Race and Rosario

[Craig Arko]

 

Interesting perspective. Genuine question, as we are friends....

 

how are chief, jimmer, and I showing our privelage?

I'll give you the same answer as the celebrated man in the street: what I see here is wagon circling. And the form it takes is trying to 'de-platform' (a modern term I don't really care for) someone who even suggests the notion that we should take a look at what we're saying and that maybe it doesn't reflect as glowingly on our own righteousness as we think it does.

 

As I've said before, I'm racist. It's the era, location, and general environment I grew up in. And the only way I've found to combat that is to constantly work to understand that, where it comes from, and that is  an illusion that doesn't have to control my actions.

 

Because of this, I think it's always a good idea to welcome people who challenge our perceptions of ourselves. Being defensive and circling the wagons is just intellectual laziness to me.

 

I bet you didn't expect an article for a response, Mike.

[Mike Sixel]

I have examined my response to Rosario, and I've come to the same conclusion over and over. He makes a lot of head scratching plays, and it is frustrating since he has so much talent. I have also examined how I react to him sliding into first vs Punto doing so, and I realize I criticize them both.

 

so, it seems somewhat natural to:

 

a: not assume people here aren't examining themselves

b: be offended, some, when people imply you are a racist. Should I just not have any reaction to that? That seems like an odd belief.

[Mike Sixel]

And what makes you think we aren't listening? What is the assumption there?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I have examined my response to Rosario, and I've come to the same conclusion over and over. He makes a lot of head scratching plays, and it is frustrating since he has so much talent. I have also examined how I react to him sliding into first vs Punto doing so, and I realize I criticize them both.

 

so, it seems somewhat natural to:

 

a: not assume people here aren't examining themselves

b: be offended, some, when people imply you are a racist. Should I just not have any reaction to that? That seems like an odd belief.

You should examine your thought processes and conclude that your rationale is not steeped in race.

 

At that point, you should also realize that no one has called you a racist and that you can get on with your day.

 

The question didn't bother me in the least. If you put thought into it and conclude that it doesn't apply to you, why are you still upset about it?

 

What is it about the mere mention of race that sets off white people so often?

[Craig Arko]

 

I have examined my response to Rosario, and I've come to the same conclusion over and over. He makes a lot of head scratching plays, and it is frustrating since he has so much talent. I have also examined how I react to him sliding into first vs Punto doing so, and I realize I criticize them both.

 

so, it seems somewhat natural to:

 

a: not assume people here aren't examining themselves

b: be offended, some, when people imply you are a racist. Should I just not have any reaction to that? That seems like an odd belief.

Are you speaking just for yourself, or for others? I expect it's the former, and that's consistent with what I know about you from our other conversations. And I think you're doing the right thing, for what little that's worth.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

You should examine your thought processes and conclude that your rationale is not steeped in race.

 

At that point, you should also realize that no one has called you a racist and that you can get on with your day.

 

The question didn't bother me in the least. If you put thought into it and conclude that it doesn't apply to you, why are you still upset about it?

 

What is it about the mere mention of race that sets off white people so often?

 

It's not the "mere mention of race", it is this 100% specific example. Like, somehow, you can't comment on Rosario w/o it being about race, which is the implication in the post that started this whole conversation. 

 

I've accused MLB players of being racist for how they treat/talk about latin (right word?) players on this very site, last year I think it was. But this is about this 100% specific example, not about "mere mention of race". 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's not the "mere mention of race", it is this 100% specific example. Like, somehow, you can't comment on Rosario w/o it being about race, which is the implication in the post that started this whole conversation. 

 

I've accused MLB players of being racist for how they treat/talk about latin (right word?) players on this very site, last year I think it was. But this is about this 100% specific example, not about "mere mention of race". 

But no specific posters were singled out and you've determined that your personal reactions are not racially-driven.

 

Yet you're still upset about the statement when it doesn't apply to you.

 

I hope you can see how this makes it almost impossible to talk about race. Even the people who have no real, vested interest in the conversation get upset about its mere existence.

[USAFChief]

I think the implication that race plays a role in the criticism of a baseball player, for a baseball play, does nothing but help to wash away the very real problem of racism.

 

When everything, and everyone is racist, nothing is.  Or nothing can be done about it.

 

We can be honest and critical of people who don't look like us without it being from racism.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I totally get that part, Brock. It is hard to talk about w/o feeling like one side or hte other is calling people racist.....

 

Can you understand, or not, how the question (about a guy everyone here agrees makes intersting decisions), might be taken as an accusation?

 

And sure, everyone has feelings of all kinds in their life they aren't proud of, the good people inspect those and change their behavior over time. Everyone.

[jimmer]

IMO, it's hard to not believe there are some people more critical of some players than others because of the color of their skin. Its hard to imagine that no one does that.

 

I don't know if that happened during or after the game last night in regards to Rosario because I didn't see the game. Nor have I seen the plays in question. I do know I have seen and commented on plays by Rosario that seem boneheaded in the past because bad baseball decisions, as opposed to just errors, are more frustrating. MLBers should know fundamentals and when a player makes a fundamental mistake, those kind of plays usually get called out no matter who does them.

 

Thing is. If one makes fundamental mistakes quite a bit more than others on a team, he is bound to be called out for it because it keeps happening. Punto is a good example of that. He was pounded on almost every Twins site I was on when he played. Now it's Rosario's turn until he cuts down on those

[gunnarthor]

 

Lots of talk on Twins Daily about Rosario not running out the popup. Always good to run out a popup. That said, I've seen Dozier barely run out a ground ball to second at least twice this year and haven't heard a peep about it. It made me think about the narratives we build around players and what those narratives are based on. 

 

Narratives are built on draft spot (Mike Pelfrey is a first round pick, give him a shot), biography (Max Kepler is the child of ballerinas), minor league performance (we all love that Dozier suddenly hit bombs in the pros) etc. But we also base these on race. There are stereotypes we didn't create that are passed down, consciously and subconsciously.

 

I wonder how much of Rosario getting called on hustle issues or throwing the ball to the wrong base has to do with some of the biases the media, the coaches and the fans have for Latino players. Thoughts?

Racism and how fans view athletes are pretty big issues. We've had posters suggest that Buxton wasn't smart enough to be a big league hitter. We've had posters attack Torii Hunter for actions that happened 15 years ago or for being ejected but praised Molly for the same thing. I'm sure Rosario would be given a bit more of a leash if he looked more like Michael Cuddyer. How much, I'm not sure but I suspect it's a lot more than people usually think.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I totally get that part, Brock. It is hard to talk about w/o feeling like one side or hte other is calling people racist.....

 

Can you understand, or not, how the question (about a guy everyone here agrees makes intersting decisions), might be taken as an accusation?

 

And sure, everyone has feelings of all kinds in their life they aren't proud of, the good people inspect those and change their behavior over time. Everyone.

 

I think that's a valid concern you, Chief, and jimmer are bringing forward.  Too often in our hardest conversations we see "isms" weaponized against people.  Your point of view, regardless of it's merit, can be tossed out or lifted up merely by how well it lines up (or doesn't) with someone's pet "ism".

 

I wouldn't want to single any person out for being racist in their criticism unless I saw a sustained pattern of it.  I think you can absolutely, validly criticize Eddie for yesterday.  And no one should feel pressured not to because of Eddie's race either.

 

At the same time, we should be making sure our views on Eddie are consistent with our views on other players, that we treat him fairly, and we are not part of larger patterns that are critical of him, in part, because of his race.  

 

But talking about issues like this is essential for a number of reasons.  There are some too preoccupied with race and some not preoccupied enough and in the vast middle are many of us just trying to be good people.  But it never hurts to talk about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I totally get that part, Brock. It is hard to talk about w/o feeling like one side or hte other is calling people racist.....

 

Can you understand, or not, how the question (about a guy everyone here agrees makes intersting decisions), might be taken as an accusation?

 

And sure, everyone has feelings of all kinds in their life they aren't proud of, the good people inspect those and change their behavior over time. Everyone.

I’m saying the fact that you find it accusatory is rather unfair. Dunno if you’ve read about White Fragility but it’s an interesting idea, one that I believe makes it nearly impossible to talk about race in a rational manner.

 

My underlying point is that we need to take a deep breath and *really* consider why we’re getting mad about things, especially things that aren’t directly pointed at us.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alternet.org/culture/why-white-people-freak-out-when-theyre-called-out-about-race%3famp

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

See, I simply disagree. I think this is exactly the kind of situation where talking about race in a constructive manner is important. Challenging our subtle daily biases is a huge component of modern racism; the blatant stuff is easy to spot and has been challenged for decades now so there's little point in discussing it anymore. I think as a culture, we white people have been able to easily brush off the more underlying forms of our bias just because we "don't use the N word" or "have black friends".

 

I put a lot of thought into race. A lot. And despite me spending what is probably a disproportionate amount of time thinking about it, I find myself in a bit of a quandry right now about my preconceived notions of black culture and how it relates to parenting (many of you know I'm fostering right now). It has led me to some really uncomfortable conversations with myself and I consider myself rather progressive in regards to race and how it affects many Americans. If I'm struggling with these kinds of questions, I feel it's pretty safe to say most other white Americans likely have issues with it as well.

 

But anyway, I think it's a big problem that we have a negative gut reaction to anything regarding race, especially when the original statement isn't even a little bit accusatory.

 

When something like this thread happens and we have a negative reaction, we should be asking ourselves "Why am I so upset about this?" and delving into why we have such a strong emotional reaction to a pretty benign statement, not lashing out with a "I'M NOT A RACIST" response because that wasn't really the question in the first place. No one here was called a racist; again, a question was posed asking whether our preconceived notions of race impacts our judgments of non-white players.

 

When put that way, the reaction of "I'M NOT A RACIST" seems a bit out of proportion, doesn't it? Yet why do so many white Americans immediately default to that response? It's not healthy and prevents us from having some pretty important conversations.

 

Your first problem is that you're using the same word with two very distinctly different definitions (which I'd add, you've arbitrarily defined). Racism and "modern racism" (to which I prefer to use the terms unconscious bias, cultural misunderstanding, or in some cases systematic bias). Your first term invokes Jim Crow, slavery, and a whole bunch of other nasty things that no one in their right mind would argue still exists (at least in the US), justifies, or is proud of. By using the same term, you've lumped in much more subtle issues, to which no one is actively trying to suppress anyone, into a much more volatile and confrontational term.... and killed the conversation before it's started. You won't find much for common ground in any conversation when the terms you're using invoke a whole bunch of things that we all already condemn. Pick your words wisely, and that conversation you want to have can be had. 

 

I don't think the response "I'm not a racist" is unreasonable at all. No one, to be quite frank, is a racist for being upset that Rosario didn't run out that fly ball. No one would be brushing it off had it been Dozier standing there while it landed fairly. We'd have been on his case too. That's my point. You're making enemies that you don't need to make. 

 

By the way, I cannot say this enough, but what you're doing with fostering right now is impressive. I know a  lot of very good parents, of which I am not, who struggle with what you're doing.

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

I don't think the response "I'm not a racist" is unreasonable at all. No one, to be quite frank, is a racist for being upset that Rosario didn't run out that fly ball. No one would be brushing it off had it been Dozier standing there while it landed fairly. We'd have been on his case too. That's my point. You're making enemies that you don't need to make. 

 

Do you think we would have had a thread titled "Dozier sparks comeback, inspires some head scratching"? I don't. I think it would have been something like "Dozier sparks comeback." Rosario's pop out was a bit weird but it really wasn't that big of a play.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I’m saying the fact that you find it accusatory is rather unfair. Dunno if you’ve read about White Fragility but it’s an interesting idea, one that I believe makes it nearly impossible to talk about race in a rational manner.

My underlying point is that we need to take a deep breath and *really* consider why we’re getting mad about things, especially things that aren’t directly pointed at us.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alternet.org/culture/why-white-people-freak-out-when-theyre-called-out-about-race%3famp

 

have you read the whole entire original thread, where he asks why no one criticized Punto (in direct response to me, point for point) among other things? It isn't a question....no way. It's an accusation.

 

I'm not mad at all, I'm trying to:

 

1. Understand how criticizing a guy that makes mistakes college players don't anymore is even questioned as racially motivated.

2. Help you understand how, when someone replies to your posts point for point, that it is a direct response, and how that might make someone feel accused.

3. Help people get Chief's point....in this instance, raising race distracts from the power of actual racist behavior in teh sport and its fandom. IMO.

4. Help you realize that me continuing this dicsussion, is, actually, a discussion of race, and not me all made/angry/defensive, whatever else you are saying I am.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Do you think we would have had a thread titled "Dozier sparks comeback, inspires some head scratching"? I don't. I think it would have been something like "Dozier sparks comeback." Rosario's pop out was a bit weird but it really wasn't that big of a play.

​I think you would need to ask Tom that question. 

 

And to my next point, do you not see how this question can be interpreted to read that you think Tom is racist? 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Your first problem is that you're using the same word with two very distinctly different definitions (which I'd add, you've arbitrarily defined). Racism and "modern racism" (to which I prefer to use the terms unconscious bias, cultural misunderstanding, or in some cases systematic bias). Your first term invokes Jim Crow, slavery, and a whole bunch of other nasty things that no one in their right mind would argue still exists (at least in the US), justifies, or is proud of. By using the same term, you've lumped in much more subtle issues, to which no one is actively trying to suppress anyone, into a much more volatile and confrontational term.... and killed the conversation before it's started. You won't find much for common ground in any conversation when the terms you're using invoke a whole bunch of things that we all already condemn. Pick your words wisely, and that conversation you want to have can be had. 

To which I'll reply "we need to stop being so damned sensitive about one word when the intent of the message is pretty clear".

 

Which loops me back to White Fragility. We've come to the point that the mere mention of race sparks such defensiveness and rage in some people that a conversation becomes impossible. We focus on semantics because we don't want to deal with the discomfort we find within the message itself.

 

If you look at the poster's OP both in this thread and the original game recap, they *very carefully* dodged directly calling people racially-motivated or even using the word "racist" at all (except in a post that was hidden and included a massive disclaimer how they feel the word "racist" is constraining and lacking the nuance necessary to have this conversation).

 

Yet, the blowback has been wind tunnel-esque. Whose fault is that?

 

You say the word "racist/racism" is the problem, yet the OP never used it.

 

So, under those rules, how on earth can we even have this conversation?

[gunnarthor]

 

​I think you would need to ask Tom that question. 

 

And to my next point, do you not see how this question can be interpreted to read that you think Tom is racist? 

Sure, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The issue, as I see it, is that people are suggesting that certain ways of framing dialogue can be seen as ... troubling. Instead of seeing that problem, you get defensive and suggest that Tom is being attacked. I find that interesting. You say that you can't see how the thread titles would be different as only Tom could answer that (presumably as you can't speak for Tom) but at the same time you have the ability to see how Tom is being attacked (when he wasn't). I think that's a good marker of Brock's points about white privilege and fragility. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Sure, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The issue, as I see it, is that people are suggesting that certain ways of framing dialogue can be seen as ... troubling. Instead of seeing that problem, you get defensive and suggest that Tom is being attacked. I find that interesting. You say that you can't see how the thread titles would be different as only Tom could answer that (presumably as you can't speak for Tom) but at the same time you have the ability to see how Tom is being attacked (when he wasn't). I think that's a good marker of Brock's points about white privilege and fragility. 

 

why can't both be true? 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

To which I'll reply "we need to stop being so damned sensitive about one word when the intent of the message is pretty clear".

 

Which loops me back to White Fragility. We've come to the point that the mere mention of race sparks such defensiveness and rage in some people that a conversation becomes impossible. We focus on semantics because we don't want to deal with the discomfort we find within the message itself.

 

If you look at the poster's OP both in this thread and the original game recap, they *very carefully* dodged directly calling people racially-motivated or even using the word "racist" at all except in a post that was hidden and also included a massive disclaimer how they feel the word "racist" is constraining and lacking the nuance necessary to have this conversation.

 

Yet, the blowback has been wind tunnel-esque. Whose fault is that?

 

You say the word "racist" is the problem, yet the OP never used it.

This might be the first time I've heard a liberal complaining about people being overly sensitive

 

I'm ribbing you a bit on this one, but no I don't think this is an issue of white fragility, as you put it. Definitions matter. You want to have a discussion, I'd advise not going to something that very few can identify with as a way to address a problem that everyone has. Everyone, I might add, deals with issues such as unconscious bias. Everyone makes too many assumptions. Everyone has flawed perceptions of other people. I've met very few people that do a good job recognizing when their perceptions of others is wrong and adjusting accordingly... and I'd add that this includes people that go out of their way to do this. Faulty perceptions are hard to overcome, and they are built by a myriad of different things (including to your point, various assumptions).

 

These have nothing to do with race and everything to do with a much bigger problem. There's no doubt that this can show itself along racial lines, but let's stop calling it racism and start addressing the root cause. That is why conversation is impossible. We are having conversation on the lines right now. But this is more than just an issue of semantics Brock, and it's just as much on you to not put people on the defensive as it is for them to not be defensive.

 

That works two ways.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But this is more than just an issue of semantics Brock, and it's just as much on you to not put people on the defensive as it is for them to not be defensive.

 

That works two ways.

Except that I pointed out how the OP went through effort not to be objectionable with their argument, yet objection was still taken.

 

Just go back and read what the OP posted. There are no inflammatory statements in there. Were ideas challenged? Sure, but that's necessary to have this kind of conversation.

 

But no one was labeled with the dreaded "R" word in any form. No one was singled out and told that their personal objections were racially-motivated. The poster tried pretty hard to make sure they didn't target anyone specifically and spoke of the problem at large.

 

It seems to me your standard is unreasonable. The poster did what you talked about, yet is still catching flak for it.

 

And I agree that it works both ways but I can't control the other side of the debate; all I can do is make sure I listen and try not to get upset (or... triggered... heh) over a single word if it means I miss the message.

 

And it feels like that happens a lot in much of our society but few areas does it seem to happen as frequently or violently as it does race-related issues.

[Tom Froemming]

-I don't feel personally attacked. I think the original poster's heart is in the right place, and I think it's important/good to call stuff like that into question if the feeling is genuine.

 

-But, I also think anybody who has watched this team on a regular basis would agree with me that Eddie Rosario has had more questionable plays/decisions than anybody else on the team over the time he's been on the Twins. That isn't picking on Eddie. I'd bet that even he would agree with that sentiment himself.

 

-On Brian Dozier, did you read the game recap? The guy hit his fourth homer in five games and I spent more time ragging on him for stealing second in the ninth inning of a 7-3 game. Pretty safe to say I'll point out his flaws/BS if I feel the need. Now, if he hadn't made those remarks about Chance Sisco, I wouldn't have thought anything of it. So, just like with Rosie, it's the player's history which conditions my reactions to things.

 

-Lastly, you gotta put yourself in my shoes of trying to tell a game story. In particular, one that's different than the other half dozen excellent options that are available. I thought Eddie Rosario was the story of that game, and I don't think you can tell his story of that night without detailing his various adventures. There was the good, the bad and the lucky. I dunno, I though it was fun/clever and summed up the "Eddie Rosario Experience" so to speak.

 

And just read what I wrote. There was really nothing malicious about it. If anything, I'm sorta saying "oh, that's our Rosie" in sort of a loving, we'll take him even with his flaws kind of a way.

 

"This was one of those Eddie Rosario adventure games. You know the ones. Rosie can do it all on the diamond, and he played a big role in the Twins picking up a win tonight. But, he does stuff on a regular basis that leaves you scratching your head, which also happened tonight.

 

With the Twins trailing 3-2 in the bottom of the fifth, Rosario made a great throw to gun down Gregory Polanco at the plate. It was a huge momentum-shifting play in this game. Who knows what may have happened if the Pirates both extended their lead and extended that inning.

 

In the top of the sixth, Rosario hit a high pop up straight into the snowy Pittsburgh sky. Not only did Pirates catcher Francisco Cervelli never see the the ball, but his teammates failed to realize it. The ball fell untouched in fair territory.

 

But Rosario was still in the batter’s box.

 

Rosie drew a walk the next inning, continuing an encouraging trend he started last year. And then this happened:

 

Dick Bremer was pretty convinced Rosario was out, and it’s hard to disagree. I guess that wasn’t enough evidence to overturn the call. We’ll take it! Eddie broke for second on the next pitch, Miguel Sano sent a single into the outfield and Rosario scored all the way from first base.

 

Never a dull moment.

 

Again, Eddie can do it all. He has power, speed, a cannon for an arm and the plate discipline improvements appear to be real. I only pick on him because I like the guy ... and because he’s an easy target."

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

Sure, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The issue, as I see it, is that people are suggesting that certain ways of framing dialogue can be seen as ... troubling. Instead of seeing that problem, you get defensive and suggest that Tom is being attacked. I find that interesting. You say that you can't see how the thread titles would be different as only Tom could answer that (presumably as you can't speak for Tom) but at the same time you have the ability to see how Tom is being attacked (when he wasn't). I think that's a good marker of Brock's points about white privilege and fragility. 

 

 

You've already read far more into this than what is going on. 

 

I never said Tom was being attacked. I never said he wasn't either. I asked you if you could see how it is someone could perceive what you wrote as an attack on Tom. And from your own words, you do. And to make it worse, you're quite fine with that.

 

Is the goal to actually have a dialogue or is to simply piss people off? If this is your approach, you'll never get genuine dialogue.

[PseudoSABR]

Racism is such a charged word that sometimes it doesn't allow us to capture the real phenomenon being criticized, especially when the phenomenon tends to coalesce in the aggregate and not so much with the will of any one person/poster. Maybe implicit bias is a better term. We all have tendencies to find patterns, and sometimes those patterns align with our preconceived notions of race. How often we apply the word "hustle" and "gritty" to white players as opposed to players of other races (for instance).  

 

I also think it's a bit of snowflake-itus to believe that speculating about the general phenomenon that criticism of Rosario might be related to his race was somehow an attack on individual posters who choose to criticize Rosario. If you as a poster are aware of your own implicit bias, and level your criticism with equal force to all players, the speculation was not about you; no one is calling you a racist, and if it bothers you that some might think racism is at work, call out those who's motive may not be so pure, rather than calling the person who notices the phenomenon.  Again, in the aggregate, it's fair to wonder if enough marginal implicit biases build up to something problematic, though not any one of us is guilty of racism. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

Except that I pointed out how the OP went through effort not to be objectionable with their argument, yet objection was still taken.

 

Just go back and read what the OP posted. There are no inflammatory statements in there. Were ideas challenged? Sure, but that's necessary to have this kind of conversation.

 

But no one was labeled with the dreaded "R" word in any form. No one was singled out and told that their personal objections were racially-motivated. The poster tried pretty hard to make sure they didn't target anyone specifically and spoke of the problem at large.

 

It seems to me your standard is unreasonable. The poster did what you talked about, yet is still catching flak for it.

 

And I agree that it works both ways but I can't control the other side of the debate; all I can do is make sure I listen and try not to get upset (or... triggered... heh) over a single word if it means I miss the message.

 

And it feels like that happens a lot in much of our society but few areas does it seem to happen as frequently or violently as it does race-related issues.

 

For the record, I'm not really dialoging with the OP, I'm dialoguing with you, so let's put the focus back there. I said my point there, and it has been pretty much you ever since. If you haven't noticed, you and I have had several flavors of this conversation over the years. 

 

You've said over and over and over again that this conversation cannot be had, but you don't seem to be too interested in figuring out your role in why it cannot be had. I'd argue we're doing a decent job at the moment of having this conversation, so don't take this as me saying it's impossible. Take my continued dialogue with you on this subject as someone trying to have it.

 

You're right that you cannot control the other side of the debate. Where I disagree though is that the only thing you can do is control how upset you get. For all the talk of sensitivity training that you hear on the left, this, to me at least, is rather perplexing. You and I have done our fair share of moderating where people drop a nice hand grenade in the middle of a conversation and then walk away. It kills dialogue, and it's one the main things on the site that we have to moderate. There's plenty of subtle and not subtle ways that this is done.

 

I'm guessing everyone here would understand an angry outburst if a poster walked in and dropped a couple of random racial slurs. So why then do you not see how people might get upset when someone implies they are racist? A lot of people find both equally offensive. There's listening, and then there's a legitimate attempt at understanding where someone is coming from. 

[gunnarthor]

 

You've already read far more into this than what is going on. 

 

I never said Tom was being attacked. I never said he wasn't either. I asked you if you could see how it is someone could perceive what you wrote as an attack on Tom. And from your own words, you do. And to make it worse, you're quite fine with that.

 

Is the goal to actually have a dialogue or is to simply piss people off? If this is your approach, you'll never get genuine dialogue.

Maybe I should use a different example. On TwinkieTown a couple months ago, some idiot said something about Sano's weight because he was eating too much fried chicken. Horrendously bad thing to say. People called the guy out on it. Now, from there is seems there are two possible options. One, you could look at what you said and read the concerns that others had and say, "holy crap, that's on me. I messed up." Or you could get defensive and attack everyone else, pretend you didn't know fried chicken had any connotation, etc. Guess which one this idiot picked.

 

The point is, we're at a place where people are openly offended at the mere suggestion that they reexamine why they say certain things. This thread questioned why we are ragging on Rosario for not hustling on a pop up. I wondered if we'd have used the same thread title if it wasn't Rosario. (I'm fairly confident we wouldn't have). At that point, maybe someone should say "let's see why did I do that?" And, as Tom answered, he explained why he did that. Tom doesn't seem upset and no one has called him a racist. Tom thought about the issue, considered why he did it and explained it. That should be good for this. What Tom didn't do was attack the people who brought up the questions or showed fake outrage that someone dare question him. That, to me, seems like a good way to move on this.

[Craig Arko]

So Brock, now I’m curious. You probably have met a lot of members of the site at the various events; do you have any educated guess about how many people of color might be members here? PM me if you think it might be considered a hand grenade in the conversation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

So Brock, now I’m curious. You probably have met a lot of members of the site at the various events; do you have any educated guess about how many people of color might be members here? PM me if you think it might be considered a hand grenade in the conversation.

I’ll just say that out of the ones I’ve met... very few. Maybe 20% if I’m feeling generous.

[Craig Arko]

I’ll just say that out of the ones I’ve met... very few. Maybe 20% if I’m feeling generous.

Thanks. That’s higher than I might have expected.