• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Jordan: I was against all white people

The Man said:
Why is this not big news in light of the recent Donald Sterling scandal? Paula Deen lost her career simply for saying that she used the 'N' word a long time ago. Why no backlash on Michael Jordan?

Michael Jordan's upbringing detailed in new book - ESPN
Click to expand...
Because white people don't give a crap about this stuff. So what if Michael Jordan hated us? He probably still harbors some of that. Guess what. The world keeps turning if Michael Jordan hates us. Or if any black person hates us.
 
Zyphlin said:
Because this was back when he was in ELEMENTRAY SCHOOL. As a CHILD. And is brought up in the book to explain how his parents ended up teaching him how to be a more inclusive and tolerant person.

While Paula Deen's saying of the "N" word was a "long time ago" it was still while she was an ADULT. That was also not the entire scope of what peoples issues with her was.
Click to expand...

It was 1977 when he was 15. He was in high school - 2 schools past elementary school.
 
tres borrachos said:
It was 1977 when he was 15. He was in high school - 2 schools past elementary school.
Click to expand...

Ah. When I had previously read a story on this the article suggested it was elementary school age.

Still. He was a kid still, a young teen still finding himself...still not an adult, still almost 40 years ago.

Donald Sterling had a history of racially questionable things over the past couple decades, as an adult, with the most recent thing happening within the past few weeks.

Deen had a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against her in 2013, her testimony regarding her use of the N-Word gave no indication as to when she last used it or whether it was used while she was an adult or a kid, her business partner and brother admitted to using it the word at the resturant they co-owned, and seemingly had a desire for a southern "Plantation" style wedding complete with an all black serving staff. The majority of these things that were issues that happened within the few years leading up to when it hit major news, save for the "n-word" use on HER part which didn't have a date placed to it, and ALL of them where while she was an adult.

So yeah...it's not ridiculous to suggest that a single notion from Michael Jordan almost 40 years ago when he was not an adult being highlighted in a book is not going to get the same attention as someone caught making a racial statement this month who has a RECENT history of racially questionable actions, or a woman who was in the midst of a lawsuit regarding racial prejudice whose business partner was at the time being accused of using the word (and her excusing it to a degree) at their business establishment.

The latter two where individuals who had CURRENT situations that brought their CURRENT and past actions to light. In Michael Jordan's case, there was no current troublesome action that was bringing it to light but rather it was simply a snippet from a book talking about his early life.

Thinking they would, or should, get anywhere near the same time of attention is ridiculous and laughable. That's not a double standard, it's common ****ing sense.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah. When I had previously read a story on this the article suggested it was elementary school age.

Still. He was a kid still, a young teen still finding himself...still not an adult, still almost 40 years ago.

Donald Sterling had a history of racially questionable things over the past couple decades, as an adult, with the most recent thing happening within the past few weeks.

Deen had a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against her in 2013, her testimony regarding her use of the N-Word gave no indication as to when she last used it or whether it was used while she was an adult or a kid, her business partner and brother admitted to using it the word at the resturant they co-owned, and seemingly had a desire for a southern "Plantation" style wedding complete with an all black serving staff. The majority of these things that were issues that happened within the few years leading up to when it hit major news, save for the "n-word" use on HER part which didn't have a date placed to it, and ALL of them where while she was an adult.

So yeah...it's not ridiculous to suggest that a single notion from Michael Jordan almost 40 years ago when he was not an adult being highlighted in a book is not going to get the same attention as someone caught making a racial statement this month who has a RECENT history of racially questionable actions, or a woman who was in the midst of a lawsuit regarding racial prejudice whose business partner was at the time being accused of using the word (and her excusing it to a degree) at their business establishment.

The latter two where individuals who had CURRENT situations that brought their CURRENT and past actions to light. In Michael Jordan's case, there was no current troublesome action that was bringing it to light but rather it was simply a snippet from a book talking about his early life.

Thinking they would, or should, get anywhere near the same time of attention is ridiculous and laughable. That's not a double standard, it's common ****ing sense.
Click to expand...

I find it just as troublesome to read that a 15 year old black kid was "against all whites". That is very unhealthy, whether he changed that view or not (I assume he did because I believe his wife is white). Unless white people were doing things that harmed him, it's a very bad way to think. I would say that if a 15 year old white boy said something similar about blacks.

Some guy who I accidentally cut off in my car recently called me the "c" word at the top of his lungs. You know what? It didn't bother me. If the worst thing that happens in my life is being called a name, I'll die a happy woman.
 
apdst said:
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist as hell. Why do you give them a pass, too? They were adults then they displayed their racism.

Larry Johnson is an adult. You give him a pass. Why is that?

Let's face it, the only consistency we see from you all in these situations, is skin color.
Click to expand...

Look - I know it's all you have, throwing a lot of racists' names at the wall, hoping some of them will stick. You ain't gonna get anything from me.

Racism is racism. I think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the biggest racists to come down the pike, and have honestly hurt the African-American community more than they've helped them. Personally, any time I hear that either of those two are involved, the whole situation loses credibility with me.

What you are having an extremely hard time grasping is the difference in the two situations. Michael Jordan was a kid when this happened. All the other names you mentioned? Adults. I wet in my diaper when I was kid, but I don't do it anymore. Why? Because I grew up and learned it was wrong.
 
MaggieD said:
Why would you expect there to be backlash? It's not anywhere near the same thing. His views were shaped by where he lived and the KKK. Sterling's views were shaped by his white privilege.
Click to expand...

You don't know that.
 
Top Cat said:
Ummmm in addition to her childhood she admitting using it as an adult and and in more recent years.

There is a difference here. Rather large actually.
Click to expand...

Is it really?

I'm not an expert on Paula Deen but didn't she admit to using it as an adult while describing the man who held her at gunpoint? Mind you I'm not criticizing Michael Jordan here. I'm mostly criticizing a racially charged, predominately anti-white media out to make mountains out of molehills.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Is it really?

I'm not an expert on Paula Deen but didn't she admit to using it as an adult while describing the man who held her at gunpoint? Mind you I'm not criticizing Michael Jordan here. I'm mostly criticizing a racially charged, predominately anti-white media out to make mountains out of molehills.
Click to expand...

That's not the only time she's used the word.

Sheesh, has no one read the transcript? Is everyone relying on simply what the media is telling them to believe?

:2brickwal
 
tres borrachos said:
I find it just as troublesome to read that a 15 year old black kid was "against all whites".
Click to expand...

I find is disheartening, but I hardly find it as something to be as bothered by, or worthy of discussion, nealry 40 years later as what happened with Sterling or Deen...which is what the person I was responding to was suggesting.

If some famous 15 year old in the public eye came out TODAY and said he was "against all whites" then yeah...I'd say that would deserve attention and similar public concern (but probably a different reaction, as it is still the difference between a kid and a well into their life adult) as the Sterling or Deen situations. But this is a "troublesome" issue from nearly 4 decades ago that by all accounts is not something even remotely on going in the individuals life.

Unless white people were doing things that harmed him, it's a very bad way to think.
Click to expand...

It is a bad way to think; though admittedly a slightly more understandable one in my mind growing up in the south, just a few decades removed from the civil rights movement, given some of the reported stories regarding the treatment of his grandfather he was seeing. However, that's kind of the POINT of it being included in the book and why Michael said the line from what I've read. It's in the book and brought up because it's part of explaining how his parents tried to teach him you can't judge a group of people based on the actions that completely seperate individuals did in the past. To my understanding, the quote from Jordan was stated specifically to indicate that it WAS a bad way to think...and that thankfully his parents helped him grow and move past that.

That's FAR different than the revelation of Deen saying "nigger" multiple times in the past coming out during testimony regarding accusations of racial discrimination, and them coming out right along side her defending her brother for using the word at their place of business.

That's FAR different than the revelation of Sterling declaring he doesn't want his mistress bringing black people to his games stated in the past few weeks, building off of mounds of questionable actions over just this past decade alone.

Thus why it's not crazy that somehow Michael Jordan and this story isn't getting the exact same kind of coverage or attention as the other cases.

You know what? It didn't bother me.
Click to expand...

And that's wonderful for you. Then again, we're not all robots and different people are bothered or affected by different things. There are some women who are raped and who, mentally, can move past it somewhat quickly. There are other women who are raped and may never fully move past it mentally. Obviously, we should scorn those later ones becuase it affects some women differently so clearly it's just in the heads of the other women. The reality is that everyones situations, and everyones reactions to certain situations, and how those situations affect them, are going to differ person to person. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't let that **** affect me" and perhaps at times even commendable; but it doesn't magically mean that's the case, or should be the case, for everyone in every situation that's even remotely similar in some way shape or form.
 
apdst said:
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist as hell. Why do you give them a pass, too? They were adults then they displayed their racism.

Larry Johnson is an adult. You give him a pass. Why is that?

Let's face it, the only consistency we see from you all in these situations, is skin color.
Click to expand...

Who's giving them a pass? They haven't even come up in the thread. And kind words about Jackson and Sharpton are rare.
 
Mason66 said:
I think people would ask him what experiences he had to lea him to hate black people but is anybody asking Jordan for specifics as to why he hated White people?
Click to expand...

He gave his specifics in the interview cited in the book.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Is it really?

I'm not an expert on Paula Deen but didn't she admit to using it as an adult while describing the man who held her at gunpoint? Mind you I'm not criticizing Michael Jordan here. I'm mostly criticizing a racially charged, predominately anti-white media out to make mountains out of molehills.
Click to expand...

But see, there's two EXTREMELY different arguments here...

One is whether or not the Sterling or Paula Deen situations should've ended the way they did, or garnered the kind of media attention they did.

The other, which is SPECIFICALLY the one the OP actually made, was that somehow the Michael Jordan incident should have recieved similar treatment...implying that somehow the Jordan situation was of similar context.

That first point is debatable, and I think is a reasonable debate, but is kind of irrelevant to what was ACTUALLY suggested as the topic of this thread. REGARDLESS as to whether or not you think the Paula Deen thing, for example, should've gotten the media attention it did or had the blowback on her that it did, it's incredibly difficult to think that anyone is honestly and realistically suggesting that Jordan's situation contextually should have resulted in a very similar reaction from people. That somehow someone feeling a certain way nearly FOURTY YEARS AGO while they were a teen/kid and that coming out as part of an anecdote about how his parents helped him grow is somehow similar and worthy of a similar response as a woman being sued in the present for racial discrimination and while trying to defend herself makes it known she's used the word an undeterminate amount of times as an adult and defends her brother using it in the present at their place of business.
 
Thread is funny. Does Jordan get a pass on his views when he was young...sure does. Why? Because there is a obvious double standard.

More importantly....do I give a crap about what Jordan felt when he was kid? Nope. Do I give a crap about how Jordan feels today? Nope.
 
Zyphlin said:
I find is disheartening, but I hardly find it as something to be as bothered by, or worthy of discussion, nealry 40 years later as what happened with Sterling or Deen...which is what the person I was responding to was suggesting.

If some famous 15 year old in the public eye came out TODAY and said he was "against all whites" then yeah...I'd say that would deserve attention and similar public concern (but probably a different reaction, as it is still the difference between a kid and a well into their life adult) as the Sterling or Deen situations. But this is a "troublesome" issue from nearly 4 decades ago that by all accounts is not something even remotely on going in the individuals life.



It is a bad way to think; though admittedly a slightly more understandable one in my mind growing up in the south, just a few decades removed from the civil rights movement, given some of the reported stories regarding the treatment of his grandfather he was seeing. However, that's kind of the POINT of it being included in the book and why Michael said the line from what I've read. It's in the book and brought up because it's part of explaining how his parents tried to teach him you can't judge a group of people based on the actions that completely seperate individuals did in the past. To my understanding, the quote from Jordan was stated specifically to indicate that it WAS a bad way to think...and that thankfully his parents helped him grow and move past that.

That's FAR different than the revelation of Deen saying "nigger" multiple times in the past coming out during testimony regarding accusations of racial discrimination, and them coming out right along side her defending her brother for using the word at their place of business.

That's FAR different than the revelation of Sterling declaring he doesn't want his mistress bringing black people to his games stated in the past few weeks, building off of mounds of questionable actions over just this past decade alone.

Thus why it's not crazy that somehow Michael Jordan and this story isn't getting the exact same kind of coverage or attention as the other cases.



And that's wonderful for you. Then again, we're not all robots and different people are bothered or affected by different things. There are some women who are raped and who, mentally, can move past it somewhat quickly. There are other women who are raped and may never fully move past it mentally. Obviously, we should scorn those later ones becuase it affects some women differently so clearly it's just in the heads of the other women. The reality is that everyones situations, and everyones reactions to certain situations, and how those situations affect them, are going to differ person to person. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't let that **** affect me" and perhaps at times even commendable; but it doesn't magically mean that's the case, or should be the case, for everyone in every situation that's even remotely similar in some way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Um, Zyphlin. You lost me when you compared rape to being called a name. It's a wee bit problematic that you equate rape with name calling, IMO. I know women who were raped. I can assure you, they wouldn't care for the comparison either.
 
Zyphlin said:
But see, there's two EXTREMELY different arguments here...

One is whether or not the Sterling or Paula Deen situations should've ended the way they did, or garnered the kind of media attention they did.

The other, which is SPECIFICALLY the one the OP actually made, was that somehow the Michael Jordan incident should have recieved similar treatment...implying that somehow the Jordan situation was of similar context.

That first point is debatable, and I think is a reasonable debate, but is kind of irrelevant to what was ACTUALLY suggested as the topic of this thread. REGARDLESS as to whether or not you think the Paula Deen thing, for example, should've gotten the media attention it did or had the blowback on her that it did, it's incredibly difficult to think that anyone is honestly and realistically suggesting that Jordan's situation contextually should have resulted in a very similar reaction from people. That somehow someone feeling a certain way nearly FOURTY YEARS AGO while they were a teen/kid and that coming out as part of an anecdote about how his parents helped him grow is somehow similar and worthy of a similar response as a woman being sued in the present for racial discrimination and while trying to defend herself makes it known she's used the word an undeterminate amount of times as an adult and defends her brother using it in the present at their place of business.
Click to expand...

Precisely. This has been the argument the entire thread. And the usual suspects reply with "NOPE ITS CUZ HES BLACK".
 
Fishstyx said:
Why? Because there is a obvious double standard.
Click to expand...

It's an obvious double standard huh?

So since it's so obvious, you must clearly have an instance where someone else suggested a racist view point nearly 4 decades ago while being a child but has demonstrated no such views to any degree over the past few decades as an adult and was instead ridiculed and lambasted for it?
 
tres borrachos said:
Um, Zyphlin. You lost me when you compared rape to being called a name. It's a wee bit problematic that you equate rape with name calling, IMO. I know women who were raped. I can assure you, they wouldn't care for the comparison either.
Click to expand...

He didn't compare rape to being called a name. He was simply illustrating that different people process different things different ways.
 
tres borrachos said:
Um, Zyphlin. You lost me when you compared rape to being called a name. It's a wee bit problematic that you equate rape with name calling, IMO. I know women who were raped. I can assure you, they wouldn't care for the comparison either.
Click to expand...

I compared the fact that different people react to negative actions towards them in different manners, I in no way compared the negative actions as being comparable in nature. But nice job attempting to twist it as an excuse to ingore everything else I said ;) Clearly, actually addressing the various points I made would be far more difficult than going "I know rape victims, this offends me, I'm not answering anything else!"

(Also, how strange...did my words just cause a negative reaction from you? How utterly odd, after you were just talking about how words don't bother you. Could it be that SOME words do bother you, and some don't, depending on the context and how it relates to your life personally?)

Also, nice attempt with the "I have black friends" style of a counter point...ie not a real counter point. Guess what. Rape victims aren't some kind of hive mind that all think alike. Also, this may come to a shocker...you're not the only person that knows individuals that were raped. Indeed, two very close women to me are victims of the henious crime. Both of which coped with it in very different ways, both of them were affected by it in different ways.

My point was to grab something that you'd clearly understand IS a negative thing, since you clearly indicated that being "called a name" (as you simplified it down to) was something that you had an opinion isn't a very negative thing and thus treated your opinion as if it was fact. It was then using that clearly negative thing to highlight that different people react to negative things in different ways, and to different degrees. Similarly, just because YOU react to "name calling" in one particular way doesn't mean that the way it impacts you is somehow the only "right" way or the only reasonable way for it to affect someone.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I compared the fact that different people react to negative actions towards them in different manners, I in no way compared the negative actions as being comparable in nature. But nice job attempting to twist it as an excuse to ingore everything else I said ;)
Click to expand...

You answered my post about being called a name with a diatribe on how women handle rape. No correlation - no segue. Very disturbing.

I'm not a person to get ginned up about people calling people names. Sorry, but in the grand scheme of life, that's nothing to me. Name calling starts happening when we're in Kindergarten.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's an obvious double standard huh?

So since it's so obvious, you must clearly have an instance where someone else suggested a racist view point nearly 4 decades ago while being a child but has demonstrated no such views to any degree over the past few decades as an adult and was instead ridiculed and lambasted for it?
Click to expand...

So you're gonna honestly sit here and claim that if this were, say a tell all book about lets say...Dan Marino, where he freely admitted to hating all blacks when he was in his teens or in college that wouldn't be an outcry to fire him from his TV show and boycotts on products he endorses? There is a double standard, if you choose to ignore it, thats your prerogative.
 
Fishstyx said:
So you're gonna honestly sit here and claim that if this were, say a tell all book about lets say...Dan Marino, where he freely admitted to hating all blacks when he was in his teens or in college that wouldn't be an outcry to fire him from his TV show and boycotts on products he endorses? There is a double standard, if you choose to ignore it, thats your prerogative.
Click to expand...

If Dan Marino said that in a well publicized interview in 1992 and it was being repeated in a book 20+ years later, I don't think there would be an outcry...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom