Sexist, maybe. Condescending, maybe. Racist it is not. I think I could work that into a haiku if I thought about it :\
It was more similar to addressing a dog. "Come here, boy." "How many roads must a man walk down Before you call him a man?" The comparison to Stahre's speech is a bit of a stretch because he is addressing the group as "boys", which is common in sports, even if patronizing and insulting. Referring to adults with childrens' terms is still commonplace, not so subtle classism and racism. Latino back of the house kitchen workers are still boys. Asian mani/pedi workers are still girls. Hair stylists are still girls. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
[QUOTE="Socarchist, post: 37037045, member: 164966" The comparison to Stahre's speech is a bit of a stretch because he is addressing the group as "boys", which is common in sports, even if patronizing and insulting. .[/QUOTE] It's common in England to refer to players as "lads", which means boy or young man, and no one gets offended by it. Perhaps it is common in Sweden to refer to players with the Swedish equivalent. Only patronizing or insulting if intended to be.
I mean, that's not how insults work. Something is insulting or patronizing if someone else perceives it to be. Whether intended or not, those terms can offend. Sure, Stahre probably isn't aware of the racial connotations that calling adult men boys holds in the US, and maybe we shouldn't expect him to. Doesn't mean players or whomever hearing it can't be offended by it. It's not necessarily the fault of the person who said it, obviously, but it can still be offensive. If Stahre was told it offended someone and he continued to do so, that would be a real problem, however. It's okay to make mistakes. You'd have to be pretty hateful to continue using offensive terms on purpose if you know they can be hurtful.
(Emphasis added). Your position is incoherent. Either the intent of the speaker matters or it does not. Earthshaker's point is that the speaker's intent matters. I agree. The recipient does not have the right, unilaterally, to determine what is offensive or not. There needs to be an objective test, taking into consideration both intent, context and the historical use of the term. When Earthshaker calls someone Daisy, does not intend it to be homophobic, and the word's historical derivation does not suggest it is a homophobic slur (as we've discussed already), it is inappropriate for someone to feign offense. That sort of thing offends me. And even more offensive to me is muddled thinking that cannot keep straight whether intent matters or not. But I don't get to unilaterally decide what is offensive. Got it?
Intent matters, but it doesn't dictate whether someone is offended by what you said or not. I think you are purposefully trying to not understand what I said. It's not a complicated idea. If you want to say what you want to say, go for it. We are free to judge you by what you say and what you intend when you speak, however. You don't get to decide how I feel about what you said.
Intent does dictate whether what was said is offensive. Without intent to offend, the offended person has no justification to take offense.
I know for a fact that you are wrong about this. It's my mental state you're discussing, so I have perfect knowledge of it. I'm not trying to distort what you said. I quoted you verbatim, and highlighted the inconsistent portions dealing with the speaker's mental state.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You are free to judge. But if you judge someone as purposefully seeking to offend, when in fact they are not intending to offend, you are wrong. And you are being a jerk in the bargain.
The true mark of someone who's actually trying to understand, and not at all the mark of someone who just wants to win...
If you want me to understand you, let alone if you want to "win," whatever that means, don't say internally inconsistent things. Conveying thoughts in an understandable manner is the very purpose of language. The whole idea of giving or taking offense is that words matter. If words don't matter, then no one can ever be offended by anything anyone says. So you still don't "win."
Your logic is faulty. When a moderator reps a post, there is no ambiguity that the post has passed muster to remain on the site. There may, however, be ambiguity about what aspect of the post the moderator found pleasing. In short, there is nothing inconsistent about my posts cited by you immediately above. Nice try, though. I find offensive your passive-aggressive approach to dealing with me. I think it is definitely intentional. You are a coward. If you have something to say to me, identify yourself and say it to me directly.
Don, I can see why you became a lawyer and not a psychologist or a therapist . Feeling offended, which may be how someone feels when a statement is made, is not a matter of immutable fact. I can imagine someone litigating the issue if there was a need to assign blame for the statement, which happens in a court of law. In such a case, I would agree that intention is a necessary attribute before blame can be assigned. But, when we are not litigating each other, just being human beings, how I react to a statement is all MY responsibility. And there may be statements made that the "offender" may think are perfectly safe, that somehow hurt me unintentionally. But I am still hurt or offended. In such a case, it is up to me, not the alleged "offender", to deal with it. The most effective way to do that is to politely ask for statements that may be hurtful to me to not be used with me in conversation. I can provide a good example if one is needed to make the point.
I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference between something which is objectively "offensive" and someone being subjectively "offended." The trouble is that these days, the taking of subjective offense has become weaponized in order to stifle honest, good faith discourse. I post on here in good faith and under my own name. Sometimes I attempt to use good-natured humor. Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm not funny. Often I'm angry (like right now). But I'm always in good faith, and I'm offended when others do not approach this board in good faith (not talking about you). I cannot know what is in another person's heart, but I can make informed inferences.
Back to the subject at hand: the Quakes' coach. Insofar as he is European and does not know the history of "boy" as used to address African-American men, it is impossible for me to believe that the coach intended it in a derogatory manner, and I doubt anyone in the locker room was offended. It would make sense to counsel him about the matter, so no one mistakenly takes offense. But the fact that we feel the need to criticize the coach about such a trifle is a measure of the madness that has subsumed this board.
Folks, please use the ignore list if someone is getting under your skin. The posts in this thread and others are within BigSoccer's rules and no moderator action is going to be taken. The ignore list is for the exact purpose of not responding to someone that you don't want to engage with.
Watch some other MLS coaches - including American coaches - speeches to and about their players and they all address to their players as "boys". Calling a guy a racist just because you don't like the way he coaches is beyond pathetic. A sick society we are living in. I believe Mjlee is the same person who was crucifing Fioranelli because his father had issues with the Italian authorities. So ********ing low! Disgusting. What is next? Assaulting Stahre, Fioranelli and their spouses and kids when they have dinner in public? This fascist behavior gives this fan base a bad name and future coaches or GM might avoid this club knowing that their own fans will accuse them of racism while shaming them for not speaking perfect English
I never said Stahre was a racist. I have no reason to believe Stahre is racist or not racist. I said that my husband (a former collegiate athlete) got very upset about Stahre’s addressing the players as boys. Many here have agreed that addressing men that way is condescending, some have agreed it could be demeaning, and I pointed out that it could also be considered racist. I only pointed that out because I imagine In a business environment, you would be cautioned not to use such phrasing unless you were very familiar with the addressee.