https://mobile.twitter.com/boogiecousins/status/1267303520643899398

Full article

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/kings/2020/06/02/grant-napear-sacramento-kings-announcer-all-lives-matter-tweet/3128358001/

This man has to step down from his job for saying all lives matter?

That is not how democracy works, nor is it freedom of choice. We are creating a very slippery slope here, where people are not being allowed to give their opinion on something, which is what he did.

So for every white person that does not agree with that statement because they see it as a form of bias, they need to get fired or canceled out?


"I may disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.

and he didn't have to say all lives matter.

and he didn't say all lives matter because he was willing to back that with action that matched the statement.

good day.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

The "I didn't know ALL LIVES MATTER was offensive!" defense is a bit weak for someone in the media and that works for a diverse organization.

Plus, he apparently was defending Sterling back in the day by saying having black players showed he couldn't be racist.

So, at best, he's supremely naive about race relations, making him a liability on-air in a tense time.

The so called sterling situation isn’t the subject, and that’s an entirely different plight. All due respect.

My problem is that Cousins sent him a tweet asking his opinion or perception on BLM, he responded that All Lives Matter, and it was viewed to be racist and offensive. I have a problem with that, because, one, Cousins initiated the conversation or tweet(why? ...if you know or feel the man is a closet racist). And secondly his opinion was asked, and he gave his opinion. However, stating all lives matter is now perceived as insensitive and racist?

I’m sorry, bro, something is wrong with that.

I can recall a Dick Cavet show where Jim Brown was having a debate with a politician who viewed black people in a certain way. I was like see that wouldn’t be allowed today or a show like Archie Bunker, where a bigot like Archie Bunker and an emotional pro African American male like George Jefferson can go at it regarding race relations, disagree and be divided on opinions, but still be able to coexist without wanting to cancel each other out.

The understanding of divergent opinions, and a person having the liberation to have those opinions, and how that must be protected at all times, is missing from this generation. An opinion and a verbal attack against a culture are two different things, and there was no hate or degradation implemented from his expression.

you should know better lol

Why is dude responding w/ all lives matter to a specific question about BLM?

Maybe youd have a point if Cuz asked him what was his views on ALM.

that's context, that's a pattern and that was strike one.

i don't think he should be fired necessarily, but disciplined, absolutely, and if the organization saw fit to can him (he's been there for MANY years) then i'm not going to defend him. he knew he was putting himself out there on this. nobody asked him shit. he was playing loud and wrong guy, and loud and wrong guy ain't very popular these days.

average 60 year-old white man paid to talk about young rich black dudes everyday is bound to slip up somewhere

I’m not defending the guy. I’m defending the expression. That’s the problem.

He was not obligated to answer in a particular way or agree to a certain narrative. He could have responded with Mickey Mouse, or whatever. Or he could have ignored the question. It didnt matter. He has a right to have his own view and answer it in his own way.

At least you do understand that he shouldn’t have been fired for it, but you’re entitled to your own opinion, too . So it’s cool.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i never said he shouldn't be fired, only that there seemed to be other viable courses of action as well. he put it out there to the public in a prominent forum. if he wasn't educated about it (his excuse) he should have STFU. he didn't. now he pays the price. rope is real short right now.

“i don't think he should be fired necessarily”

All due respect, but I took your comment as meaning the firing is somewhat on the extreme side. As, if the decision were up to you, you would have sought a different disciplinary action.

“i don't think he should be fired necessarily”

All due respect, but I took your comment as meaning the firing is somewhat on the extreme side. As, if the decision were up to you, you would have sought a different disciplinary action.

>The so called sterling situation isn’t the subject, and
>that’s an entirely different plight. All due respect.

The Sterling situation establishes a pattern of naiveté and lack of sophistication around race relations that resurfaced with this tweet.

>My problem is that Cousins sent him a tweet asking his opinion
>or perception on BLM, he responded that All Lives Matter, and
>it was viewed to be racist and offensive. I have a problem
>with that, because, one, Cousins initiated the conversation or
>tweet(why? ...if you know or feel the man is a closet racist).
>And secondly his opinion was asked, and he gave his opinion.
>However, stating all lives matter is now perceived as
>insensitive and racist?
>
>I’m sorry, bro, something is wrong with that.

Oh, Cousins knew he had a mark. I'm sure he already knew what old dude was about and wanted to expose him.

Now, I don't think the announcer Is the "Final Boss" of Racism but the most generous interpretation he can be given is is that he was just completely ignorant of how his statement would be perceived. That's still not acceptable for someone that represents your org publicly.

And I really don't understand the idea that opinions have to be respected. I'd argue PEOPLE deserve respect; not opinions/ideas.

I believe people deserve a baseline amount of respect as human beings but thoughts/ideas/opinions are free to be attacked mercilessly. Everybody has dumb ideas/thoughts/opinion now and then so you've gotta give people the benefit of the doubt that they just don't know any better. They may harbor some trash opinions but those can change in an instant so a person is not necessarily their opinion.

Hopefully, with education and experience, they drop the bad ones and have better ideas. But if they continue to defend those trash opinions despite all the evidence that they are trash, then they run the risk of being perceived as trash as their opinion.


>I can recall a Dick Cavet show where Jim Brown was having a
>debate with a politician who viewed black people in a certain
>way. I was like see that wouldn’t be allowed today or a
>show like Archie Bunker, where a bigot like Archie Bunker and
>an emotional pro African American male like George Jefferson
>can go at it regarding race relations, disagree and be divided
>on opinions, but still be able to coexist without wanting to
>cancel each other out.
>
>The understanding of divergent opinions, and a person having
>the liberation to have those opinions, and how that must be
>protected at all times, is missing from this generation. An
>opinion and a verbal attack against a culture are two
>different things, and there was no hate or degradation
>implemented from his expression.

I think that's looking at history through rose colored glasses. You don't think Jim Brown or Martin or Malcolm got angry letters and death threats after presenting their "radical" opinions on national tv? Sure, the TV shows reflected the stricter social norms of the time but folks were still being FLAMED privately for their opinions when they challenged the mainstream.... it was just done in the medium that was available at the time.

And I think it's illuminating that you subconsciously linked a social media interaction with TV shows because they're both performative. There's very little chance of actual understanding between the people arguing on those mediums because people are hesitant to show the vulnerability necessary to actually HEAR the other side when there's an audience present. Everybody just talks from a position of strength.

The kind of conversations you're talking about have to happen in private... and usually between people that already care for each other (either bc they actually know each other or just because they're naturally conscientious people). The issue for this generation is that they're being prodded to make all their interactions public for the sake of profits for large social media companies.

Respecting someone's opinion is not accepting someone's opinion. It is merely acknowledging that they have an opinion on or regarding a subject. You can completely disagree with someone's opinion and still respect it at the same time.

Well, since you say using the jim brown tv debate is sort of looking through rose colored glasses, because a show is designed to showcase things in a certain manner, I present to you the historic James Baldwin vs William Buckley debate that took place at Cambridge university.

Buckley was known as an extreme white conservatists, and laid the groundwork for the repulican's party shift to the way it exists now. He was pro-segregation, and felt that white people were the superior race.I don't need to define who Baldwin was, because I know you know his background and what he stood for.

That debate would not have been allowed to take place in this day and age. No way. No How. And that great historical debate left a huge impression on the world regarding race relations in america. It was eloquent, it was intelligent, and it was fair ground for communication for both sides. And after the debate was concluded, it was voted that the american dream was at the expense of the negro.


It is only through opinion ,and expression of that opinion ,that we, as a civilization, can sincerely address the heart of the issues that threaten or impede our advancement as a human race. They don't have to see eye to eye, nor do they need approval or acceptance, but they have afforded the RIGHT to be NON-VIOLENTLY expressed without facing retribution for merely being opposite to the opinions or beliefs of others.

That's where I stand.

I tried to explain this to a former radio guy in Toronto yesterday. In isolation, saying "all lives matter" seems like the least controversial statement possible. Saying it in response to the current context is another story though. Despite the best efforts of myself and many others to explain this, he came away offended and upset. I can't help him and I'm only happy he's a *former* radio guy and not a current one, or he'd be boned, too.

Napear didn't exactly make these comments in a vacuum. Check out what he said during the whole Donald Sterling controversy. At worst he is a bigot, at best he is totally fucking clueless.

could always smell it on him

and if what you say doesn't align with an organizations values then they have the right to let you go. Seems like everyones rights were used it's just the outcomes were different than what he thought they were going to be lol




----------

IG @erichrigonan

And couldnt resist. Lol

These racists cant help themselves.

of grimey shit about Cuz when he played there and since he left

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

So, you know... fuck him in the eye socket.

there's cats around keys with more discipline. it was almost a
nobody:
Napear: ALL LIVES MATTER

it was an inch short of that, easiest bait ever.

i wanna talk to matt barnes about this. i've known him a long time and he's one of the realest dudes. his post and webber's were pretty instructive. you get the sense the kings might have consulted some players and former players on this one.