Unfortunately, real life doesn't follow our rules.
TwitLonger ? When you talk too much for Twitter
Just to, you know, in the spirit of both sides of the story that we started with, this is what Torii said via Twitter. Not saying whether this was just damage control or if what he said was misconstrued, just wanted his thoughts about it on here.
Whether damage control or not, I'm glad he tweeted this.Quote:
I'm very disappointed in Kevin Baxter's article in which my quotes and feelings have been misrepresented. He took two completely separate quotes and made them into one quote that does not express how I feel as a Christian or a human being . I have love and respect for all human beings regardless of race, color or sexual orientation. I am not perfect and try hard to live the best life I can and treat all people with respect. If you know me you know that I am not anti anything and to be portrayed as anti-gay in this article is hurtful and just not true
I think there's a slippery slope here. Feel free to disagree. (I would never try to stop you.)
Was it wrong for northern society to circle around the south and its support for Wallace and declare "You people are wrong, you people are bigots"? Should we have quietly suggested that they have a right to express their opinion and resigned ourselves to racism, despite it flying in the face of a rapidly-changing social environment and the foundation of this country (as interpreted during that time)? What about suffrage? Should we have let that slide, too? In a republic/democracy, this is how social change is enacted.
Look, no one wants public scorn to change someone's mind, we want reason to change their mind. No one here wants to bully people into righteousness. (I find that just as reprehensible as you, and I'm sure others feel the same way). In my view, publicly scorning these kind of comments aren't important in that they change, say, Hunter's mind, rather it's important to publicly scorn homophobia, so it's not normalized and does not remain the status quo. You won't change any minds, but perhaps we can change the public discourse in a way that fosters less bigots.
Intolerence of Intolerence is Hypocritical. There is no other way to slice it.
To debate or feel differently than someone is one thing... To dispise someone for contrary opinion is quite another and that intolerence is no different than the intolerence you are railing against.
Considering the statement came from a black male from Arkansas, It's fairly safe to say statistically... The opinions expressed by Torii Hunter is a majority opinion in consideration of being Black... Male and from Arkansas. 3 groups of human beings that statistically are above average when it comes to having that viewpoint. Ask the Question... Get an honest answer... can any of us real be surprised statistically?
What I really want to know is this... Why the hell is Kevin Baxter of the LA Times asking this social question of Torii Hunter is the first place?
An honest answer is just going to get you quoted our of context and punched in the face. Kevin Baxter is the one who decided to write this article and go around looking for examples of his thesis... It's the slant of Kevin Baxter... If Kevin Baxter wants to go around MLB and ask every opinion from gays to gun control to abortion from every major league baseball player. Well, you can start crossing off the list all the names of players you no longer want to cheer for... Because the majority of us are: Yes... Intolerent of Intolerence...
We are all wrong!
President George Herbert Walker Bush says he doesn't like Broccoli and after that he had no chance of winning Oregon. His tastes in vegatable has nothing to do with being President. Torii Hunter's social viewpoints have nothing to do with baseball. Thank goodness he is being asked to play baseball and not being asked to determine social policy!!!
Those lines really shouldn't be blurred but yet here we are.
And maybe all those players that yelled "n*****" at Jackie Robinson were okay, too. After all, they were only baseball players.
I feel like I should respond, although I'm getting deeper and deeper into something I wanted to ignore in the first place. Ah well. I'm weak.
My value system puts individual liberties over collective comfort. If someone wants to say something stupid, I won't stop him. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to say that the racism of the Jim Crow south should have been stopped, because that trampled the individual liberties of the southern blacks in the name of the comfort of the dominant majority of whites.
Nor have I ever said that we aren't free to disagree, whether publicly or not. By all means, do so. Disagree with me, too, if you want. But I think public shaming tends to lead to mob mentalities that are ultimately destructive, and I also think it's likely counterproductive. Psychological studies show that people are more likely to dig in when presented with a strong contrary viewpoint.
I disagree with Torii Hunter, but I doubt he cares, and even if he did, he'd respond negatively to my calling him a bigot, and he'd probably dig in his heels on the issue. It doesn't matter whether I disagree with him alone or with a pitchfork-wielding mob behind me.
Society moves the way it wants to move, in an individual, bottom-up way. What's right to "society" today won't be right tomorrow. Imposing viewpoints from the top down is often counterproductive in both the short and long term.
If people had continued to say "everyone has the right to their opinion" instead of voicing their outrage, the South would still be segregated.