Are the Pacers too White?

[Tavish]

I like how white folks go crazy when something like this comes up.

I think everyone should get upset about this. Besides the double standard, aren't we supposed to be a color-blind society?

Without actually having seen the context of the discussion they were having, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to discuss the topic. Simply talking about black and white doesn't make a conversation racist. The topic in the right context is no different than talking about if a team has too many old players or not enough players that appeal to the target market or so on. Pretty much the only time it becomes a racist conversation is when you put it a racism context, ie the Pacers don't want black players on their team.

A color-blind society is an unrealistic ideal, embracing differences is ultimately a more worthwhile goal.

[Yoda]

Racism knows no color. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians... any demographic can be - and has been - a victim of discrimination. I've seen victims from every demographic, every walk of life, every tax bracket. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination - it's all just discrimination, no matter what color skin you have, your age, your gender, your race, national origin, etc.

What about sexual orientation?

[knapplc]

Racism knows no color. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians... any demographic can be - and has been - a victim of discrimination. I've seen victims from every demographic, every walk of life, every tax bracket. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination - it's all just discrimination, no matter what color skin you have, your age, your gender, your race, national origin, etc.

What about sexual orientation?

What about it? Or more appropriately, what about anything that separates one demographic from another? Discrimination comes in all shapes, sizes and forms. Only some of it is punishable by law.

[Yoda]

Racism knows no color. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians... any demographic can be - and has been - a victim of discrimination. I've seen victims from every demographic, every walk of life, every tax bracket. There is no such thing as "reverse" discrimination - it's all just discrimination, no matter what color skin you have, your age, your gender, your race, national origin, etc.

What about sexual orientation?

What about it? Or more appropriately, what about anything that separates one demographic from another? Discrimination comes in all shapes, sizes and forms. Only some of it is punishable by law.

I just didn't see you include it under your definition of discrimination.

[StlSluggers]

I like how white folks go crazy when something like this comes up.

I think everyone should get upset about this. Besides the double standard, aren't we supposed to be a color-blind society?

Without actually having seen the context of the discussion they were having, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to discuss the topic. Simply talking about black and white doesn't make a conversation racist. The topic in the right context is no different than talking about if a team has too many old players or not enough players that appeal to the target market or so on. Pretty much the only time it becomes a racist conversation is when you put it a racism context, ie the Pacers don't want black players on their team.

A color-blind society is an unrealistic ideal, embracing differences is ultimately a more worthwhile goal.

Being old brings your abilities into question because aging effects everyone. Being locally relevant is an issue of community makeup. Being white, or Dominican, or Jewish, does not impact your athletic ability one bit. Talent, work ethic, mental fortitude, parental genetics, economic surroundings... These things make athletes what they are. A good, white basketball player isn't good in spite of being white just the same way that being born black doesn't mean you will have better odds of being able to slam on a regulation rim. Being born white or black might mean that you're socially or economically more likely to pursue certain paths with respect to basketball, but the mere color of your skin does not solely dictate the outcome of that path.

You're right that simply talking about black and white does not automatically make a conversation racist. That headline, at least at face value, is racist, because it implies that skin color is indicative of athletic ability.

I'll drop the color-blind society discussion. It's a tangent from this one, and I shouldn't have brought it up.

[knapplc]

What about sexual orientation?

What about it? Or more appropriately, what about anything that separates one demographic from another? Discrimination comes in all shapes, sizes and forms. Only some of it is punishable by law.

I just didn't see you include it under your definition of discrimination.

I was running down the list of federally protected bases under Title VII. Once they amend TVII to include sexual orientation you'll see me toss that in these kinds of statements.

Right now an employer can refuse to hire someone if they're tatted up, or if they have dreads, or if they wear a blue shirt. All are "discriminatory" decisions, but none are protected under law.

[Art Vandelay]

What if they have dreads because they are rastafarian? I think the right to grow locks as a religious practice has been upheld a number of times.

[Yoda]

I was running down the list of federally protected bases under Title VII. Once they amend TVII to include sexual orientation you'll see me toss that in these kinds of statements.

Right now an employer can refuse to hire someone if they're tatted up, or if they have dreads, or if they wear a blue shirt. All are "discriminatory" decisions, but none are protected under law.

I know you've posted this dozens of times. I was just kidding.

[knapplc]

What if they have dreads because they are rastafarian? I think the right to grow locks as a religious practice has been upheld a number of times.

Bah. It was a top-of-my-head example. You could have a "deeply held belief" that wearing blue shirts is a holy act, thus making the seemingly innocuous act of not hiring someone for wearing a blue shirt potentially discriminatory.

Let's not quibble over minutiae. It was just an example.

[knapplc]

I was running down the list of federally protected bases under Title VII. Once they amend TVII to include sexual orientation you'll see me toss that in these kinds of statements.

Right now an employer can refuse to hire someone if they're tatted up, or if they have dreads, or if they wear a blue shirt. All are "discriminatory" decisions, but none are protected under law.

I know you've posted this dozens of times. I was just kidding.

Nope, only seven.