Harrington is right! - Really

[WildCard]

Huh? Which?

 

 

Hmm. I'm still not sure I follow.

 

I guess I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't form opinions, make inferences -- hell, pass judgments -- on people's values, morals, etc. based on your interactions with them. Of course, we all do that.

 

I was just saying that those judgments should not preclude or obstruct you from allowing for the possibility that a person you think you know might also do or say some pretty heinous stuff -- stuff that seems inconsistent with what you know about them.

 

The white dude paradigm was just being offered by me because it's Friedman and Harrington. I am pretty sure that they're both white. (I only qualify that because I am allowing for the possibility that Friedman is Jewish.**) So, Friedman says, or implies, "Gee. Mike's always been a solid guy to me. I know he can come off as brusque or short. But I've never seen him do something, or heard him say something, that made me think 'damn, that guy's a sexist.' And I wouldn't be friendly with someone I thought was sexist. So I'm pretty sure he's not sexist."

 

It's just sorta myopic on Friedman's part. Harrington triggered the he-man woman hater's club of the Twitterverse (and those who oppose such thoughts) with some Tweets that hinted at "hey, get a load of the girl who's gonna be president of the sports teams."

 

That sorta stuff, standing alone, should be enough to prompt Friedman to think, "man -- that's not the Harrington I know, or thought I knew -- maybe he's kinda backward that way."

 

But he didn't. At least not yet. Although he DID un-follow him. Which is maybe the final word on the matter.

 

** I'm not trying to stir the pot, I swear. Just trying to recognize that people who are Jewish have their own unique issues to deal with in terms of animus based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

That all makes sense. To me though, if it wasn't two white dudes in this scenario, would the conversation still be the same?

 

What in the world does race have to do with it?

 

Would the first sentence be OK if a different color were substituted for "white?"

 

The question answers itself.

Kinda like this. I think we have a tendency to over analyze this because, well, it's two white dudes, and the history of interactions like this in a situation dealing with issues like this maybe makes us think there's something there when maybe there isn't.

[nfreeman]

 

The white dude paradigm was just being offered by me because it's Friedman and Harrington. I am pretty sure that they're both white. (I only qualify that because I am allowing for the possibility that Friedman is Jewish.**) So, Friedman says, or implies, "Gee. Mike's always been a solid guy to me. I know he can come off as brusque or short. But I've never seen him do something, or heard him say something, that made me think 'damn, that guy's a sexist.' And I wouldn't be friendly with someone I thought was sexist. So I'm pretty sure he's not sexist."

 

 

Again -- this is not what he said. 

 

"He's been nice to me" was NOT the predicate for "I don't think he's a sexist."

 

The predicate was "I've known Mike a long time."

 

The two are materially different.

[That Aud Smell]

Smell, I meant, what did Harrington say that had Friedmann talking about him in the first place? I'm stuck on mobile and lagging badly is why I'm asking if someone has it remembered or handy.

 

Ah, gotcha. I can try to harvest the Tweets. They wound up in my TL (even though, like Friedman did recently, I unfollowed Harrington long ago) because other people I follow were eye-rolling at him.

 

What in the world does race have to do with it?

 

Would the first sentence be OK if a different color were substituted for "white?"

 

The question answers itself.

 

Nothing here, I suppose. I just meant that, globally, if you're a white guy hanging with another white guy -- and let's add "straight" to that description to further expand it -- you might never have reason to know that your buddy is racist, sexist, and/or a homophobe. You just might never know that. 

[WildCard]

Nothing here, I suppose. I just meant that, globally, if you're a white guy hanging with another white guy -- and let's add "straight" to that description to further expand it -- you might never have reason to know that your buddy is racist, sexist, and/or a homophobe. You just might never know that. 

I believe the point nfreeman and I are trying to say is, there's no need for this. Other people are capable of these emotions as well. What does being a straight white guy have anything to do with this?

Edited May 4, 2018 by WildCard

[That Aud Smell]

That all makes sense. To me though, if it wasn't two white dudes in this scenario, would the conversation still be the same?

 

Ha - I'd submit that if the 2 people involved were something other than two white dudes, or let's just say two men (the key, to me, is like-with-like), then the stupid sh1t would not have been said about Kim P. as a girl president and Friedman would not have felt the need to unfollow Harrington. 

 

Again -- this is not what he said. 

 

"He's been nice to me" was NOT the predicate for "I don't think he's a sexist."

 

The predicate was "I've known Mike a long time."

 

The two are materially different.

 

It is more than fairly implied and inferred in the context of the statement.

[darksabre]

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything more than this in my entire life.

:lol:

Edited May 4, 2018 by darksabre

[That Aud Smell]

What does being a straight white guy have anything to do with this?

 

Because of the centuries long history of institutionalized sexism that's, like, been pretty bad for women?

 

I think we are talking past each other.

[WildCard]

Because of the centuries long history of institutionalized sexism that's, like, been pretty bad for women?

 

I think we are talking past each other.

We're not. I say in my post that we tend to over analyze these things because of that history. I'm not sure that that history tends to make something more or less likely in a scenario like this.

[nfreeman]

 

Nothing here, I suppose. I just meant that, globally, if you're a white guy hanging with another white guy -- and let's add "straight" to that description to further expand it -- you might never have reason to know that your buddy is racist, sexist, and/or a homophobe. You just might never know that. 

 

Is this not true for a gay POC hanging out with another gay POC?

 

More importantly -- no one (I think) is disputing that if 2 people randomly hang out with each other, they might not discover all of the skeletons in their respective closets.  But if 2 people spend a lot of time together over a period of years, they probably will.

 

 

It is more than fairly implied and inferred in the context of the statement.

 

I don't agree, and, to revert to my original point on this, I think society is better off if we lean to the side of assuming that someone is NOT acting based on prejudice, as opposed to the assuming that he/she is doing so.

[Randall Flagg]

W.r.t. a proliferation of dudes rambling about things they don't know about, why the dudes qualification? I'm one of those dudes, and best friend with xx chromosomes and I love to ramble incoherently about stuff we don't understand together. Do you mean, dark, that girls don't do that because they're smarter? They don't because they don't feel a sense of inflated view of their own knowledge? Because we as society shun them when they try to join and make them unwelcome? Just looking for where you were going with that clarification.

[josie]

I don't agree, and, to revert to my original point on this, I think society is better off if we lean to the side of assuming that someone is NOT acting based on prejudice, as opposed to the assuming that he/she is doing so.

Ideally yes. Until you find yourself to be someone who’s more likely to be prejudiced against and you start to notice those ingrained prejudices everywhere- so you vocalize them to draw attention to be problem so others can work towards kumbaya. Problem is, those who aren’t affected don’t see why it’s important and assume it’s a product of over sensitivity at best and outrage hobbyist tendencies worthy of eye rolling at worst. I feel that’s the crux of this woke or not convo going on round these parts.

[WildCard]

Ideally yes. Until you find yourself to be someone who’s more likely to be prejudiced against and you start to notice those ingrained prejudices everywhere- so you vocalize them to draw attention to be problem so others can work towards kumbaya. Problem is, those who aren’t affected don’t see why it’s important and assume it’s a product of over sensitivity at best and outrage hobbyist tendencies worthy of eye rolling at worst. I feel that’s the crux of this woke or not convo going on round these parts.

Fair point. As a straight white dude with a good life, can't exactly say I've faced a lot of discrimination 

[shrader]

W.r.t. a proliferation of dudes rambling about things they don't know about, why the dudes qualification? I'm one of those dudes, and best friend with xx chromosomes and I love to ramble incoherently about stuff we don't understand together. Do you mean, dark, that girls don't do that because they're smarter? They don't because they don't feel a sense of inflated view of their own knowledge? Because we as society shun them when they try to join and make them unwelcome? Just looking for where you were going with that clarification.

 

If you're saying this satirically, it is absolutely brilliant.

[darksabre]

W.r.t. a proliferation of dudes rambling about things they don't know about, why the dudes qualification? I'm one of those dudes, and best friend with xx chromosomes and I love to ramble incoherently about stuff we don't understand together. Do you mean, dark, that girls don't do that because they're smarter? They don't because they don't feel a sense of inflated view of their own knowledge? Because we as society shun them when they try to join and make them unwelcome? Just looking for where you were going with that clarification.

:thumbsup:

[Randall Flagg]

:thumbsup:

I'm asking what you meant haha

[That Aud Smell]

@Flagg.

 

There's a lot of stuff on Harrington's TL. Here's the one that seemed to start it:

 

 

A whole bunch of blowback started. Dozens of people jumped all over him saying that, maybe even without realizing it, he went with something as strong as "laughable" because Kim's a woman. Harrington responded over and over again: It's not about her being a woman, it's about her being a person who is unqualified to oversee hockey ops. And then the rejoinders came that the scrutiny he was applying to this incoming businesswoman seemed ... far stricter and more exacting than that which is applied to non-hockey business men who serve as presidents. In other words, people accused him of using his "qualifications" threshold as a pretext for giving vent to a bias against a woman taking on these positions. People pointed out all kinds of stuff about how her qualifications were at least as good as a long list of successful FO people. And Harrington shot those down one by one for various reasons. The whole thing wound up as a sh1t show. Predictably.

 

The absolute most benign view of the matter for Harrington is that he was wholly insensitive to, and perhaps therefore disrespectful of, the societal precedent and gender dynamic at play in having a woman take on such a significant position of power and authority in big league sports.

 

Like my youngest girl said: "That is so cool."

 

"Kim Pegula as permanent president -- LMFAO" is just not a good look in this day and age.

 

We're not. I say in my post that we tend to over analyze these things because of that history. I'm not sure that that history tends to make something more or less likely in a scenario like this.

 

I genuinely, in good faith, have no idea what your point is here.

[WildCard]

I genuinely, in good faith, have no idea what your point is here.

Sorry, not really sure I can explain it better than that. I'm looking at Friedman's interaction as an isolated event, and you're looking at it with all of the history of sexism

[nfreeman]

Ideally yes. Until you find yourself to be someone who’s more likely to be prejudiced against and you start to notice those ingrained prejudices everywhere- so you vocalize them to draw attention to be problem so others can work towards kumbaya. Problem is, those who aren’t affected don’t see why it’s important and assume it’s a product of over sensitivity at best and outrage hobbyist tendencies worthy of eye rolling at worst. I feel that’s the crux of this woke or not convo going on round these parts.

 

I agree with WC that the bolded is fair.  I do not doubt that prejudice, and resulting disadvantage and unfair treatment, exist.  I just think it's a serious accusation, involving a significant character flaw, and one that shouldn't be thrown around without really digging into the facts and allowing the person in question to explain his/her actions. 

 

I also think that this type of sober, pre-accusation analysis doesn't occur very often, and that the failure to do so has had a cumulative, highly destructive impact on our society.

[darksabre]

I'm asking what you meant haha

:lol: I saw "inflated view of their own knowledge" and assumed this was tongue in cheek.

 

I'm not saying women don't do it, it's just that they tend not to do it on large platforms. Sure there's insufferable stuff like "The View" or whatever, but I think women tend to be more careful with the things they say in order to avoid people (righteous men) jumping down their necks about every little thing. We tend to dominate/take over conversations women are having in public spaces, whether through verbal diarrhea or simply straight volume. Personally, as a very loud man, I have to be careful that I am not dominating conversations with women or talking over them, regardless of my intent.   

 

The trend at the moment is to start trying to turn the microscope on the things men talk about, the how, and the why, especially in the public realm. We escape scrutiny for our words far too easily and often. Speech and thought is full of learned patterns, most of them subconscious. Male domination of conversation, whether verbal or written, and the subtle cues in the words and phrases we use, is something that we should be taking greater care to be aware of. It's our responsibility. Every conversation or discussion any one of us has is almost automatically improved when a woman's voice is involved. 

 

For me, it's a lot easier to simply change the things in my speech/thought habits that are problematic than to complain about how hard/confusing it is. Crying about being forced to get smarter is not very masculine, at least in my eyes.  :blush:

[Randall Flagg]

@Flagg.

 

There's a lot of stuff on Harrington's TL. Here's the one that seemed to start it:

 

harrington_1.PNG

 

A whole bunch of blowback started. Dozens of people jumped all over him saying that, maybe even without realizing it, he went with something as strong as "laughable" because Kim's a woman. Harrington responded over and over again: It's not about her being a woman, it's about her being a person who is unqualified to oversee hockey ops. And then the rejoinders came that the scrutiny he was applying to this incoming businesswoman seemed ... far stricter and more exacting than that which is applied to non-hockey business men who serve as presidents. In other words, people accused him of using his "qualifications" threshold as a pretext for giving vent to a bias against a woman taking on these positions. People pointed out all kinds of stuff about how her qualifications were at least as good as a long list of successful FO people. And Harrington shot those down one by one for various reasons. The whole thing wound up as a sh1t show. Predictably.

 

The absolute most benign view of the matter for Harrington is that he was wholly insensitive to, and perhaps therefore disrespectful of, the societal precedent and gender dynamic at play in having a woman take on such a significant position of power and authority in big league sports.

 

Like my youngest girl said: "That is so cool."

 

"Kim Pegula as permanent president -- LMFAO" is just not a good look in this day and age.

 

 

I genuinely, in good faith, have no idea what your point is here.

It might not be a good look, but my reaction, if my thought was that this position would involve anything to do with hockey and football, would be exactly the same. (As of right now, I don't have any reaction other than "that seems like a big job", because I don't know what it entails.) And stronger if it was Terry. Because in general, I think Terry has shown to be dumber than a box of rocks, and somehow good at business, while Kim strikes me as intelligent. 

 

I don't think what other people project onto Harrington's initial post is justified. I really don't.

:lol: I saw "inflated view of their own knowledge" and assumed this was tongue in cheek.

 

I'm not saying women don't do it, it's just that they tend not to do it on large platforms. Sure there's insufferable stuff like "The View" or whatever, but I think women tend to be more careful with the things they say in order to avoid people (righteous men) jumping down their necks about every little thing. We tend to dominate/take over conversations women are having in public spaces, whether through verbal diarrhea or simply straight volume. Personally, as a very loud man, I have to be careful that I am not dominating conversations with women or talking over them, regardless of my intent.   

 

The trend at the moment is to start trying to turn the microscope on the things men talk about, the how, and the why, especially in the public realm. We escape scrutiny for our words far too easily and often. Speech and thought is full of learned patterns, most of them subconscious. Male domination of conversation, whether verbal or written, and the subtle cues in the words and phrases we use, is something that we should be taking greater care to be aware of. It's our responsibility. Every conversation or discussion any one of us has is almost automatically improved when a woman's voice is involved. 

 

For me, it's a lot easier to simply change the things in my speech/thought habits that are problematic than to complain about how hard/confusing it is. Crying about being forced to get smarter is not very masculine, at least in my eyes.  :blush:

Thank you for the explanation. I have friends with the same views but infinitely worse behavior/discourse that have tuned me out as a troglodyte instead of answering the question like that

[MattPie]

Is this not true for a gay POC hanging out with another gay POC?

 

More importantly -- no one (I think) is disputing that if 2 people randomly hang out with each other, they might not discover all of the skeletons in their respective closets.  But if 2 people spend a lot of time together over a period of years, they probably will.

 

 

 

I don't agree, and, to revert to my original point on this, I think society is better off if we lean to the side of assuming that someone is NOT acting based on prejudice, as opposed to the assuming that he/she is doing so.

It may be worth noting there's a power dynamic here; Friedman (I'd think) ranks way higher than Mike Harrington. Harrington is likely going to be on best behavior around him so he doesn't alienate a more powerful "colleague" in the media. MH seems like the kind of guy that sucks up to his superiors and talks down to anyone "below" him.

Edited May 4, 2018 by MattPie

[nfreeman]

It may be worth noting there's a power dynamic here; Friedman (I'd think) ranks way higher than Mike Harrington. Harrington is likely going to be on best behavior around him so he doesn't alienate a more powerful "colleague" in the media. MH seems like the kind of guy that sucks up to his superiors and talks down to anyone "below" him.

 

Also quite fair, and quite possible.  (And Friedman's rank relative to MH's is like the jungle rank of the lion vs that of the vulture.)  I think it still goes back to how much time they've spent together and thus how well they know each other.  Friedman said "I've known Mike a long time."  If they've spent a bunch of late nights boozing together after games, Friedman's probably got enough information about MH to formulate a reasonably well-informed opinion.  If they've just met briefly a couple of times and follow each other on twitter, then he probably doesn't have enough info.

 

Of course, we don't know -- and since we don't, I think the default should NOT be to assume that Friedman is a simpleton who would think "he's always been nice to me, so he's not a sexist."

[That Aud Smell]

I don't think what other people project onto Harrington's initial post is justified. I really don't.

 

Fair enough. There's a flavour that does seem to emerge more as you scroll through his Tweets and Replies. He doesn't really acknowledge the legitimacy of the points made in reply that there are plenty of successful top execs in the NHL who aren't "hockey people", who are more business people, and who are, as it so happens, men. 

 

In any case, and IIRC, Harrington has a decent track record of being good to and about women in sports (I think he used to cover girls HS stuff back when no one else was doing it?). So, I don't think this really goes too far. It's more Harrington being a Twitter d1ck, as per usual (and hence why Friedman was, like, peace-out).

 

The sexist boor is Bucky.

 

I think the default should NOT be to assume that Friedman is a simpleton who would think "he's always been nice to me, so he's not a sexist."

 

Far as I can tell, no one here has assumed or even suggested that.

Edited May 4, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[WildCard]

Far as I can tell, no one here has assumed or even suggested that.

What :lol:

 

That seems like the last 3 pages of this thread

[dudacek]

In his weak defence, judgemental and superior seems to be Harrington’s default setting with anyone, not just women ????

Edited May 4, 2018 by dudacek