Bryce Harper, conservative hero

[CosmicBills]

All you're doing now is showing yourself to be more of a racist than I originally thought. You see, I did read the article and I DID understand the subject being discussed. We have two baseball players; one is lazy and one is productive. Metaphorically, the lazy one represented teacher union-like progressives and the productive one represented conservatives who make no excuses and always give 100%. Granted, it was a poorly written and ill-conceived article, but it never even dawned on me...not even at the slightest...that race had ANYTHING to do with this article.

 

Because, as you said yourself, you don't even know who the players he's talking about are. You had no idea who Jason Hewyard was, or even if he was black.

 

You're talking about something you admittedly know nothing about. Which makes your comments as insightful and intelligent as I would sound if I started talking about economic policies.

[3rdnlng]

Because, as you said yourself, you don't even know who the players he's talking about are. You had no idea who Jason Hewyard was, or even if he was black.

 

You're talking about something you admittedly know nothing about. Which makes your comments as insightful and intelligent as I would sound if I started talking about economic policies.

 

 

Do you find it rather odd that you are the only one in this thread that thinks the article is racist?

 

What's my AGENDA?

[IDBillzFan]

Because, as you said yourself, you don't even know who the players he's talking about are. You had no idea who Jason Hewyard was, or even if he was black.

 

You're talking about something you admittedly know nothing about. Which makes your comments as insightful and intelligent as I would sound if I started talking about economic policies.

Here's the difference between you and me: you think the point is that I have no idea if Jason Heyward is black when the reality is I don't CARE if Jason Heyward is black. The color of his skin means nothing to me, while it absolutely means everything to you. You don't see two baseball players. You see a black man and a white man. Period.

 

In other words, you are judging men by the color of their skin. Are you just now realizing you're a racist, or do you iron your bedsheet every night?

 

Quite the stupid little corner you've painted yourself into. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

Edited June 18, 2012 by LABillzFan

[3rdnlng]

Here's the difference between you and me: you think the point is that I have no idea if Jason Heyward is black when the reality is I don't CARE if Jason Heyward is black. The color of his skin means nothing to me, while it absolutely means everything to you. You don't see two baseball players. You see a black man and a white man. Period.

 

In other words, you are judging men by the color of their skin. Are you just now realizing you're a racist, or do you iron your bedsheet every night?

 

Quite the stupid little corner you've painted yourself into. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

 

 

Don't give him the idea he actually is ahead.

[CosmicBills]

Yeah, I just read it again. And while it wouldn't surprise me at all if DIE took a "!@#$s are lazy" message away from the op-ed...there's no racism, overt or covert, I could see otherwise.

 

Frankly, I think the author is too stupid to be racist. He wields metaphor like a cinder block.

 

The author is discussing baseball as an allegory for a political movement. Baseball is a sport that has evolved as our nation has. The history of our nation and its past time is intertwined both culturally and historically. Like our nation, MLB carries a black mark on its record for disallowing people of color the opportunity to play in the league for the first 74 years of its existence. And like our nation, the league recognized the sins of its oppression and changed the rules.

 

Today, Baseball features the most ethnically diverse pool of professional athletes in the country. MLB isn't the NFL or NBA where black athletes are the overwhelming majority, it's a league where white athletes are still the majority. Roughly 59% of the players are white, 29% Hispanic, 8% black, 3% Asian. MLB is as close to the "melting pot" as we get when it comes to team sports in this country.

 

The point of that preamble is this:

 

If the author was looking to simply make a political point, he could have chosen any number of MLB players to be his example of the "lazy, well fare seeking, Left". In fact, earlier this year, Phillies pitcher Cole Hammels (white) made a similar error to Heyward. With Harper on third, Cole forgot to check the runner and instead threw to first. Harper, seeing Hammel's mistake, stole home on a brilliant play that was as much about hustle and "old school" baseball as the one he made in Atlanta. In fact, in my opinion, it was a far better play when you factor in Harper is just 19 and making plays that veterans wouldn't think of. It would fit the article's premise 100 times better.

 

But Judge didn't choose that play to write about.

 

Instead, the author only calls out three players by name: Bryce Harper (white and the hero), Heyward (black and lazy), and Livan Hernandez (Cuban). When referencing Heyward THROUGHOUT the article, Judge uses notorious buzz words long associated with subversive racism while comparing Heyward to lazy welfare recipients, undeserving affirmative action hires, public sector union employees, and, last but not least, soul-less sex addicts who are a threat to our daughter's purity. The author could have stopped referencing Heyward after the opening clunker of a paragraph and carried on with his thesis. It would have made the piece stronger actually.

 

But Judge didn't stop. Instead, Judge kept bringing Heyward's name back up while making a correlation between Heyward's error and the hyperbolic description of the liberal policies of the left. For decades, extremists on the right have portrayed the majority of welfare recipients, union members and affirmative action supporters as being overwhelming black. Continuing to hold Heyward up as the example of these programs and the conservative stereotypes about them, is deliberate. The piece wouldn't resonate with his base had he used Hammels instead of Heyward. The choice was DELIBERATE.

 

Why did he do that? Because he's FRAMING his extremist argument, not on baseball, but classic divide and conquer political rhetoric employed by both the right and left for decades. The author cherry picked his facts and his cast of characters. He holds up a white guy as the example of good and the black and latino as examples of everything wrong with the left. He's stoking the fires of the extremists who, by in large, are the ones reading the Daily Caller. Pitting a black guy against a white guy is something that people like DaveinElma respond to -- and repost to their friends immediately. Knowing the blood will rise on the left, Judge has crafted something that even non-racists like LA will flock to defend since the right's answer to racism in the past has always been "anyone who sees racism in this is a racist themselves". It only took LA two posts to bring that old trusty gem out. But as LA admits himself, he doesn't know the context of the sport the article was written about in the first place. He has no ability to understand how badly the author has manipulated him with this absolute hack piece.

 

It's no secret the overwhelming majority of conservatives are white and the overwhelming majority of people of color identify themselves as democrats. That doesn't mean every conservative is a racist (or white). It doesn't mean that every democrat or liberal are not racists (or of color). That being said, conservative extremists have a history of playing on the white man's fears and painting every one on welfare as being black, violent, over sexed and a threat to not only our daughters, but our nation's best interest. The author knows this, he chose a very specific example to structure his argument around -- and it worked. It got people like LA who has no hate in his heart that I've ever witnessed, to defend his racist rantings regardless of its content because he hit all the right buttons.

 

DC, you've forgotten more history than I've read, but even you have to see the parallels this draws with the buzz words and talking points used by politicians fighting against the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Hell, he even references it within the article himself complaining the left is stuck in the "much more dysfunctional decade of the 60s rather than the 50s". That's a shot across the bow.

 

If that's not enough for you, well then consider this:

 

In the article, Harper is described as a new kind of baseball player who threatens the lazy black guy's hold on the game. In the very next paragraph the author completely contradicts himself and proclaims Harper to be a "throwback" to the good ol' days of Baseball. When were those good ol' days he longs to return to? 1932 when the league was segregated.

 

Now, if you want to go nuts, put this whole article in context of Judge's other writings. Specifically, the article he wrote last year where he describes the day "My white guilt ended". What caused his "white guilt" to end?

 

His bike got stolen by a black guy. ... err, well he thinks it was a black guy:

 

But when I came back to my car after the stations, my bike, which had been locked to a bike rack on my car, was gone. I called the cops and filed a report. Then I walked around Brookland, the neighborhood around the Shrine, for an hour to see if I could spot it. I didn’t, but I did talk to some people who said there were a lot of kids around that day because the schools are out.

 

I went to college at Catholic University, which is right next to the National Shrine, and I know Brookland pretty well. It’s home to several Catholic religious orders (Brookland was once known as “Little Rome”). I could be pretty certain that on Good Friday a member of the Little Sisters of the Poor, which is across the street from where I was parked, had not nicked my bike. Neither had the monks at the Dominican House of Studies on the corner. The students at Catholic University were on Easter break. That left the neighborhoods around the university. Since the time I was an undergrad at Catholic University in the 1980s, most of the crime that has occurred on campus has come from those neighborhoods, which are predominately black. As sure as it took the D.C. cops forever to get to the parking lot to file a report, I knew that the odds were very high that a black person had taken my bike — maybe one of the kids that had been described.

 

Yup. The author has absolutely NO agenda.

 

If that's not enough for you, you could also check out how Judge feels Rock n Roll and Punk Rock were CONSERVATIVE movements that were taken down by the ungodliness of Hip Hop culture. Does he really expect us to believe that the Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones were conservative? Or is he really trying to point to Hip Hop as being a threat to our culture because it was started by black folks? Looking at all the evidence I think the answer is clear.

 

He used Heyward's error as the only example because it allows him to spout off about how he truly feels about black folks...

 

They're all just people looking to steal his bike.

Edited June 18, 2012 by tgreg99

[Rob's House]

^The Little Boy Who Cried Racism^

[DaveinElma]

The author is discussing baseball as an allegory for a political movement. Baseball is a sport that has evolved as our nation has. The history of our nation and its past time is intertwined both culturally and historically. Like our nation, MLB carries a black mark on its record for disallowing people of color the opportunity to play in the league for the first 74 years of its existence. And like our nation, the league recognized the sins of its oppression and changed the rules.

 

Today, Baseball features the most ethnically diverse pool of professional athletes in the country. MLB isn't the NFL or NBA where black athletes are the overwhelming majority, it's a league where white athletes are still the majority. Roughly 59% of the players are white, 29% Hispanic, 8% black, 3% Asian. MLB is as close to the "melting pot" as we get when it comes to team sports in this country.

 

The point of that preamble is this:

 

If the author was looking to simply make a political point, he could have chosen any number of MLB players to be his example of the "lazy, well fare seeking, Left". In fact, earlier this year, Phillies pitcher Cole Hammels (white) made a similar error to Heyward. With Harper on third, Cole forgot to check the runner and instead threw to first. Harper, seeing Hammel's mistake, stole home on a brilliant play that was as much about hustle and "old school" baseball as the one he made in Atlanta. In fact, in my opinion, it was a far better play when you factor in Harper is just 19 and making plays that veterans wouldn't think of. It would fit the article's premise 100 times better.

 

But Judge didn't choose that play to write about.

 

Instead, the author only calls out three players by name: Bryce Harper (white and the hero), Heyward (black and lazy), and Livan Hernandez (Cuban). When referencing Heyward THROUGHOUT the article, Judge uses notorious buzz words long associated with subversive racism while comparing Heyward to lazy welfare recipients, undeserving affirmative action hires, public sector union employees, and, last but not least, soul-less sex addicts who are a threat to our daughter's purity. The author could have stopped referencing Heyward after the opening clunker of a paragraph and carried on with his thesis. It would have made the piece stronger actually.

 

But Judge didn't stop. Instead, Judge kept bringing Heyward's name back up while making a correlation between Heyward's error and the hyperbolic description of the liberal policies of the left. For decades, extremists on the right have portrayed the majority of welfare recipients, union members and affirmative action supporters as being overwhelming black. Continuing to hold Heyward up as the example of these programs and the conservative stereotypes about them, is deliberate. The piece wouldn't resonate with his base had he used Hammels instead of Heyward. The choice was DELIBERATE.

 

Why did he do that? Because he's FRAMING his extremist argument, not on baseball, but classic divide and conquer political rhetoric employed by both the right and left for decades. The author cherry picked his facts and his cast of characters. He holds up a white guy as the example of good and the black and latino as examples of everything wrong with the left. He's stoking the fires of the extremists who, by in large, are the ones reading the Daily Caller. Pitting a black guy against a white guy is something that people like DaveinElma respond to -- and repost to their friends immediately. Knowing the blood will rise on the left, Judge has crafted something that even non-racists like LA will flock to defend since the right's answer to racism in the past has always been "anyone who sees racism in this is a racist themselves". It only took LA two posts to bring that old trusty gem out. But as LA admits himself, he doesn't know the context of the sport the article was written about in the first place. He has no ability to understand how badly the author has manipulated him with this absolute hack piece.

 

It's no secret the overwhelming majority of conservatives are white and the overwhelming majority of people of color identify themselves as democrats. That doesn't mean every conservative is a racist (or white). It doesn't mean that every democrat or liberal are not racists (or of color). That being said, conservative extremists have a history of playing on the white man's fears and painting every one on welfare as being black, violent, over sexed and a threat to not only our daughters, but our nation's best interest. The author knows this, he chose a very specific example to structure his argument around -- and it worked. It got people like LA who has no hate in his heart that I've ever witnessed, to defend his racist rantings regardless of its content because he hit all the right buttons.

 

DC, you've forgotten more history than I've read, but even you have to see the parallels this draws with the buzz words and talking points used by politicians fighting against the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Hell, he even references it within the article himself complaining the left is stuck in the "much more dysfunctional decade of the 60s rather than the 50s". That's a shot across the bow.

 

If that's not enough for you, well then consider this:

 

In the article, Harper is described as a new kind of baseball player who threatens the lazy black guy's hold on the game. In the very next paragraph the author completely contradicts himself and proclaims Harper to be a "throwback" to the good ol' days of Baseball. When were those good ol' days he longs to return to? 1932 when the league was segregated.

 

Now, if you want to go nuts, put this whole article in context of Judge's other writings. Specifically, the article he wrote last year where he describes the day "My white guilt ended". What caused his "white guilt" to end?

 

His bike got stolen by a black guy. ... err, well he thinks it was a black guy:

 

 

 

Yup. The author has absolutely NO agenda.

 

If that's not enough for you, you could also check out how Judge feels Rock n Roll and Punk Rock were CONSERVATIVE movements that were taken down by the ungodliness of Hip Hop culture. Does he really expect us to believe that the Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones were conservative? Or is he really trying to point to Hip Hop as being a threat to our culture because it was started by black folks? Looking at all the evidence I think the answer is clear.

 

He used Heyward's error as the only example because it allows him to spout off about how he truly feels about black folks...

 

They're all just people looking to steal his bike.

 

LOL x 1000

[3rdnlng]

The author is discussing baseball as an allegory for a political movement. Baseball is a sport that has evolved as our nation has. The history of our nation and its past time is intertwined both culturally and historically. Like our nation, MLB carries a black mark on its record for disallowing people of color the opportunity to play in the league for the first 74 years of its existence. And like our nation, the league recognized the sins of its oppression and changed the rules.

 

Today, Baseball features the most ethnically diverse pool of professional athletes in the country. MLB isn't the NFL or NBA where black athletes are the overwhelming majority, it's a league where white athletes are still the majority. Roughly 59% of the players are white, 29% Hispanic, 8% black, 3% Asian. MLB is as close to the "melting pot" as we get when it comes to team sports in this country.

 

The point of that preamble is this:

If the author was looking to simply make a political point, he could have chosen any number of MLB players to be his example of the "lazy, well fare seeking, Left". In fact, earlier this year, Phillies pitcher Cole Hammels (white) made a similar error to Heyward. With Harper on third, Cole forgot to check the runner and instead threw to first. Harper, seeing Hammel's mistake, stole home on a brilliant play that was as much about hustle and "old school" baseball as the one he made in Atlanta. In fact, in my opinion, it was a far better play when you factor in Harper is just 19 and making plays that veterans wouldn't think of. It would fit the article's premise 100 times better. But Judge didn't choose that play to write about.

 

Instead, the author only calls out three players by name: Bryce Harper (white and the hero), Heyward (black and lazy), and Livan Hernandez (Cuban). When referencing Heyward THROUGHOUT the article, Judge uses notorious buzz words long associated with subversive racism while comparing Heyward to lazy welfare recipients, undeserving affirmative action hires, public sector union employees, and, last but not least, soul-less sex addicts who are a threat to our daughter's purity. The author could have stopped referencing Heyward after the opening clunker of a paragraph and carried on with his thesis. It would have made the piece stronger actually.

 

But Judge didn't stop. Instead, Judge kept bringing Heyward's name back up while making a correlation between Heyward's error and the hyperbolic description of the liberal policies of the left. For decades, extremists on the right have portrayed the majority of welfare recipients, union members and affirmative action supporters as being overwhelming black. Continuing to hold Heyward up as the example of these programs and the conservative stereotypes about them, is deliberate. The piece wouldn't resonate with his base had he used Hammels instead of Heyward. The choice was DELIBERATE.

 

Why did he do that? Because he's FRAMING his extremist argument, not on baseball, but classic divide and conquer political rhetoric employed by both the right and left for decades. The author cherry picked his facts and his cast of characters. He holds up a white guy as the example of good and the black and latino as examples of everything wrong with the left. He's stoking the fires of the extremists who, by in large, are the ones reading the Daily Caller. Pitting a black guy against a white guy is something that people like DaveinElma respond to -- and repost to their friends immediately. Knowing the blood will rise on the left, Judge has crafted something that even non-racists like LA will flock to defend since the right's answer to racism in the past has always been "anyone who sees racism in this is a racist themselves". It only took LA two posts to bring that old trusty gem out. But as LA admits himself, he doesn't know the context of the sport the article was written about in the first place. He has no ability to understand how badly the author has manipulated him with this absolute hack piece.

 

It's no secret the overwhelming majority of conservatives are white and the overwhelming majority of people of color identify themselves as democrats. That doesn't mean every conservative is a racist (or white). It doesn't mean that every democrat or liberal are not racists (or of color). That being said, conservative extremists have a history of playing on the white man's fears and painting every one on welfare as being black, violent, over sexed and a threat to not only our daughters, but our nation's best interest. The author knows this, he chose a very specific example to structure his argument around -- and it worked. It got people like LA who has no hate in his heart that I've ever witnessed, to defend his racist rantings regardless of its content because he hit all the right buttons.

 

DC, you've forgotten more history than I've read, but even you have to see the parallels this draws with the buzz words and talking points used by politicians fighting against the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Hell, he even references it within the article himself complaining the left is stuck in the "much more dysfunctional decade of the 60s rather than the 50s". That's a shot across the bow.

 

If that's not enough for you, well then consider this:

 

In the article, Harper is described as a new kind of baseball player who threatens the lazy black guy's hold on the game. In the very next paragraph the author completely contradicts himself and proclaims Harper to be a "throwback" to the good ol' days of Baseball. When were those good ol' days he longs to return to? 1932 when the league was segregated.

 

Now, if you want to go nuts, put this whole article in context of Judge's other writings. Specifically, the article he wrote last year where he describes the day "My white guilt ended". What caused his "white guilt" to end?

 

His bike got stolen by a black guy. ... err, well he thinks it was a black guy:

 

 

 

Yup. The author has absolutely NO agenda.

 

If that's not enough for you, you could also check out how Judge feels Rock n Roll and Punk Rock were CONSERVATIVE movements that were taken down by the ungodliness of Hip Hop culture. Does he really expect us to believe that the Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones were conservative? Or is he really trying to point to Hip Hop as being a threat to our culture because it was started by black folks? Looking at all the evidence I think the answer is clear.

 

He used Heyward's error as the only example because it allows him to spout off about how he truly feels about black folks...

 

They're all just people looking to steal his bike.

 

 

The way Judge describe Heyward's play is that he nonchalantly went for a single that Harper turned into a double because of Heyward's laziness. Hammel made a mental mistake. How can you compare the two unless you are just being disingenuous and doing it to try to bolster your argument?

[Rob's House]

The way Judge describe Heyward's play is that he nonchalantly went for a single that Harper turned into a double because of Heyward's laziness. Hammel made a mental mistake. How can you compare the two unless you are just being disingenuous and doing it to try to bolster your argument?

I'm still waiting for all the racist !@#$s who accused TO of taking plays off to atone for their sins.

[CosmicBills]

The way Judge describe Heyward's play is that he nonchalantly went for a single that Harper turned into a double because of Heyward's laziness. Hammel made a mental mistake. How can you compare the two unless you are just being disingenuous and doing it to try to bolster your argument?

 

Actually, both plays were mental errors. Judge attributes Heyward's to laziness in the article, but it wasn't due to laziness. It occurred because Heyward forgot who was running the bases. He assumed Harper wouldn't have the balls to take second. He took a slow first step, saw Harper wasn't stopping and bobbled the ball which led to the throw being late. That's a mental error as much as Cole who either forgot there was a runner on third (unlikely) or didn't think Harper would have the balls to swipe home. They both were wrong, both misjudged Harper.

 

And that's a far stronger argument for the conservative cause than the one he wound up citing. The whole, "the libs are complacent in their seat of power, they don't think we have the balls to try to challenge them, let's prove 'em wrong in November" kind of thing. In fact, had he cited both he would have not only made his case stronger. But he chose not to.

 

It's either laziness on the author's part OR a continuing pattern of his racist rants. And you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Rob too. Hats off to Judge for having less faith in the common man's intelligence than me I guess.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

The author knows this, he chose a very specific example to structure his argument around -- and it worked. It got people like LA who has no hate in his heart that I've ever witnessed, to defend his racist rantings regardless of its content because he hit all the right buttons.

 

You are projecting your belief of why the author chose the most talked about player in the National League this year and reaching your own conclusion

 

 

 

If that's not enough for you, well then consider this:

 

In the article, Harper is described as a new kind of baseball player who threatens the lazy black guy's hold on the game.

Absolutely NOT in the article, its your reading of it.

 

 

In the very next paragraph the author completely contradicts himself and proclaims Harper to be a "throwback" to the good ol' days of Baseball. When were those good ol' days he longs to return to? 1932 when the league was segregated.

Again...YOUR interpretation. The actual article makes reference to 30 years back (1982) ....40 years back (1972) and his grandfathers career in the teens and twenties. You Chose to make the connection to segregation

 

 

You go on and on torturing each word and stretching each point to reach the conclusion that you entered the article with

 

 

and now all you offer if fake incredibility that no one else on the board can see what you see

 

 

I, for one, am so glad that I don't automatically turn to race with each new thread.

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

The author is discussing baseball as an allegory for a political movement. Baseball is a sport that has evolved as our nation has. The history of our nation and its past time is intertwined both culturally and historically. Like our nation, MLB carries a black mark on its record for disallowing people of color the opportunity to play in the league for the first 74 years of its existence. And like our nation, the league recognized the sins of its oppression and changed the rules.

 

Today, Baseball features the most ethnically diverse pool of professional athletes in the country. MLB isn't the NFL or NBA where black athletes are the overwhelming majority, it's a league where white athletes are still the majority. Roughly 59% of the players are white, 29% Hispanic, 8% black, 3% Asian. MLB is as close to the "melting pot" as we get when it comes to team sports in this country.

 

The point of that preamble is this:

 

If the author was looking to simply make a political point, he could have chosen any number of MLB players to be his example of the "lazy, well fare seeking, Left". In fact, earlier this year, Phillies pitcher Cole Hammels (white) made a similar error to Heyward. With Harper on third, Cole forgot to check the runner and instead threw to first. Harper, seeing Hammel's mistake, stole home on a brilliant play that was as much about hustle and "old school" baseball as the one he made in Atlanta. In fact, in my opinion, it was a far better play when you factor in Harper is just 19 and making plays that veterans wouldn't think of. It would fit the article's premise 100 times better.

 

But Judge didn't choose that play to write about.

 

Instead, the author only calls out three players by name: Bryce Harper (white and the hero), Heyward (black and lazy), and Livan Hernandez (Cuban). When referencing Heyward THROUGHOUT the article, Judge uses notorious buzz words long associated with subversive racism while comparing Heyward to lazy welfare recipients, undeserving affirmative action hires, public sector union employees, and, last but not least, soul-less sex addicts who are a threat to our daughter's purity. The author could have stopped referencing Heyward after the opening clunker of a paragraph and carried on with his thesis. It would have made the piece stronger actually.

 

But Judge didn't stop. Instead, Judge kept bringing Heyward's name back up while making a correlation between Heyward's error and the hyperbolic description of the liberal policies of the left. For decades, extremists on the right have portrayed the majority of welfare recipients, union members and affirmative action supporters as being overwhelming black. Continuing to hold Heyward up as the example of these programs and the conservative stereotypes about them, is deliberate. The piece wouldn't resonate with his base had he used Hammels instead of Heyward. The choice was DELIBERATE.

 

Why did he do that? Because he's FRAMING his extremist argument, not on baseball, but classic divide and conquer political rhetoric employed by both the right and left for decades. The author cherry picked his facts and his cast of characters. He holds up a white guy as the example of good and the black and latino as examples of everything wrong with the left. He's stoking the fires of the extremists who, by in large, are the ones reading the Daily Caller. Pitting a black guy against a white guy is something that people like DaveinElma respond to -- and repost to their friends immediately. Knowing the blood will rise on the left, Judge has crafted something that even non-racists like LA will flock to defend since the right's answer to racism in the past has always been "anyone who sees racism in this is a racist themselves". It only took LA two posts to bring that old trusty gem out. But as LA admits himself, he doesn't know the context of the sport the article was written about in the first place. He has no ability to understand how badly the author has manipulated him with this absolute hack piece.

 

It's no secret the overwhelming majority of conservatives are white and the overwhelming majority of people of color identify themselves as democrats. That doesn't mean every conservative is a racist (or white). It doesn't mean that every democrat or liberal are not racists (or of color). That being said, conservative extremists have a history of playing on the white man's fears and painting every one on welfare as being black, violent, over sexed and a threat to not only our daughters, but our nation's best interest. The author knows this, he chose a very specific example to structure his argument around -- and it worked. It got people like LA who has no hate in his heart that I've ever witnessed, to defend his racist rantings regardless of its content because he hit all the right buttons.

 

DC, you've forgotten more history than I've read, but even you have to see the parallels this draws with the buzz words and talking points used by politicians fighting against the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Hell, he even references it within the article himself complaining the left is stuck in the "much more dysfunctional decade of the 60s rather than the 50s". That's a shot across the bow.

 

If that's not enough for you, well then consider this:

 

In the article, Harper is described as a new kind of baseball player who threatens the lazy black guy's hold on the game. In the very next paragraph the author completely contradicts himself and proclaims Harper to be a "throwback" to the good ol' days of Baseball. When were those good ol' days he longs to return to? 1932 when the league was segregated.

 

Now, if you want to go nuts, put this whole article in context of Judge's other writings. Specifically, the article he wrote last year where he describes the day "My white guilt ended". What caused his "white guilt" to end?

 

His bike got stolen by a black guy. ... err, well he thinks it was a black guy:

 

 

 

Yup. The author has absolutely NO agenda.

 

If that's not enough for you, you could also check out how Judge feels Rock n Roll and Punk Rock were CONSERVATIVE movements that were taken down by the ungodliness of Hip Hop culture. Does he really expect us to believe that the Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones were conservative? Or is he really trying to point to Hip Hop as being a threat to our culture because it was started by black folks? Looking at all the evidence I think the answer is clear.

 

He used Heyward's error as the only example because it allows him to spout off about how he truly feels about black folks...

 

They're all just people looking to steal his bike.

 

The problem with that whole line of argument is that Judge is a retard who thinks Harper is reinventing baseball. His stated metaphor breaks down when faced with reality.

 

And you're attributing a much more subtle metaphor to him. Think about that.

 

And God knows, if I thought DIE were posting something racist, I'd be FIRST in line beating the **** out of him for it. I'm still just not seeing it...the rhetoric of racism, actually, is not limited to race. One can lob the same rhetoric at just about any group one wants.

 

And ultimately, you're arguing that one can't call Heyward's play "lazy" because he's black ("lazy" was a term used frequently to describe blacks historically, even as recent as - when was DIE's last post? Hence, it's racist rhetoric.) But if he were white...then we could call him "lazy"...because even though the rhetoric has a racist history...he's white, hence it doesn't count? That's fallacious reasoning. The only real indicator of racism is: does the author hate blacks? From that article, you can't say so - even you couldn't say so, you had to dig up other articles to establish the pattern.

 

 

I'd love to discuss this more, but I have to go. I have a deadline for the Washington Times for an article on Don Beebe's strip of Leon Lett in Superbowl XXVII as a metaphor for inner city poverty.

[Rob's House]

Actually, both plays were mental errors. Judge attributes Heyward's to laziness in the article, but it wasn't due to laziness. It occurred because Heyward forgot who was running the bases. He assumed Harper wouldn't have the balls to take second. He took a slow first step, saw Harper wasn't stopping and bobbled the ball which led to the throw being late. That's a mental error as much as Cole who either forgot there was a runner on third (unlikely) or didn't think Harper would have the balls to swipe home. They both were wrong, both misjudged Harper.

 

And that's a far stronger argument for the conservative cause than the one he wound up citing. The whole, "the libs are complacent in their seat of power, they don't think we have the balls to try to challenge them, let's prove 'em wrong in November" kind of thing. In fact, had he cited both he would have not only made his case stronger. But he chose not to.

 

It's either laziness on the author's part OR a continuing pattern of his racist rants. And you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Rob too. Hats off to Judge for having less faith in the common man's intelligence than me I guess.

I don't know anything about the author, and I'm a Braves fan so I'm partial to Heyward, but if you're trying to make the case that the hidden message was black guys are lazy or that you know that he used a black guy in his example because of his latent racism rather than just because it was a play he saw that made him think of it, then I think you're the reason people roll their eyes when someone claims racism.

 

 

I'd love to discuss this more, but I have to go. I have a deadline for the Washington Times for an article on Don Beebe's strip of Leon Lett in Superbowl XXVII as a metaphor for inner city poverty.

!@#$ing Classic

[IDBillzFan]

I don't know anything about the author, and I'm a Braves fan so I'm partial to Heyward, but if you're trying to make the case that the hidden message was black guys are lazy or that you know that he used a black guy in his example because of his latent racism rather than just because it was a play he saw that made him think of it, then I think you're the reason people roll their eyes when someone claims racism.

What he specifically did was read the article, and then immediately judge everything based exclusively on the color of the players' skin.

 

He didn't see baseball players. He saw a black man and a white man and came to his conclusion on that, and ONLY that.

 

What do we call folks who judge people on the color of the skin? What was that word again? Starts with an R? Rhymes with bassist?

[DC Tom]

What he specifically did was read the article, and then immediately judge everything based exclusively on the color of the players' skin.

 

He didn't see baseball players. He saw a black man and a white man and came to his conclusion on that, and ONLY that.

 

What do we call folks who judge people on the color of the skin? What was that word again? Starts with an R? Rhymes with bassist?

 

Let's not lose sight of what's important: DIE's the true racist here.

[3rdnlng]

What he specifically did was read the article, and then immediately judge everything based exclusively on the color of the players' skin.

 

He didn't see baseball players. He saw a black man and a white man and came to his conclusion on that, and ONLY that.

 

What do we call folks who judge people on the color of the skin? What was that word again? Starts with an R? Rhymes with bassist?

 

 

Rasis?

 

http://astroveda.wikidot.com/characteristics-of-rasis

 

[GG]

Whether Judge meant to subtly invoke the racist stereotypes in his story is meaningless. What is nearly certain however, is that DIE saw it as a lazy black guy who got outwitted by the spunky white guy, and couldn't wait to post the link.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Good thing Mitt became a Mormon after 1978. LoL...

[3rdnlng]

Let's not lose sight of what's important: DIE's the true racist here.

 

If that's what is important here then why the hell did it take 75 f'n posts (and some really lengthy) to get to this point? What's really important here is the low threshold for claiming racism. I'm not claiming that DIE isn't racist. I don't know what's in his heart and won't pretend to know. He hasn't been overtly racist in the individual posts I remember, but the volume of his posts (links) that center on the denigration of blacks would make most people think that he is. He has posted stuff (like this Harper/Hayward post) that don't strike me as racist. There seems to be a number of people here who take pleasure in bashing anything that they could possibly perceive as racist. This is a discussion board for !@#$s sake. I don't think we need to be so sensitive to the PC schit and avoid any real discussion. The way I see it DIE could submit a brilliant post about gardening and certain posters here would respond with "shut the !@#$ up you racist bastard".

Edited June 19, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Jim in Anchorage]

If that's what is important here then why the hell did it take 75 f'n posts (and some really lengthy) to get to this point? What's really important here is the low threshold for claiming racism. I'm not claiming that DIE isn't racist. I don't know what's in his heart and won't pretend to know. He hasn't been overtly racist in the individual posts I remember, but the volume of his posts (links) that center on the denigration of blacks would make most people think that he is. He has posted stuff (like this Harper/Hayward post) that don't strike me as racist. There seems to be a number of people here who take pleasure in bashing anything that they could possibly perceive as racist. This is a discussion board for !@#$s sake. I don't think we need to be so sensitive to the PC schit and avoid any real discussion. The way I see it DIE could submit a brilliant post about gardening and certain posters here would respond with "shut the !@#$ up you racist bastard".

Heaven forbid the garden has watermelons.