Page 66 of 70 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 699

Thread: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sports

  1. #651
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    And my point is that the above occurring would not make it a topic of national conversation.
    Actually, things become "topics of national conversation" that are completely vacuous all the time. Think of every churned up political scandal where your reaction was "this doesn't even matter". Like I said, a bunch of individuals perceiving something is of importance, and it being "a topic of national conversation" means nothing more than it caught the public's attention. Which isn't exactly a litmus test for importance



    Interesting choice of examples, considering that most things that are actually about national defense are kept secret and considered things that we do not need to know about.
    I don't even understand why you would try to use this as a point of criticism here. It's totally irrelevant to what we are discussing, doesn't undermine my example, and totally ignores the point I am trying to convey

    It's like you went out of your way just to write a piffy retort to be piffy.

  2. #652
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreton View Post
    This guys career is garbage regardless of who he has sex with.
    There are thousands of college and NBA ball players over the past 12 years who would probably have given anything to have such "garbage" themselves.

    Twelve years in a league where there's a max of 450 is not a career one could reasonably call "garbage".

    Let's take just the tournament teams, and unlike the NBA lets assume they have the least amount of people on the bench possible with 12. That's 768 basketball players every year that would LOVE to have even probably a fourth of that "garbage" career.

    Is he LeBron James? Of course not. That's like saying someone making $250k a year doing something they enjoy has a "garbage" career compared to a CEO making multi-millions. In the scope of reality, his career isn't garbage.

    Hell, look at the team he's on. You want to know who on the Wizards has a better chance of having what you'd call a "garbage career". Jan Vessely. A guy who will probably be lucky if he gets more than 4 years in the NBA. He may have better stats...but you go team by team of GMs and ask which player they'd want on their team all contract things being equal and I'd bet money Collins gets the nod every time (unless that GM was ernie grumsfeld...sigh).

    Or looking around the NBA...how about Luke Jackson. In his six combined seasons he didn't play in a seasons worth of games. Collins has six SEASONS where he played in more games than Jackson did his entire career. Luke's minutes played per game average was less than 10, Collins is over 20. Their PPG were similar, but Collins brought you half a block per game and about 3 rebounds per game more.

    Yes...I do think referencing the guys stats can be reasonable and realistic in the discussion. When part of the conversation after he came out was concerning his chances of getting hired next year they NEED to be brought up. And it's entirely reasonable, when talking about historical and long lasting impact, that the level of player he was could come into play. But one must be at least honest and realistic about it.

    He was no superstar, but his career is not one that should be considered "garbage" and labeling it as such lends immedietely questioning to the motives of those making such a statement.

  3. #653
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,427

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    OMG!!!! Why would a sports magazine put a major sports story on their cover?!?!?! WHYYYY!!!!!

    The topic of an openly gay active player in one of the four major American team sports has been discussed in great detail over the last few months. The issue was already a topic of conversation across the nation, it merely became a topic of national conversation when the discussion went from the level of speculation to the level of confirmed.



    Sports illustrated ran a sports story. It was a big sports story. That sports story spurred a national conversation. It went from being a simple sports story, reported on by sporting news outlets (like the media outlet that broke the sports story) to a news story almost instantly because it is a big deal.



    First: the government didn't react. I see no laws about this. There have been no military actions.

    Second: Obviously his coming out WAS a big deal, regardless of YOUR OPINION of it. It's not like this was initially reported by a general news outlet. If it wasn't a big deal, it would have remained on the sports pages where it started.





    Sports illustrated is an unlikely place to report a sports story?

    Sadly, it isn't an invented event. Collins IS gay. He IS an "active" player who wishes to continue playing. That is, in and of itself, a sports story because it has never happened in one of the four big American sports before. Much like the story of Jackie Robinson was a big story. And that was only baseball. There had already been black players in the NFL, hell there had been a black coach in the NFL already.

    It was initially reported by a sporting news agency. Because it was a big deal, it got picked up by everyone.
    Please tell me what group of people find this to be an important story. Please be specific.

  4. #654
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In that it's impossible to have this talk "as a nation" in the sense you're referring to it. There's no "national" conversation going on...there's multiple localized conversations of individuals all across the nation. This isn't a team all in one locker room actively talking to each other. This isn't even a President giving a statement broadcast across the nation in real time on every major network. This is independent collumnists, news commentators, internet blogs, people at water coolers, etc having a conversation about the issue.
    False. A team conversation doesn't have to have all of the teammates in one room. The key factors are 1. That it involves the members of the team and 2. it is a conversation that relates to the team in some way.

    The conversation being had by the nation is about what effects, if any, this particular issue will have on the nation. This whole thread is indicative of the fact that the conversation is about that.

    This goes back to my issue with you claiming I'm reading your words wrong when in reality what you TYPED and what you seemingly meant to say do not jive up.
    they jive up, you just keep trying to make them mean things that they do not.

    Having a team meetings about an issue suggests you are having meetings as a team about issues.
    Speaking of moving the goalposts, when did "conversation/discussion" get changed to "meetings"? Conversation and discussion are synonymous and fully interchangeable, but meeting is not fully interchangeable, as it does imply that the participants are all physically present in some way during a set time period.

    I made no claims about gathering the people together for the discussion. The only reason you might have decided to make this shift is to support your erroneous claim form ealrlier about the team being all in teh same room for a team discussion. That's moving the goalposts.

    Being a topic of national conversation is suggesting that the topic is one being talked about on a national level.

    Being a national topic of conversation is suggesting that a topic that raises to national concerns is being talked about.
    Exactly backwards. This is just a matter of how adjectives work.

    A national topic of conversation clearly indicates, by virtue of word order, that the topic is what is being shared as the nation, not the conversation. The answer to "what is national" is "the topic". The conversation about said topic, however, is not necessarily shared by the nation (it can be, but it doesn't have to be). There is no uniformity of conversation and the discussion being had does not necessarily relate to the nation in any way. It can be something totally inconsequential

    Example: The Superbowl. It is a national topic of conversation the day after it happens. The topic is shared as a nation, but the conversation is not.

    With a topic of national conversation, it is the conversion that is described by the adjective "national". That is what is being shared by the nation. It relates to the nation in some way, which is why the conversation is shared. It may be shared in a separate fashion, like how a team conversation about a proposed rule change about concussions, for example, may not occur in a formal team meeting, but individually and in smaller groups by the players and coaches, or how a league discussion on concussions can take place in multiple different locker-rooms in multiple team meetings, but it is still a shared conversation on the issue.

    Example: The Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at the Superbowl became a topic of national discussion, specifically about how such things affect the nation as a whole.

    I chose that example because I, personally, did not see it as a big deal. My opinion of such a thing airing on live TV during a sporting event was of the "It's not that big of a deal to me" variety. But my opinion of the event does not have any bearing on the import of the event on the nation. It was definitely a big deal because it was a big deal to so many people. It might not have affected me in any way, personally, but it did affect a significant portion of the population of the nation. It inspired a national conversation about the issue. It had a real effect, even if I personally didn't think it should have had an effect.

    For those who are saying "this is being made into a big deal when it is not really a big deal" and "who cares" they are sharing their feelings about how it affects them personally. But how it affects them personally has no relevancy on the topic and nation as a whole. It has an effect on a significant portion of the population, as evidenced by the reaction to it. There is a conversation being shared by the nation about how we as a nation react to homosexuals because of that effect.



    You seem to be MEANING the latter
    I do mean the latter, but I also realize that you are applying the adjective incorrectly.

    But the WORDS you said and the order you put them in suggested that it only mattered that the nation was talking about it, not that the topic itself was worthy of "national" regard.
    False. Your improper understanding of what nouns adjectives apply to is what caused you to reach that erroneous conclusion.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #655
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Actually, things become "topics of national conversation" that are completely vacuous all the time. Think of every churned up political scandal where your reaction was "this doesn't even matter". Like I said, a bunch of individuals perceiving something is of importance, and it being "a topic of national conversation" means nothing more than it caught the public's attention. Which isn't exactly a litmus test for importance
    Not all political scandals become topics of national conversation. Only those that have an effect on the nation become topics of national conversation. The conversation isn't really shared if there is no import.



    I don't even understand why you would try to use this as a point of criticism here.
    Because we are talking about how events of importance, when reported on, become topics of national conversation. You cited an example of a general topic (one where most of the events remain unknown, no less) as though it is comparable to an event. That was an interesting choice. It seems like it's totally irreverent to the discussion being had, but I do not wish to presume. So I commented on it by trying to illuminate it's seeming irrelevancy.

    Why do you think it is relevant to the discussion being had?

    It's totally irrelevant to what we are discussing...
    What do you think we are discussing? Your examples have to relate to it, no? I don't see how your example relates. It was a general topic, not an event.

    It's like you went out of your way just to write a piffy retort to be piffy.
    I hope that my explanation clears up your confusion.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #656
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    Please tell me what group of people find this to be an important story. Please be specific.
    Based on the wording of your question, I have to assume you are asking to a specific single group. If so, the answer is "The nation".

    If you want to know which portions of the nation find this to be an important story, I can provide that answer for you as well.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #657
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not all political scandals become topics of national conversation. Only those that have an effect on the nation become topics of national conversation.
    Really, based on what? I can think of many political scandals, that became "issues of national debate" that had no real importance behind them. Clinton's blow job coming to mind. Which would have had no impact if he didn't lie under oath. An event directly driven by the "national debate" on the subject.











    Because we are talking about how events of importance, when reported on, become topics of national conversation. You cited an example of a general topic (one where most of the events remain unknown, no less) as though it is comparable to an event.
    1) the fact that many issues of national defense remain unknown doesn't change the fact that others are known, or undermine the idea that they have a clear impact on the general public, regardless of their personal perceptions of it.

    2) I fail to see the issue of citing the broad category of "national defense". When the subject of "national defense" would include everything from the iraq war, to 9/11

    As usual, you're attempting to quibble about some irrelevant point of issue, as to avoid the larger debate


    That was an interesting choice. It seems like it's totally irreverent to the discussion being had, but I do not wish to presume. So I commented on it by trying to illuminate it's seeming irrelevancy.
    I'm not sure how naming a broad category of things that would have clear public importance would be irrelevant to the discussion

    What do you think we are discussing? Your examples have to relate to it, no? I don't see how your example relates. It was a general topic, not an event.
    So your contention is that there are no "events" that would fall under the category of "national defense"? Again, and as usual, your trying to argue about things completely irrelevant tho the larger issue


    I hope that my explanation clears up your confusion.
    No, it still seems to makes no sense, nor have much bearing on what we are discussing

  8. #658
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    (as a Random note, this being a "national" conversation by the way you describe it really makes me recall back and think about some things in terms of your statements regarding the notion of the "nation" being Christian and the amount of those that need to embody that identity to make such a claim)

    First, my apologies on meeting. That wasn't an attempt to "change the goal post" that was my interpritation of a "discussion" that a team would have being synonymous with meeting. Wasn't an attempt to change the goal posts, but based on a direct reading of it I can see where it is. Simply because my ASSUMPTION that a word should have a certain meaning or intent or adjective added onto it when I'm writing it doesn't mean it's clearly represented when I type it, so it's good to own up to that. Wish the same could be said for this discussion as a whole in terms of the sudden interjection of importance, national relevance, and level of discussion were assumed to be stated.

    Alright, I at least have a better understanding for what you're TRYING to say...

    I understand your point in terms of the super bowl statement. It's essentially segmenting of "topic of conversation" as a combined term and the national adjective is affecting it as such.

    My issue still stands that the wording you use does not jive with what you keep saying it means. You keep claiming what it means, providing no definitions or actual references to in any way shape or form back up your claiming of the proper definition and meaning of it, but what you say doesn't mesh with what the words mean and how they're used. But this seems to be apparently both of us thinking the other is speaking greek and saying something completely wrong, so I'm guessing at this point it's just going to continue to run in circles which doesn't make for interesting thread reading I'm sure.

    So I'll focus on going back to my "homophobic" arguments rather than running in gramatical circles going forward.

  9. #659
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Rehat he is gay, altering the landscape of sports

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Many, if not most, voters get their first real understanding of the candidates' views in the debates. Is that not of actual importance?
    since you didn't respond to my request to validate this:

    That presidential debates can be “game changers” is a belief almost universally held by political pundits and strategists. Political scientists, however, aren’t so sure. Indeed, scholars who have looked most carefully at the data have found that, when it comes to shifting enough votes to decide the outcome of the election, presidential debates have rarely, if ever, mattered.

    The small or nonexistent movement in voters’ preferences is evident when comparing the polls before and after each debate or during the debate season as a whole. Political lore often glosses over or even ignores the polling data. Even those who do pay attention to polls often fail to separate real changes from random blips due to sampling error. A more careful study by political scientist James Stimson finds little evidence of game changers in the presidential campaigns between 1960 and 2000. Stimson writes, “There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” At best, debates provide a “nudge” in very close elections like 1960,1980, or 2000. A even more comprehensive study, by political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, which includes every publicly available poll from the presidential elections between 1952 and 2008, comes to a similar conclusion: excluding the 1976 election, which saw Carter’s lead drop steadily throughout the fall, “the best prediction from the debates is the initial verdict before the debates.” In other words, in the average election year, you can accurately predict where the race will stand after the debates by knowing the state of the race before the debates. Erikson and Wlezien conclude that evidence of debate effects is “fragile.”

    Why are presidential debates so often inconsequential? After all, many voters do pay attention. Debates routinely attract the largest audience of any televised campaign event. And voters do learn new information, according to several academic studies. But this new information is not likely to change many minds. The debates occur late in the campaign, long after the vast majority of voters have arrived at a decision. Moreover, the debates tend to attract viewers who have an abiding interest in politics and are mostly party loyalists. Instead of the debates affecting who they will vote for, their party loyalty affects who they believe won the debates. For example, in a CNN poll after one of the 2008 debates, 85 percent of Democrats thought that Obama had won, but only 16 percent of Republicans agreed.

    The impact of debates is also limited because the candidates are fairly evenly matched. Each candidate will have read a thick stack of briefing papers and rehearsed extensively. They will stick to their message and won’t be easily rattled. One candidate’s argument will be immediately countered by the other’s. Perhaps one candidate may appear more comfortable than the other. Perhaps one may momentarily slip up while the other does not. But the differences in their respective performances will be small. Candidates sometimes try to lower expectations of their own debate performance by claiming that they are just humble, plainspoken folks while their opponents are the second coming of Cicero. But Erikson and Wlezien’s analysis shows that across the series of debates in any given election year, the candidates tend to fight to a draw—much as one would expect two equally matched candidates to do.
    The Washington Monthly - The Magazine - Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?

  10. #660
    Farts in Elevators
    OscarB63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    09-06-14 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,526

    Re: Jason Collins (NBA Center) announces that he is gay, altering the landscape of sp

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    He was no superstar, but his career is not one that should be considered "garbage" and labeling it as such lends immedietely questioning to the motives of those making such a statement.
    no one who lasts more than a couple of years in any pro sport should be accused of having a "garbage" career. I brought up his stats to illustrate that, given his age and level of play, there is a good chance he is done regardless of his coming out or not.

    I kinda wish he had either made his announcement before the season was over or waited until he got picked up next season. Now we'll never know for sure what impact his coming out had on his career.

    If he doesn't get a contract, is it because he came out? or is it because he just wasn't good enough to be wanted
    If he does get a contract, is it because some team thought he still had some gas left in the tank and could contribute? or is it because some team wanted the noteriety of having "the first gay player" on their roster.
    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

    An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Page 66 of 70 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •