Is What Dan Issel said really that offensive?

<B>But crap itself is pejorative. </B>

How so? If you really want to get technical about this, crap is simply a noun (or verb, as used below) with no real negative or positive meaning. The meaning we associate with it is based on the context it is in.

If I say "I crapped in my pants", that is not a negative usage of the word. If I say, "that dog took a dump and released some crap", that is not a negative usage of the word. If I say "You're a piece of crap," it probably is.

Similarly, if I say "You're a Mexican," it's not offensive. If I say "You're a f#@!ing Mexican," it is generally offensive, and almost always so when used in the form that Dan Issel used it (except in the case of friends where the insult is "understood" as others have described in this thread). By mixing the context with race, it becomes racist. That's not to say that Dan Issel is racist, just that he made a racist comment.

 

Incorrect.

The different meanings of "crap" are nearly universally recognized in our society. If I said I took a "crap" it just means I produced excrement. If I say you look like "crap," then I'm slandering someone. Even if you remove the pejorative connotations from it, as a society, we have a common sense of aesthetics to the point where it's still an insult. Perhaps there are a few bizarre crap fetishists out there, but I can't think of anyone else who'd want to look that way.

Mexican, on the other hand, could still be an identifier. But I don't see why we're disagreeing. You yourself used the words "generall" and "almost" in your post. I'll agree with that.

I think there's a very strong chance that it was a racist comment. But I'm not completely certain that he couldntve just been using Mexican as an identifier.

I don't see how it's possible to rule that out. Even if that was the case, I'll even concede it was insensitive. But I still think there's a distinction between racist and insensitive.

 

It's easy. There is absolutely no possible way for you to use the phrase "****ing Mexican" and have Mexican be a neutral identifier, given the circumstances here (white coach yelling back at a Hispanic heckler). Zero. Nada. What was it identifying, given the fact that it was obvious which fan he was addressing without the use of the word?

I challenge you to use the phrase "You ****ing Mexican" in a sentence, with the word Mexican being a mere neutral identifier. IMO, it cannot be done, and that is proof that Issel couldn't have done it either.

 

Well the next time I yell **** at a player,coach, etc, and they respond with something unpleasant (which I do not know the meaning of that), even if it is "white &^&*" I would probably smile and laugh.

Number one issue that everyone has overlooked is this was an exchange of words. Whatever this guy said must have been pretty damn offensive for him to have stopped, then respond in that manner.

Personally I am making no excuses for either of them. And I certainly do not feel Issel and other whites should be held to a higher standard than other minorities. If you do, then your ultimatimately the racist.

Unfortunate for Issel, he could not have cursed out a white guy. This would have blown over, becuase no one including everyone on this board would not have given a damn. How do you explain that? I say the answer lies with how secure you are with yourself.

 

Let's decide this in the World Cup.

 

Amen.

This should be the end of this thread.

 

I am totally down with respecting others. But to say that minorities are powerless, or that their rhetoric is less powerful is misguided and probably racist.

 

I Apologize in advance for both the late arrival and long post:

-------------------------

:raise hand:

What if they called you a F***ing Nazi, or F***ing Kraut? Or what if if was a French dude saying it to you?

The word "Mexican" has been used by some as a derogatory comment in itself. It covers a lot of stereotypes with it.

If someone asked you a question as to who punched you and you replied, "That f***ing Mexican guy." And, you were using it as an identifier, because there were many guys in a line up of differing ethnicities, and you only meant it as an identifier, then I'd have no problem with it.
In that context the word is an adjective. If you used it as a noun, then the chance for bigotry is much more likely.

But, if someone asked you the same question, and you replied, "The f***ing Mexicans", I'd be more inclined to think the word was being used less for an identifier and more for a derogatory label.

I am... if the F-word is a verb and not an adjective.

You must've thought about this post about as much as you thought about your screen name.

The guy isn't being "fragile", but he wants to make sure someone in a public position, such as Issel's, doesn't get to go around making "heated" racial slurs. If the two guys were in a bar, it would've been settled outside, not in a courtroom (or where ever).

Did she say, "Midget piece of sh*t" or "F***ing Midget"? If so, then I'm glad she is gone. If not, well, then I'd like to know more, but if it was truly a case of not knowing, then she should've maybe been repremanded or something. I don't know if I'd support Issel being fired over this one incidenct either. But, if he has a Knight-like pattern, then hell yeah.

Apology accepted.

I agree, somewhat. I do think slurs aimed at people in the majority, are almost as bad as vice versa. I think the difference is negligable, but there none the less.

I disagree. I think people are offended by racial slurs, because of what comes with them. They aren't made because someone told them that word was bad, but because the person saying the slur has decided to say something derogatory about them and their race, regardless of what that word is. This is why the term "Canadian" is just as offensive as "n*gger" to me. It's not the word, but the meaning.

Agree, but one guy was a regular schmoe, and one was a representative of the National Basketball Association, a large and very public organization.

I'd like to know (just because I like to know). But, there still is a difference. One guy was just out at a game, and the other guy was at work!

And that's why Issel must be repremanded. But, it's not up to me to decide the punishment. I still say, it's probably not worth firing him, dependent on his past record.

I know a guy at work who has been there for years. He knows the cooks pretty well, and gets along with them. One day he asked one of them to do something, but he didn't (don't know why), and the guy (jokingly) called him a "lazy Mexican".

Umm, to put it nicely, the cook was pissed, and he wasn't Mexican. He was El Salvadorian. The guy apologized, and explained that he was only kidding, but what it does is make other people think they can say similar things, and they can't.

Not necessarily. It depends on how a person uses it.

Okay, this argument again. I will conceded that he may or may not be a "racist" in the most extreme meaning of the word. But, do you deny Issel is most likely a bigot?

Issel's right to Free Speach cannot infringe on someone's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If someone's racial slurs are reducing the quality of life of someone else, then he should be reprimanded.

 

Since people have asked so many times in the thread, the guy who was heckling Issell said, "Hey, You ****ing suck, *******", he also said that he didn't think Issell should be fired for that, but he should be fired for being a bad coach.

Courtesy of Sportscenter.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that. The phrase is going to be insulting no matter what, and you're going to provoke a reaction. But that doesn't mean the inclusion of "Mexican" makes it worse than "*******." The word Mexican could still mean he's indicating the Mexican guy on the 4th row as opposed to the obnoxious, but not quite so rude, bald guy a row back and two seats over.

I don't *think* that's the case. But it's still too substantial of a possibility for me to ignore.

I think there is a difference, in that Issel was speaking in an official capacity as a representative for a team. The fan should have been kicked out of the arena, however.

 

This argument doesnt work in my opinion. A person can get dissapointed, perhaps, that someone hasnt taken an active enough interesti n their culture and ethinicity to be able to accurately describe them, but to be offended simply means you find the race/ethnicity your being called inferior to what you actually are, in a sense, making you a racist.

Question out of curiousity: If Issel had only thought about the statement, realized he shoudnt say in, and instead just called him a piece of ****, would that make it any better? Any less racist?

Just curious!

 

Sigh.