Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Current NBA player Jason Collins comes out!

Apr 29, 2013#1

Dave

This is in General and not sports or politics because it's a big story.
This should not be as big a story as it is.
At this time, I've seen nothing but positive and supportive responses, including from such people like Chris Kluwe and Kobe Bryant.

It finally happened and it's about damned time. This is the first time a current player in one of the big 4 sports in the US - NBA, MLB, NFL & NHL - has come out as openly gay. And the outpouring of support so far has been amazingly heartwarming. Granted, it's fairly new news and the trolls will come soon enough. For now, though, it's time to celebrate a pretty damned brave individual who has opened himself to a lot of possible criticism and just put his life under a microscope.
I'm not an NBA guy, but I'm proud of Jason and all his supporters in the sport. Hate took a step back today.

Apr 29, 2013#2

Tress

I hope this will lead to others coming out as well. Once there are enough openly gay athletes, hopefully people see that these are normal guys and there's nothing to fear/hate.

Apr 29, 2013#3

Dave

Tress said:
I hope this will lead to others coming out as well. Once there are enough openly gay athletes, hopefully people see that these are normal guys and there's nothing to fear/hate.

I worry more about idiot fans in the stands than I do players and coaches. I mean, some fan bases are brutal as it is and this just gives them something else to put in their repertoire.

Apr 29, 2013#4

blotsfan

Judging by his column, he seems like a pretty bright guy and I'm sure knows the reaction he'll get. Though it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't actually in the NBA next year anyways. Might have to wait for the NFL where there are supposedly 4 players who want to come out at the same time this offseason. As well as Kerry Rhodes who might have been outed by his boyfriend but has denied it.

Apr 29, 2013#5

Covar

Who?

Apr 29, 2013#6

sixpackshaker

Hopefully this will turn out to be a non-issue.

Apr 29, 2013#7

Tress

Covar said:
Who?

Not the point (but I'm sure you know that). A make pro athlete came out of the closet while he's still active. It's a big step.

Apr 29, 2013#8

Charlie Don't Surf

Not to be a nitpicker, but he's not an active player until he signs with a team, since he's currently a free agent / not with a team. And kind of old / journeyman / end of his career. It would be kind of awful if he didn't get signed now. Unless he really was / normally at the end of his career.

Apr 29, 2013#9

sixpackshaker

The best info I have is that he has been traded to the Wizards. So he is still active at this time. But yes, 12th year means he is winding down.

Apr 29, 2013#10

Chad Sexington

sixpackshaker said:
The best info I have is that he has been traded to the Wizards.

If this is the case, I'd like to say:
in before Dumbledore, Gandalf/McKellan, Jason Collins gay wizards jokes.

Apr 29, 2013#11

sixpackshaker

Chad Sexington said:
If this is the case, I'd like to say:
in before Dumbledore, Gandalf/McKellan, Jason Collins gay wizards jokes.

If only it were Kobe as the gay player for the Wizards, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!

Apr 29, 2013#12

Charlie Don't Surf

He's not actually on the Wizards anymore. He's a free agent at the end of the season.

Apr 29, 2013#13

Frank

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Not to be a nitpicker, but he's not an active player until he signs with a team, since he's currently a free agent / not with a team. And kind of old / journeyman / end of his career. It would be kind of awful if he didn't get signed now. Unless he really was / normally at the end of his career.

Some of the more cynical things I've read has him coming out like this at the end of his career as a way to give him some sort of boost into post career goings on such as a book deal or whatever else.

Apr 29, 2013#14

DarkAudit

The Worldwide Leader's own people were thanking him for at the very least putting the kibosh on the Tebowmania, if only temporarily.

Apr 29, 2013#15

CrimsonSoul

Dave said:
I worry more about idiot fans in the stands than I do players and coaches. I mean, some fan bases are brutal as it is and this just gives them something else to put in their repertoire.

I may have too much faith in humanity but I don't see the other fans putting up with homophibic bullshit.

Apr 30, 2013#16

bhamv3

Man, if even the Wizards don't want you, you're probably at the end of your career.

I'm a sad Washington fan.

Still though, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Enough sweeping these things under the carpet, and let these people openly be who they are.

Apr 30, 2013#17

Just Me

All shout: It's ok to be Takei!

Apr 30, 2013#18

fade

Just Me said:
All shout: It's ok to be Takei!

So he has a promising career ahead, posting image macros on Facebook and making puns that are arguably funnier and more clever than the macros themselves.

Apr 30, 2013#19

Just Me

fade said:
So he has a promising career ahead, posting image macros on Facebook and making puns that are arguably funnier and more clever than the macros themselves.

Probably not. He's just takei, not Takei.

Apr 30, 2013#20

Jay

I guess taking it to the hole has a whole new meaning in the NBA nowadays.

Apr 30, 2013#21

Dave

Jay said:
I guess taking it to the hole has a whole new meaning in the NBA nowadays.

And you know what? His friends are going to give him shit just like this. And I love it. That's what guy friends do. Like the teammate who tweeted that it changes nothing and that he would still kick his ass in golf.

Apr 30, 2013#22

Tress

The only famous person I know of who spoke negatively about Collins being gay was chris Boussard on ESPN, and we already knew he's a fucking moron. So far things seem to be pretty positive.

Apr 30, 2013#23

Dave

Tress said:
The only famous person I know of who spoke negatively about Collins being gay was chris Boussard on ESPN, and we already knew he's a fucking moron. So far things seem to be pretty positive.

And then you read things like the Yahoo news comments and die a little inside.

Apr 30, 2013#24

Charlie Don't Surf

Tress said:
The only famous person I know of who spoke negatively about Collins being gay was chris Boussard on ESPN, and we already knew he's a fucking moron. So far things seem to be pretty positive.

Mike Wallace (not 60 minutes) tweeted some garbage about "I can't understand why a guy goes for guys with so many beautiful women" and then tried to backtrack and deleted his tweets

Apr 30, 2013#25

Tress

Dave said:
And then you read things like the Yahoo news comments and die a little inside.

No I don't. A loud minority of barely-literate, mouth-breathing dipshits on the Yahoo! boards doesn't change how well society is reacting as a whole.[DOUBLEPOST=1367347841][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Mike Wallace (not 60 minutes) tweeted some garbage about "I can't understand why a guy goes for guys with so many beautiful women" and then tried to backtrack and deleted his tweets

I knew about that. He seems to honestly believe that being gay is a choice resulting from an evaluation of one's options. That's not hateful, it's just ignorant. It's far less of an issue, and one I can forgive.

Apr 30, 2013#26

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Mike Wallace (not 60 minutes) tweeted some garbage about "I can't understand why a guy goes for guys with so many beautiful women" and then tried to backtrack and deleted his tweets

Yeah, I know what he was trying to say because as a straight man I don't get it either, but I think his comment is being blown out of proportion a bit.

Apr 30, 2013#27

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
Yeah, I know what he was trying to say because as a straight man I don't get it either, but I think his comment is being blown out of proportion a bit.

I kinda wish I was gay sometimes. Most of my friends are, and I've come to learn that among the gay community, I am apparently quite a prize. I could have so much cock.

But yeah, not a choice, so that's out.

May 6, 2013#28

Bubble181

Dave said:
This is the first time a current player in one of the big 4 sports in the US - NBA, MLB, NFL & NHL - has come out as openly gay.

I'm sorry, I'm just....shocked by this. Seriously, for the country of the free and the brave, that's....I don't have words for it. I mean, "a country where big public sports heroes can't come out of the closet" makes me think of Iran, not the USA.

Good for him, but this shouldn't have been an issue 15 years ago, let alone now. Yes, I know, we have a gay prime minister, I'm from a pretty progressive country in some ways, but...Really, anyone who is a patriotic American (ostensibly 99.5% of them) can't and shouldn't have a problem with someone's life choices. "Freedom for those who agree with me" has been around since the Egyptians. "Freedom for whatever the hell thay want to do" is what is supposed to set you guys apart.

Anyway, I hope there'll be many following soon - with somewhere between 5 and 15% gay people in the population, even in macho cultures such as pro sports, practically every team is bound to have one or a couple.

Of course, on the other hand, I don't think this should be newsworthy at all.

May 6, 2013#29

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
Really, anyone who is a patriotic American (ostensibly 99.5% of them) can't and shouldn't have a problem with someone's life choices.

May 6, 2013#30

TommiR

Bubble181 said:
Really, anyone who is a patriotic American (ostensibly 99.5% of them) can't and shouldn't have a problem with someone's life choices. "Freedom for those who agree with me" has been around since the Egyptians. "Freedom for whatever the hell thay want to do" is what is supposed to set you guys apart.

I'm not really sure it is apt to draw that conclusion. I don't see much in either current US affairs or their historical record to indicate widespread tolerance towards their fellow man. In my view, much of the early appeal of the US, in terms of individual rights, rested upon their particular take on the relationship between the private citizen and the government and it's laws, bearing in mind how the contemporary european situation tended to be quite restricting in that respect. But how would that translate into individuals, either singly or in groups, being more tolerant of their neighbours than those found anywhere else?

May 6, 2013#31

strawman

Bubble181 said:
with somewhere between 5 and 15% gay people in the population

That's staggering. I'd like to understand your source and what you count as gay for that statistic. Wikipedia acknowledges self reporting is low, but even with corrections the incidence is still around 2% at the highest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

It is complicated to measure, since most people aren't strictly homosexual or heterosexual, but saying that one in 20 to one in six are gay seems high.

May 6, 2013#32

Bubble181

No direct source in english for the moment, but 1 in 20 is the official number used here in all government-related things. According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx) it's about 3.4% of adults in the US, but those numbers are low - questioning personal identification obviously also rules out anyone who doesn't identify but has had homosexual contact - that's about 10%-12% of the people. Whether you want to count anyone who ever "experimented" as bisexual is up for debate, and so forth.

That aside, I don't really want to make this a thread about that

TommiR said:
I'm not really sure it is apt to draw that conclusion. I don't see much in either current US affairs or their historical record to indicate widespread tolerance towards their fellow man. In my view, much of the early appeal of the US, in terms of individual rights, rested upon their particular take on the relationship between the private citizen and the government and it's laws, bearing in mind how the contemporary european situation tended to be quite restricting in that respect. But how would that translate into individuals, either singly or in groups, being more tolerant of their neighbours than those found anywhere else?

The very first Amendment states ther shall be no laws against religion - exercise, belief, etc. One would assume that considering it important to be free about it and others to be free in the same way, would indicate being more tolerant. I don't deny this isn't true, it's just something I find generally odd about much of the American right - the complete denial that social pressure is just as much an oppression as a law.

May 6, 2013#33

Chad Sexington

Bubble181 said:
social pressure is just as much an oppression as a law.

Uhm...

Not at all. While social pressure adds all sorts of problems to a pressured group, actively penalising that group for existing is far, far, far and away more oppressive. In fact, I'd say calling social pressure 'oppression' is pretty hyperbolic.

May 6, 2013#34

Bubble181

Chad Sexington said:
Uhm...

Not at all. While social pressure adds all sorts of problems to a pressured group, actively penalising that group for existing is far, far, far and away more oppressive. In fact, I'd say calling social pressure 'oppression' is pretty hyperbolic.

So the KKK was not a problem towards equality of people of a darker complexion? Good to know that all black people were suddenly absolutely equal and were treated equally when those laws were repealed and could be "free" all over the place without, you know, fear. Oh wait.

You can make all the laws about gay marriage you want, if the gay person in question has to hide his sexuality for career reasons or for fear of reprisals, and he doesn't dare marry, that doens't help at all.

It's the same thing in reverse of the gun argument: making laws about it won't suddenly change the reality. It's the reality that matters, the laws should be obvious extensions of the people's will. Saying "as long as there's no law prohibiting it, we're all good" is odd.

May 6, 2013#35

Chad Sexington

Bubble181 said:
So the KKK was not a problem towards equality of people of a darker complexion? Good to know that all black people were suddenly absolutely equal and were treated equally when those laws were repealed and could be "free" all over the place without, you know, fear. Oh wait.

You can make all the laws about gay marriage you want, if the gay person in question has to hide his sexuality for career reasons or for fear of reprisals, and he doesn't dare marry, that doens't help at all.

It's the same thing in reverse of the gun argument: making laws about it won't suddenly change the reality. It's the reality that matters, the laws should be obvious extensions of the people's will. Saying "as long as there's no law prohibiting it, we're all good" is odd.

Remind me where I said social pressure was not a problem. Also, the KKK isn't exactly social pressure, but I'll take your point and include them.

I already acknowledged there are problems for people when pressured by social factors, so I don't feel like we disagree that someone hiding their sexuality for fear of discrimination is bad.

I think the disagreement is about "oppression." The state can pass laws to enforce the illegality of, say, homosexuality, or the second-class role of people from certain racial backgrounds: that to me is oppression. That the KKK exists is not, as they can't set up systematised cruel and exclusive treatment of people, even though their own treatment of people be cruel and exclusive. When it comes to lynching, vandalism, threats, graffiti, we've gone past 'social pressure' and we have a group terrorising another, breaking laws.

It's also the case that you said "social pressure is just as much an oppression as a law." The part I've emphasised I find remarkable: it isn't. If there is no law prohibiting homosexuality, it is tremendously safer, freer, and more likely to change hearts and minds to say "I am gay," than in a society where it is illegal to be gay, even if the majority of people dislike homosexuals. This is because people will not fear the state by associating with you; perhaps they may be less fearful/ashamed of coming out themselves. It would be something that would be safe, even defended by the law, rather than crushed by it.

May 6, 2013#36

SpecialKO

The idea that equal protections under the law is somehow a useless achievement until everyone in the country agrees on its applicability is a rather spectacular statement.

May 6, 2013#37

Tress

Ah, I love it when a thread gets Bubble'd.

May 6, 2013#38

TommiR

Tress said:
Ah, I love it when a thread gets Bubble'd.

Come on, what's wrong with a poster weighing in with an opinion. In my experience, Bubble's points tend to be thought out and clearly presented, and he usually sticks around to discuss the issue with anyone voicing a different view. I think discussion about topics is good, and something this place could do with more of.

May 6, 2013#39

Tress

Nothing's wrong with it. I didn't say it was. Why would you assume that? I think that says a lot more about you than me.

May 6, 2013#40

TommiR

Alright, I'll take a thread getting Bubble's to be a good thing, then.

Regardless of the flak he's taken for voicing opinions in certain threads in the recent past.

May 6, 2013#41

Tress

He adds a certain energy to discussions, and he makes discussions lively. And, as you said, and adds some diversity to the views usually expressed on a topic (but in a way that doesn't make we want to reach through my monitor and choke him). It's definitely a good thing.

You, on the other hand, are a fucking storm cloud roughly 90% of the time.

May 6, 2013#42

TommiR

Tress said:
He adds a certain energy to discussions, and he makes discussions lively. And, as you said, and adds some diversity to the views usually expressed on a topic (but in a way that doesn't make we want to reach through my monitor and choke him). It's definitely a good thing.

You, on the other hand, are a fucking storm cloud roughly 90% of the time.

Very good, I'm glad you appreciate Bubble's contribution to these boards.

And you are welcome to your opinion regarding mine.

May 6, 2013#43

LordRendar

I predict a 90% chance for rain with heavy winds in this thread.

May 6, 2013#44

DarkAudit

Tress said:
You, on the other hand, are a fucking storm cloud roughly 90% of the time.

May 7, 2013#45

Bubble181

...everyone agrees my points are ludicrous but my posting style's a good thing? Well, okay than :-P

I think a better English writer could do my points more jsutice though - I tend to veer off topic and often make sweeping statements that wouldn't hold up under my own scrutiny either, if I actually took the time to re-read and edit my posts. It's what you get when I want to make a deeper point but get distracted by shiny objects and/or get rushed or busy at work.
I want to expand on my point and clarify, but my boss is back so it'll be later

*edit*

There we go, he's getting a coffee

Anyway, KO, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was useless - I did mean to say it's essential that both go hand in hand.
"Freedom", for a lot of people, seems to equal "it's not prohibited by law" and nothing more; whereas my view of "Freedom" is actually being able to do it. If you feel you can't openly come out for your political views, religion, sexuality, or whatever, because you're afraid of reprisals - be it the KKK for black people back when, be it loss of income/opportunity due to bigotry, be it fear of being lynched/picketed outside/whatever, society is preventing you from being truly free.
The French Revolution's "Liberté" didn't mean "don't let the State bother you", it meant "be free to do what you want" - French liberalism was closer to what JS Mill and similar had to say on the subject - anyone limiting another person's freedom is overstepping his own.

Mind that this goes in several ways, and legislation forcing people to do things to try to "rectify" social mores/habits feels wrong to me too - I'm firmly against quota-based anti-discrimination laws, for example.

Yes, I know, that's liberal in a meaning not often used these days, and leans close to libertarianism in some ways - and it's unrealistic to expect everyone to follow my standards.
I just find it funny/odd/weird that in the USA, there really seems to be a general consensus that "freedom" is only "the State doesn't tell you you can't do it". The State's not all-powerful, nor is it something that exists or can exist outside of the People it serves. The law is not Justice or some other ideal - the law is what people make of it, and is only a construct of people to reflect opinions and the way you want to govern society.

May 7, 2013#46

SpecialKO

You said social pressure is just as much oppression as a law, which is a ludicrous statement.

Yes, social pressure plays a large part, but social change against oppression will almost never come without laws guarding against oppression first.

It's thank to law that the KKK was reduced to a *relatively* toothless racist men's club from rampaging heavily-armed gangs after the original Civil Rights Act and multiple state legislatures explicitly criminalized their activities and then brought in federal troops and investigators to prosecute them. Yes, obviously there was still tons of work to do (and remains to do), but the existence of those laws that provide explicit protections is a massively important first step.

May 7, 2013#47

Bubble181

A post of mine seems to have disappeared - I'm certain I posted that I took back the "just as much".
it's fun that you like to concentrate on one hyperbolic statement instead of actually trying to read comprehensively and understand what I said though.

it's not thanks to the law that the KKK got opposition and resistance - it was because people's minds changed and the people changed the law; those same people opposed the KKK with the law on their side. People's interpretations of what is fair and what is not, what is equal and what is not, matter far more than what a law states. If the law in and of itself was absolutely holy, wel,, first of all that would be ridiculous idolatry, and secondly, blacks and women would still be of less worth than a white man.

May 7, 2013#48

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
it's not thanks to the law that the KKK got opposition and resistance - it was because people's minds changed and the people changed the law; those same people opposed the KKK with the law on their side.

So we agree then, it took the law to actually make the difference.

The social pressure the day before MLK's dream speech the day before the second Civil Rights Act was signed was the same as it was the day after. What had changed, and what he was celebrating, was the affirmative confirmation and protection of the human rights that had previously been denied to black Americans. Neither the social pressure of the era or the law magically made people against the act change their minds, but the law made it supremely harder to take those rights away.

Bubble181 said:
If the law in and of itself was absolutely holy

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth?

Forums