Mark Cuban: "If I see a Black Kid with a Hoody and it's late at night, I'm Crossin the Street..."
Options
Comments
-
mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »Real ? , I ain't even mad at him. The realist ? he mentioned was that fact that EVERYBODY is bigoted and/prejudiced in some way. The only difference is that some of us are maliciously so and some of us aren't. Pretty clear which one Sterling is. Not really sure about Cuban though.
Bomani Jones had a great little debate with him on twitter this morning ..... essentially what he said was that using this whole "everybody has flaws" ? is a copout .... ? dont put your flaws on me ... own your ? by urslef
Of course it's a copout. And of course he's defending Sterling. But that doesn't change that his statement is accurate. W
there is no accuracy to the statement ... there is no way for you to legitimize that comment ....so ...lets stop
Just like the is no way to legitimize the opposite opinion. Doesn't mean it's not accurate.
so basically you have no legitimacy to your claim and you're just talking to talk at this point
....got ya
Its a discussion board, B. I'm discussing *shrug*
There's no way to prove my statement or a contrary statement.
you sound silly ... i can prove ..historically ... empirically ... that in this country people of the dominant society have not only overwhelmingly held bigoted,prejudice views towards others on a personal level but also in practice and in policy ... you cannot do that the other way around ... you have 0 ability to substantiate your claim in that way ... so no ...my comment and your comment are not on the same level.... and yes your comment is based on nothing ...
You really should at least to to pay attention. I said on page one that everyone has bigotry and/or prejudice.
At this point, we're just talking in circles. So you win, B.
can you not read ? ?
i said everybody IS NOT a bigot or prejudice
i said prove your claim that "everyone is" .... which clearly you cannot do
then you started blabbering about how ... "well you cant prove everybody ISNT a bigot either ...sooooooo really there's no way to prove it on either side" smh
bruh ...go take a nap ... your hurting your head
As of now, you haven't proved your opinion. I haven't proved mine. Cuz neither can be proved. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. But again, you got it, B.
white people being overwhelmingly bigoted in this country can certainly be proven ... i can specifically say this group of people have a history of being bigoted as opposed to this other group of people ...i can say there is no proof no evidence that other groups of people have held this kind of bigotry... that would substantiate my claim... that would nullify yours ...
if you cant do the same in any way form or fashion then you should reserve your overarching proclamations ....as they make you look silly
this is really not tuff stuff here bruh ... i mean honestly -
ThirdEyeFive wrote: »A Talented One wrote: »
First off, just because someone engages in racial profiling doesn't mean that he or she is a racist.
? dead at this ? ... All i see is Morgan Freeman
and phrase starting with Everyone is ...or everyone does..
makes the author of those statements feel a little better about their own ? .....
there is levels to it.. and alot of people dont know the difference between.. stereotyping,racism and bigotry
While racism is an interchangeable term in some respects.. at the core.. people just dont know.. -
JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »Real ? , I ain't even mad at him. The realist ? he mentioned was that fact that EVERYBODY is bigoted and/prejudiced in some way. The only difference is that some of us are maliciously so and some of us aren't. Pretty clear which one Sterling is. Not really sure about Cuban though.
Bomani Jones had a great little debate with him on twitter this morning ..... essentially what he said was that using this whole "everybody has flaws" ? is a copout .... ? dont put your flaws on me ... own your ? by urslef
Of course it's a copout. And of course he's defending Sterling. But that doesn't change that his statement is accurate. W
there is no accuracy to the statement ... there is no way for you to legitimize that comment ....so ...lets stop
Just like the is no way to legitimize the opposite opinion. Doesn't mean it's not accurate.
so basically you have no legitimacy to your claim and you're just talking to talk at this point
....got ya
Its a discussion board, B. I'm discussing *shrug*
There's no way to prove my statement or a contrary statement.
you sound silly ... i can prove ..historically ... empirically ... that in this country people of the dominant society have not only overwhelmingly held bigoted,prejudice views towards others on a personal level but also in practice and in policy ... you cannot do that the other way around ... you have 0 ability to substantiate your claim in that way ... so no ...my comment and your comment are not on the same level.... and yes your comment is based on nothing ...
You really should at least to to pay attention. I said on page one that everyone has bigotry and/or prejudice.
At this point, we're just talking in circles. So you win, B.
can you not read ? ?
i said everybody IS NOT a bigot or prejudice
i said prove your claim that "everyone is" .... which clearly you cannot do
then you started blabbering about how ... "well you cant prove everybody ISNT a bigot either ...sooooooo really there's no way to prove it on either side" smh
bruh ...go take a nap ... your hurting your head
As of now, you haven't proved your opinion. I haven't proved mine. Cuz neither can be proved. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. But again, you got it, B.
white people being overwhelmingly bigoted in this country can certainly be proven ... i can specifically say this group of people have a history of being bigoted as opposed to this other group of people ...i can say there is no proof no evidence that other groups of people have held this kind of bigotry... that would substantiate my claim... that would nullify yours ...
if you cant do the same in any way form or fashion then you should reserve your overarching proclamations ....as they make you look silly
this is really not tuff stuff here bruh ... i mean honestly
You're right, it's not tough stuff. That's why I'm amazed you don't get it. -
Still rocking my hoodie with no ? given. I got use to folks being afraid or intimidated by me.
Nothing short of skinny jeans, a pink shirt, and no bass in my voice is gonna make them comfortable. -
5th Letter wrote: »I'm not mad at him that's how most crackas think. They see a black kid with a hoody on they're gonna assume they're up to no good. At least he has the ? to be say it in public.
ok, but we're professionals though.....people think they can just recklessly speak their minds with no consequence.....
if someone just came out at work and said
"i'd cross the street if i saw a black person in a hoodie at night"
i'd give them the [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cgB_BSb83_k/URlzsKFVQZI/AAAAAAAAApg/y2POfDMhpEY/s320/Da+? .jpg[/img]
"naw man..u gonna have to explain that one to me...what you trying to say??"
even if i know what time it is....if you ballsy enough to open your mouth and say some ? like that..you needa be put on the spot and fully explain yourself...and you needa be prepared for whatever backlash that statement brings with it...
my problem isn't the statement itself... it's the absurdness that he's above catching heat for it
I understand your point. But whites projecting their fear of young black men isn't groundbreaking news. They all think that way. You know it and I know it. It's in their DNA to naturally think the worse if they see young black men in hoodies. He's saying what they all think. Now what backlash should Cuban receive for those comments? -
mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »Real ? , I ain't even mad at him. The realist ? he mentioned was that fact that EVERYBODY is bigoted and/prejudiced in some way. The only difference is that some of us are maliciously so and some of us aren't. Pretty clear which one Sterling is. Not really sure about Cuban though.
Bomani Jones had a great little debate with him on twitter this morning ..... essentially what he said was that using this whole "everybody has flaws" ? is a copout .... ? dont put your flaws on me ... own your ? by urslef
Of course it's a copout. And of course he's defending Sterling. But that doesn't change that his statement is accurate. W
there is no accuracy to the statement ... there is no way for you to legitimize that comment ....so ...lets stop
Just like the is no way to legitimize the opposite opinion. Doesn't mean it's not accurate.
so basically you have no legitimacy to your claim and you're just talking to talk at this point
....got ya
Its a discussion board, B. I'm discussing *shrug*
There's no way to prove my statement or a contrary statement.
you sound silly ... i can prove ..historically ... empirically ... that in this country people of the dominant society have not only overwhelmingly held bigoted,prejudice views towards others on a personal level but also in practice and in policy ... you cannot do that the other way around ... you have 0 ability to substantiate your claim in that way ... so no ...my comment and your comment are not on the same level.... and yes your comment is based on nothing ...
You really should at least to to pay attention. I said on page one that everyone has bigotry and/or prejudice.
At this point, we're just talking in circles. So you win, B.
can you not read ? ?
i said everybody IS NOT a bigot or prejudice
i said prove your claim that "everyone is" .... which clearly you cannot do
then you started blabbering about how ... "well you cant prove everybody ISNT a bigot either ...sooooooo really there's no way to prove it on either side" smh
bruh ...go take a nap ... your hurting your head
As of now, you haven't proved your opinion. I haven't proved mine. Cuz neither can be proved. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. But again, you got it, B.
white people being overwhelmingly bigoted in this country can certainly be proven ... i can specifically say this group of people have a history of being bigoted as opposed to this other group of people ...i can say there is no proof no evidence that other groups of people have held this kind of bigotry... that would substantiate my claim... that would nullify yours ...
if you cant do the same in any way form or fashion then you should reserve your overarching proclamations ....as they make you look silly
this is really not tuff stuff here bruh ... i mean honestly
You're right, it's not tough stuff. That's why I'm amazed you don't get it.
you have unfortunately provided nothing to "get"
what you are saying is akin to me coming into this thread and proclaiming "all ya'll ? some thugs" "all yall ? some criminals"
then when asked to explain the evidence behind my position i state welllll .... "prove im wrong"
lol
its really some juvenile style of argumentation ... the fact of the matter is that what you said was silly and unfounded ... im glad you can own the fact that you have no way to substantiate your claim in the way i can but why you continue to so vigorously defend a statement you yourself admittedly cant provide backing for is mystifying. -
Billy_Poncho wrote: »Lmao @ a bald headed, a tatted up white guy being the threat-equivalent to a regular ole black guy. Nah but there ain't a problem wit thisThose of us that understand what he is trying to convey are still stumped at the question: why is he saying this?
Coming off the heels of the Sterling controversy it looks as if he is excusing or indirectly asking for a pardon for Sterling because "others" have prejudices as well.
Then there is the most perturbing portion of the Sterling issue, where Sterling mentions that he comes from a "culture" and that certain people and ideas are welcome and fraternizing with Blacks is frowned upon.
So it seems to me as if Cuban is attempting to normalize the ideas of this "culture", in which case he is at least attempting to excuse, at worst admitting to being in Sterling's "culture" of wealthy racists.
The most underrated posts in this thread. These dudes nailed it.
My immediate reaction to Cuban isn't near what it was to Sterling since technically he's stating an observation that is correct - every human on this planet is conditioned by our environment to harbor some form of bias/prejudice. Although it's important to note, due to the power dynamics in a society, some social groups' bias/prejudice are inherently worse than others.
Moreover, it's obvious there's a reason Cuban decided to state this at this particular time. The underlying subtext of his statement and how he equates his notion of a 'normal' black with a white who he obviously perceives as a deviant from his notion of a 'normal' white, is problematic and it normalizes a white supremacist line of thinking that perpetuates the criminalization of blacks.
The media should press him and ask: Why did he have to add an unnecessary racial component to the self-evident truth that everyone has some form of bias? Why did he decide to release this statement after the Donald Sterling saga? And where are is he going with this, is this a passive, indirect way of publicly sympathizing with/supporting Donald Sterling? -
I expect your ? to not understand what I'm saying. Wise maphukas will understand my viewpoint. Real maphukas who aren't lying to themselves will understand this. I expect you to not...just the same as I would expect Mark Cuban to say these things.
I feel what you saying. It's all about perspective and what a person is accustomed to, not neccesarily rationalizing it but looking at it for what it is. -
A Talented One wrote: »Man, though I've posted a couple times already, I've held back from really breaking down because the IC is becoming more intolerant of different opinions, not to mention common sense.
First off, just because someone engages in racial profiling doesn't mean that he or she is a racist. If that were true, then a lot of black women are racist too. It could just mean that they perceive a higher risk to themselves in the situation and think that it would be prudent to take anticipatory action. (And just because racial profiling in a particular case isn't racist, doesn't mean that it is not wrong.)
Second, do you -- I mean you yourself -- think it would be justified, in certain situations, to be a little more cautious when around strange young black men dressed a certain way, as opposed to young white men? (Let me say that, no, that doesn't mean following them around, before some idiot says that I'm justifying what GZ did.) Forget, for a moment, about whether it would be rational to do that; all I am asking if whether it would be justified to be a little more cautious. If your answer is yes, that's because you recognize that young black men and young white men, at least in many places, aren't equally likely to rob you. That narrows the distance between you and Cuban, and you should be little more understanding of where he is coming from.
What dude said is nowhere near the ballpark of what Sterling said, though I disagree with him and think they should force Sterling to sell.
As I expected, people are flagging this without even attempting to explain how I am wrong.
What I am wrong about? That racial profiling need not be racist? That young black men and young white men are not equally likely to rob, and that because of that it might be justified to be a little bit more cautious around young black men in certain situations? -
Randall Kennedy argued that racial profiling is not necessarily racist but may still be wrong nearly 15 years ago.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/suspect-policy -
Depends on what your definition of 'racist' is. That's a word that people like to make up their own definition of. So what's that word mean to you?A Talented One wrote: »A Talented One wrote: »Man, though I've posted a couple times already, I've held back from really breaking down because the IC is becoming more intolerant of different opinions, not to mention common sense.
First off, just because someone engages in racial profiling doesn't mean that he or she is a racist. If that were true, then a lot of black women are racist too. It could just mean that they perceive a higher risk to themselves in the situation and think that it would be prudent to take anticipatory action. (And just because racial profiling in a particular case isn't racist, doesn't mean that it is not wrong.)
Second, do you -- I mean you yourself -- think it would be justified, in certain situations, to be a little more cautious when around strange young black men dressed a certain way, as opposed to young white men? (Let me say that, no, that doesn't mean following them around, before some idiot says that I'm justifying what GZ did.) Forget, for a moment, about whether it would be rational to do that; all I am asking if whether it would be justified to be a little more cautious. If your answer is yes, that's because you recognize that young black men and young white men, at least in many places, aren't equally likely to rob you. That narrows the distance between you and Cuban, and you should be little more understanding of where he is coming from.
What dude said is nowhere near the ballpark of what Sterling said, though I disagree with him and think they should force Sterling to sell.
As I expected, people are flagging this without even attempting to explain how I am wrong.
What I am wrong about? That racial profiling need not be racist? That young black men and young white men are not equally likely to rob, and that because of that it might be justified to be a little bit more cautious around young black men in certain situations?
-
So Cuban should lose his team as well, right? What he said in public, meant for the public was worse than what Sterling said given the circumstances IMO. WTF does a hoody have to do with anything? Most college students wear hoodys. Cuban basically just said, "if I see a black person at night, I'll cross the street" and every smart person that can't have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily knows this.
.... With the league being 80% black, he needs to AT LEAST face a fine for those shady comments. There was nothing good that could come out of that statement, and if the NBA is a no nonsense league when it comes to racial comments, they need to act accordingly. -
Let me also say this. I would support monetary compensation to young black men who are likely to be profiled. It would help improve the position of young black men, and more importantly it would send a message that we as a society recognize that they are caught not only in a situation that they did not create, but that the society created through its racist actions going back far in time.
-
mryounggun wrote: »Depends on what your definition of 'racist' is. That's a word that people like to make up their own definition of. So what's that word mean to you?A Talented One wrote: »A Talented One wrote: »Man, though I've posted a couple times already, I've held back from really breaking down because the IC is becoming more intolerant of different opinions, not to mention common sense.
First off, just because someone engages in racial profiling doesn't mean that he or she is a racist. If that were true, then a lot of black women are racist too. It could just mean that they perceive a higher risk to themselves in the situation and think that it would be prudent to take anticipatory action. (And just because racial profiling in a particular case isn't racist, doesn't mean that it is not wrong.)
Second, do you -- I mean you yourself -- think it would be justified, in certain situations, to be a little more cautious when around strange young black men dressed a certain way, as opposed to young white men? (Let me say that, no, that doesn't mean following them around, before some idiot says that I'm justifying what GZ did.) Forget, for a moment, about whether it would be rational to do that; all I am asking if whether it would be justified to be a little more cautious. If your answer is yes, that's because you recognize that young black men and young white men, at least in many places, aren't equally likely to rob you. That narrows the distance between you and Cuban, and you should be little more understanding of where he is coming from.
What dude said is nowhere near the ballpark of what Sterling said, though I disagree with him and think they should force Sterling to sell.
As I expected, people are flagging this without even attempting to explain how I am wrong.
What I am wrong about? That racial profiling need not be racist? That young black men and young white men are not equally likely to rob, and that because of that it might be justified to be a little bit more cautious around young black men in certain situations?
Hatred based on race or a belief in racial superiority. -
A Talented One wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »Depends on what your definition of 'racist' is. That's a word that people like to make up their own definition of. So what's that word mean to you?A Talented One wrote: »A Talented One wrote: »Man, though I've posted a couple times already, I've held back from really breaking down because the IC is becoming more intolerant of different opinions, not to mention common sense.
First off, just because someone engages in racial profiling doesn't mean that he or she is a racist. If that were true, then a lot of black women are racist too. It could just mean that they perceive a higher risk to themselves in the situation and think that it would be prudent to take anticipatory action. (And just because racial profiling in a particular case isn't racist, doesn't mean that it is not wrong.)
Second, do you -- I mean you yourself -- think it would be justified, in certain situations, to be a little more cautious when around strange young black men dressed a certain way, as opposed to young white men? (Let me say that, no, that doesn't mean following them around, before some idiot says that I'm justifying what GZ did.) Forget, for a moment, about whether it would be rational to do that; all I am asking if whether it would be justified to be a little more cautious. If your answer is yes, that's because you recognize that young black men and young white men, at least in many places, aren't equally likely to rob you. That narrows the distance between you and Cuban, and you should be little more understanding of where he is coming from.
What dude said is nowhere near the ballpark of what Sterling said, though I disagree with him and think they should force Sterling to sell.
As I expected, people are flagging this without even attempting to explain how I am wrong.
What I am wrong about? That racial profiling need not be racist? That young black men and young white men are not equally likely to rob, and that because of that it might be justified to be a little bit more cautious around young black men in certain situations?
Hatred based on race or a belief in racial superiority.
If we're using that definition, I'd say that you're right. It doesn't mean that the person is racist, but depending on the type of racial profiling being done, I'd say it's a pretty good clue that the person is racist when you consider the actual definition of racist. -
Oh and for all of you paranoid individuals, y'all have been programmed to fear any and everybody by the government or you were just raised to be ? -made. I don't cross the street for ANYONE, nor am I scared of ANYONE on ANY level.
I don't care what you look like, what you're wearing etc. When it comes to being victimized, the predators KNOW who to try that ? with. Stop letting the media mold your mind into thinking everyone is out to get you, especially your own people. -
NothingButTheTruth wrote: »So Cuban should lose his team as well, right? What he said in public, meant for the public was worse than what Sterling said given the circumstances IMO. WTF does a hoody have to do with anything? Most college students wear hoodys. Cuban basically just said, "if I see a black person at night, I'll cross the street" and every smart person that can't have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily knows this.
.... With the league being 80% black, he needs to AT LEAST face a fine for those shady comments. There was nothing good that could come out of that statement, and if the NBA is a no nonsense league when it comes to racial comments, they need to act accordingly.
I wouldn't say there is nothing good that can come out of those comments. If nothing else, the nation is talking about race again. People are having conversations with their friends about it. I'm quite sure some friendships between white and black people will become more clear after today. Lol.
But I fail to see how what Cuban said is worse than what Sterling said. Especially given EVERYTHING that Sterling said, if you take his interview into account.
Speak on it... -
mryounggun wrote: »I wouldn't say there is nothing good that can come out of those comments. If nothing else, the nation is talking about race again. People are having conversations with their friends about it. I'm quite sure some friendships between white and black people will become more clear after today. Lol.
But I fail to see how what Cuban said is worse than what Sterling said. Especially given EVERYTHING that Sterling said, if you take his interview into account.
Speak on it...
What Cuban said was worse because he was publicly trying to come off as a voice of reason, when he was on the same wavelength as Sterling. Especially since he said this ? so quickly after the Sterling fiasco and used the Trayvon Martin example.
Cuban KNEW exactly what he was doing, and delivered it well enough to get the 'house ? ' to jump on his side. To me, it came from an arrogant place where he thinks he can talk about it or he can say 'it', because he's cool with "the blacks." It was a chess move that should be disciplined on the same level as the Sterling fiasco IMO. -
black people are the dumbest pieces of ? the world has ever seen, i hope we can at least blame yalls backwards ass mindsets on slavery
-
black people are the dumbest pieces of ? the world has ever seen, i hope we can at least blame yalls backwards ass mindsets on slavery
Why is that, get into details bruh?
-
C/satribecalledgabi wrote: »Didn't read the thread so this probly has been said already...but the problem I have with his statement is that between the two scenarios, you can attach a connotation to the white, bald, tatted up dude...that image would invoke a hell's angel or ? nation or some ? like that. You may be wrong in your assumption of the person, but you have a reason to think that.
A black kid in a hoodie carries no association. Everyone wears hoodies... Just being black is what carries the negative connotation.
Plus it sounded like he just threw the white dude in there to have the built in explanation like he's prejudiced against everyone.
If every black person stops wearing hoodys today, theyll find something different. White tee, jeans, hair styles. Etc.
word ? had perms and 10 piece tuxedos shinin shoes and ? but they still hated us -
http://videos.inc.com/index.php/extwidget/openGraph/wid/1_su6j05vo
There's a link to the interview where you can hear everything he says. It's a little more detailed, but still no less ? up. -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »why are billionaires walking down streets late at night tho??
he been actin funny as ? ever since this ? wit Sterling hit the fan..
? probably best friends wit dude and share the same sentiments..
but this goes to what i was saying in that thread.. all them cats are on the same page.. Sterling jus got caught..
Sterling and Cuban are Jews so he's been obligated to ride with his brethren but at the same time, try not dig a hole his own damn self. -
What kind of grown man is afraid of a child?
-
So what happens if two ? with hoodies on is on both sides of the streets?
