You do realize the NFL as a corporation exists far beyond what you see on ESPN right? My right wing undergrads know better than this. Oof.
Neoliberal wokesters will stencil "End Racism" in NFL endzones
-
This analysis finds there is no discrimination by race in NFL player salaries, and salaries are commensurate with productivity:
https://stamford.econ.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1361/2016/05/nfl-salary.pdfThis speaks nothing to the corporate structure, and the lack of black privilege undermines your argument, rofl. I’m d y I n g here.
K, I have to go back to work. Don’t leave 10 unhinged rants, because I’m not following any red h e r r ing trails, no matter how poorly paved.
-
This speaks nothing to the corporate structure, and the lack of black privilege undermines your argument, rofl. I�m d y I n g here.
K, I have to go back to work. Don�t leave 10 unhinged rants, because I�m not following any red h e r r ing trails, no matter how poorly paved.NFL rewards teams with draft picks for developing black coaches/management:
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-pass-resolution-rewarding-teams-for-developing-minority-coaches-execsNFL mandates teams must interview minority candidates for open head coach and coordinator positions:
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-instituting-changes-to-rooney-ruleHow is that "lack of black privilege"? It looks like they're giving black applicants all kinds of structural advantages in many hiring processes.
Why do you need to pepper your posts with juvenile ad hominem fallacies if you're convinced you're right?
-
There are 32 NFL teams, with 3 black head coaches. That's approximately 9.5% of NFL head coaches being black; blacks are 13% of the US population so that does count as a minor under/representation, but nothing compared to the over/representation of black men among NFL players. It would be statistically unusual for all positions to always show exactly the same breakdown in representation matching general population demographics, anyway, right?
-
If you look at this --
https://stamford.econ.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1361/2016/05/nfl-salary.pdfit notes that blacks are overwhelmingly over/represented in running back and wide receiver positions, whereas whites are over/represented in the quarterback position. It would be interesting to note an explanation for this, seeing as the league as a whole greatly over/represents blacks as a percentage of total players.
It notes that whites are over/represented among offensive coordinators, whereas defensive coordinators are more racially diverse. I am honestly not informed enough about American football and its internal dynamics to understand the reason for this discrepancy.
Looking at all data, it appears the NFL as a structure bends over backwards to encourage promotion and hiring of black and other POC job candidates at all levels, and has instituted numerous special rules in pursuit of that result. I see no "hypocrisy" by the NFL and if anything they are putting their money where their mouth is.
Here's a serious question: do you believe racial discrepancies in outcomes are prima facie evidence of racial discrimination in all cases -- including outcomes that show whites as disadvantaged in that context (such as NFL player representation)? Or do you think an outcome displaying a discrepancy is only evidence of racism when whites are the group displaying an advantage?
-
Great. So there is no pay discrepancy among athletes and blacks are under represented as coaches. Coaches often come from players, so the under representation is even more stark, because most NFL players are black. With teams as the unit of analysis, I could not have made the case better myself, so thanks!
I’m actually more interested in the NFL corporate structure. Certainly the corporate structure within the head offices as well as most teams is black owned, black managed, black operated, with massive pay discrepancies favoring them. Surely, the teams are fully decolonized, and they put more money into minority communities than they pocket. After all, they are synonymous with the corporate Webster published sociological anti-racist dogma, amirite?
At best you’re going to show me PR campaigns. And show me that your argument is valid. I will not entertain any tangents.
-
This of course should be very easy. As you’ve made clear, there’s virtually no quality control in corporate wokesterism. Barely literate people can be given research appointments and publish prolifically. Surely, if corporate neoliberal wokesters wanted to stack an organization with black owners, presidents, VPs, and rain cash on them, they wouldn’t struggle to find people to take those jobs.
And show me your argument is valid.
-
You're completely ignoring the fact that under/representation of blacks as coaches is marginal (if only one more black coach were hired the rate would coincide with population demographics), while over/representation of blacks as players in the NFL is much more significant, and especially extreme at running back and wide receiver positions.
Most NFL players are in the top 1% income bracket in the United States or are in the highest wage category of all professions in American capitalism. Many professional athletes function symbolically as "mascots" for corporate capitalism as in television advertisements.
Why are almost all professional running backs and wide receivers African American? That's a more statistically glaring racial discrepancy than any other in NFL employment. How does that not indicate anti-white discrimination in hiring in those player positions? Shouldn't the NFL in keeping with its commitment to racial diversity mandate interviews with white players for those positions or grant rewards to teams that hire white running backs and white wide receivers? What is your explanation for extreme white under/representation as running backs and wide receivers in the NFL, if not discrimination?
-
No, I’m appealing directly coaches, so this is a straw man. On your view, there should be a significantly overpaid surplus. Second, the pool of applications isn’t the general population. The pool of applicants comes skews toward athletes, who you repeatedly remind me, to your own detriment, are disproportionately black.
And it’s on this point that I’m shocked you’re making such a rudimentary oversight. Black NFL players are a prime example intro teachers use. It’s a lower level position. The average person won’t see game time. They’ll be tossed aside in a good year or two bad that’s it. They are ordered around by disproportionately white coaches, but more importantly, overwhelmingly white higher corporate structure (you do realize coaches are not at the top of the hierarchy, right?).
If you are only focus on one level, and a relatively low tier 1 at that, you are simply not engaging the sociological perspective on anti-racism. Maybe you have a legitimate complaint for another issue, but it doesn’t substantiate the premise of your argument--thus it remains unsound.
This is why from the beginning I have asked you address hierarchy, and likely why you are avoiding going any higher than coaches.
That black NFL players are paid higher than the US public isn’t remotely relevant. We’re talking about matters internal to the NFL! Or does Roger Goodell have a joint appointment with the Fed?
I guess it doesn’t matter though. It’s clear you don’t believe your own argument is valid. I’d tell you to do intro to logic like you did to me, but you let me know that personal remarks like yours indicating losing ;-).
-
NFL players are mostly in the top 1% of earners in the US. Think about biw many white kids dream of playing in the NFL. If liberal sociologists are really teaching about NFL players in those terms, it's no wonder white suburbanites are now all drooling wokester Nike commercial zombies.
You're automatically assuming a marginal racial discrepancy among coaches is due to discrimination, but not explaining the far more severe racial discrepancy amogn hiring players at the specific positions of wide receiver and running back. Think of how many white players compete at those positions at high school and college level who are shut out of the NFL. That's a very elite occupation in societal terms. Are white players discriminated against by the NFL in hiring for those specific positions?
-
I saw a ranking of the top 50 present wide receivers in NFL and only 3 were white. I saw another ranking of the top 11 running backs in this years draft and all were black. Does this indicate anti-white discrimination in hiring for an elite occupation? What explains such an extreme proportional discrepancy given that, again, there is obviously no small number of white players at those positions in high school and college levels?
If the discrepancy is not due to racial discrimination against whites, then what is the explanation, phenotypical? -
Again, you are making an argument about the internal structure of the NFL. At least you’re attempting to. So the inquality needs to be demonstrated internally. For similar reasons, it doesn’t work when people deny class inequality by comparing the poor in the US to average income in an impoverished nation. All you have here is an own goal on coaches and an analysis of football players that becomes redundant when you take hierarchies within into account. Again sociological anti-racism DEMANDS levels of disproportionately high levels of representation and power in leadership. Not in a low rank. So show it to me.
And no, you’re arguing against a straw man on coaches. What I said is the impetus is in you to demonstrate a pro-black discrepancy here and throughout the corporate structure. You’ve failed to do that, because your argument is unsound. My position, which doesn’t go further than you failing to do this, does not require discrimination. A slight discrepancy due to other factors is not permissible under the anti-racist dogma of “walking against the escalator.” You apparently accidentally demonstrated the opposite of sociology’s anti-racism as occur ring in the NFL.
-
white suburbanites are now all drooling wokester Nike commercial zombies. …I'm not your undergrad philosophy teacher but there are a lot of easy to understand guides online that can explain the word "valid" to you.
Well, you explicitly stated that this means one has lost the argument. I don’t blame you for taking this route over floundering to demonstrate the validity of your argument. It’s the better option. I appreciate your concession!
-
Again sociological anti-racism DEMANDS levels of disproportionately high levels of representation and power in leadership. Not in a low rank. So show it to me.
Wait, does it? When, how? According to whom?
What then are organizations that you would describe as "anti-racist" by these terms?
It's almost like you're asserting "anti-racism" spouted by white liberal sociologists is, in the end, just a rhetorical strategy.Or you're creating a type of definition of "anti-racism" that bears no resemblance at all to any organization, any activist collective, any praxis that exists in the real world. So it is just an abstraction with no real meaning?
Isn't this kind of like when people try to claim the Soviet Union was not really communist or whatever?No, not really, because a lot of people are affected by this discourse. "Anti-racism" merely means demanding to racially diversify workforces, including through mass immigration (that often facilitated when the same policy planners seeking mass immigration into western societies enact policies of economic or military destruction against the societies from where refugees will originate), and performed racial animus against impoverished whites.
You're not answering any question I've posed at all, while demanding someone explains undergraduate philosophy concepts that you don't understand to you. You keep repeating the words "sound" and "valid" which apparently you just learned this week while indicating you have no idea whatsoever what they mean. Meanwhile, there are pages and pages of links here that you have not even discussed because they show quite clearly that white liberal "anti-racism" is a right-wing strategy by the power structure as it exists in the United States.
-
By your terms, every university preaching "anti-racism" and even the corporate foundations themselves that manufactured the discourse are "false anti-racists" because generally there are still white people in charge.
I think you're not realizing the entire issue here of how ideology is considered through a Marxian framework. In a Marxist framework, ideology is always understood to be a type of window dressing for the superstructure. Ideology is, basically, propaganda presented for PR purposes to fulfill an economic motivation of those that disseminate it.
Obviously the "anti-racist" discourse we are discussing here was initially sponsored and disseminated by right-wing corporate forces, for their own economic motivations -- do you disagree with that at all?The Democrats basically still remain the plantation party -- they are controlled by a small handful of white oligarchs (spiritual successors of the plantation masters), and their entire constructed ideology deals with seeking to import cheap "POC" labor because white people left on their own would be too prone to organize and demand higher pay. Actually look at the history of the political left in the early 20th century and especially how white leftists in the early 20th century understood race and understood the oligarchy's racial intentionality against white workers.
That's the context behind corporate "anti-racism" that you're studiously not addressing while you pretend on the internet to understand undergraduate-level logic and fail miserably at that attempt.
-
How does "anti-racism" define the superstructure today?
I'm hoping your understanding of Marx is at least beyond that of your understanding of undergrad logic. -
Also, if you can explain why the overwhelming majority (around 95%) of NFL wide receivers and running backs are black, you'll be well on your way toward explaining why other discrepancies manage to persist even in the face of massive efforts to reverse them. The reason for the former is not more complicated really than the reason for the latter.
If we're talking about reasons behind discrepancies in the NFL, that's the place to start. There can't be any meaningful discussion about other discrepancies without first explaining the foundational discrepancies behind the very product NFL is selling to audiences, because we're not even talking about what the NFL "is" in racial terms without explaining why blacks dominate at those positions at professional level in such a statistically anomalous way. This gets into the discussion about what "race" is in the first place and why differing occupations (which are basically ecological niches) would be in some cases filled by a particular racial category in such statistically anomalous way considering all social context.
Black people in the US who become extremely wealthy are generally associated either with athletics or entertainment, and athletics really are a subset of entertainment. How are the NBA and NFL racial performances for a generally white male audience?Actually my problem with CRT analyses is that they really are like a conspiracy theory. It's like neo-Nazis counting numbers of J/e/w/s in key industries and then asserting that Hollywood and banking are controlled by a nefarious J/e/wish plot. Basically replace J/e/w/s with whites and the CRT racial understanding of power is pretty much the same discourse as neo-Nazism. This shouldn't be surprising seeing as CRT was developed through sponsorship by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations who supported the original Nazis as well.
-
Actually my problem with CRT analyses is that they really are like a conspiracy theory. It's like neo-Nazis counting numbers of J/e/w/s in key industries and then asserting that Hollywood and banking are controlled by a nefarious J/e/wish plot. Basically replace J/e/w/s with whites and the CRT racial understanding of power is pretty much the same discourse as neo-Nazism. This shouldn't be surprising seeing as CRT was developed through sponsorship by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations who supported the original Nazis as well.
Exactly this. Spot on. They like to play "find the gap" and then pretend like the only possible reason for said gap is "ism/ist/phobe". It's very dehumanizing to the people they claim to be helping.
-
Alright, let's take this one at a time, since you are clearly using tangents as an obfuscation technique. I'm not going to bite. My argument, for example, does not require the soundness or validity of CRT. My argument does not require any level of explanatory power based on CRT. My argument only requires (1) your argument not to be valid and (2) your argument not to be sound, demonstrated by an incongruence between what sociology publishes and teaches on anti-racism and the corporate practices at the NFL. Nothing more.
(1) has been granted. The premises of your argument do not guarantee your conclusion. You initially called it a straw man, but refused to engage when you were cited making it, as expressed, verbatim. This can reasonably be taken as a concession. And by your standards, the empty quips about undergraduate logic courses you are preparing also substantiate this.
(2) has been well supported. Buried in these red h-e-r-r-i-n-g-s, you have a handful of poorly argued, but relevant points. Let's take these one by one. I will not respond to any tangential content.
First thing is first. Are you disputing that anti-racism in sociology focuses on stratified power relations within structures, which necessitate hierarchies. Yes or no? This is one of the only relevant factors present in your responses.