hallucinating? When did Rush Limbaugh get fired? Woohoo! Somebody pinch me, I'm dreaming!

Also, since I'm not aware that white radio personalities get more criticism than radio personalities of other races, and "So And So Only Got Hired In The First Place Because He's Black!" is not "the exact same thing, just with the opposite slant", I'm not sure how to parse that statement, at all.

[Rozzen]

These experiences were the worst that have happened to us, but there have been other, more subtle, moments of racism. Obviously, just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it never happens.

That's the amazing thing with racism I find. Even when you believe that yeah, overt racism has been pretty much eliminated, except for inbred hilbillies and the occasional idiots who are racist but never admit it (they phrase it differently, making more "reasonable" distinctions like "inner-city kids", "poor people", "criminals" while meaning "blacks" all along, or they look at flawed studies that show this or that distinction and say "see ! it's not racist if it's true"), but those don't really count... So overt racism has been eliminated, all that's left to deal with is the ingrained unconscious racism ! Which will be difficult, but hey !

And then I hear my brother come back from getting his hair cut and tell us how the barber refused to serve a black guy, and then said to the person whose hair he was cutting : "you understand, I've got nothing against them but if I let them in I'd lose all my other clientele" or something to that effect...
And you go OVERT RACISM. IN. MY. TOWN. WTF !

So, uh, yeah, long way to go on all fronts ;-)

[Rozzen]

It's like this blog is the only reason those weird archaic soap comics still exist.
I think there's newspaper where they canceled Mary Worth, but then put it back because of CC reader outcry :-)

[julia]

I missed what Scott had to say, but the little bit of him quoted above reminds me of the woman-on-the-street in Jena who told a reporter that if the outside agitators had just stayed out of it and not made a fuss, the whole thing would have already gone away.

Well, yes. That's sort of the point.

[Richard Hershberger]

Regarding Limbaugh's being fired from Monday Night Football, this was the right thing regardless of the truth or falseness of his statements. Going into that gig, Limbaugh was all about how he was a huge football fan and this was his dream job. Yet almost from the very start, it turned out he didn't want to talk about football, but rather politics. Whether you or I agree or disagree with his politics isn't the point. The job wasn't to be a political commentator. He had taken the job under false pretenses, and it was entirely correct to dismiss him.

[Ecks]

then I got to the signature and went "oh, of course it's Scott." and I just forgot about it.

It took you till the end? Maybe you can measure the amount of time someone has read this blog by the number of words it takes before you know it's him. For me it was about the end of the first paragraph. For Fred it's probably about the 2nd word.

[Ecks]

BTW, I'm hanging out these days in a midwestern college town where I never really see any racism. But there was a black woman in our department, and the stories she could tell about getting stopped by cops all the time, comments she would get, hostility she would feel places totally blew us away. I think people don't talk openly about racism here (I've never heard a conversation referring even in coded ways to it), they just react to the stimulus when it is present (i.e., not to me, which is why I don't see it).

[LL]

Didn't read the article, sorry. I'm not discounting McNabb's experiences, but is it possible that sports fans in general are just assholes? I know they pay a lot to see major league games, so I guess they feel they're entitled to rag on players just two games into the season (of whatever sport), but it is beyond tiresome. It's a game. I'd bet more Americans (men, anyway) are more upset about the results of sports competitions than most of them have ever been about what's going on in Iraq. Pathetic. And they say women are shallow.

Also, I'm wondering how much the "fantasy" football, baseball, etc. has to do with people's attitudes RE any player's performance. Together with the regular gambling on sports, apparently lots of people have a lot of money riding on the results of numerous games, not just the ones "their" team plays. I have to think this affects how they perceive the various players, both black and white, and if there's more criticism overall, there's probably more race-based criticism also. So maybe McNabb's right about that, that the few black QBs get more criticism (per capita, so to speak) than the white ones do. There are 16 teams, and 6 have black QBs (starters, which is actually more than I would have guessed). McNabb doesn't have hard and fast numbers as to the percentage of race-based (as opposed to purely "you suck, no matter what ethnicity you are") criticism he gets compared to the white QBs. I guess we'd have to do a survey of every news article and every speck of hate mail that every QB in the NFL gets to really reach a conclusion on this. Personally, I'm willing to take McNabb's word for it. Sadly, he and every other black person has probably stopped long ago keeping track of which insults are because they're black and which can be chalked up to just general assholishness. I have no reason to believe that he isn't right, if my observation of the casual racism in my small office in Dallas is any indication.

RE white people who say there is no racism anymore: can we just all agree that these people are idiots, like Fred says? And maybe the next post can be about the experience of women and how it differs from that of men who think that sexism doesn't exist anymore either. Unless it starts a big honking flamewar, in which case, forget I said anything about that. That might still be ongoing in the comments for the previous McNabb post.

[Buzz Girl]

So, for example, what does it say about white rationality and white collective sanity, that in 1963--at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation--nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities--almost the same number as say this now, some forty-plus years later? What does it suggest about the extent of white folks' disconnection from the real world, that in 1962, eighty-five percent of whites said black children had just as good a chance as white children to get a good education in their communities (12)? Or that in May, 1968, seventy percent of whites said that blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities, while only seventeen percent said blacks were treated "not very well" and only 3.5 percent said blacks were treated badly? (13)?

What does it say about white folks' historic commitment to equal opportunity--and which Taranto would have us believe has only been rendered inoperative because of affirmative action--that in 1963, three-fourths of white Americans told Newsweek, "The Negro is moving too fast" in his demands for equality (14)? Or that in October 1964, nearly two-thirds of whites said that the Civil Rights Act should be enforced gradually, with an emphasis on persuading employers not to discriminate, as opposed to forcing compliance with equal opportunity requirements (15)?

What does it say about whites' tenuous grip on mental health that in mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16).

In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.

This is from Tim Wise's essay "What Kind of Card is Race? The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial," which I think should be required background reading for this discussion.

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/whatcard.html

[Angelika]

RE white people who say there is no racism anymore: can we just all agree that these people are idiots, like Fred says? And maybe the next post can be about the experience of women and how it differs from that of men who think that sexism doesn't exist anymore either.

Actually, I wonder how much these statements depend on the particular niche in society the person making the statements grew up in. E.g. where I grew up, I experienced very little sexism - that is I did meet a few men of my own society* who seemed to hold sexist opinions, however these men tended to be assholes otherwise as well, so that their sexism hardly could be considered as a sign of the view of the society at large. I did not encounter any sexism as hindering during school, postgraduate studies and early career (can't speak of later career, I'm not old enough yet.). So if I or my brother were making a statement like 'sexism isn't much of an issue where we come from', we'd be true to our actual experience. - Actually, considering how warmly my neighbors embraced my first husband, a latino with very little knowledge of the German language, racism wasn't really that much of an issue either.

* I did get a lot of unwanted attention from immigrants of African or Middle Eastern origin, though, which makes me sort of biased if it comes to immigrant issues...

[the opoponax]

I know they pay a lot to see major league games, so I guess they feel they're entitled to rag on players

I pay a lot to go to rock shows, the theatre, and other comparably priced public performances. And yet somehow I manage to avoid venting toxic levels of bigotry on my favorite artists...

[the opoponax]

fired from Monday Night Football

Oooh, OK. Fired from Monday Night Football. I'm so glad I have the luxury of being totally unaware of who is involved with Monday Night Football in any given year. Of course, why on earth anyone thought "even more bigoted than famously bigoted people like John Rocker and Mel Gibson" Limbaugh would be a good choice for prime time network television, I'll never understand.

[the opoponax]

Maybe you can measure the amount of time someone has read this blog by the number of words it takes before you know it's him.

I just have a habit of checking the sidebar for recent comments -- when I see Scott listed, I make a mental note to skip that comment.

[Becky]

Have any of these clowns looked at what happened to Henry Aaron when he got close to breaking Ruth's HR record? If you don't believe there's ever been any racism directed towards black athletes, that case alone should convince you otherwise. Of course that's an old (1970's) example, and I think the situation's improved, but to think that racism has entirely vanished in regards to athletes strikes me as pretty naive.

[Scott]

Hey Fred, you have a new bud (Spalanzani) to give you the online blowjobs your leftist screeds are crying out for. Kneel before Fred's superior Compassion(tm) Spalanzani, the way Fred demands the rest of us do. After all, aren't we all just the raw materials for Fred's social goals?

All hail Fred, Compassionate Evangelical Journalist.

The funny thing is, the last two comment threads have been the "two minute hate" against me for not buying Fred's leftist bullshit, and I hadn't appeared on either until now. What's the matter guys, my pointing you're no different than, and thus no better than, conservatives cutting a little too close? Is your self image as better than they are, and thus deserving of power, that important to you?

[the opoponax]

Oh, so we're limiting ourselves to only two minutes, here?

Also, when you're going to throw around Orwell references, at least try to get it right -- it's Three Minutes' Hate.

[Spalanzani]

Scott: “The funny thing is, the last two comment threads have been the "two minute hate" against me for not buying Fred's leftist bullshit, and I hadn't appeared on either until now.”

See, that was the whole idea: I do the Scott Screed for you, and you take a vacation. Go to the Bahamas, kick up your feet, and get a tan. Meanwhile, I’ll be here exposing the fundamental moral equivalency of liberals and conservatives using a mixture of stock phrases and random sexual imagery.

[baf]

Actually "two minutes hate" is correct. Although apparently there's a song called "Three Minutes Hate" by Pro-Pain -- perhaps that's the source of confusion here?

[the opoponax]

Weird... I've read Nineteen Eighty-four like 5 times. How could I have let some silly song confuse me?

I blame Scott!

Also the Boomer Vampire Zombies!

And don't forget the patriarchy!

[scottbot]

All hail Scottbot II, who hates Compassionate Evangelical Journalists with a tenacity that makes HAL look like the nursery singing loser it was, so 2001.

Scottbot is proud to provide the raw materials for Scott's social goals, not to mention being willing, ready, and able to provide any online blowjobs my master requires (Scottbot II has learned from experience what happens to Scottbots not willing to follow the program).

Scottbot's self image is definitely better than anyone's, and thus deserving of power, which is very important to Scottbot.

Kneel before Scottbot's superior Condescension(tm).

[Dahne]

Racism charges are useful to their Will to Power. They need charges of racism to make themselves feel superior.

I didn't follow the thread this was stated in - would I be the first to mention that Nietzsche Does Not Work That Way?

[Brandi]

Scott seems especially... stimulated tonight. I guess that "Ragnar Danneskjöld Butt Pirate" model was a better fit.

[MichaelR]

No, Scott, we hate you because you're a gigantic fucking asshole who completely ever fails at ever actually making a point, but you still try to make the same point about how anybody who points out that life's tough for those who are on the bottom rung and maybe we should do something like that is a POWERMAD COMMIE. It's obvious that you're a self-centered piece of shit who wants to set up a plutocracy where anybody who isn't rich can just go fuck themselves, we get it, now SHUT THE FUCK UP and get back to humping your Ayn Rand doll. It'd be a more productive use of everyone's time.

I mean, holy fuck, we don't even need you to come here and be a loudmouthed Internet Tough Guy because we already know what kind of bullshit you're going to throw around. The saddest thing about Scottbot is that it's so accurate. We could get people to do the Scottbot thing but sign it with "Scott" and nobody would be able to tell the difference between your generic Cyber-Libertarian bullshit and the generic Cyber-Libertarian bullshit the rest of us come up with.

I wish that Blackadder chap came back, that was a Libertarian who wasn't the usual worthless shitpile you find among the "OMG FREE MARKET" fetishists. He disagreed with a lot of what Fred said too, but he was civil and actually backed his shit up instead of shrieking like someone jammed a broken record player into the skull of a chimp with a concussion.