Hawks owner to sell team because of "racist" email

[nickagneta]

To eja.

As an answer to your general question, if MJ said something like he thought Cody Zeller's game was too white, he should be punished. I don't know if he would be though, but he should.

Thing is, even though Jordan is considered a huge ass and a jerk and given some behind the scenes stories about him, in the past I wouldn't put saying something like that past him, the reality is the current MJ would probably not say something or print something like that so until he does, its a non-issue.

As for Ferry, he did say something like that. Whether he read it off a scouting report without having read the scouting report first or because he just said it, he deserves to be fired. Whether because gross incompetence or racism, Ferry has earned the right to be terminated. You don't go on conference calls and say stuff like that in a business environment whether they are your words or not. Ferry messed up, its time for him to go.

[Eja117]

Because that's totally what you're talking about when you start questioning posters for their moral relativism.

One ding deserves another, no? The kettle can still call the pot black, right?

For sure, but like EP just pointed out, the 'bigger and stranger' scenario that this could be leading towards isn't what most people would consider a bad thing.

What, exactly, do you think would happen if Jordan was found to be in a Sterling-type situation? Why is it pertinent to the discussion? What sort of assertion about the NBA and or the current sports-watching culture are you trying to shroud in this hypothetical example?

Oh now you want to know what I think?

[Eja117]

To eja.

As an answer to your general question, if MJ said something like he thought Cody Zeller's game was too white, he should be punished. I don't know if he would be though, but he should.

Thing is, even though Jordan is considered a huge ass and a jerk and given some behind the scenes stories about him, in the past I wouldn't put saying something like that past him, the reality is the current MJ would probably not say something or print something like that so until he does, its a non-issue.

As for Ferry, he did say something like that. Whether he read it off a scouting report without having read the scouting report first or because he just said it, he deserves to be fired. Whether because gross incompetence or racism, Ferry has earned the right to be terminated. You don't go on conference calls and say stuff like that in a business environment whether they are your words or not. Ferry messed up, its time for him to go.

I would generally agree with all that.  I'm surprised I'm not hearing calls for figuring out who the scout was that wrote that. Or maybe the argument is that it was a compilation of weird comments that on their own aren't thaaatt bad, but all combined makes an overall report read out loud like that really weird.
And I agree with EP saying "I don't mean that in a bad way" is pretty bad because it implies you realize people think that's bad but don't edit it or explain it.

[D.o.s.]

Because that's totally what you're talking about when you start questioning posters for their moral relativism.

One ding deserves another, no? The kettle can still call the pot black, right?

For sure, but like EP just pointed out, the 'bigger and stranger' scenario that this could be leading towards isn't what most people would consider a bad thing.

What, exactly, do you think would happen if Jordan was found to be in a Sterling-type situation? Why is it pertinent to the discussion? What sort of assertion about the NBA and or the current sports-watching culture are you trying to shroud in this hypothetical example?

Oh now you want to know what I think?

In all honesty: not particularly. You're asking posters not to put words in your mouth, though, so you might as well explain your reasoning.

[Eja117]

Because that's totally what you're talking about when you start questioning posters for their moral relativism.

One ding deserves another, no? The kettle can still call the pot black, right?

For sure, but like EP just pointed out, the 'bigger and stranger' scenario that this could be leading towards isn't what most people would consider a bad thing.

What, exactly, do you think would happen if Jordan was found to be in a Sterling-type situation? Why is it pertinent to the discussion? What sort of assertion about the NBA and or the current sports-watching culture are you trying to shroud in this hypothetical example?

Oh now you want to know what I think?

In all honesty: not particularly. You're asking posters not to put words in your mouth, though, so you might as well explain your reasoning.

No. You have it backwards again. I didn't put forth any "reasoning". I asked other people what they thought would happen. There was no reasoning. Read what's there and what it is not there.
Then you went off to la la land again, while EP attempted some general conversation where he characterized my asking people what would happen and nick actually answered the question.

[Endless Paradise]

Why exactly did you ask that particular question in this thread?  You're not explaining anything and instead just being intentionally floaty and vague -- of course I'm going to draw my own conclusions in this case.  What even leads you to question that Michael Jordan would receive different treatment had he done the same thing?

[D.o.s.]

Because that's totally what you're talking about when you start questioning posters for their moral relativism.

One ding deserves another, no? The kettle can still call the pot black, right?

For sure, but like EP just pointed out, the 'bigger and stranger' scenario that this could be leading towards isn't what most people would consider a bad thing.

What, exactly, do you think would happen if Jordan was found to be in a Sterling-type situation? Why is it pertinent to the discussion? What sort of assertion about the NBA and or the current sports-watching culture are you trying to shroud in this hypothetical example?

Oh now you want to know what I think?

In all honesty: not particularly. You're asking posters not to put words in your mouth, though, so you might as well explain your reasoning.

No. You have it backwards again. I didn't put forth any "reasoning". I asked other people what they thought would happen. There was no reasoning. Read what's there and what it is not there.
Then you went off to la la land again, while EP attempted some general conversation where he characterized my asking people what would happen and nick actually answered the question.

While it's very tempting to believe that you didn't put any reasoning into your post, I don't believe that's the case. You must have had some reason for posting your initial question, some line of thinking that lead you to pose it, and I'm just curious as to what that thought process was.

[Eja117]

Why exactly did you ask that particular question in this thread?  You're not explaining anything and instead just being intentionally floaty and vague -- of course I'm going to draw my own conclusions in this case.  What even leads you to question that Michael Jordan would receive different treatment had he done the same thing?

I thought the question was relevant. He's an owner. Only instead of being an unpopular owner he's probably the most popular player they ever had and the only one that then became an owner. Can you really not see why that could at least potentially be a big deal and a big headache for the league?
There are a lot of possible different reasons MJ could be treated differently.

[Endless Paradise]

Here's a transcript of the conference call from Woj:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/an-exclusive-look-at-hawks-gm-danny-ferry-s-fateful-phone-call-180253404.html

Definitely implicates Ferry in this mess, even going as far as to suggest that what I stated before - that Ferry and the Hawks may have been lying about those words coming from an external scouting report - actually being the case.

[Endless Paradise]

Why exactly did you ask that particular question in this thread?  You're not explaining anything and instead just being intentionally floaty and vague -- of course I'm going to draw my own conclusions in this case.  What even leads you to question that Michael Jordan would receive different treatment had he done the same thing?

I thought the question was relevant. He's an owner. Only instead of being an unpopular owner he's probably the most popular player they ever had and the only one that then became an owner. Can you really not see why that could at least potentially be a big deal and a big headache for the league?
There are a lot of possible different reasons MJ could be treated differently.

You didn't think it'd be relevant or pertinent to explain why you brought up MJ - a black executive - being involved in a hypothetical racism scandal in a topic discussing white executives being involved in a racism scandal?

[Eja117]

Because that's totally what you're talking about when you start questioning posters for their moral relativism.

One ding deserves another, no? The kettle can still call the pot black, right?

For sure, but like EP just pointed out, the 'bigger and stranger' scenario that this could be leading towards isn't what most people would consider a bad thing.

What, exactly, do you think would happen if Jordan was found to be in a Sterling-type situation? Why is it pertinent to the discussion? What sort of assertion about the NBA and or the current sports-watching culture are you trying to shroud in this hypothetical example?

Oh now you want to know what I think?

In all honesty: not particularly. You're asking posters not to put words in your mouth, though, so you might as well explain your reasoning.

No. You have it backwards again. I didn't put forth any "reasoning". I asked other people what they thought would happen. There was no reasoning. Read what's there and what it is not there.
Then you went off to la la land again, while EP attempted some general conversation where he characterized my asking people what would happen and nick actually answered the question.

While it's very tempting to believe that you didn't put any reasoning into your post, I don't believe that's the case. You must have had some reason for posting your initial question, some line of thinking that lead you to pose it, and I'm just curious as to what that thought process was.

You just said "in all honesty" you weren't interested in what I had to say. So you either aren't being honest now or you weren't then.  Your question in response to my question....if you want follow along in the EP thread. He's putting forth actual ideas and stuff.

[D.o.s.]

EP and I are on the same page in this thread -- he's just giving you more of the benefit of the doubt than I am.

That said, my suspicion is that you brought Jordan up in this thread because you're of the mind that (as so wonderfully described in the thread earlier)

"this is only a problem because a white person said it and no one would bat an eye if a minority said it."

I'm not the only one who responded to your hypothetical that way, so I'm not sure that 'stop putting words in my mouth guys I never said that!' is a plausible defense.

[Eja117]

Why exactly did you ask that particular question in this thread?  You're not explaining anything and instead just being intentionally floaty and vague -- of course I'm going to draw my own conclusions in this case.  What even leads you to question that Michael Jordan would receive different treatment had he done the same thing?

I thought the question was relevant. He's an owner. Only instead of being an unpopular owner he's probably the most popular player they ever had and the only one that then became an owner. Can you really not see why that could at least potentially be a big deal and a big headache for the league?
There are a lot of possible different reasons MJ could be treated differently.

You didn't think it'd be relevant or pertinent to explain why you brought up MJ - a black executive - being involved in a hypothetical racism scandal in a topic discussing white executives being involved in a racism scandal?

No. Not really. Again. If you can't see why it's relevant that's not my issue, but yours.

[Fafnir]

Making implications to "stir" the pot is a lot more fun and time efficient than constructing a cohesive argument. Umbrage afterwards is a bonus of course.

[Eja117]

EP and I are on the same page in this thread -- he's just giving you more of the benefit of the doubt than I am.

That said, my suspicion is that you brought Jordan up in this thread because you're of the mind that (as so wonderfully described in the thread earlier)

"this is only a problem because a white person said it and no one would bat an eye if a minority said it."

I'm not the only one who responded to your hypothetical that way, so I'm not sure that 'stop putting words in my mouth guys I never said that!' is a plausible defense.

You can be as Thought Police as you want. Free country.