Is this racism or culture clash in baseball?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Empathy is hard, that's what Brock is also saying....

It shouldn't be as hard as it seems to be.

 

If we're all flawed - and we are - there's no shame in admitting I am flawed, just like everyone else.

 

Or that I don't know everything experienced by every other human being on the planet.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Okay, so you went down that road. Here we go.

 

Regarding race, most white people have a limited scope of experience in this country. That's not hypocrisy, that's just reality. We don't see tons of **** that happen to people on a daily basis because it doesn't happen to us. This is even more problematic for straight white men, who suffer from no real discrimination at all when you get right down to it.

 

Therefore, we white men need to listen from time to time because, sometimes, we don't see the experiences of different people and their day-to-day lives. This shouldn't be a radical concept, it should be common sense. When I needed help with an art assignment in school, I didn't chase down the gym teacher to talk about it. I found someone with real world experience in that arena, I shut up, and I listened for a hot minute. It's unbelievable to me that so many white men don't realize that their inability to comprehend that different people have different life experiences is part of their in-built bias. We're so used to ruling the damned world and being treated as the default setting for American Human Being that we've forgotten other people exist out there and those people may have a different perspective on the world.

 

None of this means we're bad people. None of this means all this crap is our fault and our fault alone. It means we have a limited view of the world in this particular subject because we're not a part of that world. When I started renovating my kitchen, I wasn't ashamed that I had to ask my brother-in-law for guidance. He's a bloody fantastic carpenter with much more experience in that kind of work. Why do we view life experience so differently than skill and training?

 

If you put a group of white people in a room and asked the question "Are we living in a post-racial society?", you'd get a variety of answers. Some people would nod yes, others would be unsure, some would disagree.

 

If you put a group of black people into that same room and asked the same question, you'd be laughed out of the damned room. Why is this? And why are so many white people loathe to accept that reality? There are entire segments of America that fall 90%+ on one side of that argument and the split is clearly drawn along racial and gender lines. White people are the only segment of our society that splits on opinion or is unsure. Why does that happen? What are we missing here?

 

In a normal world, that realization would cause people to rethink their stance. When one group of people with a specific life experience overwhelmingly disagrees with an opinion, there's a chance, just a chance, that we're missing something here because our life experiences aren't the same as every other American.

"Okay, so you went down that road."

I know right; its crazy to think people would want to defend themselves from being stigmatized as a collective. 

 

"That's not hypocrisy, that's just reality."

That is exactly what I meant by "my truth." You can paint with the same broad brush and speak about race/ethnicity in an arguably more divisive tone than Kinsler but what you say is apparently acceptable "because you claim it is true," yet what he said is racist even though it is unarguably true. Sorry that is hypocritical. 

 

"Therefore, we white men need to listen from time to time because, sometimes, we don't see the experiences of different people and their day-to-day lives."

No, nobody sees the experiences of anybody other than themselves. That is why I take issue with you making generalizations. 

"It's unbelievable to me that so many white men don't realize that their inability to comprehend that different people have different life experiences is part of their in-built bias."

This is the real point of contention. Do you realize the magnitude of the claim you're making when you state that all white people carry and implicit bias towards every other race/gender/ethnicity? Can you show this subconscious prejudice in any way? I mean actually show it, not say that their is a possibility it exists. Its the equivalent of saying "you can't prove it isn't there so it must be true" and then using that as the launch point for the generalization and stigmatization of a race/gender. Its insanely fallacious and ridiculous but like I said earlier, its considered "progress," now, and socially acceptable so carry on. I also think its hilarious that "different people have different life experiences," is being used as support when it so clearly runs counter to your narrative that all whites have an implicit bias and therefore can be generalized. You're treating whites as a collective and then arguing that all others need to seen as individuals. Why can't everybody be seen as an individual and treated as such? I suppose that would poke massive holes in the rationale being used to indict others though. 

 

"Or that I don't know everything experienced by every other human being on the planet."

See this is what I don't understand. I totally agree with the statement. What I can't comprehend is how you can finish with a statement like this yet still believe that everything you're talking about above holds true. If we can't know experiences of others, how can we say that they hold implicit biases? If they don't hold these biases individually how can they be grouped as a collective race that does? If the collective narrative is fictional then would it not be wrong to generalize and stigmatize regardless of race/gender?

 

 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Everyone holds implicit biases. I said that earlier in the thread, yet you still seem to think I believe white people are the only people with bias or even that all white people hold the exact same biases.

 

The implicit biases of black people don't really matter in this conversation because that bias is not actionable at the institutional level. I can be called a cracker by every black person I meet and it doesn't impact my life other than being annoyed at being called cracker all day. Is that person a jackass for calling me a cracker? Sure, you bet. They shouldn't use blanket stereotypes, just like everyone else. But despite that person's personal bias and bad actions, I still have a job. I still have a savings account. I still have a clean arrest record, despite the multitude of illegal things I've done over the years.

 

But I'll never know what it feels like to have my resume dismissed casually because I have a weird white-sounding name. Or to be stopped by the cops because I'm walking down the street after 8pm. No one has ever asked to touch my hair or told me I'm "well spoken" because I have a functioning understanding of the English language.

 

(I'm using black people as examples in the following paragraph because it eliminates immigration factors, which impact many other people of color but not African Americans in significant numbers)

 

It is an undeniable truth that black people do not receive the same treatment as white people in America. Your statement about "proving implicit bias" is right here. Black people are arrested at higher rates. They're convicted at higher rates. They serve longer sentences for the same crimes. They have a higher unemployment rate. They make less money when they are employed. Their children are taken away by the state at a higher rate. Even if you remove socio-economic status from the equation and normalize for white poverty, all those non-financial statements remain true.

 

When you boil that down to its core, you are left with two possible answers:

 

1. Institutional bias exists and harms people of color.

 

2. People of color are inferior to white people.

 

There is no third option.

[TheLeviathan]

I think one of the big mistakes people make on both sides is to misunderstand what a bias is.  Same with a stereotype.  Over the course of decades we have given this words a negative connotation but they are not inherently negative.  Our brain simply can't function without them.  They exist (and have been developed throughout our existence) as shortcuts for our brain.  Saying they exist shouldn't be controversial and they aren't inherently a bad thing either.

 

What we do with them on the other hand...

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think one of the big mistakes people make on both sides is to misunderstand what a bias is.  Same with a stereotype.  Over the course of decades we have given this words a negative connotation but they are not inherently negative.  Our brain simply can't function without them.  They exist (and have been developed throughout our existence) as shortcuts for our brain.  Saying they exist shouldn't be controversial and they aren't inherently a bad thing either.

 

What we do with them on the other hand...

Yep. Kirby seems to believe I'm picking on white people and that only white people have bias.

 

Of course that isn't the case. Everyone has bias and only some of it is negative.

 

I'm pointing out white bias because I understand it better, me being white and all. In no way am I excluding myself from this conversation or attempting to raise myself above it. I have bias, too, but I work damned hard on eliminating the worst aspects of it. Still lots of work to be done on that front, though... just like everyone else I know.

[TheLeviathan]

 I think Kirby falls into the mistake of thinking a bias/stereotype is something he has control over or a choice in.  These are things hard-wired into our brains, some amplified by our experiences, that dictate to us.  

 

As you said, it's not something you just turn on or turn off.  It's there, it's how you react to it and train yourself to react to it that matters.  

 

You become especially aware of these when you really immerse yourself in another culture or race.  My time working with inner city kids in Chicago totally blew this idea up for me.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You become especially aware of these when you really immerse yourself in another culture or race.  My time working with inner city kids in Chicago totally blew this idea up for me.  

Yeah, my eyes started to open to this issue when I moved to Long Beach for college and lived in a very diverse neighborhood. It continued as I moved to North Minneapolis and dealt with white suburban responses to my moving there and got to know my neighbors a bit.

 

(The white responses I received when I moved to NoMi were both horrifying and hilarious. I live on the edge of a neighborhood with one of the lower crime rates in all of Minneapolis, but some people seem to believe I live in a bombed out shelter in downtown Aleppo.)

[Mike Sixel]

Ya, we are moving to the city this coming weekend, already had more than a few people question my sanity, and hoping I have a gun or three to protect myself. This despite the low crime rate in that part of Portland. 

 

There is an african american owned winery here (there aren't many). Walking in there, and sometimes being the minority in the tasting room, is fascinating. I know more than a few that won't go there....which is sad, the wine is good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

There is an african american owned winery here (there aren't many). Walking in there, and sometimes being the minority in the tasting room, is fascinating. I know more than a few that won't go there....which is sad, the wine is good.

It's eye-opening how startled we white people become when entered into a minority situation. I ride the bus to and from NoMi for work and, as you'd expect, buses from NoMi to downtown are chock full of black people.

 

Despite living in Long Beach for a decade and being around all sorts of people from different races and cultures, it took me some time to adjust to that feeling of things just "not being right" because we've become so acclimated to the white majority.

 

It was sad that I had that initial response but it was also a solid learning experience about me and my own biases.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's eye-opening how startled we white people become when entered into a minority situation. I ride the bus to and from NoMi for work and, as you'd expect, buses from NoMi to downtown are chock full of black people.

 

Despite living in Long Beach for a decade and being around all sorts of people from different races and cultures, it took me some time to adjust to that feeling of things just "not being right" because we've become so acclimated to the white majority.

 

It was sad that I had that initial response but it was also a solid learning experience about me and my own biases.

 

Yup, that experience is jarring.  And so beneficial if you approach it the right way.

[Squirrel]

I moved this because this is turning into a more generalized discussion and not just about how this relates to baseball.

[Craig Arko]

I moved this because this is turning into a more generalized discussion and not just about how this relates to baseball.

Second best idea I've heard all day.

[KirbyDome89]

I didn't say bias doesn't exist. Yes I realize the importance of it and I understand what it is. If you guys want to have discussion on the evolutionary advantages it infers I'm more than game. Again, there is a difference between having a bias in favor of something like tacos after a night out (a personal favorite) or cultural music and having bias (prejudice) against a group of people. Of course we all carry bias, but that doesn't mean everybody necessarily carries the same one, or has a prejudice towards a particular race/ethnicity. That is where you're losing me. 

 

The issue I have is the application of bad science. All cases are painted over as the same thing, none of them are examined on an individual basis. By that I mean the examination is superficial at best. They're run through a machine (metaphorical) and what we're left with is a collection of data. The numbers show racial disparity. Is that a viable option? Absolutely. Is it the only explanation? Certainly not. That is where we are at odds. You cannot control for (or honestly since we're dealing with the subconscious here, account for) all variables. This means you can't rule out contributing factors. Yet that seems to be what everybody is doing. I have an issue with not only how the conclusion is reached, but then the use of that conclusion to indict others (Kinsler) or dismiss opposing points of view as illogical. I've never argued that we live in some post racial paradise, I simply don't agree with the jump in logic that is used to convict and absolve individuals. 

 

You said it best yourself, you can't presume to know everybody's life situation/experiences. I don't know how it is then that you can say they carry an implicit negative bias for other races and call that evidence of racism. Those two statements run so opposite each other I'm not sure how they can be reconciled. 

 

[Craig Arko]

I think as long as people keep trying to win the thread it will be less useful than it might otherwise.

[Bark's Lounge]

I really appreciate the candor on this page of the thread. It's real and I even though I grew up in some tough neighborhoods, as a young person, I experienced the same sort of awkwardness. I grew up in two diametrically opposed neighborhoods. One that was filled with a majority of minorities and one where it was lower middle-class white trash hate mongers.

 

The anger, violence and hatred always made me feel an uneasiness. Those were really ****ty times. I am a middle aged man now and am grateful to be out of those quagmire situations. It was stressful.

 

I have 4 nieces that are mixed race. The oldest is 16 and if I had any white man awkwardness, it stopped 16 years ago when she was born. I love those girls, they are my blood. I would give my life for them.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't know how it is then that you can say they carry an implicit negative bias for other races and call that evidence of racism.

My opinion is that the proof is in the pudding. People of color fare worse than white people in almost every metric available for judging such things. White people control a disproportionate amount of power in this country in relation to their population.

 

If institutional racism isn't in place and seeded into the white American persona, how do you reconcile those two statements?

 

Bias isn't only about race. Women also get burned by several of these issues, though in different ways. So do lots of people for lots of different reasons. And it changes all the time. Catholics were once treated as second class citizens but that's no longer the case. The same goes for the Irish or Italian populations of this country.

 

In short, the people with the power control the institutional bias. Not all people share the same biases but there's definitely overlap in a population with shared or similar experiences. And in America, that power rests disproportionately in the hands of straight white men.

 

And please remember that when I entered this conversation, I made sure to state that I have no idea whether Kinsler is a "racist", per se. But I do feel he made a subtly racist comment. The two things are significantly different in my mind. One shows clear intent while the other can happen for a myriad of reasons: ignorance, obliviousness, or just flat-out misstating an opinion. Both are damaging but at least one of them may not be intentional. To make it more personal, I do not believe myself to be a racist but I've absolutely said racist things in my life. Lots of 'em.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Bias isn't only about race. Women also get burned by several of these issues, though in different ways. So do lots of people for lots of different reasons. And it changes all the time. Catholics were once treated as second class citizens but that's no longer the case. The same goes for the Irish or Italian populations of this country.

 

Hell, keep it simple - there is well documented evidence of the advantages reaped by those that are physically attractive vs. less attractive people.  Our brain has all sorts of subtle heuristics, biases, and other shortcuts that lead to many problematic thoughts and beliefs in terms of how we treat people fairly.  

 

I don't think any of us are arguing Kinsler is a racist because he said something that echos a lot of racial overtones being thrown around baseball, but he nevertheless joined that chorus.  Why?  I don't know, but I can judge the statement without judging the man.   And his biases may play a role in that, among a host of other possible explanations.

[glunn]

 

 I think Kirby falls into the mistake of thinking a bias/stereotype is something he has control over or a choice in.  These are things hard-wired into our brains, some amplified by our experiences, that dictate to us.  

 

As you said, it's not something you just turn on or turn off.  It's there, it's how you react to it and train yourself to react to it that matters.  

 

You become especially aware of these when you really immerse yourself in another culture or race.  My time working with inner city kids in Chicago totally blew this idea up for me.  

Many years ago when I was in high school I volunteered to go door to door seeking votes for the Senate campaign for Al Gore Sr.  I was happy that some attractive young women also volunteered, until they were sent to the white part of town while the boys were sent to the black part.

 

I learned something interesting that day. The dogs in the black part of town wanted to kill me just like the dogs on my side of town wanted to kill black men who ventured there.

 

Why were those dogs racist? It seems to me that today's dogs are descended from dogs who protected their humans from humans who were different. And I believe that today's humans are descended from humans who were loyal to their own tribes, and who often wiped out (or assimilated) groups that were less tribalistic.  

[PseudoSABR]

Very late to the party (I'd like a PM for future controversial threads, thank you).

 

Sometimes debates suffer from a lack of defining terms (or agreement upon those definitions).  Racism, Racists are incendiary terms that are sometimes weaponized to dismiss worthy opinions.  Sometimes.  But racism is nothing more than holding generalized judgement over a group of people united by their race or culture (there needs not be any hate--the statement Asians are good at math is racist).  Racism can be conscious (what we typically understand it to be), but it also can be latent (or unconscious) and even more invisible, systemic (part of a cultural or institutional fabric).  As many have already said, the question isn't whether or not Kinsler, himself, is racist, rather the question is did his statement show shades of racism, whether conscious, latent or systemic.   Many may not want such an expansive definition of racism, but I think it's pretty clear OP invited  a broad definition and not the narrow hater-of-race definition (Levi correct me if I'm wrong).

 

If we accept this broad definition, it's difficult to see how Kinsler's statement evades being captured within that definition.  Not only did he generalize how specific Latin cultures play the game, he expressed his disapproval, and added that he wished children (not necessarily only American) would affirm his culture's method of play.  

 

That seems pretty problematic to me.  Further, as others have noted, America is hardly homogenized (at least at the outset); Kinsler might well believe he plays the game the American way, but it begs the question is there even is an American way or just a Dominant or Majoritarian way of playing the game(?).  

 

Even further, and more troubling, are the terms with which Kinsler and others seem to define this American (Majoritarian) way of playing the game.  Too often in our recent and long history have reverence to decorum, polite society, and respect been used to characterize an American fabric, which in specific terms means: sit down, shut up, and do only your job in the most limited, least diverse way possible.  The so-called American way does not allow for diversity of experience or methods.  Indeed, respect often means just shut-up.  Women know this all too well.   This is not the courtroom, the office, or place of worship.  This is a stadium, where fans cheer, buy beers and hot dogs, and watch mascots race around the diamond.  What is the value of polite decorum or respectful reverence in game meant to entertain, yes, children (as well as adults).  

 

Whether it's Kinsler and the American WBC team's thinskin in regard to other's showing emotion (they might not be showing you up) or white American, heterosexual men in regards to the racist (people aren't saying you want to kill people of another race),  I think this controversy and this discussion do show a lack of empathy.   The majority is quick to worry that their feelings have been dismissed, but don't go very far in imagining what precisely non-majority's experience might be.   Can you purchase a band-aid in your own skin color?  Have you ever been asked to speak for your race or culture? Have you ever been the only member of your race or culture in a room (esp. professionally or educationally)?

 

Is Kinsler a racist? Well I wouldn't use that term; at most his opinion is latent, likely a symptom of a systemic racist belief (something KLAW seemed to indicate).  But IMHO, his rhetoric seems like base, good-old-boy club enforcement (indeed, haven't these arguments been used to counter ever inclusive/diversifying policy the game (or our society) has faced?).  That he prefaces (or rather postscripts) his comments with "Not to offend anyone, but..." or "It's all about celebrating diversity" yet doesn't walk back his actual comments about raising children, I think indicates which statements are puffery and which might give shade to something earnest and ugly--pervading not just baseball but our American culture in general.  (I think this topic is especially salient (and thus touchy) given the current climate in US politics.  Professional athletes shouldn't be immune from considering the greater context with which they place their comments).

 

Like others have said, the best defense against racism is self-awareness.  We all have our biases.  And we must be especially wary of that affirmation we think we sense when confirmation-bias echoes inside our head.

[KirbyDome89]

 

 

If institutional racism isn't in place and seeded into the white American persona, how do you reconcile those two statements?

See middle paragraph above. Not every negative life aspect can be attributed solely to race. Sorry, but not all arrests/unemployment/lowing paying jobs/ect are because of gender/race/ethnicity. Some are, but like I said above, they're all lumped into the same group. There is no critical thinking on an individual basis, all the cases are shoved into a single broad category and all anybody sees is the end result that shows racial disparity. Its an extremely superficial view of an issue that is much more layered. Next from the end result racial disparity it is determined that racial bias must be the only cause. Then because straight white men are at the top of the totem pole (if we're using SES metrics I'm not sure if that still true) they must all hold a negative racial bias which is oppressing all other groups and keeping them down. Lastly, because that group holds a specific bias they are indicted for racism when they say something regarding a race that isn't their own. There is just too much generalization/assuming/uncertainty for me to get on board with that flow.  

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 Lastly, because that group holds a specific bias they are indicted for racism when they say something regarding a race that isn't their own. There is just too much generalization/assuming/uncertainty for me to get on board with that flow.  

 

No offense, but you haven't exactly come off as interested in looking at the nuances.  I agree that racism is a grave accusation, one thrown around too often.  (even here, I can attest to that personally)  But anything of this complexity is going to have generalization and uncertainty.  If that's your bar for ducking out, you pretty much should duck out of any serious social analysis altogether.  Why you ventured in at all becomes a bit of a mystery then.

[GP830]

My sense is that "racist" isn't the term to use here-- just sort of culturally intolerant or even xenophobic. When he refers to "Us," he's referring white, black, and latin decent (with Team USA being the agreed upon "Us"). If he had made these remarks about another MLB team, no one would think twice about it-- but since it's culture versus culture, it becomes a much larger conversation. 

 

I wish he hadn't said it-- only because it does come off as ignorant and silly. I for one, love the image of Kirby circling the base paths with his fist clenched and screaming. Many of the most iconic moments in the history of the sport are the result of "showboating." It's part of the fun. I also welcome those who don't wish to do it-- but let's not ostracize those get excited when something exciting happens.

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

No offense, but you haven't exactly come off as interested in looking at the nuances.  I agree that racism is a grave accusation, one thrown around too often.  (even here, I can attest to that personally)  But anything of this complexity is going to have generalization and uncertainty.  If that's your bar for ducking out, you pretty much should duck out of any serious social analysis altogether.  Why you ventured in at all becomes a bit of a mystery then.

No offense but I believe that statement is quite backwards. When you're more concerned with analyzing individual instances as a homogenous collective and then use that data to characterize entire races/genders you show no concern for nuance. 

 

"But anything of this complexity is going to have generalization and uncertainty."

Yet we're all certain what he said was racist.

 

So pointing out a serious flaw in the reasoning that is being used is ducking out? I had no idea....

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

Your first paragraph is really muddled with strange phrasing, to the point that I can't glean anything coherent from it.

 

I'm confident his words echo a recurring theme in baseball that is especially harsh on Latin players. I believe that harsh theme has latent racism entwined in it. There is important nuance there.

[KirbyDome89]

Let me spell it out differently for you...

 

All instances happen independent of each other yet they're considered to be the same. They're treated as as indistinguishable and categorized as such . Then the data pulled from these groups is used to typify (a synonym of characterize) an entire race/gender. This method clearly eschews nuance. You've shown support for this method yet it's apparently me who has no interest in examination of anything below surface level. I think that it is the other way around. 

 

Better?

 

I applaud your confidence in your opinion....

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

All instances happen independent of each other yet they're considered to be the same. They're treated as as indistinguishable and categorized as such . Then the data pulled from these groups is used to typify (a synonym of characterize) an entire race/gender. This method clearly eschews nuance. You've shown support for this method yet it's apparently me who has no interest in examination of anything below surface level. I think that it is the other way around. 

 

Better?

 

I applaud your confidence in your opinion....

 

When you are talking about larger social trends and human behavior (which is what most of us have been doing so far as I can see), generalizations are part of that.  Every human action is, to some degree, unique.  No one is disagreeing with that.  But even in those unique actions there can be shared thoughts, trends, instincts, biases,prejudices, etc.  Talking about those shared parts is not to make each person or action "indistinguishable" from one another, but to avoid getting stuck in the weeds.

 

Ultimately none of us can know if Kinsler is actually racist.  It's hard to even know if our own selves are racist and how our biases alter our perceptions, thoughts, and actions.  So trying to plant your flag in what seems to be "Don't call me biased, you don't know me! (Or Kinsler!  Or whomever...)" is really missing the forest for the trees.  That's not what nuance is.  That's just confusing what the object of discussion is.

 

The question is whether this particular tree wandered into the forest of racism.  I think it did.  And there is plenty of general evidence about the biases we have to support that conclusion.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Let me spell it out differently for you...

 

All instances happen independent of each other yet they're considered to be the same. They're treated as as indistinguishable and categorized as such . Then the data pulled from these groups is used to typify (a synonym of characterize) an entire race/gender. This method clearly eschews nuance. You've shown support for this method yet it's apparently me who has no interest in examination of anything below surface level. I think that it is the other way around. 

 

Better?

 

I applaud your confidence in your opinion....

There's a difference between generalizing along racial/cultural lines (i.e. what Kinsler did), and pointing out that the generalization itself is systemic within a given institution  (i.e. suggesting that Kinsler's opinion isn't so much his own as it is something institutionalized within the culture of baseball).   If you can't see the difference, you're not trying to.

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

Woofta, I don't know how to tackle this succinctly.  I'll try: Throughout this thread you have been injecting all kinds of misunderstandings that you have dressed up as logic or "data" or excessive verbage.  It continues to muddle things.

 

When you are talking about larger social trends and human behavior (which is what most of us have been doing so far as I can see), generalizations are part of that.  Every human action is, to some degree, unique.  No one is disagreeing with that.  But even in those unique actions there can be shared thoughts, trends, instincts, biases,prejudices, etc.  Talking about those shared parts is not to make each person or action "indistinguishable" from one another, but to avoid getting stuck in the weeds.

 

Ultimately none of us can know if Kinsler is actually racist.  It's hard to even know if our own selves are racist and how our biases alter our perceptions, thoughts, and actions.  So trying to plant your flag in what seems to be "Don't call me biased, you don't know me! (Or Kinsler!  Or whomever...)" is really missing the forest for the trees.  That's not what nuance is.  That's just confusing what the object of discussion is.

 

The question is whether this particular tree wandered into the forest of racism.  I think it did.  And there is plenty of general evidence about the biases we have to support that conclusion.  

"But even in those unique actions there can be shared thoughts, trends, instincts, biases,prejudices, etc.  Talking about those shared parts is not to make each person or action "indistinguishable" from one another, but to avoid getting stuck in the weeds."

Speaking of injecting! Apparently its acceptable to presume to know the nature of said thoughts, trends, biases, and prejudices but skepticism of such is "misunderstanding." Makes sense...

 

"Data" (audible laugh)

I don't know why this is hard to understand. When you play the role of mind police and pretend to know the bias/prejudice/instincts/thoughts of individuals that is an issue. It doesn't get you out of the weeds, it bastardizes reality. You're literally saying "You're guilty because I say so." But, now that you've created a similarity where there isn't any, you skew the outcome. Those final numbers are the only thing you're using to compare race X with race Y. Alone equality of outcome isn't strong enough to claim outright racism/sexism/oppression, but on top of it the data used is manipulated. Can you see why somebody might have problem with that?  

 

You keep attacking posts stating that they're "incoherent," and full of "misunderstanding," every time I point out the gaps in reasoning that you so conveniently fill in or jump over but please, continue to educate me lest I dress up anything else as logic....

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

 

There's a difference between generalizing along racial/cultural lines (i.e. what Kinsler did), and pointing out that the generalization itself is systemic within a given institution  (i.e. suggesting that Kinsler's opinion isn't so much his own as it is something institutionalized within the culture of baseball).   If you can't see the difference, you're not trying to.

There is a difference between preferring your way of doing things and showing a prejudice against another way because it involves a different race. If you can't see that difference, you're not trying....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Speaking of injecting! Apparently its acceptable to presume to know the nature of said thoughts, trends, biases, and prejudices but skepticism of such is "misunderstanding." Makes sense...

 

Well, herein seems to lie the problem.  Repeatedly, by everyone I can recall in this thread, there has been a distinction you refuse to acknowledge: no one is presuming what Kinsler truly believes.  We are making an assessment of his statement.  And we're doing so in the larger context in which prejudices, biases, and all sorts of things impact us all to try and explain why he might have said what he did. 

 

The only thing I'm "literally saying" is that what Kinsler said has significant racial overtones far too common in baseball these days.