Rob's House

A 1997 CNN/Time poll of black college students showed that the majority of black students thought racism was a big problem in America, but 89% said it was not a big problem in their own lives. The idea that growing up black in America means necessarily enduring significant racial hardship is baseless.

Wouldn't he also have to walk in yours to make a fair comparison?

When I worked for a publicly traded bank I was pulled off the floor by a manager and told that I'd been overheard having a private conversation with a coworker speaking negatively about Obama and that it was not acceptable in the workplace. I wonder if mannchild would take up my cause.

Woods wasn't an option. He wanted to go back to LA.

This is what the "we have a long way to go" crowd is creating. https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/homeless-white-disabled-man-attacked-bus/

I like that.

I kind of think it's naive to assume that things haven't changed that much. It's not like 50 years ago everyone was racist and then change started; it's been over 50 years since the dominant culture officially rejected racial discrimination, and we've moved rapidly and obsessively in that direction ever since. We now live in a culture that views racism as the supreme evil and anti-racism as the greatest virtue. Even saying something slightly racist can destroy a career. There's little worse than being labeled a white racist in America. Yet the sanctimonious "we have a long way to go" crowd ignores all of that and despite the absence of much supporting evidence declares we're a nation "steeped in racism" without any sense of historical or global perspective. But who needs evidence when you have self-righteous snark to support your position.

There's a big difference between a handful of randos having an opinion and having systemic institutionalized discriminatory racism. If he's lying awake at night because a few senior citizens and some internet trolls have racist opinions he should grow a sack.

Your error is where you place the emphasis - it should be on whether or not there was collusion, not why. It would be as if you were accused of embezzling money to finance your strip club tab. The emphasis is on whether you embezzled money, not your proposed motive. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the reason he's out of work is due to his "stance" if there was no collusion, and if there was collusion it still doesn't matter if it was related to his "stance". And the 1st amendment issue is !@#$ing stupid.

This isn't going well for you.

To characterize the totality of the behavior people find offensive as a stance against racial injustice is beyond disingenuous. That's like saying Ray Rice is out for standing up to his wife. And that is actually not the basis of his grievance, nor is it even close to the basis of his grievance. His position is that the NFL owners are colluding against him. Whether it's over his "stance", style of play, general attitude, or haircut is immaterial. The only question is whether there was collusion.

The only thing he's won, in my estimation, is notoriety. Sure, people are discussing the issue, but he's cast his side of the debate in a light that turns off a significant portion of the population that might otherwise be receptive, or at least open, to that message.

Who's !@#$ing whose dad now?

Actually, that wasn't my point, but I'm not exactly shocked that you didn't get that either. The point is that the case you made to support your argument is a weak one. I demonstrated that by showing a parallel situation with a conclusion that is the opposite of what your theory would suggest. And do you think for 2 seconds that Nick Foles would be in the league if he were mired in controversy?

Of course not. You can say anything you want about white guys. Compared to who?

Are we going to conveniently ignore the fact that the first 3 incidents were unrelated to league activity while this one was on the field and in uniform? Or do you similarly lack the intelligence to grasp that distinction too? And the fact that you obscure Kaepernick's actions as simply "speaking out for racial justice" just demonstrates your inability or unwillingness to discuss this topic honestly. When people resort to dishonesty it's almost always because they're wrong.

The claasic question is raised again: Are you dumb or dishonest?* You post a single datapoint (TD/INT) from a single season as the proof that he's good, and thus imply he's not starting because he's part black. I showed an example of another player with an even more impressive TD/INT stat in the same system as Kaepernick, and who no one thinks is good despite him being white. So are you pretending not to understand the point, or were you genuinely too stupid to figure it out on your own? * These are not mutually exclusive

If white people are the perpetrators of this racism wouldn't they be in just as good, if not better, of a position to know if they were racially motivated? I can list countless examples of black people making unfounded claims of racism, and in many cases genuinely believing those claims. Do we ignore this reality and just accept all claims at face value for the sake of sanctimonious cuckoldery? In fairness, I jumped off the Russell Wilson bandwagon last year when I found out he was black.

While Maybin's art is impressive, the wall is about football, and Maybin never led his men and got it done both on the field and in the locker room like Kyle Orton did. Maybin has no business being on the wall.

Is a white QB too much to ask for?

Wasn't that in the same system that saw Nick Foles throw 27 TDs to 2 INT?

Is he willing to play for what those guys are? Do those guys bring the same level of controversy?

It's one thing to recognize the past and learn from it, quite another to get stuck in and wallow in it.

I'm a bit more understanding of a black guy feeling that way than I am of a guilty white virtue-signaler, but this looks like a classic case of seeing racism where it isn't present due to past occurences coloring your perception.