Jump to content

Michael Sam, a College Football Standout, Says He Is Gay


Harley

Recommended Posts

I can't keep track of what's bothering you about all this.  Can you put down some concise bullet points why or point me to a concise post?

 

I find it entirely narcissistic to make a special announcement regarding one's personal life. I'm skeptical about his motives, just in the way I was skeptical of Jason Collins (I was eventually proven right). I'm a bigot for not celebrating his decision to raise himself above the team he hasn't even been drafted by yet. I don't want him on the Bengals because I understand the media distraction that he will carry with him. I have to get back to work now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media is a reflection of society. If you don't watch something they won't report on it. 

 

That's actually not how the media works. The media reports on sensational stories because they know people will watch. Case in point, when you watch the news, all you see are murders, armed robberies, viscous assaults. Of course people will tune in for that but one would also have reason to believe  that this is some sort of rampant problem. However, the odds of any of these things happening to you are slim to none. The media's quest for the most sensational stories they can find, paint a skewed vision for how America actually functions. I wish I still had my old college Sociology textbooks so that I can give you more pointed, vivid, empirical evidence on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sentences 1 and 3.  Sentence 2: so....you majored in hyperbole?

 

People will do what people want to do, and much of it is out of our hands.  If you don't like it you can either 1) ignore it or apparently b) let it lead you into participating in a 10-page internet forum discussion on the topic.

 

Personally (like 1181) I think coming out was probably his best worst option.  Time will tell; I wish him the best.

 

I won't hold it against him -- in both senses, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No need to respond, I'm assuming you should take shelter before the Klan Rally begins down the block. Stay indoors, their opening the fire hydrants! I also heard The Outsiders are on the prowl for gay people. It's a dangerous, bigoted country, out to marginalize all minorities!

 

By the way, the march from Selma to Montgomery begins at 8 PM. Be there or be nowhere.

 

 

yes, clearly I was wrong about that attitude, tone and immaturity comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sentences 1 and 3.  Sentence 2: so....you majored in hyperbole?

 

People will do what people want to do, and much of it is out of our hands.  If you don't like it you can either 1) ignore it or apparently B) let it lead you into participating in a 10-page internet forum discussion on the topic.

 

Personally (like 1181) I think coming out was probably his best worst option.  Time will tell; I wish him the best.

 

I won't hold it against him -- in both senses, lol. 

 

 

lol pretty much yep. "Best worst option"/ How it was handled was likely the best of a line of bad options.  Ideally, he'd probably prefer it not be public at all, but you can't keep people from saying things about you.  You can only say it first and have it be on your terms.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sentences 1 and 3.  Sentence 2: so....you majored in hyperbole?

 

People will do what people want to do, and much of it is out of our hands.  If you don't like it you can either 1) ignore it or apparently B) let it lead you into participating in a 10-page internet forum discussion on the topic.

 

Personally (like 1181) I think coming out was probably his best worst option.  Time will tell; I wish him the best.

 

I won't hold it against him -- in both senses, lol. 

 

 

 

 

lol pretty much yep. "Best worst option"/ How it was handled was likely the best of a line of bad options.  Ideally, he'd probably prefer it not be public at all, but you can't keep people from saying things about you.  You can only say it first and have it be on your terms.  

 

That's a straw argument. It's the same crutch Jason Collins used to profit off of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sentences 1 and 3.  Sentence 2: so....you majored in hyperbole?

 

People will do what people want to do, and much of it is out of our hands.  If you don't like it you can either 1) ignore it or apparently B) let it lead you into participating in a 10-page internet forum discussion on the topic.

 

Personally (like 1181) I think coming out was probably his best worst option.  Time will tell; I wish him the best.

 

I won't hold it against him -- in both senses, lol. 

 

I'll guess you will have to clarify on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so glad that the majority of Americans care so little about a person's sexuality that gay people can now get married in every state.  They aren't having any trouble there.  Right?

 

Once again, you distort facts. The public (for the most part) doesn't have any problem with gay people. Some have a problem with the institution of marriage being altered from within their lens of religion. It's a good try, but you are grasping for straws.

 

I haven't seen these same groups protesting against gays coming out of the closet. Maybe you have. if so, please link it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
That's actually not how the media works. The media reports on sensational stories because they know people will watch. Case in point, when you watch the news, all you see are murders, armed robberies, viscous assaults. Of course people will tune in for that but one would also have reason to believe  that this is some sort of rampant problem. However, the odds of any of these things happening to you are slim to none. The media's quest for the most sensational stories they can find, paint a skewed vision for how America actually functions. I wish I still had my old college Sociology textbooks so that I can give you more pointed, vivid, empirical evidence on this.


No. The media cares about ratings because of advertising dollars.They will report on whatever gets high ratings. They track what people watch and report on stories that fall in those categories. If the public in mass were watching stories on puppy dogs and rainbows you would get more stories on puppy dogs and rainbows.

Because there are very few journalists left that want to do real journalism.Doesn't bring ad revenue. Its doing the public an injustice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The media cares about ratings because of advertising dollars.They will report on whatever gets high ratings. They track what people watch and report on stories that fall in those categories. If the public in mass were watching stories on puppy dogs and rainbows you would get more stories on puppy dogs and rainbows.

Because there are very few journalists left that want to do real journalism.Doesn't bring ad revenue. Its doing the public an injustice.

 

You're halfway there. The media does, in fact, care predominantly about ratings. In the television age, the media has always cared about ratings. The bottom line always matters most,. Where you fail to go the extra length though, is that sensational stories attract viewers. When you watch the news, stories about the Fed don't bring in viewership, instead stories about sensationalist crimes and outlandish behavior usually lure people in. It's why Jodi Arias mattered. it's why all you see on the news are stories about violent crimes. it's why the media provides far more in-depth reporting on the George Zimmerman case, as opposed to a normal black-on-black crime. Despite the fact that black-on-black crime happens at a far greater rate than white-on-black crime, the media continues to try and make the viewer believe that white-on-black crime is a happening epidemic. Empirical evidence proves that this is false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
You're halfway there. The media does, in fact, care predominantly about ratings. In the television age, the media has always cared about ratings. The bottom line always matters most,. Where you fail to go the extra length though, is that sensational stories attract viewers. When you watch the news, stories about the Fed don't bring in viewership, instead stories about sensationalist crimes and outlandish behavior usually lure people in. It's why Jodi Arias mattered. it's why all you see on the news are stories about violent crimes. it's why the media provides far more in-depth reporting on the George Zimmerman case, as opposed to a normal black-on-black crime. Despite the fact that black-on-black crime happens at a far greater rate than white-on-black crime, the media continues to try and make the viewer believe that white-on-black crime is a happening epidemic. Empirical evidence proves that this is false. 


Have you ever worked in media? Even as an intern? I have. Sensationalism happens because that's what people want. Its why TMZ has any audience. When normal media has to compete with the TMZs of the world that happens. Media is an easy scapegoat and deserves a lot of the ire they get for losing integrity to the almighty dollar. But by and large it's easy to blame them because the public doesn't want to take a look in the mirror.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're halfway there. The media does, in fact, care predominantly about ratings. In the television age, the media has always cared about ratings. The bottom line always matters most,. Where you fail to go the extra length though, is that sensational stories attract viewers. When you watch the news, stories about the Fed don't bring in viewership, instead stories about sensationalist crimes and outlandish behavior usually lure people in. It's why Jodi Arias mattered. it's why all you see on the news are stories about violent crimes. it's why the media provides far more in-depth reporting on the George Zimmerman case, as opposed to a normal black-on-black crime. Despite the fact that black-on-black crime happens at a far greater rate than white-on-black crime, the media continues to try and make the viewer believe that white-on-black crime is a happening epidemic. Empirical evidence proves that this is false. 

 

I thought you were just a homophobe before but now I clearly see that you are simply a frightened little white man...and nothing else.

 

LMAO, the Zimmerman case was widely reported because it was like a slow-moving train wreck, where the whole country knew it was going to sit by and watch one man get away with the cold blooded murder of another - simply because he profiled him based on his race (Zimmerman wasn't white, FYI). The other reason that the story got so much attention is that because it was inflamed by the terrified, ignorant they're-taking-my-country-away ignorami like yourself who saw it from their perspective, which was that they and their way of life were being persecuted.

 

And there's that pesky persecution complex again. Seeing the common thread here?

 

Crying persecution, or finding conspiracy where there is none is, sociologically speaking, a response/cry of the powerless against a foe that they find overwhelming or insurmountable in its threat.  So I guess the good guys have going for them, at least. The key is not to let people like yourself do too much damage as they get more and more irrational and reactive as they are extinguished. 

 

You might not see it, but you are a lot closer to Timothy McVeigh than you are to Barack Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever worked in media? Even as an intern? I have. Sensationalism happens because that's what people want. Its why TMZ has any audience. When normal media has to compete with the TMZs of the world that happens. Media is an easy scapegoat and deserves a lot of the ire they get for losing integrity to the almighty dollar. But by and large it's easy to blame them because the public doesn't want to take a look in the mirror.

 

I'm in the media right now, as I have said in many other posts. From your response, I'm not sure about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought you were just a homophobe before but now I clearly see that you are simply a frightened little white man...and nothing else.

 

LMAO, the Zimmerman case was widely reported because it was like a slow-moving train wreck, where the whole country knew it was going to sit by and watch one man get away with the cold blooded murder of another - simply because he profiled him based on his race (Zimmerman wasn't white, FYI). The other reason that the story got so much attention is that because it was inflamed by the terrified, ignorant they're-taking-my-country-away ignorami like yourself who saw it from their perspective, which was that they and their way of life were being persecuted.

 

And there's that pesky persecution complex again. Seeing the common thread here?

 

Crying persecution, or finding conspiracy where there is none is, sociologically speaking, a response/cry of the powerless against a foe that they find overwhelming or insurmountable in its threat.  So I guess the good guys have going for them, at least. The key is not to let people like yourself do too much damage as they get more and more irrational and reactive as they are extinguished. 

 

You might not see it, but you are a lot closer to Timothy McVeigh than you are to Barack Obama.

 

I will have to assume/hope to God that you aren't in the legal field. I would have to assume you did not watch the trial. That's okay, but please do not lecture about to someone who had to watch every second of it at work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will have to assume/hope to God that you aren't in the legal field. I would have to assume you did not watch the trial. That's okay, but please do not lecture about to someone who had to watch every second of it at work. 

 

I did watch the trial.  The killing was legal, and that's what was so tragic about it. Florida is one of those states where there's a big concentration of people like you, and they wrote the stand-your-ground law, which is a travesty (there were many in that trial, the other most notable travesty being the reluctant DA who had to have her arm twisted to even bring the case and then assigned the dufus squad as prosecutors - could they have been any more incompetent?)

 

An armed man carrying a loaded gun picked a fight with an unarmed man and when the unarmed man defended himself the man with the loaded gun shot and killed him.  If you need a law degree to make that legitimate, then you can throw out your "law" while you're at it. Because for anyone other than the amoral, that kind of shit is subhuman behavior.

 

Again. Love.  That's pretty much it.  Maybe add to that Forgive. Maybe add to that not to Judge (the Buddhists have a more positive version of this, which is Accept - something that they encourage us to apply to all things, especially the present moment). 

 

Justifying the opposite of these things (Love, Begrudge, Judging, Denying Others (whether it's their sexuality, their race, or their very right to live) also amoral, and subhuman.

 

There is NO moral justification to what George Zimmerman did. Even your God would agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida is one of those states where there's a big concentration of people like you, and they wrote the stand-your-ground law, which is a travesty 

 

 

Very correct. I think we should all allow others to smash our head into the sidewalk. After all, he would have eventually stopped and then they would have made up and shook hands before the police arrived.

 

and then assigned the dufus squad as prosecutors - could they have been any more incompetent?)

 

 

It's hard to be Atticus Finch when none of the evidence supports your claim. 

 

An armed man carrying a loaded gun picked a fight with an unarmed man and when the unarmed man defended himself the man with the loaded gun shot and killed him. 

 

 

I don't understand why the prosecution didn't call you up to the stand, you could have corroborated their entire argument. Wait a second, you saw the whole thing and you didn't come forward? I think you have blood on your hands. Wait a second, how could you witness this and not tackle George Zimmerman before he hurt someone? You're a coward! Since you were there that night, I find it reprehensible that you chose not to give a witness statement to the police. 

 

There is NO moral justification to what George Zimmerman did. Even your God would agree with that.

 

My religion doesn't believe in the death penalty, even for the lowest scum on earth, so you're probably right about that. 

 

 

 

Again. Love.  That's pretty much it.  Maybe add to that Forgive. Maybe add to that not to Judge (the Buddhists have a more positive version of this, which is Accept - something that they encourage us to apply to all things, especially the present moment). 

 

 

So says the person who called me a "little white man". Tell me something though, where in your book of love and forgiveness does it justify the locking up and throwing away the key of a person when we have absolutely no idea what happened that night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...