Let's just highlight all the ways you've strawmanned and distorted what I've said, and why your argument is idiotic.
First, to the notion that I think I've suggested it's "Okay" in any way shape or form. This is unquestionably untrue. I've never once suggested, to any degree, that it's okay. My argument was whether or not it was reasonable that Michael Jordan's statement was worthy of the same kind of scorn, outrage, and media attention that Deen and Silver got. You know, the actual argument made in the OP.
You can see that was my focus in my first response to you:
Notice, the focus is on the level of attention...not the level of right or wrong. Something a person did in their childhood isn't likely to get the same attention as something somone did as an adult, because society places a different level of maturity and responsability on children than the ydo adults. Something that happened nearly 40 years ago isn't likely to get the same attention as something that happened yesterday, becuase the more immediete something is the more relevant it typically is.Originally Posted by Zyphlin
Next, let's address you're ridiculous notion that somehow I'm suggesting that a 15 year old saying something racist is "okay". Again, this is something I've not suggested at all. Notice in reference to Jordan's statement I stated:
And I also noted that:Originally Posted by Zyphlin
I don't think it's "okay" for a 15 year old to say he's against the white race. That's definitely not a good or "okay" thing.
I do think I'd treat a 15 year old saying he's against ANY race differently than I'd treat a 35 year old saying he's against ANY race. Just like I'd generally treat a 15 year old that punched someone out of anger differently than I'd treat a 35 year old that punched someone out of anger. Just like I'd generally treat a 15 year old I'm asking to watch my house while I'm out of town differnetly than I'd treat a 35 year old that I've asked to do such.
A 15 year old is still underage. Is still in their formative years. Is still both finding themselves and coming to understand the world. Their views are more malleable and able to change. The expectations placed upon them by societ in terms of maturity and responsability are lower. The experiences they've had in life are significantly smaller on average than those of someone like a 30 year old.
Perhaps if I say it for a THIRD time you'll finally actually understand it and stop beating up the pathetic looking strawman you created, but I'm not hopeful.
Suggesting that the Michael Jordan situation doesn't warrant a similar level of attention or scorn as the Sterling or Deen situations is not, in any way shape or form, suggesting that the opinions expressed by Jordan at that time were "okay".
It's suggesting that something said while being a teenager, that's almost 40 years old, is not worthy of the same level of scorn and attention TODAY (or well, "in the present" of when those two people were in the news) as something that was occuring in the present.
Sterling's accused racism came into the news because he said something controversial during that same time frame.
Deen's accused racism came into the news because she was being sued for racial discrimination during that same time frame.
Michael Jordan's accused racism came into the news because a book talked about something he said nearly 40 years ago.
The first two had situations occuring in the relative present that caused the outrage and scorn. Michael Jordan's situation occured nearly 40 years ago. It's completely understandable and reasonable for it not to cause the same type of outrage.
You can't directly compare it to a 15 year old TODAY saying something similar, and the level of outrage or concern that should happen about that, becuase it completely removes one of the two key factors of the argument...namely, the extreme past nature of it.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.