Well, that's a nice thought. Yet (since the topic is professional sport) we don't hear "thug" thrown around in response to the more frequent fights that occur during hockey matches (sometimes before the match even starts) or once a "bench-clearing basebrawl" gets the crowd going. How often are baseball managers called thugs after a heated saliva-riddled shouting match with an umpire? I can't remember reading any "thug" headlines when a Nascar driver starts a fist fight with another racing participant... and here we are, accusing a 4.2 GPA Stanford graduate of being a thug because he called a wide receiver average at best. Richard Sherman is correct in his observations, even if they don't dismiss his behavior.
A whole lot of denial in that post. "Thug" is very heavily used in hockey. Always has been. You know... because all those blacks who are playing. ffs
60+ black men on that field, but because one of them was called a "thug" for swearing and threatening someone on camera... we're all racists. I guess praising the 59+ others is just more evidence of that racism. The rationale of you perpetual victims should be embarrassing.
The video I saw on the news had bleeped language and he said something about punching someone in the face, or similar. As far as "precisely", I have no interest in Googling videos to give you a timestamp. He was acting thuggish, 60 other black people weren't, but because that one was called out, people are labeled racist. The only thing that's been more overused than the race card is an 80 year old hooker.
Richard Sherman went crazy and was acting as if he was offended and mad about it. I wouldn't say he was being a thug, but he was definitely overreacting and his rant seemed threatening if you didn't know what was going on. Its not unreasonable that it made people feel uncomfortable. I don't think his skin tone had anything to do with it. His screaching and seemingly uncontrollable demeanor did. Justin Bieber has exactly zero to do with it. Strange that YOU feel necessary to contrast the two.
Not at all. Not sure where you are from but these people are considered thugs: https://www.google.com/search?clien..._nYG4DA&ved=0CDUQ1QIoAA&dpr=2&biw=320&bih=356 When you image search "thugs" you get a million pictures of bone thugs and harmony.
You are wrong. In what way was he acting thuggish? He didn't threaten violence or criminal acts towards anyone. - - - Updated - - - Al I take from this is that black men aren't allowed to be passionate. He committed no criminal acts, has no criminal history, is highly educated, and is a model citizen off the field. Please excuse me for calling you a racist.
If you notice, all the conservatives here are of the opinion that it is not racist. Yet, these are the same conservatives that use descriptors such as "obama voters", "yutes", and the infamous "thugvon" to describe black people. I think it's safe to say when they use the word "thug", anybody with more than a week's time here on PF, knows EXACTLY what/who they are referring to....
I have heard the word chocolate being used in racial terms too, doubt were not gonna get the words banned, nor should we I prefer white trash and black trash myself when referring to the trash of each race as for the n-word, I would prefer no one of any race use it... . .
Redirecting back to whites... 5 yd. penalty. Anyway, this is cute: And more people for you guys to condemn. [video=youtube;U6kRB1_nGqM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6kRB1_nGqM#t=26[/video]
Where the hell did I say anyone couldn't act passionately? Dude went berserk. He was not merely being passionate he made an absolute spectacle of himself. Like I said, I wouldn't have said he was acting thugishly, but he was being a bit of a loud mouthed punk. My assessment is absolutely not flesh tone related, and I also reject the notion that anyone that took his over the top display as being "thugish" took it that way because of his behavior not his skin tone. Calling me racist is about as absurd as it gets. I have close friends of all racial backgrounds as well as several mixed family members whom I love very much. The idea that I can't criticize Richard Sherman's actions because of his race, which is YOUR position, is in fact racist, along with being absurd and detrimental to the cause of fighting actual racism towards minorities. That you felt compelled to excuse yourself for calling me a racist while in the middle of doing so is a prime indication that you were at least mildly uncomfortable doing so. I never said Sherman committed any crimes nor did I suggest he had any criminal history. I even, earlier in this thread sited that according to KRS1 Sherman is the exact opposite of a thug, as well as the fact that the Geto Boys' Scarface disqaulifies him from being a real "ganagsta-ass (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)". I suppose that is racist of me, too, for knowing of and appreciating the irony presented by such artists indirectly but apropos of the topic. You, sir, are looking for racism in any way shape or form. Perhaps you should look for reality and truth instead.
What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about? I'm not a conservative, I have never used the terms "Obama voters", "yutes", or "thugavon" (is that a typo?) to refer to black people. If I were looking to make a comment specifically about black people, which I suspect would be rare since I try not to generalize (conservatives), I would likely express that I was talking about "black people". Why are you so hell bent determined to focus on divisions over such nonsense as a racially neutral term as "thug"?
Then I suggest paying more attention to the threads that conservatives start, especially the "black crime" threads, for everything I've said were posts from conservatives. If you had read the post by Parady before it was deleted, then you would have seen proof of what I was speaking of.
You realize that I was being called a racist in the post you quoted to apparently generalize me in with whoever the hell you're talking about, right? Perhaps YOU should read what it is you are responding to before you go around trying to shove everyone into to non-existing factions that are creations of the media designed to help us pick sides in a false dichotomy.
You basically just implied it yet again in your post. He was fired up from the game, he expressed it. He broke no rules, threatened no one, committed no criminal acts, has no criminal record, and is a model citizen. Loud mouth punks threaten people. He threatened no one. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah typical conservative response. So, Richie Icognito was a loud mouth punk, too right? Unlike Sherman, he had more colorful (derogatory) words for other football players. Sherman's rant wasn't anywhere in the same league as far as taste. I don't have to look for racism when it stares me in the face.
In the video I saw, I just watched it again, and I think I mistook his words for the guy he was mouthing off to. I take that part back.
If it is so racially neutral, why is an articulate black man with no criminal record, a college degree, and a history of good behavior off the field being labeled a "thug" for displaying emotion on the football field?
