Adam Eaton "Racial" Tweet Controversy

[iamshack]

Can you link me to all the moving tweets from Arthur Ashe?

 

As I said in my ORIGINAL post, unless you want to use your celebrity and salary for real change, shut the hell up.

 

Those athletes you quoted did a tad more than pulling up their Twitter app and posting whatever thought that popped into their head.

 

This entire topic, at least for me has been about social media and it's uses. You aren't doing anything in 140 characters. It's irresponsible to yourself, the people you are reaching and your employer.

Instead, they used the methods that were available to them at the time. They would likely have utilized Twitter then, had it been available.

 

If you are arguing that you cannot effectuate real change through social media, I don't think I could possibly dream up a worse argument one could take. That is simply as false as false gets.

 

 

[LDF]

I agree with this.

 

 

I think Tony is looking at it from what is best for Eaton, or what Tony would do if he was Eaton. That's a fair take. Tony's also been very clear Eaton said nothing offensive and acknowledged his first amendment rights. This issue has been interesting to watch because a good deal of people are saying "Eaton said nothing wrong" or "Eaton has free speech" and the other group is saying "Eaton shouldn't have said anything even if he wasn't wrong." These two opinions are NOT mutually exclusive, yet the contrasting views are still going up against each other. It doesn't make sense.

 

When it comes down to it, do you think Eaton wanted to apologize for something when he didn't do anything wrong? Do you think he wanted his name dragged in the mud with the word racist? Do you think he wanted to talk with his reps and the Sox to prepare to talk to the media? Do you think he wanted to look Kenny Williams in the eye and have a conversation with him about it? Operate with the understanding of the environment you're in. Everybody is offending by everything now. You will be ridiculed if you're a white male and talk about race in any way that could be misconstrued as anything other than an altruistic view point.

 

If you're a baseball player you should have like three types of tweets.

 

1.) Charity stuff

2.) Team did awesome today keep it up.

3.) Nice, simple interactions with young fans.

 

Eaton had his issues in the clubhouse in AZ, he has had his issues here and this type of controversy is terrible for him. The only people who will remember the details of this stuff is us, big Sox fans. To execs and evaluators they'll remember some Twitter controversy with him talking about black people. He doesn't need this stuff. During his prime, when he's a great player, nobody is going to fret over it. When he's 36 and coming off an injury-ridden year with poor stats and he wants one more chance, his poor reputation is going to be a big factor on whether a team wants to bring him aboard. Jimmy Rollins can suck for two more years and he'll still get a shot because he's been a consummate pro. If you're a player with a bad rep at the end of your career that rep will play a role in whether you get a last shot. No doubt about it.

 

real nice.... f*** it, it wasn't it was a great post in soooo many ways.

[DrunkBomber]

If someone who is financing a movie doesnt want to put different types of people in their movies thats their prerogative. If it offends you, grow up and dont support the movie. Im assuming all of the people condemning hollywood in this thread are equally upset when the fantastic four used Michael B Jordan as the Human Torch? I cant even imagine the outrage if they decide to cast Idris Elba as Bond.

[iamshack]

I agree with this.

 

 

I think Tony is looking at it from what is best for Eaton, or what Tony would do if he was Eaton. That's a fair take. Tony's also been very clear Eaton said nothing offensive and acknowledged his first amendment rights. This issue has been interesting to watch because a good deal of people are saying "Eaton said nothing wrong" or "Eaton has free speech" and the other group is saying "Eaton shouldn't have said anything even if he wasn't wrong." These two opinions are NOT mutually exclusive, yet the contrasting views are still going up against each other. It doesn't make sense.

 

When it comes down to it, do you think Eaton wanted to apologize for something when he didn't do anything wrong? Do you think he wanted his name dragged in the mud with the word racist? Do you think he wanted to talk with his reps and the Sox to prepare to talk to the media? Do you think he wanted to look Kenny Williams in the eye and have a conversation with him about it? Operate with the understanding of the environment you're in. Everybody is offending by everything now. You will be ridiculed if you're a white male and talk about race in any way that could be misconstrued as anything other than an altruistic view point.

 

If you're a baseball player you should have like three types of tweets.

 

1.) Charity stuff

2.) Team did awesome today keep it up.

3.) Nice, simple interactions with young fans.

 

Eaton had his issues in the clubhouse in AZ, he has had his issues here and this type of controversy is terrible for him. The only people who will remember the details of this stuff is us, big Sox fans. To execs and evaluators they'll remember some Twitter controversy with him talking about black people. He doesn't need this stuff. During his prime, when he's a great player, nobody is going to fret over it. When he's 36 and coming off an injury-ridden year with poor stats and he wants one more chance, his poor reputation is going to be a big factor on whether a team wants to bring him aboard. Jimmy Rollins can suck for two more years and he'll still get a shot because he's been a consummate pro. If you're a player with a bad rep at the end of your career that rep will play a role in whether you get a last shot. No doubt about it.

I honestly take offense to the bolded. You are arguing from an extremely narrow viewpoint of what's best from a risk standpoint for a player, agent, or organization. That perspective is so absolutely minor in the context of what was initially posted so as to make it nearly irrelevant. I won't even argue that from a risk aversion standpoint, it only exponentially increases the risk of financial loss to make comments like Eaton did. That is not being disputed here.

 

What I will dispute is that this is the best outcome for society and the world in general.

 

Sporting events are one of the few things in modern civilization that have the ability to unite people across lines of various inequalities. All one needs to do is look at history to recognize that perhaps some of the greatest drivers of progress occurred on a track, a diamond, a court or a field. To devalue that by stating that the very athletes that have this ability to unite and to drive progress should do nothing other than spew innocuous positive drivel could not be more false in my opinion. I find that suggestion to be patently ridiculous.

[southsider2k5]

I honestly take offense to the bolded. You are arguing from an extremely narrow viewpoint of what's best from a risk standpoint for a player, agent, or organization. That perspective is so absolutely minor in the context of what was initially posted so as to make it nearly irrelevant. I won't even argue that from a risk aversion standpoint, it only exponentially increases the risk of financial loss to make comments like Eaton did. That is not being disputed here.

 

What I will dispute is that this is the best outcome for society and the world in general.

 

Sporting events are one of the few things in modern civilization that have the ability to unite people across lines of various inequalities. All one needs to do is look at history to recognize that perhaps some of the greatest drivers of progress occurred on a track, a diamond, a court or a field. To devalue that by stating that the very athletes that have this ability to unite and to drive progress should do nothing other than spew innocuous positive drivel could not be more false in my opinion. I find that suggestion to be patently ridiculous.

 

Welcome to the 21st century where every anonymous yahoo is waiting in the wings to make someone else look bad, to make themselves look good. Social media has changed the face of everything. I shutter to think of how people like MLK, Ashe, Owens, Robinson and other barrier breakers would have been treated in the twitter era.

[Balta1701]

Welcome to the 21st century where every anonymous yahoo is waiting in the wings to make someone else look bad, to make themselves look good. Social media has changed the face of everything. I shutter to think of how people like MLK, Ashe, Owens, Robinson and other barrier breakers would have been treated in the twitter era.

I think we have an idea from Henry Aaron's pre-record mail.

[LDF]

 

this is in ref to movie-goers and racially motivated or not racially motivated moves.

 

i am talking about one movie recently release. The Race the story of jesse owens.

 

this movie is great but yet it hasn't even made 15 mil in the US or overseas. why is that??? this is history and of a great athlete and his going to the olympics before the WW2.

 

why so little attendance ??? not enuf white people in the movies ?? then why is the african americans not supporting it ??? 15 million it has made in 3 weeks.

[caulfield12]

The counterargument is that 42 was just a better movie...and that there is a movie for well-done sports movies, like Creed.

Just like there's a limited demand for the latest Kevin Costner sports movie, such as Draft Day or McFarland, USA., which was actually much better but featured a largely unknown story, compared to, say, Glory Road (Texas Western/UTEP vs. Kentucky/Rupp.)

 

It's also about finding great stories, whether it's Slumdog Millionaire or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The Indian and Chinese casts of those movies were irrelevant to audiences, or Hero, for another largely Asian cast.

 

 

[Doc Edwards Shot]

That's not what I'm arguing at all, but feel free to create your own agenda. Not surprised in your next post you admitted you were supporting Trump, all starting to make sense.

 

The point is no one should be looking to an athlete for their political view on anything. No one cares, and they have no skin in the game. Can they post anything they choose? Sure. But look at what happened to this situation. What good came from it? And I don't think Eaton said anything remotely offensive. This entire topic is ridiculous.

 

Stick to hitting baseballs. That's why people follow you on Twitter, because you play for their favorite team and they are your fan. I don't need your views on racial equality at an awards show.

 

You didn't say it that way the first time. You basically told someone like Eaton, a professional athlete, that he shouldn't be posting material outside of his baseball activities because you don't want to hear what he has to say. You think he should muffle himself.

 

Hence my bringing up the First Amendment which is the opposite of bubbles.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

the first amendment is completely irrelevant here

[southsider2k5]

You didn't say it that way the first time. You basically told someone like Eaton, a professional athlete, that he shouldn't be posting material outside of his baseball activities because you don't want to hear what he has to say. You think he should muffle himself.

 

Hence my bringing up the First Amendment which is the opposite of bubbles.

 

This is just hurtful. The first amendment is to protect the people from the government taking away free speech.

 

Plus realize if you want to cite freedom of speech as the right to say stupid things, you are absolutely correct. Since you apparently skipped Civic's class, the part that you are missing is that the freedom of speech would also the protect the right of the rest of the country to tell you that what you said was stupid. This is exactly what is being done, thus proving that instead of your precious freedom of speech isn't under attack here, in fact it is proving quite healthy, even moreso than was realized by most Americans.

 

There is no freedom of getting to say whatever you want without consequences. If you see that in the constitution somewhere, please point it out to me.

[bmags]

this is in ref to movie-goers and racially motivated or not racially motivated moves.

 

i am talking about one movie recently release. The Race the story of jesse owens.

 

this movie is great but yet it hasn't even made 15 mil in the US or overseas. why is that??? this is history and of a great athlete and his going to the olympics before the WW2.

 

why so little attendance ??? not enuf white people in the movies ?? then why is the african americans not supporting it ??? 15 million it has made in 3 weeks.

 

Sports movies as a whole are a dying breed, I think likely because the 30 for 30 format is largely feeding that audience. Watching crappy movie recreations of sports moments aren't holding up to actually watching the footage with context added by those who were there. Had Rush come out 10 years earlier, probably does much better. Miracle was the last sports movie I remember anyone seeing en masse.

[DrunkBomber]

Sports movies as a whole are a dying breed, I think likely because the 30 for 30 format is largely feeding that audience. Watching crappy movie recreations of sports moments aren't holding up to actually watching the footage with context added by those who were there. Had Rush come out 10 years earlier, probably does much better. Miracle was the last sports movie I remember anyone seeing en masse.

Creed seemed to do pretty well for a sports movie.

[bmags]

Creed seemed to do pretty well for a sports movie.

 

Yeah boxing movies seem to do well, but they also are kind of an outlier in how accomplished directors take on boxing movies. The 1 on 1 aspect and the training journey is ripe with material. It's also just a lot easier to film then a football play.

 

[iamshack]

This is just hurtful. The first amendment is to protect the people from the government taking away free speech.

 

Plus realize if you want to cite freedom of speech as the right to say stupid things, you are absolutely correct. Since you apparently skipped Civic's class, the part that you are missing is that the freedom of speech would also the protect the right of the rest of the country to tell you that what you said was stupid. This is exactly what is being done, thus proving that instead of your precious freedom of speech isn't under attack here, in fact it is proving quite healthy, even moreso than was realized by most Americans.

 

There is no freedom of getting to say whatever you want without consequences. If you see that in the constitution somewhere, please point it out to me.

I don't think he is arguing that no one can respond to Eaton's comment. I think he was simply taking a quite literal interpretation of what Tony posted.

[DrunkBomber]

Yeah boxing movies seem to do well, but they also are kind of an outlier in how accomplished directors take on boxing movies. The 1 on 1 aspect and the training journey is ripe with material. It's also just a lot easier to film then a football play.

Ya come to think of it Im struggling to think of many recent sports movies I liked that werent boxing (Creed/Southpaw/The fighter). I suppose Foxcatcher might qualify but as you mentioned I liked the 30 for 30 about Dupont better than Foxcatcher. I also kind of liked Million Dollar arm but I certainly wouldnt call that a popular movie.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think he is arguing that no one can respond to Eaton's comment. I think he was simply taking a quite literal interpretation of what Tony posted.

 

Saying someone shouldn't say things is one thing, which is what Tony did. He never said Eaton shouldn't be ALLOWED to say them, which is where the first amendment would actually come into play.

[iamshack]

Saying someone shouldn't say things is one thing, which is what Tony did. He never said Eaton shouldn't be ALLOWED to say them, which is where the first amendment would actually come into play.

Yeah, I agree, I didn't read it that way either. But I think it's fair to say the poster did.

[southsider2k5]

Ya come to think of it Im struggling to think of many recent sports movies I liked that werent boxing (Creed/Southpaw/The fighter). I suppose Foxcatcher might qualify but as you mentioned I liked the 30 for 30 about Dupont better than Foxcatcher. I also kind of liked Million Dollar arm but I certainly wouldnt call that a popular movie.

 

The Foxcatcher movie was awful. The 30/30 was WAY better.

[greg775]

So someone uses his status as "celebrity" to try and promote a message about peace and love among all human beings and that is considered racist?

 

Am I missing something here.

Good post but in today's PC world saying, "Why is it always about black and white?" is akin to hating all black people because of the Black Lives Matter movement. If you are going to comment on Chris Rock and the Oscar controversy ... that better not be what you say. It better be, "Why the hell aren't there any African Americans up for Oscars?? Did I miss something? I'd turn this off if it wasn't for Chris Rock and the presenters!" Can't.Go.There or anywhere on Twitter if you are a famous person like Eaton.

[LDF]

Sports movies as a whole are a dying breed, I think likely because the 30 for 30 format is largely feeding that audience. Watching crappy movie recreations of sports moments aren't holding up to actually watching the footage with context added by those who were there. Had Rush come out 10 years earlier, probably does much better. Miracle was the last sports movie I remember anyone seeing en masse.

 

alot of what you posted makes sense, which i never thought of, esp from that angle. the movie never the less is a great movie and it is more having to do with what he went thru and his stance.

 

in today's world of PC, i just find it hard to agree with most of the reasoning some are using. but this is me and my thought process.

[bmags]

Ya come to think of it Im struggling to think of many recent sports movies I liked that werent boxing (Creed/Southpaw/The fighter). I suppose Foxcatcher might qualify but as you mentioned I liked the 30 for 30 about Dupont better than Foxcatcher. I also kind of liked Million Dollar arm but I certainly wouldnt call that a popular movie.

 

Rush was great if you haven't seen it.

[LDF]

Yeah boxing movies seem to do well, but they also are kind of an outlier in how accomplished directors take on boxing movies. The 1 on 1 aspect and the training journey is ripe with material. It's also just a lot easier to film then a football play.

 

i have been pounding this thought process in my mind and screw it. i am going to post it.

 

creed made alot of money and got a lot of critics saying positive remarks about it, why??? great story. a sentimental feeling with an aging white guy, why did it make the money, b/c of all of the above. white major actor 2 upcoming african american actors.

 

now my all american, great movie, at least for me, a true story, a sentimental love story . receive alot of positive reviews. so why did it not make the money ??? majority of white actors

 

one other movie, ride along 2. i didn't see, i thought it may be stupid yet it made all the money. i assume it is all african american actors.

 

movies are a hit or miss on what many will consider a success.

[caulfield12]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11142390/chris...ian-joke-oscars

 

What Chris Rock's lazy Asian joke revealed about "diversity" at the Oscars

[greg775]

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11142390/chris...ian-joke-oscars

 

What Chris Rock's lazy Asian joke revealed about "diversity" at the Oscars

It was comedy so I'm not outraged, but when you think about it, in today's PC day and age, that was pretty ballsy of Rock to go there especially using little kids as "props." I'm not offended, don't get me wrong, but it's interesting how he and the Oscars went there.