Bob Costas attacks CBS Sports for Ignoring the Masters' 'Racism and Sexism'

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Wow.

My thoughts about your (and many other folks') comments as well..   I think it sad we have reached the point where we feel we have a right to dictate what private citizens (or groups) can do, based on political correctness, without regard for the wishes of those citizens/groups.

Let me ask you this.............    Should you be required to allow just anyone to come into your home, regardless of whether you want them there or not ?

If not, why?

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

My thoughts about your comments as well..

Let me ask you this.............    Should you be required to allow just anyone to come into your home, regardless of whether you want them there or not?

No, but if I choose only allow to white people, or men, then I deserve to be called a racist or sexist and other people should criticize me, unfriend me, or protest me.

Let me ask you this..........  If you hear someone say "man, I can't stand those a-hole neo-nazi's" do you reply "why can't you understand that they are a private group and not subject to the 14th Amendment"

I'd also ask you to identify one person on this thread who said private clubs are not allowed to discriminate.

[Chas]

Bob Costas is a moron. Since the time I discovered this I've avoided watching him as much as possible.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Chas

Bob Costas is a moron.

I think its interesting that he's such a divisive character.  I really like him, but I know that many do not.  Not sure that I understand why.  Is it just because he is opinionated?  Or because he is outspoken on political topics on which you disagree with him?  If so, I could see that.  I probably hold that against other broadcaster types, but for whatever reason Costas doesn't bother me.

[Harmonious]

I would wonder how many posters (including the most critical of Augusta National), if they went just a little ways back in their own family history, would find some people that might have been exclusionary in their thinking. Maybe their jokes included politically incorrect subjects.  Maybe they didn't hire someone because of their skin color or religion.  Maybe they joined clubs that didn't allow people of certain backgrounds. I grew up as far away from Georgia as possible; yet I would be lying if I said that I didn't know quite a few folks who had racist feelings.

And, maybe today some of those people have changed their way of thinking. Should they still be painted with the "racist, sexist, you-name-it-ist" brush? That's not fair, and not very smart.

Augusta, like numerous private clubs, has changed. I saw many people of color enjoying the Masters tournament.  They didn't seem to have the same moral issues of some of the anti-Augusta National posters here. Let's move on.

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by dsc123

No, but if I choose only allow to white people, or men, then I deserve to be called a racist or sexist and other people should criticize me, unfriend me, or protest me.

Let me ask you this..........  If you hear someone say "man, I can't stand those a-hole neo-nazi's" do you reply "why can't you understand that they are a private group and not subject to the 14th Amendment"

Seriously?   You want to compare neo-nazi's to Augusta National?  For real?     But for the record, neo-nazi's are actually allowed to exist and spew their specific version of hate under the first amendment.

Regarding the 14th,  I don't get what you are implying.   My first inclination was that you were referring to the equal protection clause but since that relates to the administration of justice and the protection of life, liberty and property but  that doesn't really apply to an individual until somebody does bodily harm to another person.  Then I considered the privileges or immunities clause but that clause really pertains to forbidding states from writing discriminatory laws.     So I will admit to ignorance with regard to your statement and ask for clarification as to how it relates to this discussion..

Regarding your response to my question.....    You state you don't let just anyone come into your home.   So obviously, you have some type of criteria.    What makes your criteria for who can enter your home any more valid than the criteria of any other person or group's criteria for who can enter theirs?  The governments?   Some other groups?  I submit that it is up to each individual (or group of individuals) to set that criteria for themselves, provided they are not a public entity or funded in any way by tax dollars and that it is no ones business what that criteria is.    My point is you have (and should have) the right to choose who is welcome in your home without being chastised for it.   Augusta National should have that same right.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Seriously?   You want to compare neo-nazi's to Augusta National?  For real?     But for the record, neo-nazi's are actually allowed to exist and spew their specific version of hate under the first amendment.

Regarding the 14th,  I don't get what you are implying.   My first inclination was that you were referring to the equal protection clause but since that relates to the administration of justice and the protection of life, liberty and property but  that doesn't really apply to an individual until somebody does bodily harm to another person.  Then I considered the privileges or immunities clause but that clause really pertains to forbidding states from writing discriminatory laws.     So I will admit to ignorance with regard to your statement and ask for clarification as to how it relates to this discussion..

Regarding your response to my question.....    You state you don't let just anyone come into your home.   So obviously, you have some type of criteria as to who is allowed and who is not.    What makes your criteria for who can enter your home any more valid than the criteria of any other person or group's criteria for who can enter theirs?  Your definition of what is wrong?   The governments?   Some other groups?  I submit that it is up to each individual (or group of individuals) to set that criteria for themselves, provided they are not a public entity or funded in any way by tax dollars.    My point is you have (and should have) the right to choose who is welcome in your home.   Augusta National should have that same right.

No, you're not getting it.  My point isn't that neo-nazi's are not allowed to exist.  My point is that they obviously are allowed to exist, yet that does not make their views okay, or moral, or immune from criticism.  Just like Augusta National was "allowed" to discriminate, but that doesn't mean it was right.  And no, I do not think the two are at the same level, the point was to show the flaw in your rationale by applying the same logic to a more extreme factual example that you couldn't possibly disagree with.  Judging from your last paragraph, it looks like you think there is nothing objectionable about a person barring another from his home solely because of the color of his skin.  If that's the case, then the disagreement is deeper and probably off topic.

You're not getting the Equal Protection Clause, either, by the way.  The "life, liberty and property" part is the due process clause.  The Equal Protection Clause follows and prohibits discrimination.  Anyway, the point is just that because the 14th Amendment only prohibits discrimination by State government (more or less), and thus private organizations are free to discriminate, that doesn't make discrimination by private organizations ok, or insulate them from criticism.  Its just not illegal. I assumed that you would agree, in my extreme example, that neo-nazi's are objectionable, even if "allowed."  Apparently, I was wrong, and it looks like the conversation will end there.

[BallStriker]

Costas is such a sanctimonious ass........this whole goddamn country (world) has a history of racism and sexism.  And if he has as much integrity and he tries to make everyone believe, how can he continue to work for a sub of General Electric -- a company that has a LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG history of fraud against the US Government and human rights violations (google Markey hearings), among many, many other highly questionable business acts......

On a related point, I have a group of golfing buddies that I play with on a regular basis -- none of which happen to be a woman -- are we sexists because we don't include a woman in our regular group?

[jamo]

No, but if I choose only allow to white people, or men, then I deserve to be called a racist or sexist and other people should criticize me, unfriend me, or protest me. Let me ask you this..........  If you hear someone say "man, I can't stand those a-hole neo-nazi's" do you reply "why can't you understand that they are a private group and not subject to the 14th Amendment" I'd also ask you to identify one person on this thread who said private clubs are not allowed to discriminate.

Damn Godwin...

[Sevi316]

People do realize that it is by invite only to even become a member right? It is not like there is a stack of applications they are sorting through and throwing all the female and black applications into a big fire. They have a set number of memberships and only when someone leaves do they ask another person to join. People are way too trigger happy with the word racist. I chose all of my friends… until a year ago I didn’t have any black friends… Does that make me racist? It is not like Augusta National has a big sign at the entrance that says NO WOMAN OR BLACK PEOPLE ALLOWED. Why should they be forced to ask people to join because of their skin color? There is not a requirement for anyone to have 20% of their friends be minorities so why do they have to have a certain number of members be female or minorities?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think its interesting that he's such a divisive character.  I really like him, but I know that many do not.  Not sure that I understand why.  Is it just because he is opinionated?  Or because he is outspoken on political topics on which you disagree with him?  If so, I could see that.  I probably hold that against other broadcaster types, but for whatever reason Costas doesn't bother me.

I actually like him a lot as well.  I had no idea that people disliked him so much either.  Of course, until I joined TST I had no idea the hatred people had for Brandel Chamblee ... Or Phil Mickelson for that matter. :)

Seriously though, this doesn't change my opinion of Costas at all ... I still like him ... just think he was way off base here. :)

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by jamo

Damn Goodwin...

lol.  It took some googling for me to figure out what that meant.  funny.  and true.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas

Bob Costas is a moron.

I think its interesting that he's such a divisive character.  I really like him, but I know that many do not.  Not sure that I understand why.  Is it just because he is opinionated?  Or because he is outspoken on political topics on which you disagree with him?  If so, I could see that.  I probably hold that against other broadcaster types, but for whatever reason Costas doesn't bother me.

I thought he was a good broadcaster until that anti-gun piece. It's not that I disagree with his politics, it's that they were jarringly out of place, not to mention simplistic and uninformed.

Originally Posted by dsc123

If you hear someone say "man, I can't stand those a-hole neo-nazi's"...

Speaking of that, I once heard someone say "I hate Illinois Nazi's" right before running a bunch of them off a bridge with their used police car.  Have to admit, it was pretty funny.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

Damn Goodwin...

lol.  It took some googling for me to figure out what that meant.  funny.  and true.

I had to google it too, but might not have if it had been spelled correctly (Godwin).

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by dsc123

The facepalm is the insistence that its a private club and they can do what they please.  Nobody is saying its illegal.  They're saying its wrong.

So then Curves, Sherwood Forest Women's Golf Club, Wake Robin Golf Club ( to name a few ) are also wrong because they only allow women to join?

[dsc123]

I think its funny that people get all worked up over Costas for a 1 minute speech about gun control and this article where he says: "I'm not talking about forcing this issue down everyone's throats while Tiger Woods is lining up a birdie putt . . . What you're looking for here is not a full discussion, because you couldn't do it justice, but an acknowledgement," but then insist that since Augusta has 2 female members for 8 months everyone should just move on from the 79 years of gender discrimination.  What if he said it last year, then it would have been ok?

[teamroper60]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Judging from your last paragraph, it looks like you think there is nothing objectionable about a person barring another from his home solely because of the color of his skin.  If that's the case, then the disagreement is deeper and probably off topic.

I assumed that you would agree, in my extreme example, that neo-nazi's are objectionable, even if "allowed."  Apparently, I was wrong, and it looks like the conversation will end there.

I think you are developing the idea that I approve of racism or sexism.   I do not.    To (hopefully) clarify my position on this, let me give you my personal experience with this topic.     I count many minorities among my friends and those friends have been to my house on many occasions.   My brother-in-law however, is another story.   His dislike of minorities is so strong that he has moved twice simply because a minority moved into the neighborhood.    Do I personally approve of his actions and opinions?   No,  I do not.    Not in the least.   BUT....    I do not believe I have the right to tell him who his friends and associates should be or chastise him for who is (or is not) welcome in his home, anymore than I think he should be able to do that to me.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by dsc123

What you're looking for here is not a full discussion, because you couldn't do it justice, but an acknowledgement," but then insist that since Augusta has 2 female members for 8 months everyone should just move on from the 79 years of gender discrimination.  What if he said it last year, then it would have been ok?

No. It was a men's club for those 79 years. They have the right to admit whoever they want in their club. There are plenty of women's groups and clubs where men are not members.

Personally not my cup of tee. I always liked having plenty of females around and I certainly couldn't care less what color somebody is but they are free to make up the rules for their club.

[notsohard]

Originally Posted by iacas

Do you understand that they're a private club, and as such, are entitled to do as they please regarding their membership?

i understand quite perfectly..........the KKK have something along those beliefs as well.