Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[Poopadoop]

A black kid has a 6x better chance of getting into Harvard Medical school than an Asian kid with the same grades

Systemic racism

If that's true, then I agree.

[OngBonga]

Ok forget the BPOA point, that's a side issue. You have failed to demonstrate there is systematic racism in the UK. Pointing to Eton and Oxbridge is naive, you're failing to realise that immigrants have a choice, and they tend towards schools that are better suited to their culture. The very existence of Islamic schools in the UK demonstrates that we actually give immigrants opportunities that other nations might not allow. I mean, try building a church in Pakistan. Pointing to petrol stations is also naive, they work there because their families own them. That's equal opportunity, the opposite of racism.

People who consider themselves victims, they are the ones denying themselves opportunities. Take fucking responsibility.

[Poopadoop]

How many black kids go to Eton or Oxbridge? I have no idea.

I'll give you a hint. There's much less than their proportion of the population.

More than zero.

I'd be surprised if the number was much larger than zero for Eton.

How many white non-Mulsim kids are at the expensive Islamic schools? Maybe if they didn't exist, there would be more rich immigrants at Eton.

Lol, dunno how many Jewish kids go to Catholic schools? What a stupid question.

And why do we need a law? Because individuals need to be told what is and isn't illegal. An individual being racist is not systematic racism, it's just racism.

So you admit there's some racists here, just that they don't make a sizable proportion of the population or have undue influence.

[oskar]

The very existence of Islamic schools in the UK demonstrates that we actually give immigrants opportunities that other nations might not allow. I mean, try building a church in Pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_in_Pakistan

[Poopadoop]

Pointing to Eton and Oxbridge is naive, you're failing to realise that immigrants have a choice, and they tend towards schools that are better suited to their culture.

lol this is a joke right? A black kid doesn't want to go to Oxbridge even though it's one of the top unis in the world because he PREFERS to go somewhere else.

Ok maybe he does because he doesn't want to stick out like a sore thumb.

Why do Oxbridge not accept people anonymously based on their performance? Why do they need to know if the person's name is Halburt Winthorp or Shaneille Jackson? Why interview them?

The very existence of Islamic schools in the UK demonstrates that we actually give immigrants opportunities that other nations might not allow. I mean, try building a church in Pakistan.

Being more tolerant of religious diversity than Pakistan is hardly anything to wave the flag about.

Pointing to petrol stations is also naive, they work there because their families own them. That's equal opportunity, the opposite of racism.

I'm pretty sure asians don't own every single petrol station. But whatever I can't prove it.

[Poopadoop]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_in_Pakistan

Heh, yeah that doesn't totally surprise me actually. I saw both churches and mosques in Iran. Didn't think Pakistan was quite the same, but...good one.

[OngBonga]

I'll give you a hint. There's much less than their proportion of the population.

That's because of THEIR choices. There is nothing stopping black or Islamic people going to Eton, there is no policy that discriminates against minorities.

I'd be surprised if the number was much larger than zero for Eton.

It doesn't matter.

Lol, dunno how many Jewish kids go to Catholic schools? What a stupid question.

Of course it's a stupid question. So why can't you realise that asking why there aren't many black kids at Eton isn't also a stupid question? Those that can afford Eton choose other schools, probably ones where there are no white kids. So how is Eton the racist school?

So you admit there's some racists here, just that they don't make a sizable proportion of the population or have undue influence.

Of course we have racists. That's not what systematic racism is. Systematic racism is racism by policy, or by social norm. If Eton had a policy that said Islamic kids were not welcome, then we have systematic racism... but that isn't what's happening.

[OngBonga]

lol this is a joke right? A black kid doesn't want to go to Oxbridge even though it's one of the top unis in the world because he PREFERS to go somewhere else.

We're arguing about black kids at Eton without either of us having the slightest fucking idea how many are there. Any more than zero is enough to demonstrate that they are indeed welcome.

Ok maybe he does because he doesn't want to stick out like a sore thumb.

This is a choice based on victim mentality.

Why do Oxbridge not accept people anonymously based on their performance? Why do they need to know if the person's name is Halburt Winthorp or Shaneille Jackson? Why interview them?

Why interview people for jobs? Why not just do it on paper?

Being more tolerant of religious diversity than Pakistan is hardly anything to wave the flag about.

Well I'm giving you examples of systematic racism. That's what it is... it's racism supported either by policy or social norm.

I'm pretty sure asians don't own every single petrol station. But whatever I can't prove it.

They don't, just like they don't own every corner shop. Again, well done for demonstrating that it's equal opportunity.

[Poopadoop]

Of course it's a stupid question. So why can't you realise that asking why there aren't many black kids at Eton isn't also a stupid question? Those that can afford Eton choose other schools, probably ones where there are no white kids. So how is Eton the racist school?

Because Eton is a "white school" in everything but name. That's my point.

If Eton had a policy that said Islamic kids were not welcome, then we have systematic racism... but that isn't what's happening.

The fact that policy isn't written in their school constitution in blood doesn't change the fact it's basically their policy.

[OngBonga]

Prove it's their policy, don't just say it. And while you're at it, prove it's not the policy of elite Islamic schools to exclude non-Islamic students.

[Poopadoop]

Well I'm giving you examples of systematic racism. That's what it is... it's racism supported either by policy or social norm.

That's not actually racism. Aren't you the one who always says that?

I love how no matter the topic, you always try to steer it towards 'something something muslims'

[Poopadoop]

Prove it's their policy, don't just say it. And while you're at it, prove it's not the policy of elite Islamic schools to exclude non-Islamic students.

This isn't a criminal court; I don't have to prove my arguments beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm just pointing out that under-representation of minorities at the top UK schools is present and ongoing. You can draw different conclusions than I do if you want, but to me it's a sign of systematic racism.

[OngBonga]

After a quick bit of googling, it appears that both Eton and Cambridge have been admitting black students for 808 years.

Just keep shouting racism like it means something to you.

[OngBonga]

That's not actually racism. Aren't you the one who always says that?

I love how no matter the topic, you always try to steer it towards 'something something muslims'

Yeah fair enough, it's theoism. I'm glad we're actually agreeing on this point.

[Poopadoop]

They don't, just like they don't own every corner shop. Again, well done for demonstrating that it's equal opportunity.

You're the one arguing they only work there because their dad owns the place. I'm saying every asian must own their own petrol station if that's the case. And I kinda doubt that.

[Poopadoop]

After a quick bit of googling, it appears that both Eton and Cambridge have been admitting black students for 808 years.

Well that's a good counter to someone who argued they were barred. Too bad that's not what I said.

[OngBonga]

You're the one arguing they only work there because their dad owns the place. I'm saying every asian must own their own petrol station if that's the case. And I kinda doubt that.

I'm arguing that wealthy immigrants have a tendancy to invest in community businesses, with the idea that it will help them to integrate into their new country, and as such places like petrol stations and corner shops have a higher percentage of Asians working there than you might expect in a random world. I have no idea how this comes close to evidence of racism to you.

[OngBonga]

Well that's a good counter to someone who argued they were barred. Too bad that's not what I said.

Well I'm going to counter that both Eton and Cambridge have an admirable history of non-racism, since even in the days where it would be socially acceptable to be racist, they still admitted black kids in. Why would they do that? Obviously they were clever enough. So their values seem to be intelligence, not culture.

[Poopadoop]

I'm arguing that wealthy immigrants have a tendancy to invest in community businesses, with the idea that it will help them to integrate into their new country, and as such places like petrol stations and corner shops have a higher percentage of Asians working there than you might expect in a random world. I have no idea how this comes close to evidence of racism to you.

Without actually knowing who owns all the petrol stations and corner shops, it's impossible to say. That's why I'm happy to drop it.

[OngBonga]

It doesn't even matter who owns all the shops. You could buy a petrol station if you had the money, will and found a suitable venture that is for sale. So could a Zimbabwean, should he, or indeed she pfe ze or it, meet the same criteria.

Racism isn't nearly the problem you think it is. It's the left who keep insisting it is.

[BananaStand]

Let me put this a way you might understand: If I said "I think New Hampshire culture is a bunch of white people running around in pickup trucks with confederate flags (ya ya i know) and sawed off shotguns, chewing tobacco and shouting the n-word. But whenever I meet one i just forget all that and treat them like anyone else."

Would you believe that?

Maybe. It would help if there was some data backing up those claims. "bunch of white people" is probably self-evidently accurate. But the rest of it requires some extensive citations. Like why do you believe there is a disproportionate amount of pickup trucks? Why do you believe there is a higher prevalence of sawed off shotguns? Have you seen chewing tobacco sales figures by state? Or by state per capita? Is tehre something we all need to know about that? How many New Hampshire-ians have you heard utter the n-word?

Furthermore, it would be pretty unreasonable of you to treat anyone from new hampshire negatively because of this preconceived notion. You could meet someone driving a sedan, unarmed, with clean teeth, and not greeting you with racists pejoratives. You would know instantly that your preconeption was inaccurate, and then you could proceed accordingly.

That all seems reasonable. If you then continued to interact with that person as if they were an armed racist supporting the confederacy (in a union state?????), then you would be in the wrong. Or, if your preconception proves true, then also proceed accordingly. the preconception is bad but that doesnt' mean you have to feel guilty if it's confirmed.

[Poopadoop]

After a quick bit of googling, I decided to make some shit up about Cambridge admitting black students for 808 years and Eton doing the same despite being only 678 years old.

fyp.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-15386436

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/30/a...t-nigeria.html

[oskar]

[OngBonga]

fyp.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-15386436

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/30/a...t-nigeria.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a7861546.html

[OngBonga]

Dirty googling. 808 years or 678, we're splitting hairs here. We're still well before USA, let alone slavery, and blacks we're being allowed in.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe. It would help if there was some data backing up those claims. "bunch of white people" is probably self-evidently accurate. But the rest of it requires some extensive citations. Like why do you believe there is a disproportionate amount of pickup trucks? Why do you believe there is a higher prevalence of sawed off shotguns? Have you seen chewing tobacco sales figures by state? Or by state per capita? Is tehre something we all need to know about that? How many New Hampshire-ians have you heard utter the n-word?

Furthermore, it would be pretty unreasonable of you to treat anyone from new hampshire negatively because of this preconceived notion. You could meet someone driving a sedan, unarmed, with clean teeth, and not greeting you with racists pejoratives. You would know instantly that your preconeption was inaccurate, and then you could proceed accordingly.

That all seems reasonable. If you then continued to interact with that person as if they were an armed racist supporting the confederacy (in a union state?????), then you would be in the wrong. Or, if your preconception proves true, then also proceed accordingly. the preconception is bad but that doesnt' mean you have to feel guilty if it's confirmed.

So your claim seems to be that your description of black culture was accurate and evidence-based then, is that right? But when you meet someone who isn't talking like a gangbanger and hitting women you assume they're ok? What if they have a hat on sideways and droopy pants?

The same question would be what if I met the NH person without a shotgun and confederate flag, but chewing tobacco? Should I then assume they're also racist?

[Poopadoop]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a7861546.html

Critical words there being "for the first time". That means EVER.

[OngBonga]

Critical words there being "for the first time". That means EVER.

Whatever, you're nitpicking here. You're accusing two institutions of racism when they have a rich history dating back centuries that demonstrates the opposite.

[Poopadoop]

Dirty googling.

it's not even plausible story to say it was cause you didn't read the pages closely. You didn't read them at all.

Eton's first black student was in 1964.

Cambridge has only been around 809 years. Hard to imagine where they'd have found a black student in 1209.

[Poopadoop]

they have a rich history dating back centuries that demonstrates the opposite.

In the case of Cambridge, 1800s.

In the case of Eton, 1964.

And still under-represented in both.

[OngBonga]

Oh. Well perhaps there was institutional racism pre 1964.

[OngBonga]

"under represented" is not necessarily anyone's fault.

[Poopadoop]

supporting the confederacy (in a union state?????),

Since when does prejudice have to make sense? It's not about logic, it's about lumping people together based on preconceived notions. If I assume most white people in the US are tobacco-chewing, gun-toting racists, and racists on TV seem to like the confederate flag, then it seems obvious that a NH white person would have one too.

[BananaStand]

So your claim seems to be that your description of black culture was accurate and evidence-based then, is that right? But when you meet someone who isn't talking like a gangbanger and hitting women you assume they're ok? What if they have a hat on sideways and droopy pants?

The same question would be what if I met the NH person without a shotgun and confederate flag, but chewing tobacco? Should I then assume they're also racist?

Maybe I'm just capable of making these distinctions because I have an incredibly high IQ.

You're doing some fucked up strawmanning here. You're talking about forming opinions. I don't know how you form opinions. Why are there rules on thought? It's my assertion that opinions don't have to influence behavior.

What might you do differently when you encounter the unarmed, union-supporting, tobacco chewer?


Side note: It appears I misspoke earlier when I said that I harbor a preconceived universal hatred for no one but for the single exception of the Amish. I had forgotten how deeply I hate tobacco chewers.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe I'm just capable of making these distinctions .

Maybe you are. But when you say black people succeed less in the US because of 'black culture' it suggests you're blaming their problems solely on themselves. It's not too big a leap, then, to conclude that you feel that it's something about them being inferior that makes them more likely to turn out that way.

Would you also say being taken into slavery was black peoples' fault? Or do you think Whites might have had something to do with that.

[BananaStand]

Maybe you are. But when you say black people succeed less in the US because of 'black culture' it suggests you're blaming their problems solely on themselves.

I wanna be clear about the words here, since that's your new thing. I didn't say "succeed less" because of 'black culture'. I said they experience poverty more. And the aspects of black culture that drive poverty, I feel, are entirely the fault of black people.

It's not too big a leap, then, to conclude that you feel that it's something about them being inferior that makes them more likely to turn out that way.

I've been very explicit on what I believes makes poverty more prevalent in black society. I dont' know why you would conclude anything different.

Would you also say being taken into slavery was black peoples' fault? Or do you think Whites might have had something to do with that.

What does that have to do with anything? You're going to tell me that european slave traders are the reason that 70% of black kids have unmarried parents?

[Poopadoop]

I wanna be clear about the words here, since that's your new thing. I didn't say "succeed less" because of 'black culture'. I said they experience poverty more.

It's the same thing, but anyways glad we're clear on that.

And the aspects of black culture that drive poverty, I feel, are entirely the fault of black people.

That was the question, thanks for answering.

I've been very explicit on what I believes makes poverty more prevalent in black society. I dont' know why you would conclude anything different.

Right, you said it was for those reasons to do with early pregnancy etc., and that it was their own fault. Entirely.

The next logical question is what is it about black people that makes them do those things? And your answer seems to be 'black culture', which they alone are responsible for.

So, even if you don't come out and say it directly,you blame black people 100% for their own condition in the US.

Now, the next question you don't want to answer is: What is it inherent in a black person that makes them have a bad culture and do dumb things?

In other words, if there's something about black people that makes them propogate a bad culture then there must be some genetic component to their present condition. Wouldn't you agree?

What does that have to do with anything? You're going to tell me that european slave traders are the reason that 70% of black kids have unmarried parents?

I'm saying European slave traders contributed more than 0% to that, yes.

[BananaStand]

So, even if you don't come out and say it directly,you blame black people 100% for their own condition in the US.

Are you implying that this was ambiguous prior to now?

Now, the next question you don't want to answer is: What is it inherent in a black person that makes them have a bad culture and do dumb things?

In other words, if there's something about black people that makes them propogate a bad culture then there must be some genetic component to their present condition. Wouldn't you agree?

NO!

Why does it just have to be genetic???

The problem is CULTURAL. The culture says that anyone who criticizes black culture for having too many babies out of wedlock, and having non-nuclear families, and being indifferent to street violence......is either a racist (if they're white) or an uncle Tom (if they're not). The culture says that black people are victims, and thus should not be held responsible for their problems. The culture says black people can solve their problems by demanding concessions from the oppressing class.

I suppose you could make an ironic claim that white people are somewhat responsible for black people's problems because they are enabling that victimized narrative and providing concessions. Acknowledging white privilege is probably the most racist thing a white person can do. The Al Sharptons of the world, and Black Lives Matter, and all the social-justice warriors out there have shaped the culture (of both races) so that it can be ruled by emotion, and not fact. It feels good to rage with resentment for the oppressor, and cloak yourself in compassion for the victim. That sentiment is WAY OUT OF CONTROL.

And because of that, black people are not looking inward for the solutions to their problems. And that's why their problems persist.

None of that is genetic.

[Poopadoop]

Where does the culture come from? The trees?

If you're saying black people are responsible for their own culture, and their own culture leads them to do maladaptive (i.e., dumb) things, you have no other option than to believe that black people are maladptive.

[BananaStand]

Where does the culture come from?

Where does black culture come from? It comes from black people.

If you're saying black people are responsible for their own culture, and their own culture leads them to do maladaptive (i.e., dumb) things, you have no other option than to believe that black people are maladptive.

ok

Now what's the answer to that? If they're maladaptive, they can either get their shit together, or we can change the environment so that their maladaptive traits are not inhibiting.

So.....what's a more reasonable policy.....reduce teen pregnancy, or change society so that teen pregnancy doesn't bear any negative consequences. How would you even do the latter?

[Poopadoop]

ok

Well, it's not ok. It's racist. That's the whole point.

Now what's the answer to that? If they're maladaptive, they can either get their shit together,

If it's genetic, they can't. You may as well ask them to grow gills and go live in the sea.

or we can change the environment so that their maladaptive traits are not inhibiting.

Other options exist. One would be to treat them as though they have the same potential as any other people and try to change the environment so as to encourage them to reach that potential.

So.....what's a more reasonable policy.....reduce teen pregnancy, or change society so that teen pregnancy doesn't bear any negative consequences. How would you even do the latter?

Don't think anyone's arguing for the latter, but doing the former is harder when people assume it's an ingrained tendency of the people involved to make inferior choices.

OTOH, if you assume they are inherently clever and human enough in total to respond positively to positive encouragement, you might try finding ways to give them that encouragement. Telling them they suck because they've made a culture out of sucking is pretty much the exact opposite of doing that.

[BananaStand]

Well, it's not ok. It's racist. That's the whole point.

No it's not. "inferior" was racist. Maladaptive seems merely apt.

If it's genetic, they can't. You may as well ask them to grow gills and go live in the sea

Who says it's genetic? Certainly not me. Sounds kinda farfetched to believe there could be a genetic predisposition to avoid condoms.

Other options exist. One would be to treat them as though they have the same potential as any other people

This is not in dispute.

and try to change the environment so as to encourage them to reach that potential.

The environment exists around the culture, for which black people are entirely responsible. Ergo, changes in the environment must come from them. Racial sensitivity training for white cops isn't going to result in less black teens getting pregnant.

[Reducing teen pregnancy] is harder when people assume it's an ingrained tendency of the people involved to make inferior choices

Uh no. The first step to a solution is acknowledging you have a problem. it's harder to fix because it's an ingrained tendency of black people to deflect any legitimate criticism by declaring it racist.

OTOH, if you assume they are inherently clever and human enough in total to respond positively to positive encouragement, you might try finding ways to give them that encouragement.

What crybaby bullshit is this??? The deal is.....stay in school, and don't fuck raw. Then in return, you'll prosper for life. That's not encouraging enough????

[Savy]

A black kid has a 6x better chance of getting into Harvard Medical school than an Asian kid with the same grades

Systemic racism

What are the chances that a black kid taken at random achieves the same grades as an asian kid chosen at random? Why is this? Do asian kids that are taken from the same demographic of kids as poor black kids out perform them? Yes they actually do. Do they perform more like the black kids in that area or asian kids as a general? Black kids in that area? In the UK who is the worst performing demographic? Working class white kids.

The funny thing is what you're getting at is kind of true and certain cultures 100% benefit from the system. The thing that isn't spoken about is that weird groups of people benefit by far the most from certain schooling systems like asian kids in Australia crush it more than they alreay do in their home countries which out perform most massively.

In majoritively underperforming schools in the US the kids of all cultures massively underrachive. Yet kids that are from teh same areas that go to certain schools massively over perform regardless of race etc. The system is the important thing, in the UK for example working class white kids ruin your school yet BME groups are actually really good for your school. Inner London has some really top tier stuff going on.

It's almost like numbers are really mdae up and easily controlled to distort the political point you want to make.

Do 100x more asian kids apply to Harvard with top grades compared to black kids? Why does this happen in the first place?

Affimative action is mostly bullshit and white people wanking each other off over how progressive they are and how much they are helping and it's pretty cancer for society.

[BananaStand]

Great example of what I've been talking about over the weekend....

Serena Williams CHEATED at Tennis. I'm not familiar with the game, but apparently, you're not allowed to get coaching during a match. Serena's coach was sending hand signals, and she got a penalty for it. She denied it. Right there, fuck her, because she's lying. The coach later admitted that they were using hand signals. So she cheated, got caught, lied about it, and no one believed her lie.

So she throws a tantrum and smashes her racket on the ground. Apparently there are rules against that too. So she gets another, more severe penalty.

Now remember, all she had to do was follow the rules and act like a professional, and none of this would have happened.

Instead, she thinks that A) it's ok to cheat. B) It's unfair for her to be penalized for cheating. So in her mind, it's perfectly reasonable to act like an irate child, throw a tantrum, and insult the referee.

However, in reality, none of those things were ok, and she was further penalized, this time quite severely.

I don't know much about tennis, but what occurred on Saturday was a travesty of sportsmanship.

Serena CHEATED. And then had a shockingly unprofessional meltdown at being caught and penalized for it. Again, the cheating is not in dispute. The coach confessed.

And the headlines today are about how sexism and racism cost Serena the championship. IS THIS FOR FUCKING REAL???

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/us/se...rsy/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/opini...ove/index.html

[BananaStand]

The controversy stemmed from Ramos accusing Williams of illegally receiving coaching from Patrick Mouratoglou. Williams shot back at the umpire and insisted she was not receiving coaching and that she would “rather lose” than cheat.

Williams received a second violation when she smashed her racket in frustration. She lost a point due to the violation, causing the player to argue with the umpire again about the initial penalty.

“I didn’t get coaching,” Williams said multiple times. “I don’t cheat! I didn’t get coaching. How can you say that? You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life!”

The third violation — verbal abuse — came when she called the umpire a “thief,” leading to an automatic game loss.

“You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar. When are you going to give me my apology? You owe me an apology. Say it. Say you’re sorry...And you stole a point from me. You’re a thief, too!” Williams yelled at Ramos.

That's what she said in response to being caught RED HANDED at cheating.

Further investigation proved that she did in fact cheat. The coach admits it.

And now it's hands across America for this CHEATER. WTF???

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/0...t-us-open.html

Maybe a MAN would just say "oh fuck, I got caught" and then just go about his business. Play like a fucking champion. What Serena did was a complete disgrace, and maybe that has something to do with the escalation of her penalty.

But no, that can't be it. It's obviously a sexist, racist, cabal out to whitewash pro women's tennis.

[OngBonga]

In her defence, the claim she was "cheating" is unfair for two reasons... coaches delivering signals is widespread, furthermore there is no evidence she was paying attention to her coach... it's the coach who was attempting to cheat. That's not to say it's ok, but to call it outright cheating is too far, and only serves to dilute the meaning of the word.

That said, she is a fucking cunt.

[Poopadoop]

Pretty sure she never played the race card herself. It's not her fault if the media does it, so don't make it sound like she's trying to be a 'black victim'. She's claiming it wouldn't happen if she were a man, and she may well have a point. Male players routinely mouth off more than she did and don't get penalized for it.

Really, both Serena and the umpire were cunts. First, she shouldn't have had a hissy fit over the penalty, smashed her racquet, and then mouthed off. But, the umpire should have at least first given her a warning to cool down; instead he jumped right to a game penalty. That's pretty severe in a close match. I don't think what she said warranted it, and she's not doing anything wrong complaining about it.

[BananaStand]

coaches delivering signals is widespread,.

This didn't work for Belichick. It didn't work for Lance Armstrong. But then again, they're white men, so maybe they just aren't allowed to make excuses the way black women are.

furthermore there is no evidence she was paying attention to her coach...

That's not the standard here. There's no evidence that the referee was paying attention to her gender.

[BananaStand]

She's claiming it wouldn't happen if she were a man, and she may well have a point. Male players routinely mouth off more than she did and don't get penalized for it..... I don't think what she said warranted it, and she's not doing anything wrong complaining about it.

Look, I don't know much about tennis, so I'm open to correction here. But with regard to the male players to which you are referring....do they react this way after a bad call? Or do they react this way after a good call that affects them negatively?

Complaining is fine. If you don't like a call, you can argue with the ref. You see this in sports all the time. Mens and womens. It helps keep the ref honest, and lets them know that they are under scrutiny. That's all fine. "the ball was in" "he was safe" etc etc etc.

But there are rules, both written and unwritten, in all sports that require respect and decorum and sportsmanship toward the referee. If you dont' like a call....fine, argue it. But you can't name-call, and insult a person who is just doing their job. That should not be tolerated.

There's a big difference between McEnroe standing with his arms upon in a puzzled gesture saying "Are you kidding me" and Serena sticking her finger in ref's face and saying "you're a thief". One of those is an acceptable emotional outburst. The other is unsportsmanlike abuse.

And let's not avoid the source of the issue here. She wasn't arguing a subjective matter like a line call. She was objectively caught cheating. Not committing a foul.....CHEATING. That's bad enough, but her clearly fictitious denial is shameful on a level that should be considered insulting to the entire sport.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Great example of what I've been talking about over the weekend....

Serena Williams CHEATED at Tennis. I'm not familiar with the game, but apparently, you're not allowed to get coaching during a match. Serena's coach was sending hand signals, and she got a penalty for it. She denied it. Right there, fuck her, because she's lying. The coach later admitted that they were using hand signals. So she cheated, got caught, lied about it, and no one believed her lie.

So she throws a tantrum and smashes her racket on the ground. Apparently there are rules against that too. So she gets another, more severe penalty.

Now remember, all she had to do was follow the rules and act like a professional, and none of this would have happened.

Instead, she thinks that A) it's ok to cheat. B) It's unfair for her to be penalized for cheating. So in her mind, it's perfectly reasonable to act like an irate child, throw a tantrum, and insult the referee.

However, in reality, none of those things were ok, and she was further penalized, this time quite severely.

I don't know much about tennis, but what occurred on Saturday was a travesty of sportsmanship.

Serena CHEATED. And then had a shockingly unprofessional meltdown at being caught and penalized for it. Again, the cheating is not in dispute. The coach confessed.

And the headlines today are about how sexism and racism cost Serena the championship. IS THIS FOR FUCKING REAL???

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/us/se...rsy/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/opini...ove/index.html

Cool story.

Now tell me about Phil Helmuth constantly breaking the rules at WSOP and not even getting a warning.

[Poopadoop]

There's a big difference between McEnroe standing with his arms upon in a puzzled gesture saying "Are you kidding me" and Serena sticking her finger in ref's face and saying "you're a thief". One of those is an acceptable emotional outburst. The other is unsportsmanlike abuse.

Yeah, I mean McEnroe is the worst person to compare her to. He went off on way worse rants than her, swearing and calling the umpire names at times. Sometimes he got penalized, other times not. Her behavior was bad, but not as bad as that.

She was objectively caught cheating. Not committing a foul.....CHEATING. That's bad enough, but her clearly fictitious denial is shameful on a level that should be considered insulting to the entire sport.

Like Ong said, her coach was caught cheating. There's no evidence she was cheating by looking at him, so from her perspective she may have thought 'wtf is that call? I wasn't cheating'. That's not a "fictitious denial" as you call it. Maybe her coach should be forced to sit out a game or something, dunno.

[BananaStand]

Cool story.

Now tell me about Phil Helmuth constantly breaking the rules at WSOP and not even getting a warning.

Is there a specific incident to which you are referring? As far as I know, all he does it mouth-off, and the WSOP rules have constantly evolved regarding what speech is prohibited and what isn't.

Also, how is this relevant? Are WSOP floormen running around bringing the hammer down on any female who utters a curse word??

Speaking from personal experience, female poker players get WAAAAAAAAY more latitude with their table talk.

So what's your point?

[BananaStand]

Like Ong said, her coach was caught cheating. There's no evidence she was cheating by looking at him, so from her perspective she may have thought 'wtf is that call? I wasn't cheating'. That's not a "fictitious denial" as you call it. Maybe her coach should be forced to sit out a game or something, dunno.

Are you for real with this??

The were using hand signals. How the hell do you create a sign-language if you don't intend to use it? Why in the world would the coach make a hand signal unless he knew that Serena would be able to understand it.

For this to happen the two of them had to get together and say "when I do this....it means this..". That's enough for me. Obviously they planned to use this secret sign language, otherwise why have it? Why would the coach be doing it if he didn't expect the player to read and understand what he's saying?

Also, it's fucking tennis, and the guy is right there on the side. It's not like he's in the nosebleed sections of a football stadium and all the players are wearing helmets. He should obviously be able to tell when Serena is looking at him. Why would he send hand signals to the back of her head????

If your argument is "yes she and her coach planned to do something illegal, yes one of them was caught red handed and admits to it, but you can't prove they actually used it that one time the ref caught them"....then you're a flat out retard sir. Seriously low IQ

[BananaStand]

That's like getting caught on an airplane with a bomb in your luggage and saying "you can't arrest me, I didn't detonate it!!!!"

[BananaStand]

Yeah, I mean McEnroe is the worst person to compare her to. He went off on way worse rants than her, swearing and calling the umpire names at times. Sometimes he got penalized, other times not. Her behavior was bad, but not as bad as that

In all the McEnroe comparisons I've read today, I haven't read anything about personally insulting an umpire without consequence. And you say "sometimes he got penalized". So apparently he's not above the rules, even though he's a man. So what's even the problem???

Seems to me that Serena is getting the same treatment as a man did almost 40 years ago. I thought that was feminist utopia or something??

[Poopadoop]

Are you for real with this??

The were using hand signals. How the hell do you create a sign-language if you don't intend to use it? Why in the world would the coach make a hand signal unless he knew that Serena would be able to understand it.

For this to happen the two of them had to get together and say "when I do this....it means this..". That's enough for me. Obviously they planned to use this secret sign language, otherwise why have it? Why would the coach be doing it if he didn't expect the player to read and understand what he's saying?

Also, it's fucking tennis, and the guy is right there on the side. It's not like he's in the nosebleed sections of a football stadium and all the players are wearing helmets. He should obviously be able to tell when Serena is looking at him. Why would he send hand signals to the back of her head????

If your argument is "yes she and her coach planned to do something illegal, yes one of them was caught red handed and admits to it, but you can't prove they actually used it that one time the ref caught them"....then you're a flat out retard sir. Seriously low IQ

I never said they don't ever cheat; as it happens this is something all tennis players do. It's just rare the coach gets caught. So stop acting like this is a death penalty offence.

What I did say is,as Ong said already, you don't know if she was looking at him or not. You just assume she was because it gets you hard. Maybe the coach was trying to send her a signal and she wasn't paying attention. It may have been the first time in the whole game he tried it, and he got caught. So the scenario I outlined isn't at all implausible. Fact is, you just fill in the blanks as you see fit whereas an intelligent person realizes they don't have all the facts and don't rely on their imagination to provide them.

But you're too stupid to consider that just because it's much more fun for you to assume she was guilty at the time, and pretended she was innocent so you can get all outraged about it and have a raging cunt moment on an internet poker forum. lol.

[Poopadoop]

In all the McEnroe comparisons I've read today, I haven't read anything about personally insulting an umpire without consequence. And you say "sometimes he got penalized". So apparently he's not above the rules, even though he's a man. So what's even the problem???

Seems to me that Serena is getting the same treatment as a man did almost 40 years ago. I thought that was feminist utopia or something??

I mean I don't really care enough about this to go searching the internet and doing comparisons of men vs. women tennis player rants just so I can argue with a nimrod who won't listen anyways, but what I heard others say is that the umpire acted hastily in giving her the third penalty.

Feel free to disagree but like I said I don't really care enough what happened in a game of tennis to keep arguing over it. Maybe someone else here does.

[BananaStand]

What I did say is,as Ong said already, you don't know if she was looking at him or not. You just assume she was because it gets you hard. Maybe the coach was trying to send her a signal and she wasn't paying attention. It may have been the first time in the whole game he tried it, and he got caught. So the scenario I outlined isn't at all implausible. Fact is, you just fill in the blanks as you see fit whereas an intelligent person realizes they don't have all the facts and don't rely on their imagination to provide them.

Yeah, right, a professional umpire just happened to glance at something one time, couldn't tell if it was effective or not, and just decided to enforce a penalty in one of the biggest matches of the year.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. That's why we don't have robot referees in sports.

If he made the call, it's because he saw a problem with what was being done.

[BananaStand]

what I heard others say is that the umpire acted hastily in giving her the third penalty.

Yeah, because they are equating "Are you serious?" with a finger in the face and personal insults.

Not the same thing.

[BananaStand]

Besides, my beef really isn't with how the match was officiated.

My beef is with the leftist media (and Serena for letting it happen) that is trying to manufacture a narrative of sexist victimization here.

Serena is old and she's had a kid. No one wins like that. In fact, had Serena won, it would have been absolutely unprecedented and an inspiration to active moms everywhere. But because the yoga-brats and crossfit-cunts didn't get their 'overcoming adversity story', they want to blame men.

Sorry ladies, here's the hard truth. When you're middle aged and have had kids, you can no longer compete athletically at the highest level with people half your age. That's called biology bitches. Sorry if it offends you.

[OngBonga]

This didn't work for Belichick. It didn't work for Lance Armstrong. But then again, they're white men, so maybe they just aren't allowed to make excuses the way black women are.

I'd be saying exactly the same if it was a purple disabled alien. Hand signals from coaches is widespread, and while it's against the rules, it's a stretch to call it cheating. I mean, yes it's breaking the rules, so you can be a pedant and shout CHEAT if you want, but for me it just means that the word cheat becomes diluted, it's a word that should be used to describe people who take performance enhancing drugs, or pick the seams of a cricket ball, or whatever gives you ad advantage, assuming what you're doing is not widespread. That's an important point to make. If Serena is cheating, then so are a fuck ton of tennis players. And since it's impossible to say if Serena was paying attention to her coach or not, it's too much for me to call her a cheat.

That's not the standard here. There's no evidence that the referee was paying attention to her gender.

Yep, I agree totally. I think Serena is a cunt, for this very reason. Every time a man dares to challenge her, he is sexist. I can't wait for her to retire, and I hope Wimbledon don't employ her to commentate games here, otherwise I won't watch.

[OngBonga]

My beef is with the leftist media (and Serena for letting it happen) that is trying to manufacture a narrative of sexist victimization here.

No arguments here. It's just I don't like to dilute the meaning of the word "cheat", since it's such a powerful word.

[BananaStand]

If the New England Patriots are branded cheaters, then so is Serena.

If Lance Armstrong is a cheater, then so is Serena.

Both of those were doing something technically against the rules, but also common and widespread.

Also, what gets lost in all this....is that she only was penalized a serve for that. A very minor punishment befitting what you seem to think is a very minor offense. Right?

Then whatever other consequences she suffered were the result of an unprofessional tantrum where she claimed to be the victim for getting caught doing something she was either doing....or had planned to do with her coach.

And the talk of a double-standard is just so god damn puzzling to me. So what if men get different treatment for similar offenses??? How is that relevant? Serena isn't competing against men. If the refs are being more strict with female athletes, then SURELY that also applies to Serena's female opponent. Right????

Everyone is crying "sexism" and "racism". Yet the alleged beneficiary of all this prejudice is an asian woman.

Fucking patriarchy right!!??

[BananaStand]

Here's some more shit for feminists to get in a tizzy about....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/us/ca...ional-charges/

Guy steals food from restaurant. Female bystander is the victim. Wut?????

The story here is not about figuring out who the real victim is (though, it's not the women). What's interesting to me is how they portray the online dating scene as if this is a typical experience, or that men do this frequently.

The guy obviously has a kleptomania problem. His story made national fucking news. Yet all women now need to be on the lookout because "there are alot of scammers" out there.

"I just kind of feel like maybe online dating might not be for me. I mean there are a lot of scammers out there."

Psychologist Lisa Strohman, who specializes in treating patients suffering from social media and technology-related problems, says the internet allows dating predators to cast a wide net.

Again....this is ONE GUY. One isolated case. Compare that to this....

https://nypost.com/2017/08/30/beware...r-a-free-meal/

According to millennial survey app Winq, in a survey exclusive to The Post, 44 percent of young women have swiped right on a date “because why not; it’s a free meal” — even if they weren’t attracted to the person.

But I thought there should be no double standards!!!???

[Poopadoop]

Haha man, get a grip.

[BananaStand]

Haha man, get a grip.

I literally feel like I'm in some alternate universe where I "get it" and everyone else is completely fucking insane.

Funny story though, this dine-and-dash story kinda hit home. I had a date this weekend with a woman I met on Bumble.

I was there early and just sipped a water while I waited. She arrived and ordered a glass of wine and we started talking. Despite my ranting here you might be surprised to learn that I'm generally pretty stoic and observant in person. So I was mostly listening to this broad talk when she told me the last guy she dated was a big Trump supporter.

Then a bunch of post-modern marxist diarrhea came out of her mouth. I just nodded, and smiled. And then when I got a sufficient opportunity, I excused myself to the men's room. I went immediately to the hostess podium and said I had to leave abruptly. I told the hostess where I was sitting, and gave $20.

Then I left.

[Poopadoop]

Wow what the fuck.

What is so hard about going over to the woman you clearly weren't going anywhere with and telling her you thought she was lovely but the two of your were politically incompatible. Fucking fifteen awkward seconds of your life to spare someone's feelings. Really too much for you to give away huh?

[Savy]

Wow what the fuck.

What is so hard about going over to the woman you clearly weren't going anywhere with and telling her you thought she was lovely but the two of your were politically incompatible. Fucking fifteen awkward seconds of your life to spare someone's feelings. Really too much for you to give away huh?

Then he ends up paying and may have to deal with a scene.

[BananaStand]

Maybe my discription wasnt clear...

I can deal with someone having different views. I really can. what I cant deal with is someone ideologically possessed.

Her militant tone and vehement, profuse, rantings at someone she had just met minutes ago was something truly frightening.

Im haopy with how I played it. I literally dont care about her feelings. Hopefully she reflects on this and learns something

[OngBonga]

I hope the 20 bucks didn't cover the full bill.

[OngBonga]

Actually I hope it did, because then you're meeting online women in cheap food places, I mean 20 bucks for two would just about cover a maccies.

[Poopadoop]

Then he ends up paying and may have to deal with a scene.

Who makes a scene on the first date? I'd just laugh at her.

[Poopadoop]

Hopefully she reflects on this and learns something

lol, what's the grand life lesson you gave her here? Some men are cowards? Pretty sure if she's an adult she already knew that one.

Or if it's 'don't talk politics on a first date' well duh if she hasn't figured that out yet (and apparently she hasn't) she's an idiot already.

Or maybe she just wanted to know if you agreed with her views or were a Trumptard. Once you wimped out I guess she got her answer.

[OngBonga]

Fucking off without telling her is a perfectly acceptable way to end a date with an idiot.

[Poopadoop]

Actually I hope it did, because then you're meeting online women in cheap food places, I mean 20 bucks for two would just about cover a maccies.

lol.

You shouldn't spend a lot on a first date, but if you're taking someone for fast food you should be grateful they even show up, and worried that they're that desperate.

I'm guessing banana isn't that cheap. $20 US on one meal isn't bad. Obviously he's not paying for hers 'cause he wouldn't do that if there was nothing in it for him.