Michael Irvin on Tony Romo
1420sports
Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
what a joke this friggin guy is
Nothing to do with him being a cowboy, as I think Aikman is fantastic.
Never liked Irvin, and I hope he gets the boot
Nothing to do with him being a cowboy, as I think Aikman is fantastic.
Never liked Irvin, and I hope he gets the boot
collecting various PSA and SGC cards
0
Comments
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
I can't watch Michael Irvin on T.V. I always like him on Jim Rome, but I think he's just insufferable on ESPN. And I never could stand him when he was on the Cowboys. But I do think we tend to get a little hysterical when it comes to issues of race, and there's no reason why Irvin should have to pay a price for our collective hysteria.
<< <i>But I do think we tend to get a little hysterical when it comes to issues of race, and there's no reason why Irvin should have to pay a price for our collective hysteria. >>
I agree we do. But to me it's less a question of hysteria as it is a question of whether it's okay to live in a society with *selective* hysteria.
Look at the muted response to this compared to what Jimmy the Greek said, despite the fact that they were basically saying the same thing and Jimmy the Greek didn't make his comments in a seemingly malicious or disparaging manner. It's that I object to, not whether or not we react strongly to it. If we react strongly to it, let's be consistent about it and not give someone a free pass because of their race...
However, that does not justify what he said. If the shoe was on the other foot, all heck would be breaking loose.
Just add another reason why he should get fired. One too many reasons in my book.
<< <i>
<< <i>But I do think we tend to get a little hysterical when it comes to issues of race, and there's no reason why Irvin should have to pay a price for our collective hysteria. >>
I agree we do. But to me it's less a question of hysteria as it is a question of whether it's okay to live in a society with *selective* hysteria.
Look at the muted response to this compared to what Jimmy the Greek said, despite the fact that they were basically saying the same thing and Jimmy the Greek didn't make his comments in a seemingly malicious or disparaging manner. It's that I object to, not whether or not we react strongly to it. If we react strongly to it, let's be consistent about it and not give someone a free pass because of their race... >>
wishful thinking, unfortunately. Remember Jesse Jackson's use of the term "hymie" to describe Jews and "Hymietown" to describe NYC? I think he has been riding on a free pass his entire life.
The furor over this type of crap is why there continues to be racial issues in this country. Get over yourselves - he was joking.
Why do people get worked up over the most inane things?
<< <i>Good lord who cares.
The furor over this type of crap is why there continues to be racial issues in this country. Get over yourselves - he was joking.
Why do people get worked up over the most inane things? >>
There continues to be racial issues in this country because of stupidity, not because of disgust over some tasteless joke somebody says. He put his stupidity on display via a public radio broadcast to thousands of listeners. I don't care whether they fire him or not over it, but if they don't they will have to realize that they are opening themselves up legally should they try to fire somebody else for something similar down the road.
<< <i>
<< <i>But I do think we tend to get a little hysterical when it comes to issues of race, and there's no reason why Irvin should have to pay a price for our collective hysteria. >>
I agree we do. But to me it's less a question of hysteria as it is a question of whether it's okay to live in a society with *selective* hysteria.
Look at the muted response to this compared to what Jimmy the Greek said, despite the fact that they were basically saying the same thing and Jimmy the Greek didn't make his comments in a seemingly malicious or disparaging manner. It's that I object to, not whether or not we react strongly to it. If we react strongly to it, let's be consistent about it and not give someone a free pass because of their race... >>
Well, I think it's perfect natural to live in a society with selective hysteria. Any remark is considered 'offensive' to the extent that it's insulting. In other words, if you don't find a remark insulting, then it's very unlikely that you'll find it offensive. And whether or not you, me or anyone else finds a remark insulting is largely dependant on a) the context in which the remark was made, and b) who made the remark. For example, I might not mind at all if a friend of mine makes a joke about my 'cracker background', but I could feel quite differently about it if a stranger makes the same assertion.
People who think it's unfair, or somehow inconsistent, that black people can makes jokes about other blacks while whites cannot are ignoring this simple issue of context. No remark, however offhand, exists in a vacuum, and whether or not someone feels insulted is almost never exclusively a function of a remark's referential value; i.e., there's far more involved than simply 'the words that are said, and what they mean'. There's also the intention behind the remark (whether or not it was meant to be funny, or constructive, or just downright degrading), your relationship with who said it, and so forth. If you ignore the context then you miss the big picture.
If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period.
But again, we are talking about a guy who attended his own court hearing on coke charges wearing a pink fur coat.
He's a loud, obnoxious, arrogant jerk who shouldn't be on TV. Primetime would be better off replacing him a cow patty.
<< <i>Kramer was joking and look what happened to him. >>
Really? did you even see the video? There was rage in his voice...he surely wasn't 'joking'. Please quit making false comparisons.
<< <i>If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period. >>
Really? So we shall all live by your laws? Crapola.
<< <i>But again, we are talking about a guy who attended his own court hearing on coke charges wearing a pink fur coat.
He's a loud, obnoxious, arrogant jerk who shouldn't be on TV. Primetime would be better off replacing him a cow patty. >>
So it has less to do with what he said than his persona. Got it.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period. >>
Tell that to Chris Rock. Or Richard Pryor. Or Eddie Murphy.
<< <i>
<< <i>If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period. >>
Tell that to Chris Rock. Or Richard Pryor. Or Eddie Murphy. >>
I'm sure that ESPN figured that ignoring the remark was better in the long run than firing Irwin and having
to deal with the bad PR of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton going on Larry King etc. talking about the injustice of what ESPN did. Easier to ignore it and it will go away quickly with little fallout for ESPN.
Of course he said it in a joking manner - but that doesn't mean he should have said it or that it was funny, because it wasn't funny. One thing you don't do in ANY society...is insult someone's female family members - period.....and Irvin knows that. Irvin would be in a heated rage if Romo made the same comments to him. Irvin truly is a pathetic little punk just looking for trouble. Irvin should and will apologize to Romo.
<< <i>People who think it's unfair, or somehow inconsistent, that black people can makes jokes about other blacks while whites cannot are ignoring this simple issue of context. No remark, however offhand, exists in a vacuum, and whether or not someone feels insulted is almost never exclusively a function of a remark's referential value; i.e., there's far more involved than simply 'the words that are said, and what they mean'. There's also the intention behind the remark (whether or not it was meant to be funny, or constructive, or just downright degrading), your relationship with who said it, and so forth. If you ignore the context then you miss the big picture. >>
You left out "stupidity" as one of the reasons people get offended. Remember the poor guy who actually lost his job for using the word "n1ggardly". Fired for the offense of being intelligent and speaking to a room full of morons.
{That I can not type the word correctly on these message boards, I believe, reinforces my point.}
<< <i>[
<< <i>People who think it's unfair, or somehow inconsistent, that black people can makes jokes about other blacks while whites cannot are ignoring this simple issue of context. No remark, however offhand, exists in a vacuum, and whether or not someone feels insulted is almost never exclusively a function of a remark's referential value; i.e., there's far more involved than simply 'the words that are said, and what they mean'. There's also the intention behind the remark (whether or not it was meant to be funny, or constructive, or just downright degrading), your relationship with who said it, and so forth. If you ignore the context then you miss the big picture. >>
You left out "stupidity" as one of the reasons people get offended. Remember the poor guy who actually lost his job for using the word "n1ggardly". Fired for the offense of being intelligent and speaking to a room full of morons.
{That I can not type the word correctly on these message boards, I believe, reinforces my point.} >>
I believe stupidity would also at least partially explain any national furor that may arise as the result of any remarks made by a B list comedian in a comedy club.
<< <i>
<< <i>If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period. >>
Tell that to Chris Rock. Or Richard Pryor. Or Eddie Murphy. >>
The difference is they get paid to make off-colored jokes (no pun intended).
ESPN has allowed Irvin get away with a ton of things and only slaps his wrist. Perhaps he has some pictures of executives in comprimising positions... I don't know. I do know that he brings nothing unique to the table, in my opinion.
I would take ANY player over Irvin on Countdown. I mean seriously, I think the only thing he can hang his hat on is his "relationship" with TO.
<< <i>I believe stupidity would also at least partially explain any national furor that may arise as the result of any remarks made by a B list comedian in a comedy club. >>
My guess is that stupidity explains half of it, and that posturing explains almost all the rest. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person really and truly cares what comes out of Kramer's mouth.
<< <i>[
<< <i>People who think it's unfair, or somehow inconsistent, that black people can makes jokes about other blacks while whites cannot are ignoring this simple issue of context. No remark, however offhand, exists in a vacuum, and whether or not someone feels insulted is almost never exclusively a function of a remark's referential value; i.e., there's far more involved than simply 'the words that are said, and what they mean'. There's also the intention behind the remark (whether or not it was meant to be funny, or constructive, or just downright degrading), your relationship with who said it, and so forth. If you ignore the context then you miss the big picture. >>
You left out "stupidity" as one of the reasons people get offended. Remember the poor guy who actually lost his job for using the word "n1ggardly". Fired for the offense of being intelligent and speaking to a room full of morons.
{That I can not type the word correctly on these message boards, I believe, reinforces my point.} >>
If people would quit being ultra sensitive, we could all laugh about half of the $hit that gets blown out of proportion. I understand it's not always as simple as "sticks and stones", but sometimes it is just that simple and yet people have to make a political or legal stand for some group. Words can be powerful, but only if a person allows them to be.
"If I ever decided to do a book, I've already got the title-The Bases Were Loaded and So Was I"-Jim Fregosi
<< <i>
ESPN has allowed Irvin get away with a ton of things and only slaps his wrist. Perhaps he has some pictures of executives in comprimising positions... I don't know. I do know that he brings nothing unique to the table, in my opinion.
I would take ANY player over Irvin on Countdown. I mean seriously, I think the only thing he can hang his hat on is his "relationship" with TO. >>
So it comes out: you care less about what he said than who you feel he is as a commentator.
At least say that, don't hide behind the veil of 'oh my god he shouldn't be allowed to say these things!'
Ziggy, the issue here is that whites are held to a higher standard, since the level of respectable social classes was developed by anglo-saxons there is far less wiggle room in what you can get away with when you wrote the rules.
<< <i>So it comes out: you care less about what he said than who you feel he is as a commentator.
At least say that, don't hide behind the veil of 'oh my god he shouldn't be allowed to say these things!' >>
Excuse me?
<< <i>Irvin is an idiot, pure and simple.
However, that does not justify what he said. If the shoe was on the other foot, all heck would be breaking loose.
Just add another reason why he should get fired. One too many reasons in my book. >>
And since you asked, I don't like him as a person. Being in Texas, Michael got a lot of coverage down here, during and after his career. If you saw him as much as I have, I bet you would see him the same as I do.
And that's all that I've got to say about that
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period. >>
Tell that to Chris Rock. Or Richard Pryor. Or Eddie Murphy. >>
The difference is they get paid to make off-colored jokes (no pun intended).
ESPN has allowed Irvin get away with a ton of things and only slaps his wrist. Perhaps he has some pictures of executives in comprimising positions... I don't know. I do know that he brings nothing unique to the table, in my opinion.
I would take ANY player over Irvin on Countdown. I mean seriously, I think the only thing he can hang his hat on is his "relationship" with TO. >>
I'm not sure I follow. So you can make racial jokes if you're explicitly paid to make jokes, but not if you're paid to simply entertain?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably. This isn't about being PC; you don't make jokes about race, period. >>
Tell that to Chris Rock. Or Richard Pryor. Or Eddie Murphy. >>
The difference is they get paid to make off-colored jokes (no pun intended).
ESPN has allowed Irvin get away with a ton of things and only slaps his wrist. Perhaps he has some pictures of executives in comprimising positions... I don't know. I do know that he brings nothing unique to the table, in my opinion.
I would take ANY player over Irvin on Countdown. I mean seriously, I think the only thing he can hang his hat on is his "relationship" with TO. >>
I'm not sure I follow. So you can make racial jokes if you're explicitly paid to make jokes, but not if you're paid to simply entertain? >>
I think it would be better put as it's more acceptable if that's your schtick rather than it coming out of the blue.
I know it's hypocritial and I don't agree with it. Just is what it is..
<< <i>Ziggy, the issue here is that whites are held to a higher standard, since the level of respectable social classes was developed by anglo-saxons there is far less wiggle room in what you can get away with when you wrote the rules. >>
I am searching for a grain of truth in that statement but so far am unable to find it. The "rules" regarding acceptable speech with respect to minorities were "written" - in the only meaningful sense - by those minorities, and within my lifetime for the most part. Mind you, the "rules" that the whites had written before that were nothing to be proud of, but that's a completely different point.
Love your sigline, though.
I think you misunderstood me - what I am saying is that the Anglos (British Whites primarily) developed the levels of society and social classes with respect to how you were to conduct yourself. Since the "code of conduct" was developed by a certain group then the certain group is and should be held to a higher standard than those who merely occupy the different levels of society.
This has nothing to do with minorities (race or nationality) and much more to do with cultural classes.
Hope this makes it more clear.
<< <i>Dallas,
I think you misunderstood me - what I am saying is that the Anglos (British Whites primarily) developed the levels of society and social classes with respect to how you were to conduct yourself. Since the "code of conduct" was developed by a certain group then the certain group is and should be held to a higher standard than those who merely occupy the different levels of society.
This has nothing to do with minorities (race or nationality) and much more to do with cultural classes.
Hope this makes it more clear. >>
I did misunderstand you, and I think I still do. On the one hand you say that race has nothing to do with it, while on the other you say that "British Whites" were the rule-making group that should be held to higher standards. If whites are to be held to higher standards then race has everything to do with it since the corollary is that non-whites will be held to a lower standard. So if "Whites" is essential to your argument, then your argument collapses.
If you don't consider "Whites" essential to your point, then let's consider your argument without reference to race. In that case, we are talking about comments made by a rich man, living in a rich neighborhood, making his living in a respected profession. Without reference to race, how is Michael Irvin relevantly different than Sam Walton or Abraham Lincoln or countless millions of people in this country who have improved their station in life over the circumstances of their birth? If Bill Clinton (whose lineage consists of just about nothing but English Whites) made those remarks would we excuse them because he was born to an unwed teenage mother in Arkansas? Clinton's in a different class today than the one he was born into, so is Irvin. If your argument is that Irvin is not, what reasoning (that has nothing to do with race) led you to that conclusion? Granted, Irvin is extremely "low-class" in the common usage of the word, but so is Bill Clinton in that sense.
I don't see that there is any plausible argument against the observation that Irvin and other minorities get a pass when they make remarks that would cost a white man - any white man, regardless of the circumstances of his birth - his job. And the reason that it happens is race, and nothing but race. Too many people simply expect less from minorities than they do of whites - the soft bigotry of low expectations. We expect the Jimmy the Greeks of the world to start behaving properly when they reach a certain station in life. That we do not expect the Michael Irvins of the world to do so is condescending in the extreme.
Was he on during halftime? I know the crowd at the Link was boisterous and had some select Irvin chants going.
Tonight, Garcia was having a very good game, took 2 huge hits in a row, then the BOOED when he got back up to make the next play.
Sorry, but I never use philly 'fans' as a litmus test for anything.
can't handle the truth?
Oh, I almost forgot one more gem from the philly 'faithful' - booing santa claus?
Ridiculous.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dallas,
I think you misunderstood me - what I am saying is that the Anglos (British Whites primarily) developed the levels of society and social classes with respect to how you were to conduct yourself. Since the "code of conduct" was developed by a certain group then the certain group is and should be held to a higher standard than those who merely occupy the different levels of society.
This has nothing to do with minorities (race or nationality) and much more to do with cultural classes.
Hope this makes it more clear. >>
I did misunderstand you, and I think I still do. On the one hand you say that race has nothing to do with it, while on the other you say that "British Whites" were the rule-making group that should be held to higher standards. If whites are to be held to higher standards then race has everything to do with it since the corollary is that non-whites will be held to a lower standard. So if "Whites" is essential to your argument, then your argument collapses.
If you don't consider "Whites" essential to your point, then let's consider your argument without reference to race. In that case, we are talking about comments made by a rich man, living in a rich neighborhood, making his living in a respected profession. Without reference to race, how is Michael Irvin relevantly different than Sam Walton or Abraham Lincoln or countless millions of people in this country who have improved their station in life over the circumstances of their birth? If Bill Clinton (whose lineage consists of just about nothing but English Whites) made those remarks would we excuse them because he was born to an unwed teenage mother in Arkansas? Clinton's in a different class today than the one he was born into, so is Irvin. If your argument is that Irvin is not, what reasoning (that has nothing to do with race) led you to that conclusion? Granted, Irvin is extremely "low-class" in the common usage of the word, but so is Bill Clinton in that sense.
I don't see that there is any plausible argument against the observation that Irvin and other minorities get a pass when they make remarks that would cost a white man - any white man, regardless of the circumstances of his birth - his job. And the reason that it happens is race, and nothing but race. Too many people simply expect less from minorities than they do of whites - the soft bigotry of low expectations. We expect the Jimmy the Greeks of the world to start behaving properly when they reach a certain station in life. That we do not expect the Michael Irvins of the world to do so is condescending in the extreme. >>
I don't think this explains the dynamic. The reason blacks get a 'free pass', so to speak, is because other blacks aren't nearly as offended when a black man makes these kinds of remarks as they are when a white man makes them-- which gets back to my original point re: context. I think it has less to do with soft bigotry and more to do with the racial background of the speaker.
<< <i>I don't think this explains the dynamic. The reason blacks get a 'free pass', so to speak, is because other blacks aren't nearly as offended when a black man makes these kinds of remarks as they are when a white man makes them-- which gets back to my original point re: context. I think it has less to do with soft bigotry and more to do with the racial background of the speaker. >>
Fair enough, but I think it is at least a little of both. Most people, I think, believe that making racist remarks is wrong in and of itself. That minorities are offended is another reason to avoid them, but like a tree falling in an empty forest, a racist remark is wrong whether anyone present is offended or not. Nobody is offended when a group of good 'ol boys, or a group of LA policeman, crack each other up with racist jokes; it's still wrong. Whites are held to that standard; minorities seemingly are not.
And that standard has, I think indisputably, reduced the level of white racism in this country over the past few generations. From my middle-class white vantage point, it seems to me that racism is increasing in most other segments of society. We are doing nobody any favors by not holding everybody to the same standards.