Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Not always. Sometimes, based on the sensitivity of the issue, it's important to indicate your intentions prior to making your statement, or asking your question. It always take two people to offend someone: the saying something, and the person hearing it.
In this case, the guy is merely wondering how a man can be sexually attracted to another man. He's not disrespectful, and he's not being a jackass about it. He's being honest. It's an honest reaction. You can't just demand that he accept it without answering his questions.
Acceptance comes from understanding, not ignoring.
Okay, so would it be acceptable for me to tweet:
I don't have anything against black people, I just don't understand how they can have sex with black women. I mean do they not notice all the hot white chicks around?
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Ok then, how about Alphonso Smith of the Detroit Lions
https://twitter.com/AlphonsoSmith2/
Come OUT or NOT- there will be no PATS on the BACK coming from this way- Pats on the back only influence other weak minds to indulge! SMH
or this one
straight up though- its almost like being gay is the "new cool thing" to do! Hence, the influx of gays out there! Crazy
I guess minor credit to Mike Wallace for not hiding behind the God card. Oh yeah, Alphonso? Next time I see you playing on Sunday, I'm gonna do what the Bible says I should do to someone working on the Sabbath: Kill You. Bible says so right?
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
Taken literally, you are right about what he said, but there's more to it than that. Unless he's constantly questioning why all women aren't lesbians, the implication of what he's saying is that men are supposed to be attracted to women, but that something is wrong with Jason Collins. I don't think that he meant any offense by his comment, but it's still incredibly ignorant.
I was able to understand the concept of a gay woman much easier than the concept of a gay man. I'm attracted to women, and gay women are also attracted to women. We have something in common, and that particular thing makes it much easier for me to comprehend. I am not attracted to men, so I don't have that in common with gay men, and so I had a tough time understanding how men can be attracted to men.
I imagine this is the same for women. Straight women seem to be able to accept (and even befriend) gay men much faster than straight men do. Is this because women are much more accepting of people's differences than men are? I don't think so. I think it's because straight women understand how it's possible to be attracted to men, and so it's much easier for them to accept a man who is also attracted to men. They have that in common, and this commonality leads to faster acceptance.
As for his comment being "incredibly ignorant," of course it was ignorant. We are all ignorant about something we don't understand until we understand it. I think that everyone has a role in societal progression. I'm not gay, so I can't speak to what it means to be gay, but I do accept that being gay is no different to a gay person than being straight is to a straight person. This means, if I want to contribute to the progression of society, that my role now is to allow other people to ask the questions they need to ask, in order to achieve their level of understanding and acceptance. I need to do this not only so that they can benefit from their questions being answered seriously, but also so that I'm helping to create an environment where it's ok to ask questions about the things we don't understand, no matter how sensitive the topic is.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
I was able to understand the concept of a gay woman much easier than the concept of a gay man. I'm attracted to women, and gay women are also attracted to women. We have something in common, and that particular thing makes it much easier for me to comprehend. I am not attracted to men, so I don't have that in common with gay men, and so I had a tough time understanding how men can be attracted to men.
I imagine this is the same for women. Straight women seem to be able to accept (and even befriend) gay men much faster than straight men do. Is this because women are much more accepting of people's differences than men are? I don't think so. I think it's because straight women understand how it's possible to be attracted to men, and so it's much easier for them to accept a man who is also attracted to men. They have that in common, and this commonality leads to faster acceptance.
As for his comment being "incredibly ignorant," of course it was ignorant. We are all ignorant about something we don't understand until we understand it. I think that everyone has a role in societal progression. I'm not gay, so I can't speak to what it means to be gay, but I do accept that being gay is no different to a gay person than being straight is to a straight person. This means, if I want to contribute to the progression of society, that my role now is to allow other people to ask the questions they need to ask, in order to achieve their level of understanding and acceptance. I need to do this not only so that they can benefit from their questions being answered seriously, but also so that I'm helping to create an environment where it's ok to ask questions about the things we don't understand, no matter how sensitive the topic is.
Come on man, there is a big difference between asking an honest question for the sake of trying to understand a situation, and just putting out a stupid comment about how you don't understand how guys can want to "mess with" other guys.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Okay, so would it be acceptable for me to tweet:
I don't have anything against black people, I just don't understand how they can have sex with black women. I mean do they not notice all the hot white chicks around?
Offensive: "I'm not trying to be offensive, but I think we should give all the gay guys some free (insert secondary word for "cat" here) and then we just won't have to worry about the whole thing anymore."
Not offensive: "I'm not trying to be offensive, but I just don't understand how a man can be attracted to another man."
I think the ability to discern the true intention of a statement is just as important as the ability to properly portray intention when composing a statement.
Okay, so would it be acceptable for me to tweet:
I don't have anything against black people, I just don't understand how they can have sex with black women. I mean do they not notice all the hot white chicks around?
It's not acceptable, but it really isn't that mean spirited (although the insinuation that only black people have sex with black women makes it possibly more offensive). It's more, someone needs to sit down with Mike Wallace and have a talk then Mike is a huge homophobic bigot, screw that guy.
Also, No Fat Chicks!!! That's classy. Guess you don't care about offending bigger women? Would it be offensive if I replaced it with No Black Chicks!!!
Last edited by FlamingLonghorn; 04-29-2013 at 03:31 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamingLonghorn For This Useful Post:
I was able to understand the concept of a gay woman much easier than the concept of a gay man. I'm attracted to women, and gay women are also attracted to women. We have something in common, and that particular thing makes it much easier for me to comprehend. I am not attracted to men, so I don't have that in common with gay men, and so I had a tough time understanding how men can be attracted to men.
Can you understand how straight women could be attracted to men?
Offensive: "I'm not trying to be offensive, but I think we should give all the gay guys some free (insert secondary word for "cat" here) and then we just won't have to worry about the whole thing anymore."
Not offensive: "I'm not trying to be offensive, but I just don't understand how a man can be attracted to another man."
I think the ability to discern the true intention of a statement is just as important as the ability to properly portray intention when composing a statement.
Perhaps he would enjoy the whole of the gay community tweeting him explanations of what they specifically find attractive in their fellow man. Perhaps they could post pictures of their favorite parts to further his understanding. I know I always learn best with visual aids.
Some people insist they've never met a gay person. But Three Degrees of Jason Collins dictates that no NBA player can claim that anymore. Pro basketball is a family. And pretty much every family I know has a brother, sister or cousin who's gay. In the brotherhood of the NBA, I just happen to be the one who's out.
Great finish to the article.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Just did a little math, and depending on what kind of assumptions you make, there's a pretty good chance there are almost no gays in the NHL.
The first number to look for is the percentage of gays in general population. The numbers vary wildly, but wikipedia gives a recent survey of a rather low percentage of self-identifying homo- and bisexuals of 3,5%
The NHLPA has about 1000 members. That would make 35 gays or bisexual, if you assumed a random distribution. However, that would be a very unlikely assumption IMO, since we all know there is at least a history of homophobia in male team sports.
If we assume that about 9 out of 10 of potential gay NHL players either quit early, never started playing hockey or refused to self-identify as gay because of rampant homophobia surrounding hockey, that would leave only about 3-4 self-identifying gay and bisexual players in the whole NHL. That's a pretty small club.
Now I pulled that 9 out 10 number out of thin air, but I think the assumption is reasonable enough. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was even higher. If say 95% of potential top gay hockey players never reach that level or refuse to think of themselves as gay, that would only leave about 1 or 2 guys who are either gay or bisexual in the whole of NHL.
Also, if you're a top athlete with insecurities about his sexual identity, I would imagine that life as a celebrity athlete could sound like a nightmare. Propably one of the harder professions to be in if you want to live "in the closet".
I'm too lazy to look up the number of players on all major sports combined, but if you make the same assumption of self-identifying gays rarely reaching a top level in a male team sport, it could easily mean that in the whole of NA there could be fewer than a dozen self-identifying gays playing in all major team sports combined.
Also, top athletes are known to get some pretty good poon, and I'm sure more than a few straight guys have been partially motivated by that.
Come on man, there is a big difference between asking an honest question for the sake of trying to understand a situation, and just putting out a stupid comment about how you don't understand how guys can want to "mess with" other guys.
Maybe. Rule number 1 for any social media training a person gets should be "don't talk about complex social issues when you are limited to 140 characters."
The problem is that there is no context here.
If he doesn't understand because he thinks people like Collins consciously choose to be gay, then there is something to the homophobia angle.
But the truth is, I have no idea why a guy could be attracted to another guy either. No more than I understand why I have brown hair, why a cousin of mine is easily 18 inches taller than I am or how my sister and I have turned out to be utterly and completely opposite people in nearly every respect. I know very little about biology and the mechanics of the brain, except to believe that a person has no more conscious choice to be gay than they do to grow to 7 feet tall.
Just did a little math, and depending on what kind of assumptions you make, there's a pretty good chance there are almost no gays in the NHL.
The first number to look for is the percentage of gays in general population. The numbers vary wildly, but wikipedia gives a recent survey of a rather low percentage of self-identifying homo- and bisexuals of 3,5%
The NHLPA has about 1000 members. That would make 35 gays or bisexual, if you assumed a random distribution. However, that would be a very unlikely assumption IMO, since we all know there is at least a history of homophobia in male team sports.
If we assume that about 9 out of 10 of potential gay NHL players either quit early, never started playing hockey or refused to self-identify as gay because of rampant homophobia surrounding hockey, that would leave only about 3-4 self-identifying gay and bisexual players in the whole NHL. That's a pretty small club.
Now I pulled that 9 out 10 number out of thin air, but I think the assumption is reasonable enough. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was even higher. If say 95% of potential top gay hockey players never reach that level or refuse to think of themselves as gay, that would only leave about 1 or 2 guys who are either gay or bisexual in the whole of NHL.
Also, if you're a top athlete with insecurities about his sexual identity, I would imagine that life as a celebrity athlete could sound like a nightmare. Propably one of the harder professions to be in if you want to live "in the closet".
I'm too lazy to look up the number of players on all major sports combined, but if you make the same assumption of self-identifying gays rarely reaching a top level in a male team sport, it could easily mean that in the whole of NA there could be fewer than a dozen self-identifying gays playing in all major team sports combined.
Also, top athletes are known to get some pretty good poon, and I'm sure more than a few straight guys have been partially motivated by that.
I think your 9-out-of-10 number is a really flawed guess. For an elite young athlete who struggles with sexual identity, sports likely becomes a environment where they'll be assumed to be straight and will be respected for their achievements. Let's say you're the best hockey-player in your community, and in your early teens you become aware of your differences... are you going to quit on your childhood friends and teammates and suffer everyone asking you why you're quitting? Or are you going to use your athletics as a way of blending in, probably even joining in with the homophobic bravado that goes on in locker rooms? Some of those kids probably end up forcing themselves to live a straight life (as Collins did at one point) just to fit in.
The best I can do, like you, is a guess, but I'd expect the number of gay athletes in any sport is within a percentage point or two of what it is in the general population, because I just don't see any convincing reason for it to be different. Some of those guys are probably aware that they're gay and have either made the decision to keep it private or are still contemplating outing themselves, some of them are probably living a conflicted life, and some of them won't really be able to admit it to themselves and others until they step away from the game.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
I'm with you, and that's my point. Straight men can't understand how straight women can be attracted to men, but we don't question it because it's "natural." By questioning how a man can be attracted to other men, Mike Wallace was (probably unintentionally) implying that homosexuality is somehow less natural. That's the kind of attitude that can be changed through education, but it's still sad that so many people feel that way. Having said that, his tweet wasn't nearly as judgemental as this garbage from ESPN...
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
