Rob's House

This is a most bizarre coincidence.

You remind me of a writer I once knew.

Glad to see you're back.

Yet you and others consistently support the "we're not there yet" narrative with anecdotal evidence. The point being that even if we were "there" these arguments would still be just as easy to make. Therefore, these anecdotal stories are close to meaningless when trying to quantify the situation. Yet this is what is being used to do just that. So how will we know when we are "there"? Which is my point.

Is this a parody of the Manning/Newton thread?

Jesus !@#$ing Christ. Do you honestly believe I was suggesting that only one person in the goddamn country is racist? Seriously, is that what you read? This is why we can't have a "dialogue" on the subject. Because the vast majority of people are either too dense to have more than a surface level discussion about it or are too full of **** to be real about it. The (rather obvious) point is that there will always be anecdotal examples of racism so that even if we one day find ourselves in a world where 99% of Americans are as free of racism as they are of introspection, that 1% would still consist 3 million people who are racist.* And as long as we can find an anecdotal example of someone making a racist comment somewhere we can continue to perpetuate this narrative. Because until no one is racist it's an epidemic that calls for constant hand wringing and strong presumptions that racism exists anywhere and everywhere it could exist. *Since only white people can be racist it would really only be 1.5-2 million racists.

I think you summed it up pretty well. I didn't care for the sociological arguments that came into the decision but I think you can get to the same conclusion without them. A pretty reasonable argument can be made that state sanctioned segregation does not provide equal protection ..., but it does take some mental flexibility to come to the ultimate finding. It's a tough question and one I don't really have a great answer for. My biggest concern going forward is whether we keep any kind of meaningful adherence to constitutional restraints and rule of law generally. I think we've been moving consistently away from that for the last century, but I'm concerned it's just a matter of time now before the constitution is effectively an outline of contemporary liberal philosophy. We'll see though. Sometimes things shift in unpredictable directions so I'm more curious to see how it will unfolds than I am resolute in any predictions.

You just exposed yourself. You're predisposed to seeing everything through the prism of racism and as such will always see it whether it's there or not. I'm not so naive to assume there aren't people who don't like Cam Newton because he's a back QB. But that's not really the point. The race baiters who want to push that narrative will claim that as long as they can find one person in a country of 300+ million that racism (specifically anti-black racism) is prevalent. Overcompensating for past injustices isn't noble or even pragmatic. It's destructive. If there's real injustice being perpetrated due to race (or any other reason, for that matter) then by all means, call attention to it. But let's not just pull ridiculous accusations out of our asses because they fit our biased narrative of the ever-racist US of KKKA.

Attributing race to Newton/Manning perceptions is an idiotic point because it's wholly unsupported. If it compared Manning to a black guy who showed class but was villified for a few old or little known transgressions he'd have a reasonable argument. If he compared a white hotshot who was loved to Cam Newton he might have an argument. Instead he looks at two guys with polar opposite public demeanor and attributes the difference in perception to race. It's lazy writing. It's !@#$ing stupid. It only appears relevant to simple minds that are inclined to attribute everything to racism. Those people are pathetic and so is this article and author.

So you're saying that if Newton was white and acted exactly as he does now everyone would love him? Is there a shred of evidence to suggest this? Because the argument seems to be that the only difference between the loudmouth showboat who does celebration dances after first downs and the guy who has demonstrated class and humility consistently for 20 years is race. I guess the reason everyone hates Brady is because he's black.

It was implicit in your line of questioning and commentary.

I didn't bring race into it. I commented on the way in which the author did. What part of that confused you?

What have I obfuscated? You even agreed that the racial aspect was unnecessary, which is what I called out, so what's your issue? Why what? What's your question?

What's to talk about? I haven't seen it disputed. So again, what's the point?

That's not what I see. I see some race-baiting douche bag with a poorly constructed argument trying to draw a false equivalence between the two players and then attributing all differences in perception to racism.

It is curious why we're rehashing this 20 year old story. What exactly is the point? That Peyton Manning did something wrong a long time ago and therefore what?

I don't have any problem with people expressing themselves. I don't have a problem with people who choose not to listen. I choose not to subscribe to HBO because I don't want to support the garbage they peddle. I don't, however, start online petitions, send emails to the parent company, etc. demanding that they cancel or censor the people I don't like. Not sure how that makes me self-righteous, but whatever.

This is a cop out, IMO. I think lots of people make dishonest, inappropriate, and/or offensive comments, many of which are not rationally based in reality. However, I rarely if ever call for the speaker to be forcibly silenced. I call out the absurdity of his statement and point out why it's absurd. It's an often overlooked truth that if you can't provide a rational explanation for your position, you don't have one. People going on emotionally charged tirades would do well to remember that.

Perhaps we as a society shouldn't be so quick to throw around PC buzz words like "sexism" and "misogyny" anytime someone says something that touches on any issue of sexual politics. Perhaps instead of calling for the heads of people we disagree with we should rationally explanation what flaws we see in their positions and why. Perhaps we should pull our heads out of our self righteous asses and climb said asses down from our high horses.

If it slapped him upside his head wouldn't that make it offense?

This is clearly a product of racism. I mean, color aside, Peyton Manning and Can Newton are practically the same guy. It's hard to be a black QB in the US of KKKA.

Maybe not for talking smack, but talking **** is good cause for an unmitigated ass-whooping. He will, however, have the burden of establishing enough evidence of his affirmative defense to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the finder of fact.

That's true, but tangential to the point I was making.

Are you suggesting that unconstitutional legislation becomes constitutional when passed by bipartisan majority?

But he still didn't address whether the "victim" was talking ****.