Obviously a slip of the tongue. Without the slip of the tongue the clip would have never made it to the net. I've watched Darren Pang for years and I can tell just watching the clip he was as nervous as heck and was likely afraid of the very accusation you see in this thread, but did it anyway because it's a legit criticism in the world of hockey. If you're not familiar with hockey, there is a huge element of the sport that wants things to be traditional and hot dogging, showboating and generally obvious attempts to taunt and/or draw attention to yourself is frowned upon by many analysts, especially on the Canadian side of the border. I've seen literally dozens of players, almost always the guys newer to the league like P.K. was at the time, being called out for that kind of behaviour and the colour of his skin has nothing to do with it.
In fairness it was at worst a freudian slip and almost certainly a slip of the tongue. The guy in the video was very apologetic and I wholeheartedly believe it was an accident. I posted it as an example of Subban being criticized for not playing "the right way", I don't think the guy in the video is coming at it with a racial bias, but there's a narrative around Subban which in my opinion often comes back to race/culture in that sense. My issue with that video and the general narrative around the player is less about "the white way" and more about the second half with the comments about being "gregarious" and "full of life". These normally positive qualities are compared with another player who is more businesslike in their play and the thought was maybe he should be more like the other player. I don't really like the implications of that.
This is basically what I'm talking about. Why is it legitimate to criticize a player for this style of play? Why is it legitimate to criticize these aspects of a player's personality? Have you really seen dozens of players be called brash, cocky, arrogant, flamboyant, and gregarious? Have you seen dozens of hockey players have their play compared to basketball players?
That's a hockey thing, it has nothing to do with P.K. Subban's skin colour. I've seen literally dozen's of players called out for the same kind of thing, not adhering to the traditional codes of hockey. Here's Don Cherry calling out the game's star players, which he's done many, many times, for whining, showboating, dresscode etc. Does that mean he's Xenophobic against Nova Scotians or Russians? If Sid was black would that make Cherry a racist?
I thought you were Canadian? This is what analysts do in hockey all the time. Hockey is huge on tradition and what is traditionally admired in hockey players is stoicism, a hard chin, all out effort and team play. Drawing attention to yourself as in individual player in this decidedly team sport has been frowned upon forever. It's a hockey thing, it has nothing to do with skin colour.
. The, "I mean he's no Bobby Orr", line is one of the funniest things I've ever seen
:
I don't get how it is racist to support booing for a man who uses his race to get unfair treatment and be an overall douche about it. Booing someone because they are using their race to their unfair advantage isn't race, it is booing someone for being a douche.
You keep saying "he uses his race to get unfair treatment", but you never provide any example of it. And even if he does, that doesn't make it okay to boo him. Or do you think that while you're going around saying "I'm not a racist", the actual racists are going around saying "I'm a racist"? Of course they're not! All of the racists are saying "I'm not a racist; Adam Goodes brought it on himself because he uses his race to get unfair treatment and be an overall douche about it". Nobody wants to admit to being a racist, so they try and justify it - just as you have done. So how is anyone supposed to distinguish between the racists and the non-racists when they both say the sane thing? Just take your word for it?
Knowing when someone is racist isn't rocket science filled with assumptions like you make it. It is a case of knowing if the only reason why people are booing him is because he is Aboriginal which isn't even that hard. You just got to see their reactions to other Aboriginals or Blacks, do you see anything negative on them, well there is but the numbers are obviously smaller to the point where everyone, even the people being criticize for being Black or Aboriginal pass it off.
So I suppose Rosie Batty is just an aggressive feminist trying to guilt and shame us into believing that there is a problem where mone exists.
The indigenous concept of family and lineage differs wildly from the European understanding. Their family unit goes beyond the immediate and extended family, and includes community links. Anyone who can identify an indigenous ancestor within ten generations can reasonably identify as indigenous.
No, what's unsurprising is that you are again just making things up. You know nothing of my knowledge in that area, yet you are driven to make a pronouncement as to what I do and do not know. Why do you have to make things up like this? You have an aversion to the truth or something?
And, of course, having been challenged, you resort to ad hominem attacks yet again. You do realize that "trawl through months of discussions" took only a few seconds using just GTP's search facility? I confess I didn't time it, but I'd be greatly astonished if it took over a minute. But again you'd rather distort facts if that's what it takes.
It might be calling a spade a spade, it might be completely wrong - but regardless, neither of those options denote racism. It's simply accusing someone of exploiting their race for gain and acting the fool - no more. Conversely, to say that they exploit race, because they are of that race would indeed be racist, as that would be suggesting a predisposition to exploitative behaviour, based on race - but I can't see anyone saying that here, and certainly not in that quote.
I don't know. All I know about the man is what I've read in this thread and linked articles. I will say, though, that if someone plays the race card to get preferential treatment and somebody else complains about it, I don't think the complainant is ipso facto being racist. Which is not to say that the complainant is not racist, either. It would depend largely on how the complaint is expressed. As I said, it depends.
It can be.
Because you just tried to discredit an argument on the grounds that the person making it did not know the extent of your knowledge, which is a fallacy - no-one can ever know the extent of another person's knowledge, so to then argue that their point is invalid makes it impossible for anyone to counter.
Seriously, dude, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I did no such thing. You, on the other hand, continue to shovel words into my mouth.
Very good! So it's a good thing I didn't make that argument, isn't it?
