For those wanting to distance themselves from ESPN

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Ha Ha

Well the DIS stock is only down 15% over the last 6 or so months.

Iger will be job hunting, if this trend continues.

 

[aTotal360]

My son will know who THE Magnus VerMagnussen is!!!

 

[Dog of Tillo]

Schilling was only fired after ignoring numerous warnings. Hill has now receieved warning #1. Not comparable yet, but if she ignores warnings and keeps doing stuff like this, we'll see if ESPN treats left and right equally.

This is actually her second violation that we're aware of....in 2008, she was suspended by ESPN.



ESPN’s Jemele Hill wrote this past Saturday that, "rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It’s like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan."
Apologies
Jemele Hill's personal apology:
"I deeply regret the comment I made in a column Saturday. In expressing my passion for the NBA and my hometown of Detroit I showed very poor judgment in the words that I used. I pride myself on an understanding of, and appreciation for, diversity - and there is no excuse for the appalling lack of sensitivity in my comments. It in no way reflects the person I am. I apologize to all of my readers and I thank them for holding me accountable. This has been an important lesson for me and illustrates that, like many people, I still have a lot of growing and learning to do."

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I stand corrected. Warning #2 for her, although they were 9 years apart.

Still though, Hill's first incident was generally insensitive without being overtly political, so it's not exactly the same. Schilling had much more than just 2 warnings, and they were compressed into a much tighter timeframe. Schilling didn't leave ESPN much of a choice but to let him go, and given how much he's played the victim card over the last few years, it's probably what he wanted anyway. We'll see if Hill puts ESPN in that same situation, and if so, how they react.

 

[KurtRambis4]

It's funny, she

can apologize for that, but not for her despicable lies about the President.

 

[dorndawg]

Where did she lie about the President?

 

[catvet]

ESPN began to go down hill when they began to push personalities over sports coverage. I have no interest in anything but sports. If I want political commentary, I'll go to MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc.

 

[KurtRambis4]

Youre an idiot*

*

 

[Mechanicaldawg]

People keep saying ESPN is getting bad because they're starting to get political, but that just isn't true.

ESPN started sucking the day they quit just doing Sportscenter and showing live games/replays and reruns of Worlds Strongest Man/American Gladiators (which was in the late 90s).

When they switched to this format of shows where two (or more) idiots start yelling and arguing back and forth, it completely ended for me (circa 2000).

Just look at their content. It's what I've stated in the above sentence all day long.

Just show me live games, highlights, and the occasional American Gladiators rerun!

Man, I love some American Gladiators. Saturday nights used to be awesome! SNL, American Gladiators, and wrestling. Those were the days. Had some serious crush on Zap and Diamond.

 

[The Usual Suspect]

If ESPN keeps up the political stuff and alienates the relatively conservative SEC network fans, they will be hurting worse financially then they are now.

 

[rynodawg]

Not sure that it matters, it's been years since I tuned into any of the debate daytime shows, ratings for those shows can't be very high regardless.

Is anyone on this board refusing to watch the State-LSU game tomorrow? Or the State-UGA game next week? SEC people would need to boycott the channel entirely to have an effect, if not you're still providing ratings.

 

[Bucky Dog]

Am I wrong in saying that the majority of ESPN's viewers would be considered conservative?

 

[The Usual Suspect]

Don't forget the chainsaw competitions**

 

[GhostOfJackie]

I do not let my sports mix with politics, so it really get's my blood boiling when they force it in either direction. The only thing I use ESPN for is to watch games. They are dead to me and have been for a long long time.

 

[thatsbaseball]

This is what intrigues me about this train wreck. I can handle ESPN's politics easily by simply changing channels...no problem. What I'm curious about is exactly what is it they're trying to accomplish ? Why would you just "kill the goose that laid the golden egg" ? Their silly, over the top ideology is not going to change the views of one single conservative...only run them off. At some point sponsors will respond negatively as ratings drop and their commercial spots become worth a lot less money. What is it they're trying to do ?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Contrary to your point about not stating that they are a different sex than they really are; that is exactly what many trans people seem to be saying. They see themselves as something that biologically they are not and that, quite honestly, seems like some type of body dysmorphic syndrome that in any other context would be treatable, not celebratory. (You can't mention this without severe backlash and I think that is indicative of a bigger issue that we have in this country with regards to how we perceive mental illness in general.) However, most hateful people, who would mistreat others, aren't really concerned about the other person's well being, mentally, physically or emotionally so, as you inferred, the issue isn't really about science at all. What takes center stage is, unfortunately a largely uninformed shouting match with the worst possible representatives who are put in front of a microphone not actually being representative at all.

I think that where ignorance exists it is mostly because people have latched on to their own feelings about matters and failed to actually try to find any objective truth, assuming that it exists for whatever matter is at hand. The same ones that latch onto their particular philosophy in the face of increasing contrary observations or facts are the same ones that enter every argument believing that they are absolutely right and anyone with contrary opinions is wrong. (i.e. closed-minded, choosing ignorance and simply dug into their opinion based on how they feel and nothing more). Feelings are OK friends but they are terrible masters...

 

[aTotal360]

I've learned that new age semantics are an issue with this whole gender debate. In the lefts' world, gender and sex are NOT the same thing. They mean something almost totally different. They will (begrudgingly) admit to having specific hardware, but they think your gender is simply a feeling that can change like weather. The right believes that gender and sex are inseparable and is based on physiology, not on how you feel that morning.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I'll bet a lot of guys would like to be a lesbian for a day or two***

 

[JungRebel]

In ordinary English we sometimes assign gender to a behavior and not sex, e.g. in "x throws like a girl," "x" need not necessarily be a girl, the particular throwing motion is what gets the gender. And we also speak of "acting like a lady" and "behaving like a gentleman." Some people, e.g. Mutt, speak of "men's work" and "women's work." In our everyday usages, right and left, we assign gender when not referring to biological sex. This is more striking in languages that assign genders to all nouns, even new words.

The problem is "acting like a lady" is subject to interpretation and the lack of a universal criteria. The way I see trans- people is that they identify with what they understand to be the opposite sex's "role."

If someone would like to introduce a strict definition where the concepts are synonymous, that is fine, but it is not in line with ordinary usage and I believe this distinction is what is being appealed to. I believe the distinctions between the usages of 'gender' and 'sex' are empirical, but whether the distinction should exist or not really comes down to your ethical disposition. Most people appeal to a 'moral' or 'natural' or 'supernatural' world order to justify their disposition.

Now it would be absurd to us to hear someone say pregnancy can be a "man's job," say if a trans-male got pregnant, but the understanding of biological facts doesn't seem to me to be what is in contention, but rather the new and unique (to us) usage of the word 'Man.' And the "can" in "can be a man's job" refers to a 'logical possibility,' not a physiological possibility.

 

[aTotal360]

You're proving my point about the semantics. Each side's interpretation of what gender means is vastly different. As for your argument about the use of cliches and similes, again it's all about personal interpretation. If I say you throw you like a girl, I think that means you throw like someone that was born with ovaries, not someone that identifies with someone that has ovaries.

 

[johnson86-1]

between standing up for science and being hardline anti trans rights.

I am guessing that he's not "hardline anti trans rights" and that you have been suckered/brainwashed into believing referring to trans people having additional privileges as being "trans rights". Just a guess, but I almost never hear anybody talking about trans rights that are not actually talking about additional privileges for trans people.

For example, for the most part, everybody has the same bathroom rights. You can either go into the bathroom for whatever sex you can pass as and nobody will say anything, or you can go into the bathroom that matches your genitalia. People arguing for trans "rights" aren't arguing for trans to have the same rights with respect to public bathrooms they have now (which are the same rights everybody in the population have). Nor are they arguing that sex distinctions be done away with for bathrooms (which would at least be logically consistent). They are arguing that non-trans people keep their same bathroom options, but that trans people have the right to go into whatever bathroom they feel like. If you're a man that believes he should be a woman, you are free to go into a woman's bathroom and not have to share a bathroom with men (unless there is another trans person in there). But if you're a woman that doesn't want to be share a bathroom with men, tough ****. While it's perfectly logical for men who believe they are women to not want to share a bathroom with men, it's bigoted for a woman who believes she is a woman to not want share a bathroom with men.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

You are combining gender and sex, thats where the confusion comes in.

Trans rights supporters are clear that gender is about social and cultural norms, where sex is physical parts. If you use terms in that manner, you're speaking the same language and you can have a much more clear conversation on the subject.

I don't know anyone who is trans, but they're not hurting anyone (and are much more likely to be hurt by someone else) so I figure why not show some compassion?

 

[JungRebel]

What would you say about a woman who "throws like a man?" Would that have anything to do with her sex organs? If you wanted to demonstrate 'throwing like a man' you wouldn't appeal to your penis. You would demonstrate a technique.

In general we are in agreement. The debate is about how to use language (semantics) and not about physiology.

Also, 'acting like a lady' or 'behaving like a gentleman' aren't just cliches. Those are ideals and whole ways of life that people are conditioned to learn and emulate.

 

[SignalToNoise]

People keep saying ESPN is getting bad because they're starting to get political, but that just isn't true.

ESPN started sucking the day they quit just doing Sportscenter and showing live games/replays and reruns of Worlds Strongest Man/American Gladiators (which was in the late 90s).

When they switched to this format of shows where two (or more) idiots start yelling and arguing back and forth, it completely ended for me (circa 2000).

Just look at their content. It's what I've stated in the above sentence all day long.

Just show me live games, highlights, and the occasional American Gladiators rerun!

This is a good point and in general I agree with it. I personally stopped watching a lot of ESPN in the past 5-7 years when it became more like E! for sports.

I don't think their push into the political realm is helping them any, though.

 

[patdog]

I don't know anyone who is trans, but they're not hurting anyone (and are much more likely to be hurt by someone else) so I figure why not show some compassion?

This. We've made a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Sign her **

 

[aTotal360]

Anything to do with THEIR organs? Hell no. If I were to tell someone (male or female), they "throw like a man", I mean they throw like someone that was born with a set of testicles. Secondly, I'm ONLY talking about the way they throw, not how they walk, talk, look or behave.

 

[JungRebel]

Anything to do with THEIR organs? Hell no. If I were to tell someone (male or female), they "throw like a man", I mean they throw like someone that was born with a set of testicles. Secondly, I'm ONLY talking about the way they throw, not how they walk, talk, look or behave.

If you wanted to demonstrate 'throwing like a man' you wouldn't appeal to your penis. And you wouldn't necessarily appeal to the next ******* with a penis who walks by either, because he might 'throw like a girl' and this would be a bad demonstration. If you wanted to teach someone to throw like a man you would, in the process, demonstrate a technique of how to hold, cock, and release balls. Reference to sexual organs would never, or would not necessarily need to, arise. (But admittedly it is sometimes fun to say "cock," "release," and "balls" in one sentence.)

"Throwing like a girl" is a throwing motion that has linguistically been given a gender, which is evident because it refers a verb (or a gerund or whatever--it refers to a particular throwing motion); and even though it is more rampant in physiological females instead of males (and one can make a nature and/or nurture case for this), one need not be biologically male or female to do it. This is an example of a common, ready at hand linguistic distinction between gender and biological sex. It is also a baseline case; we can build more complicated cases from it if we like ('acting like a lady', e.g. might consist in never throwing balls. Or waiting until marriage to have sex or something else equally absurd). Like I said, whether or not this distinction should exist is a matter of opinion and is rooted in a person's general tendencies as a thinker.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Why spend so much time and effort worrying about where someone else *****?

Keep your eyes to yourself while doing your business and this won't be an issue for you.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

It is admittedly confusing, and if I know any trans people they are good at it because I don't know that I know them! Regardless, mistreating anyone is wrong and trans have a difficult road in life regardless of how they came to be trans. The battle lines often get drawn, in my opinion, when it is just decided that we will accept any kind of self-prescribed need for physical change as "normal" enough that other people have to foot the bill. (e.g. insurance for covered operations or prisoners who decide to have sex-change operations using your tax dollars).

I mean practically speaking, it's a philosophical debate and talking point that creates often heated discussion because even considering the highlighted issues in my own statement, healthcare isn't spectacular with or without trans surgery and the government being an extremely poor steward of my tax dollars is expected. Mostly it serves as fodder for right/left wignuts to debate, argue over, drum up votes and mostly serve themselves anyway. If I sound like a cynical late middle aged guy there could be some truth in that...

 

[aTotal360]

When I say "you throw like a girl", I'm not assigning a gender to the thrower. I'm assigning it to an event (the poor throwing motion) regardless of the throwers sex or gender.

The only reason sex (and you'll say gender) is in the cliches is because girls typically throw with their elbow too low and too close to their body. If I say you smell like ****, it's because you smell like **** typically smells. Same difference. Now some similes are more metaphorical (you throw like ****). But that's a different discussion.

I agree that "act like a lady" is a vastly different conversation.

Again, you're arguing interpretation. Here's what most people fail to ever do in life. They fail to understand others' point of view. And by understand, I don't mean accept. I will probably never separate sex from gender. To me, they are always intertwined. If you want to believe otherwise, good for you. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[DAWG61]

I do not let my sports mix with politics, so it really get's my blood boiling when they force it in either direction. The only thing I use ESPN for is to watch games. They are dead to me and have been for a long long time.

This is what everyone is not getting about why ESPN is doing this. It's been said multiple times in this thread too. We all are going to still watch the games no matter how political they get during the day (except regular season baseball which ESPN is absolutely awful at). I hate ESPN but I will always watch the games and everyone in this thread and around the country is the same way so they go after the people that love drama during the day. There's way too many other great options to watch/listen to when games aren't on. Take a break from ESPN during those times.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Underlying fears of sexual assault/abuse that are unfortunately sometimes proven correct are typically the culprit. Women are generally, not always, less physically dominant than males and therefore feel somewhat leery of being in an intimate space with an unknown male. Independent of gender discussion there are some true monsters among us and giving them this shroud to use is simply more untenable for most than simply asking people to go pee according to their born sex. It's a security concern that has the non-monsters up in arms at the "accusation" while having the real monsters salivating at the opportunity.

Real trans have been using whatever restroom they identify with for years without repercussions unless they enter the women's and actually look like a man. Had this happen recently in a local restaurant to my wife and it didn't sit well with her being in a confined space with someone who was doing a terrible job at trying to be a woman. It was unshaven legs, bad makeup, size 14 heels, man hair hanging out from under the wig bad.

I would now like to retract my original response now to retroactively kill this rabbit trail...

 

[JungRebel]

There's a very difficult problem of a how a generalization based on a legitimate observation (girls typically throw with their elbow too low etc.) becomes a norm of description (x throws like a girl). There is also the problem of the exception to the rule even though the rule has proven to be pretty reliable.

I think my example was bad, I tried to keep it too simple. When we get into the more complicated case of 'acting like a lady' we can see how someone might want to rebel against what they've been raised to be (it's much harder to imagine this in the throwing like a girl example). And whether it is rebellion or curiosity or whatever that leads a girl to want to 'act like a man,' she need not want to have a penis or change her physiology past the superficial stuff (hair, nails, etc.). It is in this way, I think, that the distinction is made between sex and gender; but it is also the case that many transexuals want to change their physiology too (I don't agree with the usage of 'sex reassignment surgery,' I believe that is a misnomer), and while it could be said that this makes gender 'more than just behavior,' the other side could argue that this is just a way for their behavior to be taken seriously. Both sides are interesting arguments.

I'm not arguing the other side, just trying to clarify it. Thanks for clarifying your point of view.

 

[aTotal360]

Since the bathroom situation has been brought up...

Sight tight because this is pretty specific, but hopefully I can explain it well enough. My ONLY issue is that I don't want a "man" sharing the bathroom with my 6 year old girl when she is not under the watch of either me or her mom. Ex/ By myself I take my little girl to the mall and she needs to go to the bathroom. I got 2 choices. 1) shuffle her into the men's room under my watchful eye or 2) send her off alone into the women's restroom and hope for the best. I typically do #2 and it makes me a nervous wreck. And it's not because I have some sort of "trannyphobia". I simply don't like her being out of my sight, especially in a scenario where people are pulling their pants down.

A bathroom at bar...anything goes. If the situation only includes adults, I'm fine with a unisex bathroom that's inclusive to EVERYONE. But as a parent, the kids issue throw a wrench into it for me.

 

[Shamoan]

damn....this convo breakdown would have been a must-read in the sixpack magazine.

 

[johnson86-1]

Keep your eyes to yourself while doing your business and this won't be an issue for you.

I agree. I don't get why transexuals are making a big deal out of this. The existing arrangement, where you go into the bathroom of the sex you can pass for or the bathroom that matches your genitalia seemed completely adequate to me, and I don't get why they are pushing for laws to change it.

But aside from that, they cannot support their position by any logically consistent argument.

If it's not a big deal to share a bathroom with people of the opposite sex, pro-transexuals (or whatever you want to call proponents of ending current bathroom arrangements) are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If it is a big deal to share a bathroom with people of the opposite sex, then transexuals shouldn't be pushing for legislation forcing the 99%+ of the population that is not trans to share bathrooms with the opposite sex. The best they could logically push for would be to require public facilities to offer single bathrooms rather than restrooms with multiple toilets.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

I've heard that concern, but think about the flip side.

Look at the laws red states are trying to pass - that you must use the restroom that matches the sex on your birth certificate. Now, think about how that works for trans men and trans women that look very, very much like the gender they claim. You'll have trans men - often with beards and all after hormone therapy - forced to use that restroom your daughter uses. You don't think that will freak her out? You'll have trans women - full makeup, implants and all - forced to use the mens room. That opens them up to a lot of potential violent encounters.

 

[aTotal360]

I'm more worried about (my) kids wellbeing than I am transexuals' wellbeing. Not saying I don't care about the trans community, I'm just telling you my priority. IMO, children are more vulnerable than any form of adult.

Secondly, I'm not following your red state law. How will you have men in the women's bathroom if you base things of your birth certificate?

Full disclosure...I'm not even sure what "trans men" means. Is that dude dressed like a woman or a woman dressed like a dude?

 

[KurtRambis4]

What is a "trans man?"

Is that a man that acts like a woman, or a woman that acts like a man?