Tony Kornheiser - possibly suffering from dementia

[quadraphonic]

"Mythical?" Hardly. Those people exist. They're all over the internets. The handwringers. The people who are looking for every boogeyman they can blow out of proportion to bring someone else down, since being p.c. and manufacturing outrage is about all they got.

Name a few.

No, thanks.
I don't take what most of those handwringers from either side say seriously, so I can't think of any national names. Probably Rush and Hannity would come to mind first, because they are "out front" on exaggerating for the sake of fomenting public outrage for their side of the talk show hosts I regularly scan by in my area. Then there's Obama and the administration talking about how "dangerous" they are, and how they are driving weak, misguided people to violence just by saying things, so they must be stopped. In the world of public imaging, they all do it. Maybe you could throw in governments who want to do everything [mostly outlawing stuff] "for the kids" or "for the elderly" or "for the poor" and portray it as if the other side is "against kids, the elderly, and the poor." There's plenty of people who want to be outraged, or at least portray outrage, to marginalize the other side.

As far as real life, everyday people who aren't national names but who still like to "have their say" on internet forums, some people are just entertained by the act of seeking out ways to be appalled. It's a sad way to live, on the edge of reality. The few I can recount a name for, you wouldn't know, because they are anonymous internet usernames.

I'm sure you've seen the manufactured outrage that some people go through. Taking the smallest factoid and turning it into the biggest factoid they can, and calling it "truth." It happens a lot. Everybody wants to put the most positive spin on their position, and the worst possible spin on the other guy's.

Besides, what good would naming names do? We're all much better off remembering the inconsistent things that people do, so we can avoid repeating them, instead of putting a face to every inconsistency in human nature. Or, more accurately, putting every inconsistency in human nature on some people's faces. It's better to have actions that we avoid as our own personal boogeymen, instead of worrying about specific hosts, politicos, bloggers, etc. who really have no effect on our lives other than what we let them affect [that doesn't apply as much to politicians though, because they aren't "entertainers. One day, all these talk show hosts, politicos, bloggers, etc. will be gone, but human nature will still be in the humans left behind, so the people who want to be appalled will still seek out ways to be appalled, even if only to make the other guy look worse than themselves.

 

[the golden boy]

Rush was witch hunted. He has addressed the incident on his show, not with the media that would twist what he said around just as they did here.

Yes, Rush was afraid that the liberal sports media (that group he can't/won't prove exists) would twist what he said.

Change the 'w' in witch to a 'b', and you might be onto something.

I don't think Rush was witch-hunted. He knew exactly what he wanted to say.

I wasn't too crazy about him being on Sunday Countdown, but as long as he stayed away from political statements and anything else not pertaining to sports, I was willing to give him a chance. I remember him saying McNabb was overrated. Personally, I disagreed with that, but as long as he gave a reasonable argument as to why he thought McNabb was overrated, then I would've thought of it simply as one man's opinion. But he injected race into it when it wasn't necessary to do so.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Actually, Rush was JUST what the show needed. He forced us to look at the way we cover sports and we found that we were uncomfortable with him doing so- so we just shot the messenger.

By the way, with all of the NFL pregame shows on the air today, and for that matter the "Football Night in America" pregame at 7 p.m.- does anyone still watch the ESPN NFL Sunday shows?

 

[Nate Wesley]

"Mythical?" Hardly. Those people exist. They're all over the internets. The handwringers. The people who are looking for every boogeyman they can blow out of proportion to bring someone else down, since being p.c. and manufacturing outrage is about all they got.

Name a few.

No, thanks.
I don't take what most of those handwringers from either side say seriously, so I can't think of any national names. Probably Rush and Hannity would come to mind first, because they are "out front" on exaggerating for the sake of fomenting public outrage for their side of the talk show hosts I regularly scan by in my area. Then there's Obama and the administration talking about how "dangerous" they are, and how they are driving weak, misguided people to violence just by saying things, so they must be stopped. In the world of public imaging, they all do it. Maybe you could throw in governments who want to do everything [mostly outlawing stuff] "for the kids" or "for the elderly" or "for the poor" and portray it as if the other side is "against kids, the elderly, and the poor." There's plenty of people who want to be outraged, or at least portray outrage, to marginalize the other side.

As far as real life, everyday people who aren't national names but who still like to "have their say" on internet forums, some people are just entertained by the act of seeking out ways to be appalled. It's a sad way to live, on the edge of reality. The few I can recount a name for, you wouldn't know, because they are anonymous internet usernames.

I'm sure you've seen the manufactured outrage that some people go through. Taking the smallest factoid and turning it into the biggest factoid they can, and calling it "truth." It happens a lot. Everybody wants to put the most positive spin on their position, and the worst possible spin on the other guy's.

Besides, what good would naming names do? We're all much better off remembering the inconsistent things that people do, so we can avoid repeating them, instead of putting a face to every inconsistency in human nature. Or, more accurately, putting every inconsistency in human nature on some people's faces. It's better to have actions that we avoid as our own personal boogeymen, instead of worrying about specific hosts, politicos, bloggers, etc. who really have no effect on our lives other than what we let them affect [that doesn't apply as much to politicians though, because they aren't "entertainers. One day, all these talk show hosts, politicos, bloggers, etc. will be gone, but human nature will still be in the humans left behind, so the people who want to be appalled will still seek out ways to be appalled, even if only to make the other guy look worse than themselves.

So you know who they are, you just aren't naming them when asked. Alright.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Actually, Rush was JUST what the show needed. He forced us to look at the way we cover sports and we found that we were uncomfortable with him doing so- so we just shot the messenger.

Please, just stop. The 'messenger' hung himself, and by his own tongue at that.

There was no orchestrated effort to make Donovan McNabb nor any African-American QB to do well or look good. If there were, the advocates lobbying for or openly opining on the behalf of Akili Smith, Quincy Carter, Ray Lucas, and now JaMarcus Russell (amongst other failed AA QBs) would be pretty well known.

Your talk radio hero tried to pass off racial bullspit as observable fact, and lost.

 

[quadraphonic]

So you know who they are, you just aren't naming them when asked. Alright.

Your asking for names was kinda bogus.
I didn't know that we were required to cite every instance of everything we use as an example on the internets. I mean, dang, this ain't wikipedia, fercryinoutloud.

 

[Pratte4Life]

Okay, Nate. I didn't read a big feature in the New York Times by William C. Rhoden in 1997 on Kordell Stewart talking about how he was going to change the NFL BEFORE HE HAD EARNED HIS FIRST NFL START!

I didn't hear Michael Holley in the early part of the last decade call Michael Vick the best QB in the league.

For years I heard legitimate questions about why there weren't black quarterbacks and head coaches in the NFL.

But equally legitimate would be why there aren't any white cornerbacks.

Race, sadly, often becomes a factor in both media and fans praise or criticism of an athlete or coach.

 

[Nate Wesley]

So you know who they are, you just aren't naming them when asked. Alright.

Your asking for names was kinda bogus.
I didn't know that we were required to cite every instance of everything we use as an example on the internets. I mean, dang, this ain't wikipedia, fercryinoutloud.

I didn't ask you something hard, like the names of newspapers and magazines that you read.

You said there are people out there waiting to be offended, implying that was what 'they' live for. Well...name them. Who is 'they'? All you've done so far is go on tangents.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Okay, Nate. I didn't read a big feature in the New York Times by William C. Rhoden in 1997 on Kordell Stewart talking about how he was going to change the NFL BEFORE HE HAD EARNED HIS FIRST NFL START!

I didn't hear Michael Holley in the early part of the last decade call Michael Vick the best QB in the league.

Weak. One sports feature and one sports radio/sports TV commentator's opinion don't exactly constitute an advocacy project, P4L.

For that matter, if Bill Rhoden were writing a similar feature on Tim Tebow, that shouldn't be interpreted as "I think Tim Tebow will be a dominant QB who will win multiple Super Bowls, along with breaking all notable passing records" unless you actually read that line verbatim. You shouldn't interpret that piece as Bill Rhoden lobbying for Tebow to be a starter, make millions of dollars in salary and endorsements, and marry a Denver Broncos cheerleader--unless he explicitly says so.

For years I heard legitimate questions about why there weren't black quarterbacks and head coaches in the NFL.

But equally legitimate would be why there aren't any white cornerbacks.

There are many more observable racial, cultural, and political reasons behind the initial lack of African-Americans in football front offices and coaching staffs, and the irrationality involved in those issues have often been cranked up to absurd levels when it comes to who suits up on the field.

Stereotyping about White athletes and foot speed notwithstanding--if you really think the two examples are comparable...well, I'll just say you lack perspective.

 

[Pratte4Life]

There you go, Nate.

That next-to-last paragraph!

You just made a comment essentially desirous of a black quarterback to succeed.
















Now awaiting my banishment from message board posting after someone goes to the moderator saying "It's either Pratte4Life or Me!" . . . . .

 

[quadraphonic]

So you know who they are, you just aren't naming them when asked. Alright.

Your asking for names was kinda bogus.
I didn't know that we were required to cite every instance of everything we use as an example on the internets. I mean, dang, this ain't wikipedia, fercryinoutloud.

I didn't ask you something hard, like the names of newspapers and magazines that you read.

You said there are people out there waiting to be offended, implying that was what 'they' live for. Well...name them. Who is 'they'? All you've done so far is go on tangents.

Nah, you didn't ask me something hard.
You asked me something bogus.

I suppose I could slog through the internet and roughly categorize the times and places I've seen people who want to be offended.
But you wouldn't read it, and you'd probably think they were made up, so......no, thanks. Not a big fan of futility.
Stay classy big fella. And don't worry, "they" probably don't circulate in your perspective-laden orbits, so you're prolly safe.