Marcus Smart pushed a fan

[PhoSita]

The leaps some of you are willing to make to exonerate Smart - in the face of contradictory evidence - are quite amazing.

Pardon me, but in these situations I think it's probably better to support the person who doesn't have every societal advantage I can think of already working in his favor.

So you advocate supporting people or not based upon their race. 

Here's a crazy thought.  You could remain neutral in the absence of facts and let them move you as they come in.

I'm suggesting that there are inherent biases in favor of the rich white man yelling in the stand at work already, and so it would be best to push ourselves to have some empathy and sympathy for the young black man being heckled and now made out to be a hoodlum because he allowed a likely racist blowhard get the better of him.

I guess I agree with others that, in the absence of evidence, it's hard to project the guy as "likely racist". 

My guess is that, in terms of inherent biases, most people on this blog would already empathize with the young athlete over the rich booster.  However, labeling the guy who was pushed as a racist, when the only audio evidence we have supports his story, just seems like buying into a pre-conceived notion (much like repeating the "Go back to Africa" thing, which the article IP posted above pretty much debunked as nothing more than amateur lip-reading.

I agree with Mencius:  it's best to wait for the facts to come out.  What we know so far, in terms of facts, are that the fan has a history of being a loud mouth and the player has a history of at least one recent over-the-top angry outburst.  That being the case, I'd say it's 50/50 in terms of whose story to believe here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if the truth is on the side of the fan -- and even if it isn't -- he's probably going to come out just fine from this.  I think that in general it's far more likely that people will jump to the conclusion that Smart is in the wrong than the other way around.  That may not be the result of a poll you'd take on this site, but we're hardcore basketball fans, not average joes.

As a white man, I don't feel comfortable casting doubts about the veracity of Smart's account.  He says that somebody flung a racial epithet at him, and that it made his temper flare.  Who am I to call him a liar, or to suggest that his response was uncalled for, or at the very least perfectly understandable? 

Why is there this great effort to try and exonerate the fan in the stands in the first place?  What's more likely, that Smart, for no good reason, shoved the fan, or that the fan said something incendiary knowing it would cause that kind of response?

I sense that some are operating on the premise that a claim such as Smart's is likely to have been made up, that saying somebody used the N word or a similar epithet is cowardly and manipulative -- "playing the race card" -- because invoking racism is somehow cheap and underhanded, and even deceitful, because racism isn't a problem anymore in 2014.

[Roy H.]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if the truth is on the side of the fan -- and even if it isn't -- he's probably going to come out just fine from this.  I think that in general it's far more likely that people will jump to the conclusion that Smart is in the wrong than the other way around.  That may not be the result of a poll you'd take on this site, but we're hardcore basketball fans, not average joes.

As a white man, I don't feel comfortable casting doubts about the veracity of Smart's account.  He says that somebody flung a racial epithet at him, and that it made his temper flare.  Who am I to call him a liar, or to suggest that his response was uncalled for, or at the very least perfectly understandable? 

Why is there this great effort to try and exonerate the fan in the stands in the first place?  What's more likely, that Smart, for no good reason, shoved the fan, or that the fan said something incendiary knowing it would cause that kind of response?

There's a difference between waiting for evidence or remaining neutral, as opposed to trying to exonerate the fan.

I respect your opinion about not wanting to doubt somebody else's account, although I guess I wonder why you'd give more credence / deference to somebody because of their skin color.  My guess is that blacks are dishonest every bit as much as whites are.  I mean, what if whites didn't challenge the veracity of the account of the Duke Lacrosse accuser?  I guess we saw what happens:  the kids got prosecuted for something they didn't do.  What if nobody had challenged Tawana Brawley?

Now, don't get me wrong:  I'm not saying the fan didn't say anything racist.  I have no idea.  He may have, which would explain Smart's reaction.  He may have said something insulting, but not racist, which could also explain Smart's reaction.  Maybe Smart misheard him, and thought he said something racist when he said something merely insulting.  I have no idea.  However, I'm a lot more comfortable saying "If the guy said something racist..." rather than "The guy likely said something racist..."

This discussion probably belongs in Current Events, so I'm just going to just say that if your interest in the truth, it's best not to limit yourself by determining credibility based upon race and socio-economic background.  There are poor liars, white liars, black liars, and rich liars.  People lie out of self-interest, period.

[PhoSita]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if the truth is on the side of the fan -- and even if it isn't -- he's probably going to come out just fine from this.  I think that in general it's far more likely that people will jump to the conclusion that Smart is in the wrong than the other way around.  That may not be the result of a poll you'd take on this site, but we're hardcore basketball fans, not average joes.

As a white man, I don't feel comfortable casting doubts about the veracity of Smart's account.  He says that somebody flung a racial epithet at him, and that it made his temper flare.  Who am I to call him a liar, or to suggest that his response was uncalled for, or at the very least perfectly understandable? 

Why is there this great effort to try and exonerate the fan in the stands in the first place?  What's more likely, that Smart, for no good reason, shoved the fan, or that the fan said something incendiary knowing it would cause that kind of response?

There's a difference between waiting for evidence or remaining neutral, as opposed to trying to exonerate the fan.

I respect your opinion about not wanting to doubt somebody else's account, although I guess I wonder why you'd give more credence / deference to somebody because of their skin color.  My guess is that blacks are dishonest every bit as much as whites are.  I mean, what if whites didn't challenge the veracity of the account of the Duke Lacrosse accuser?  I guess we saw what happens:  the kids got prosecuted for something they didn't do.  What if nobody had challenged Tawana Brawley?

Now, don't get me wrong:  I'm not saying the fan didn't say anything racist.  I have no idea.  He may have, which would explain Smart's reaction.  He may have said something insulting, but not racist, which could also explain Smart's reaction.  Maybe Smart misheard him, and thought he said something racist when he said something merely insulting.  I have no idea.  However, I'm a lot more comfortable saying "If the guy said something racist..." rather than "The guy likely said something racist..."

This discussion probably belongs in Current Events, so I'm just going to just say that if your interest in the truth, it's best not to limit yourself by determining credibility based upon race and socio-economic background.  There are poor liars, white liars, black liars, and rich liars.  People lie out of self-interest, period.

It's true, liars do come in all types.

What I'm trying to suggest is that it's important to question our own biases, and the biases of those relaying us information and framing the debate for us, and think about how that affects the way we interpret the information we receive.

Your example of the Duke lacrosse guys is an interesting one in this context.  All too often in such situations, the accuser is doubted -- to the point where the guilty party or parties are never even arrested.  Sexual assault and rape are rampant in our country, yet they're also severely under-reported and under-prosecuted, as I'm sure you well know.


If this were a court of law, I'd be concerned first and foremost with finding the truth here.  But my perception of what did or did not happen doesn't mean a thing to Smart or to the fan in the stands.  Our discussion of this event is relevant to us, however, in the way that it shapes and informs how we interact with people and react to situations that arise in our lives.

[paidthecost2betheboss]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if the truth is on the side of the fan -- and even if it isn't -- he's probably going to come out just fine from this.  I think that in general it's far more likely that people will jump to the conclusion that Smart is in the wrong than the other way around.  That may not be the result of a poll you'd take on this site, but we're hardcore basketball fans, not average joes.

As a white man, I don't feel comfortable casting doubts about the veracity of Smart's account.  He says that somebody flung a racial epithet at him, and that it made his temper flare.  Who am I to call him a liar, or to suggest that his response was uncalled for, or at the very least perfectly understandable? 

Why is there this great effort to try and exonerate the fan in the stands in the first place?  What's more likely, that Smart, for no good reason, shoved the fan, or that the fan said something incendiary knowing it would cause that kind of response?

There's a difference between waiting for evidence or remaining neutral, as opposed to trying to exonerate the fan.

I respect your opinion about not wanting to doubt somebody else's account, although I guess I wonder why you'd give more credence / deference to somebody because of their skin color.  My guess is that blacks are dishonest every bit as much as whites are.  I mean, what if whites didn't challenge the veracity of the account of the Duke Lacrosse accuser?  I guess we saw what happens:  the kids got prosecuted for something they didn't do.  What if nobody had challenged Tawana Brawley?

Now, don't get me wrong:  I'm not saying the fan didn't say anything racist.  I have no idea.  He may have, which would explain Smart's reaction.  He may have said something insulting, but not racist, which could also explain Smart's reaction.  Maybe Smart misheard him, and thought he said something racist when he said something merely insulting.  I have no idea.  However, I'm a lot more comfortable saying "If the guy said something racist..." rather than "The guy likely said something racist..."

This discussion probably belongs in Current Events, so I'm just going to just say that if your interest in the truth, it's best not to limit yourself by determining credibility based upon race and socio-economic background.  There are poor liars, white liars, black liars, and rich liars.  People lie out of self-interest, period.

Roy...you scare me cuz you can ban me.
I disagree with you a lot like yesterday but you just nailed the nail square on the head. This should be moved or closed because folks are going to maybe have a couple beers, sit behind a keyboard or smart device and proceed to embarass themselves and turn this site into a divided mess based on speculation.

My respect for you surely has little value to you  but I have some for you. Well said. A TP for you.

[PhoSita]

I agree with Roy and with the above -- this is an interesting discussion but it's moving away from Smart and expanding to broader, more potentially controversial topics, and so it probably belongs elsewhere. 

I do think it's a worthy discussion, however.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Maybe you could wait to see what happened before throwing a whole subset of people under the bus as a bunch of evil racists.

Not throwing a subset of people under the bus because of this incident. I'm pointing out that given what is already known about certain fans in Lubbock (and really everywhere), it's hardly unlikely that a racial slur may have been thrown at Smart.

[Moranis]

3 game suspension for Smart.

[Celtics4ever]

When you lace them up you know that fans will make fun of you, call you names and call your mother names and make fun of her just ask LeBron.   It's part of the gig.  Fans say horrible things to players.   You can't attack them back though.   They don't police these things very well on both ends.

Anger is a normal human emotion.  Everyone gets angry from time to time.  How you handle that anger is how it defines you.   I am sure several people heard what was said.   Both camps will try to define it to their best advantage.

[indeedproceed]

3 game suspension for Smart.

That's probably on the lower end of what I expected, but I have zero problem with it. Hope Smart can put it behind him.

[D.o.s.]

In the tape it is exceptionally clear that something specific happens at that exact moment to set Smart off. It's clear there's way too much money in ticket sales to put "fans" like this one further away from the athletes. People pay very good money specifically BECAUSE the players can see them and hear them up close. At that point the risk is yours. If you think people are going to rush to your aid or give you money or punish athletes because you provoked them.....no way. Absolutely not. I am so tired of fans that think because Jackie Robinson was a perfect human being or something that this gives you license to say and do whatever you want during a game.  I don't need martyr athletes any more or players trying to win the Nobel Peace wannabe Prize.  I sat next to an exceptionally racist fan once and wanted to knock him out myself. GO SMART!

I agree with many posts in this thread, but this one is the closest to how I feel about it.

[Mencius]

The leaps some of you are willing to make to exonerate Smart - in the face of contradictory evidence - are quite amazing.

Pardon me, but in these situations I think it's probably better to support the person who doesn't have every societal advantage I can think of already working in his favor.

So you advocate supporting people or not based upon their race. 

Here's a crazy thought.  You could remain neutral in the absence of facts and let them move you as they come in.

I'm suggesting that there are inherent biases in favor of the rich white man yelling in the stands at work here already, and so it would be best to push ourselves to have some empathy and sympathy for the young black man being heckled and now made out to be a hoodlum, or at the very least a spoiled hot-head, because he allowed a likely racist blowhard to get the better of him.


You can't make racism go away by making yourself blind to race.  The externalities at play still exist whether you ignore them or not.

I have to address this in parts.

Pardon me, but in these situations I think it's probably better to support the person who doesn't have every societal advantage I can think of already working in his favor.

You're working from a false premise.  This is you essentially making the 'white privilege' argument.  Can you name one government program, at any level, anywhere in the U.S. that advantages whites over any other race?  This is not to say that there is not institutional racism.  There is, but none of it advantages whites.  Any program that specifically advantages one racial group over another is institutional racism, however noble you believe the aim is.  If you don't believe it, simply switch around the races to favor the other, and see if you wouldn't call it racism.

You can't make racism go away by making yourself blind to race.  The externalities at play still exist whether you ignore them or not.

Racism manifests in many ways.  Its most egregious and brutal form is in interracial violence.  Yes, it's obviously a huge problem. 

I'm suggesting that there are inherent biases in favor of the rich white man yelling in the stands at work here already, and so it would be best to push ourselves to have some empathy and sympathy for the young black man being heckled and now made out to be a hoodlum, or at the very least a spoiled hot-head, because he allowed a likely racist blowhard to get the better of him.

You're painting this as an evil vs good argument, in the broadest terms.  Without even knowing these people, your working premise is that one guy is evil, privileged, and should not be believed, while the other guy is noble, should be believed, and is deserving of support, and your argument proceeds from that point of reference.  If you switched who it is that you're portraying as evil and who as noble, you'd immediately label the characterization as racist.

Better to start without a preconceived notion of who deserves to be believed based on his race. 

[indeedproceed]

You're working from a false premise.  This is you essentially making the 'white privilege' argument.  Can you name one government program, at any level, anywhere in the U.S. that advantages whites over any other race?  This is not to say that there is not institutional racism.  There is, but none of it advantages whites.  Any program that specifically advantages one racial group over another is institutional racism, however noble you believe the aim is.  If you don't believe it, simply switch around the races to favor the other, and see if you wouldn't call it racism.

Talk about a false premise...

[Mencius]

You're working from a false premise.  This is you essentially making the 'white privilege' argument.  Can you name one government program, at any level, anywhere in the U.S. that advantages whites over any other race?  This is not to say that there is not institutional racism.  There is, but none of it advantages whites.  Any program that specifically advantages one racial group over another is institutional racism, however noble you believe the aim is.  If you don't believe it, simply switch around the races to favor the other, and see if you wouldn't call it racism.

Talk about a false premise...

I just did.