>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.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->