So sick of the PC idiots and the whole equality for the sake of everything must be equal... how about the best person just gets the job, white, black, man, woman, whoever it is, even Penny Taylor's kids dad...

People really need to stop assuming there is subtext in what a person is saying. Don't automatically think CT is pushing any kind of agenda here.

Don't jump to conclusions on what you think someone means when they say something. Even if he is, he may not be pushing it hard enough to warrant such an inflammatory reaction like the two above comments. It really bugs people like me who choose their words carefully. People in general really need to improve their communication skills. Decoding is sorely lacking and I blame, at least in part, the media for hyperbolising things and trying to extract meaning and inference where there really is none. People think that this is the way to communicate.

Try taking things that people say at face value, rather than extracting meaning.

I think the female sideline reporters are quite good, and usually better at speaking to the coaches/players during halftime and end of game than the other regular commentators.

Different skillset to be the play-by-play or colour commentator for sure, but if there are women available who fit the bill why not. Doesn't have eff all to do with being "PC" though, best people for the job is how it should be regardless of sex.

Who the hell is going to clean the house, iron the shirts and cook dinner while they are busy commentating games.....sheesh

Yeah, no real subtext to this beyond me watching Abbey Gelmi last week and thinking hey, here's someone who can actually speak in full English sentences and doesn't make me want to punch myself in the face when she opens her mouth. Why does she get relegated to sideline interviews while Corey f*cking Homicide gets a two-hour platform every week to pontificate about any damn thing he wants (usually himself).

Either way, it's nice that both of Andrew Bolt's fans are here posting on hoops.

"People really need to stop assuming there is subtext in what a person is saying. Don't automatically think CT is pushing any kind of agenda here."

Sorry, but the post had all the hallmarks of a political correctness advocate and social justice warrior, from the need to shoehorn women into things for the sake of it, to the bemoaning of "old white men" - public enemy number one for everyone trying to socially engineer a quota based system that disregards merit.

"Just waiting for ME to contribute here"

And of course I was going to. I would be all for putting women in commentary if they're indeed credentialed but the need to take a stab at white people was what really sung the OP out as a parasite. No wonder the hashtag #itsokaytobewhite happened.

"I love Doris Burke. I always find her insightful amd she actually manages to get comments from coach pop."

And when she retires from NBA commentating she can gladly do it here. Issue is we do not really have an Australian Doris Burke.

We do have Neroli Meadows and Abbey Gelmi as special comments. So it's not like there's no female commentary at all.
I think they both do a good job, too.

Erin Phillips would have been good however she was in Darwin beating Fremantle

Sorry, but the post had all the hallmarks of a political correctness advocate and social justice warrior

Gelmi is a complete babe

"I've never met anyone who used the terms "political correctness" and "social justice warrior" unironically who wasn't a terrible excuse for a human being."

I am going to guess you're fit into one of the left's victimhood classes, someone who benefits greatly from using the fact that you're not a straight white male to excuse your own personal shortcomings and use it as the reason you cannot succeed in life. Or, you could be a straight white male, but one who was born into money and status, who has assumed that your lot in life and your privilege must be the same as everyone else of the same gender and race, so you use issues like this to exercise your own personal guilt and superimpose that guilt on people somewhat similar to you in all the ways that do not matter.

which one is it?

What are Gelmi and Meadows' day jobs? They're in news or something, aren't they?

That's much more similar to what they do on NBL broadcasts than it is to commentary, so it's no real surprise that they're far better at it than commentators are and no reason to believe they'd be any better at commentary. When they do try and incorporate them into the half-time segments it can often be fairly awkward.

Gelmi and Mitch Creek were awkward in the Game 2 half-time interview

Both Fox Sports News presenters/around the grounds reporters

Neroli mainly AFL

I am going to guess you're fit into one of the left's victimhood classes, someone who benefits greatly from using the fact that you're not a straight white male to excuse your own personal shortcomings and use it as the reason you cannot succeed in life.

Or, you could be a straight white male, but one who was born into money and status, who has assumed that your lot in life and your privilege must be the same as everyone else of the same gender and race, so you use issues like this to exercise your own personal guilt and superimpose that guilt on people somewhat similar to you in all the ways that do not matter.

Oh kill 'em KR. Sacking up, I like it

and don't get me started on Brad Newley. I've got ptsd just thinking about his commentary debut.

" Or like sex objects "Gelmi is a complete babe". "

Oh no. Did a male find a woman attractive and dare to comment as such? someone, cut and quarter him immediately. forget some of the very forward female TV personalities who've made their feelings towards some attractive men known in very blunt terms, because when it happens to women apparently it completely discredits their worth as a professional. Mate, that's laughable. Gelmi is a babe and she is good at her job.

"For above i meant my point of views about basketball aren't taken as seriously as my brothers"

And people don't tend to defer to the opinions of men when speaking of netball. Isn't really a surprise because men happen to be at the pinnacle of the sport. NBA is better than WNBA. NBL is better than WNBL. The players and standard is better in men's leagues so it is naturally assumed men are kind of where it is at when it comes to those opinions. of course there are exceptions. And I am sure if we were talking netball people would look to you before your brothers because netball is female dominated.

"The fact that you find it so incomprehensible that anyone could care about other people for non-selfish reasons is pretty much exactly my point."

Well aren't you just the little Care Bear? You don't "care" about anyone in particular, you're just trying to exercise your virtue. And just think about the token woman who is thrown into broadcasting for a moment. That token woman is going to know she is the token woman. it wouldn't exactly feel like an achievement. You can't even suggest which female commentator would fit in, so you'd deride the quality of the coverage just to tick a box. How about just the best man or woman for the job?

"Oprah being richer than you doesn't mean black women are better-off than white men. It just means she's an outlier."

And no one was making that argument. I am saying maybe YOU are privileged so you assume everyone else lives the same way. Oprah came from struggle and built herself, so she probably doesn't question these things. But if you were brought up in the top end of white society as opposed to somewhere like Elizabeth South, you might assume all white people live the way you do, and that the ones who don't are somehow underachieving.

And while we're on the subject of "white privilege", the best performing group in Australia financially, socially, and in almost every metric is Asian Australians, but nobody attributes their success to privilege. They look at the ways whites do better than blacks and assume privilege but they assume hard work for Asians. It's kind of baffling. If Asians are able to overcome the apparent prejudice, why can't everyone else? because it is a bloody EXCUSE. That's why.

Please, let's continue to talk politics on Hoops. I'm not getting nearly enough of it from every single facebook post lately.

Hopefully the WNBL coverage continues next season on Foxtel. None of the play-by-play commentators were female but they had a few in the secondary role. Of those, Carly Wilson did a good job IMO. Jenni Screen not bad but maybe needs more time/polish. Lauren Jackson just no.

"For above i meant my point of views about basketball aren't taken as seriously as my brothers"

And people don't tend to defer to the opinions of men when speaking of netball.

NBA is better than WNBA. NBL is better than WNBL. The players and standard is better in men's leagues

And I am sure if we were talking netball people would look to you before your brothers because netball is female dominated.

You don't "care" about anyone in particular, you're just trying to exercise your virtue.

You can't even suggest which female commentator would fit in, so you'd deride the quality of the coverage just to tick a box.

I am saying maybe YOU are privileged so you assume everyone else lives the same way.

But if you were brought up in the top end of white society as opposed to somewhere like Elizabeth South, you might assume all white people live the way you do, and that the ones who don't are somehow underachieving.

If Asians are able to overcome the apparent prejudice, why can't everyone else?

The female anon is right about the sex object thing. It's not the first thing you should say about someone, but saying that doesn't mean you see only looks in a person.

I think Gelmi has a very engaging camera presence, but let's not mince words, being attractive is super super important in that. It's been proven in the professional world that attractive people make more money and are more likely to gain employment vs unattractive people. I'm not actually saying that's the way it should be but that's the way it is.

""For above i meant my point of views about basketball aren't taken as seriously as my brothers"

And people don't tend to defer to the opinions of men when speaking of netball.
I like how you removed the bit where she clarified that this happens when the opinions expressed are identical.
"

So what? I'd take her opinions over yours in regards to wearing dresses even if you said the same thing. Men are assumed to be the authority on basketball because we have the dominant players and leagues, which I will laughingly go into when addressing your next assertion.

"NBA is better than WNBA. NBL is better than WNBL. The players and standard is better in men's leagues
Citation needed."

You need a citation that the NBA is better than the WNBA? Really? I mean, come on dude. If you need a citation for that you probably aren't operating on a level where you should be pontificating publicly about anything. But put it this way, Golden State Thunder vs. Seattle Storm, and who is winning that game by a ridiculous margin? Lauren Jackson vs. Lebron James, who is winning? Or even if you just compare the relevance of the two leagues, with one being a multi-billion dollar empire vs. the WNBL which can barely afford to stay afloat. I know they say there's no such thing as a dumb question, but when you ask for a citation that men's leagues are better than womens, you're outing yourself as a mouth-breathing halfwit who should be kept away from knives, forks, matches, and probably needs his food chewed for him.

"And I am sure if we were talking netball people would look to you before your brothers because netball is female dominated.
Does anon have anything to do with netball? Why would this be true?"

I explained why that is true. it is about people's perception. Generally when you think of basketball, you think of men playing the game and when you think of netball you think of women. It is something of a natural bias, but because it is a natural bias doesn't mean it is wrong or something some idiotic uni student has to socially engineer away.

"You don't "care" about anyone in particular, you're just trying to exercise your virtue.
I'm disappointed you said "exercise" instead of "signal", I could've filled in another square on my Misogyny Bingo card."

Oh yes, just because I don't think you should shoehorn people into roles based on their gender I simply must be a misogynist. I think my girlfriend, female friends and family members would be surprised to learn that I hate women just because I don't think they should be thrown into positions despite their merit or lackthereof. You are a dead set, irredeemable moron.

"But if you were brought up in the top end of white society as opposed to somewhere like Elizabeth South, you might assume all white people live the way you do, and that the ones who don't are somehow underachieving.
Two bell curves can overlap significantly despite a vast difference in their peaks, as hesitant as I am to bring bell curves into a racial discussion."

Is that because the bell curve in racial discussions do not support your ridiculous views?

"If Asians are able to overcome the apparent prejudice, why can't everyone else?
And good on the Asians for pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and getting on with life, overcoming the period years ago where Europeans arrived here and tried to murder them all before kidnapping tens of thousands of their children.

Context matters."

Yes, context does matter. So I assume the African migrants were victims of the stolen generation as well, were they? And the whites that are doing worse than Asians, stolen?

"I can find men attractive, i can find women attractive. Finding people attractive is ok. Only speaking of people in terms of their attractiveness is not and a great deal of the time women in broadcasting and in life are primarily viewed only by their perceived attractiveness. "

A lot of women get roles based solely on their attractiveness. In your perfect world would you usurp them of their jobs? And sorry, but the main function of the opposite sex to the other gender and the first thing they will notice is generally their attractiveness. It is nothing to cry about. And shall I reiterate that Abby Gelmi is a babe?

"You also don't seem to understand privilege. I am extremely privileged, i know this. Privalige isn't about what you make of yourself. Its about how far tou had to come and in Australia particularly it is more about your economic status than your race.
"

If it's about the starting point, why are we changing the ending point by giving quotas and unearned spots? I don't think the privilege argument has every much statistical or scientific backing.

"The system is designed for some people to have an easier starting point. The push for equality is to give everyone an even start. But giving someone a leg up, and letting them be able to stand next to you doesn't take anything away from you.

"

The only privilege is economic standing point. If a black kid is born into a rich family that takes him to the best school in the country do you believe his shot in life is the same as a white kid without that money?

"Red pill wingnuts to lose their tiny little minds over this topic in 3,2,1..."

LOL. Hello Chanty

Yes, 2 and a half minutes with any feminist will soon show you who the crazy nuts are.

So what? I'd take her opinions over yours in regards to wearing dresses even if you said the same thing. Men are assumed to be the authority on basketball because we have the dominant players and leagues

put it this way, Golden State Thunder vs. Seattle Storm, and who is winning that game by a ridiculous margin? Lauren Jackson vs. Lebron James, who is winning?

It is something of a natural bias, but because it is a natural bias doesn't mean it is wrong or something some idiotic uni student has to socially engineer away.

Is that because the bell curve in racial discussions do not support your ridiculous views?

The only privilege is economic standing point. If a black kid is born into a rich family that takes him to the best school in the country do you believe his shot in life is the same as a white kid without that money?

"So what? I'd take her opinions over yours in regards to wearing dresses even if you said the same thing. Men are assumed to be the authority on basketball because we have the dominant players and leagues
If only there were a word for the act of assuming things about people based on their gender instead of their expertise and experience.
"

You mean like assuming men got the job because of their gender and not expertise and experience? And I am assuming that this woman's experience is similar to her brothers and she did not indicate otherwise. If she is a head coach and they are couch critics then of course my opinion would invert. But I can see you're unable to naturally assume that.

"
put it this way, Golden State Thunder vs. Seattle Storm, and who is winning that game by a ridiculous margin? Lauren Jackson vs. Lebron James, who is winning?
Being bigger and more athletic isn't the same as being "better"."

Wow. Just wow. And what would make them "better", just their basketball IQ? I thought we judged players on their ability to perform on court, and not what they potentially could do if they were physically equal to their opponents. And you didn't address everything else I said.

"It is something of a natural bias, but because it is a natural bias doesn't mean it is wrong or something some idiotic uni student has to socially engineer away.
Excellent, I can check off the "uni student" square.

Again, if only there was a word for being biased regarding gender...
"

Yeah, it's called being a third wave feminist, a male feminist, or any mix of the two.

"Is that because the bell curve in racial discussions do not support your ridiculous views?
No, it's because The Bell Curve is thoroughly debunked, barely-literate pseudoscience."

Then why did you mention the bell-curve first to demonstrate your point. Is it because you're a bell-end?

"The only privilege is economic standing point. If a black kid is born into a rich family that takes him to the best school in the country do you believe his shot in life is the same as a white kid without that money?
No, but it's still worse than a white kid with the same money.

Context matters.
"

Oh, I invite you to give a "citation" on that little assumed fact. I'll wait. give us the reasons why it is better. Come on. this will be a laugh.

Go play with your propeller hat or kick rocks or something, kid.

"
put it this way, Golden State Thunder vs. Seattle Storm, and who is winning that game by a ridiculous margin? Lauren Jackson vs. Lebron James, who is winning?
Being bigger and more athletic isn't the same as being "better".

Being bigger and more athletic than another player makes you better equipped to put the ball inside the basket, help others to put ball inside said basket, or prevent someone from putting a ball in the aforementioned basket. Therefore, I am sorry to tell you, bigger and more athletic constitutes "better" in basically all cases. I feel like I am speaking some fairly elementary and rudimentary facts to a pigeon that is shitting on a chess board, knocking over the pieces, and thinking it's winning the game.

Well that was pretty moronic. Even if Golden State are smaller and less athletic than some of their competition they're still within a reasonable margin of their opposition but when men play against women, the differences are too big to overcome.

But please, tell me, are you saying yourself that WNBA is better than NBA? Just trying to figure out what kind of point you're trying to make "brah".

I love when the white knight virgins come to town.

You mean like assuming men got the job because of their gender and not expertise and experience?

And I am assuming that this woman's experience is similar to her brothers and she did not indicate otherwise.

Wow. Just wow. And what would make them "better", just their basketball IQ?

Again, if only there was a word for being biased regarding gender...
"

Yeah, it's called being a third wave feminist, a male feminist, or any mix of the two.

Then why did you mention the bell-curve first to demonstrate your point. Is it because you're a bell-end?

Oh, I invite you to give a "citation" on that little assumed fact. I'll wait. give us the reasons why it is better. Come on. this will be a laugh.

Hahaha alt-right! You don't even know what the alt-right is!

And label it whatever you want sweetheart, fact is I am right. You can call it sexist, racist, misogynistic, transphobic, islamophobic, and everything else, but I am RIGHT.

"You mean like assuming men got the job because of their gender and not expertise and experience?
Who's making that assumption?"

Well if women didn't get the job because of their gender, it is only safe to assume that the men did get the position because of their gender, no? Or at least they must have had an unfair advantage, therefore getting it for their gender above the women who are apparently equally qualified, and therefore, for their gender? You obviously don't pry into your own views too deeply.

"And I am assuming that this woman's experience is similar to her brothers and she did not indicate otherwise.
And yet you're assuming she's less qualified to have an opinion because netball.
"

And in your parlance, "who's saying that?" Obviously you didn't comprehend the point, which points to your deficiency and not mine.

"
Then why did you mention the bell-curve first to demonstrate your point. Is it because you're a bell-end?
I mentioned bell curves, not The Bell Curve, do try to keep up."

It's the same thing, which you later labelled psuedoscience to suit yourself.

"Having a black- or female-sounding name on a resumé makes you less likely to get an interview even if the actual content of the resumé is identical to one with a white- and male-sounding name. And that's just for starters."

Yeah, because people of different groups have well earned reputations. Take a look at the crime rates across the world by race, at the way those groups portray themselves in even their own art, and then wonder to yourself if maybe it isn't so much "white privilege" as it is black consequences. My being white means you assume I have privilege, and their being black might mean people make assumptions about them. Those assumptions do not equate a privilege to those who don't have those assumptions.

"Not to mention that the black guy is less likely to be born into economic privilege than the white guy in the first place."

Which has more statisically to do with the scourge of fatherless homes than it does race. Black homes with fathers do just as well as whites with fathers, it's jut 77% of black homes in the US and many in Australia are fatherless.

"If only there was a word for the way in which different types of privilege...connect, or whatever. Like, lines of privilege all...um...you know, crossing at meeting points, like roads, or something."

yeah, intersectionality - the biggest crock of bullshit ever concocted. pure identity politics that disregards the merit and performance of an individual and devolves into groupthink.

Well if women didn't get the job because of their gender, it is only safe to assume that the men did get the position because of their gender, no?

And in your parlance, "who's saying that?" Obviously you didn't comprehend the point, which points to your deficiency and not mine.

It's the same thing, which you later labelled psuedoscience to suit yourself.

Yeah, because people of different groups have well earned reputations.

Take a look at the crime rates across the world by race, at the way those groups portray themselves in even their own art, and then wonder to yourself if maybe it isn't so much "white privilege" as it is black consequences.

Which has more statisically to do with the scourge of fatherless homes than it does race.

yeah, intersectionality - the biggest crock of bullshit ever concocted. pure identity politics that disregards the merit and performance of an individual and devolves into groupthink

""Yeah, because people of different groups have well earned reputations. Take a look at the crime rates across the world by race,"

OMFG could you be any dumber"

Calling someone dumber and using your textspeak does not prove your point for you. It's called ad hominen and it's a failure of a debating tactic.

"“"Not to mention that the black guy is less likely to be born into economic privilege than the white guy in the first place."

Which has more statisically to do with the scourge of fatherless homes than it does race. Black homes with fathers do just as well as whites with fathers, it's jut 77% of black homes in the US and many in Australia are fatherless. "

Yes, turns out you can!"

Yeah, you mean with those racist stats? Economic standing in a family can be directly correlated in every single race to whether or not there are two parents running a family. two parents equates to two incomes generally.

So, like, OMFG, could you get any dumber, like actual?

Go hoist up your tight jeans and be an insufferable milennial elsewhere kid.

"Well if women didn't get the job because of their gender, it is only safe to assume that the men did get the position because of their gender, no?
Who's making that assumption?"

You, implicitly. Look up the word.

"And in your parlance, "who's saying that?" Obviously you didn't comprehend the point, which points to your deficiency and not mine.
You are. I literally said that in the bit of my post you quoted."

Context matters, to once again coin you.

"It's the same thing, which you later labelled psuedoscience to suit yourself.
...no, no it isn't. One is a shoddy piece of research, the other is a method of displaying data."

No it's the same method and you trying to differentiate it to save your argument.

"Yeah, because people of different groups have well earned reputations.
If only there was a name for making assumptions about people based on race."

Oh yeah, I know. Say it all for us. "DATS WACIST!" Well guess what? Normal people with healthy brains surely don't just assume that everyone of a certain group is this or that (like your assumption of white privilege, which you've presented no evidence for), but they do not walk around blind to trends. I mean, have you been noticing certain trends with Sudanese in Melbourne at the moment? Are you going to blithely ignore that if in Melbourne and confronting by a Sudanese group or are you going to take the cautions that a rational person would take with an understanding of trends? If we ignore generalizations, we cannot successfully create a mental map for the way the world works. You must live in a reality where everything is random chance. Nothing repeats, unless it's, *gasp* systemic racism and the oppression of women (none of which exist in a substantial sense in western society any more, and the preference of ones own group over another is natural to SOME extent, as shown by the recent black reaction to movies like Black Panther, and their disdain during the Oscars So white debacle).


"Take a look at the crime rates across the world by race, at the way those groups portray themselves in even their own art, and then wonder to yourself if maybe it isn't so much "white privilege" as it is black consequences.
I for one am shocked - SHOCKED! - to find that people are disinclined to work within a system that holds them at a disadvantage and refuses to acknowledge their concerns."

HAHAAh confuses to acknowledge their concerns? Have you slept under a rock for 20 years. All I've been hearing is how black and minorities and women feel. When you look objectively at their claims a lot of it doesn't stand to scrutiny. But let me get this straight, you think it's cool to immigrate from a hell hole to a place infinitely better in every way, and commit crimes because things aren't given to you? That is literally what you're saying. Crime is okay, because of vague and unprovable systemic racism that has just about as much evidential backing as the illuminati.


"Which has more statisically to do with the scourge of fatherless homes than it does race.
You know what causes fatherless homes? Being too poor to afford family planning."

And crimes. Crimes taking fathers out of homes. Fathers just bolting. And by the way, there are more white people in the US and Australia under the poverty line than there are black, yet for some reason 77% of whites are not without fathers, despite the fact that more of them are in poverty. Moron!

"yeah, intersectionality - the biggest crock of bullshit ever concocted. pure identity politics that disregards the merit and performance of an individual and devolves into groupthink
Says the guy who wants to lump everyone into groups based solely on economic factors and ignore all other context."

Economic factors are the great divider. If you have money, you have status in our societies.

"Also black adult males being far more likely to be incarcerated for longer periods (or even at all) when committing the same crimes as a white person.

To bring up "fatherless homes" without providing even an ounce of explanation or context shows how little you know, ME."

Which is explained by the fact that blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders, hence more of them are in for the same crime. The rates of blacks and whites in prison for the same crime on first instance is actually shown to be nearly identical.

But please, tell me how little I know.

White privilege. Male privilege. Oppression. Wah wah wah. It's actually sad to watch. It's the sexism and racism of lower expectations you have for these people that sickens me. Blacks can't help committing crimes, they're oppressed by the invisible systemic racism. Women can't go up the ranks in things, the invisible patriarchy boogeyman will get them.

You have no evidence for any of it at all, and the stats you do pull are easily explained away after even just a moment of critical thinking.

go to sleep children. it's past your bed time.

""Also black adult males being far more likely to be incarcerated for longer periods (or even at all) when committing the same crimes as a white person.

To bring up "fatherless homes" without providing even an ounce of explanation or context shows how little you know, ME."

Which is explained by the fact that blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders, hence more of them are in for the same crime. The rates of blacks and whites in prison for the same crime on first instance is actually shown to be nearly identical.

But please, tell me how little I know.

"

Furthermore, statistics show that black offenders are usually sentenced by majority black courts and judges in most cases, usually because the offences happen in black areas.

But more of that white racism, right?

This may not hold quite as true in Australia, but it is definitely the case in America, which seems to be the epicenter of the "let's cry for the minorities" party the western world is having right now.

""The rates of blacks and whites in prison for the same crime on first instance is actually shown to be nearly identical. "

What an absolute load of shit. Black people are far more likely to be arrested and incarcerated for drug use/possession but white people use drugs on a more frequent basis. "

Because usually black people caught with drugs either have records already or are committing a different crime and their possession of a drug just happens to be a secondary charge.

Look at black neighborhoods vs. black in America. See the differences. Don't tell me that people who are terrorizing their own neighborhoods and put in jail for it are oppressed. Do you know what the murder rate is in black America? They don't call Chicago "Chiraq" for nothing!

But they're not victims of black on black crime. of course not! It's those damn white police! (even though most police, judges, and everyone else in black communities are actually black.)

My god. My bloody god. You people. I swear!

""a moment of critical thinking"

Hahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha....

....that was a joke right?

"

You say that while not being able to bring up a single thing that negates a single point I've made.

You, implicitly. Look up the word.

Context matters, to once again coin you.

"It's the same thing, which you later labelled psuedoscience to suit yourself.
...no, no it isn't. One is a shoddy piece of research, the other is a method of displaying data."

No it's the same method and you trying to differentiate it to save your argument.

Normal people with healthy brains surely don't just assume that everyone of a certain group is this or that (like your assumption of white privilege, which you've presented no evidence for), but they do not walk around blind to trends.

systemic racism and the oppression of women (none of which exist in a substantial sense in western society any more...as shown by...the Oscars So white debacle.

HAHAAh confuses to acknowledge their concerns? Have you slept under a rock for 20 years. All I've been hearing is how black and minorities and women feel.

Which is explained by the fact that blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders charged

The rates of blacks and whites in prison for the same crime on first instance they were charged for is actually shown to be nearly identical.

have you been noticing certain trends with Sudanese in Melbourne at the moment?

Very vocal, but not a lot of fact or thought behind it. I can see they've seen a few buzzfeed videos, listened to a few horror stories, and they think they know what's up. They've not investigated the issue at any length, not putting any thought to it, and everything I am saying now is a shock to their system. They cannot allow these thoughts and facts to wash through them because they've been told for so long that blaming something negative that happens to a black or a woman on the actions they themselves make is prejudiced. They'll happily fling shit at the white man, but they dare not presume that black people have the self control to not commit crimes, or that women could actually WORK towards a goal. No, when these groups don't succeed it isn't because of cultural issues, the racism of lowered expectations, and different genetic and gendered dispositions, it's that white man over there, working his guts off. He's the one to blame!

All lefties are paranoid schizophrenics.

Because usually black people caught with drugs either have records already

"You, implicitly. Look up the word.
Nobody in this thread has claimed NBL commentators are chosen based on gender.

Context matters, to once again coin you.
That's literally the opposite of what "coin" means."

You knew how I was using the phrase so not sure why you're playing it like that.

""It's the same thing, which you later labelled psuedoscience to suit yourself.
...no, no it isn't. One is a shoddy piece of research, the other is a method of displaying data."

No it's the same method and you trying to differentiate it to save your argument.
The Bell Curve isn't bad because bell curves are bad, The Bell Curve is bad because it uses bell curves badly."

Explain it for us then, 'oh wise one'.

"Normal people with healthy brains surely don't just assume that everyone of a certain group is this or that (like your assumption of white privilege, which you've presented no evidence for), but they do not walk around blind to trends.
"THERE IS NO WHITE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE OF THIS SELECT NUMBER OF EXAMPLES."

"BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL BECAUSE TRENDS.""

Err... never called black people evil. I just made the accurate assessment that statistically they're shown to be prone to criminality, which in turn affects their prospects in life, and that that is more of an answer to their position than white privilege, and I earlier made the comparison to Asians to drive the point home, yet you couldn't grasp that.

"systemic racism and the oppression of women (none of which exist in a substantial sense in western society any more...as shown by...the Oscars So white debacle.
Okay I'm taking a lot of liberties with that quote but the juxtaposition is amusing.

HAHAAh confuses to acknowledge their concerns? Have you slept under a rock for 20 years. All I've been hearing is how black and minorities and women feel.
I said "acknowledge", not "hear and ignore". Maybe they wouldn't have to say it so much if once in a while you actually listened instead of telling them how they're wrong."

I acknowledge their stories, I just draw different conclusions. A lot of people think, for example, that Michael Brown was some sort of angel that was wrongly gunned down. I saw him, more accurately, as a public menace that was fighting a police officer for his gun, and all evidence proved that that was the case. In many instances the stories are similar to this, where there is a reasonable explanation, but people looking to see sexiam and racism in everything certainly find some way to find it.

"Which is explained by the fact that blacks are more likely to be repeat offenders charged
Fixed that for you."

Ignore what I said about black courts and judges then, seeing as this is primarily happening in black communities. That fact is a bit uncomfortable for you when trying to assert white privilege.

"You know why the sentences for crack cocaine are worse than for powdered cocaine despite them being the same drug? Because crack is more popular with black people."

No, it's because crack cocaine destroys communities. The crack epidemic destroyed Compton, for instance, and Josh Childress could tell you something about what it was like for him living there. He was oppressed and threatened by BLACK people in his community. He couldn't go out at night because of BLACK people. Tell me which communities are ravaged by white people and powdered cocaine? Hollywood? Vegas? Places that don't have all of the other mass crime involved to anywhere near the same degree? All of the associated crime crack cocaine brings? Kick rocks.

"The rates of blacks and whites in prison for the same crime on first instance they were charged for is actually shown to be nearly identical.
Fixed that for you, too."

Oh so do you have any evidence for how many whites did it and weren't charged vs. how many were, or are you just filling the gaps with assumed racism because you're losing a debate?

"have you been noticing certain trends with Sudanese in Melbourne at the moment?
I've been noticing trends with the media's presentation of them."

yeah the damn media, acknowledging gang bashings and break ins happening at unheard of numbers. They should really keep quiet, right? I mean we wouldn't want anyomne to accurately surmise that Sudanese Australians are having a hard time assimilating to Australian mores, would we?

"And having prior records leads to the three strikes policy, an inherently racist law.

"

How is it racist? You know what is racist? Assuming black people can't stop committing crimes after doing it twice!

tell me then, if you can, why is the three strike rule racist. Come on, this will be good. if not for the assumption that blacks cannot help but continue to commit crimes, what is it? The floor is yours. let's see it.

ME, I'm not responding to that until you learn to quote coherently.

Nice deflection. But the fact is you can't do it without admitting that blacks commit crime more often, can you?

And recidivism rates are part of the proof of repeat offences in black community.

http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/created-equal.pdf

Read.

"ME, I'm not responding to that until you learn to quote coherently."

A.K.A you have no response to that and this is the best way to insulate your ego.

No, I just don't have half an hour to try and parse that post to figure out which bits of it are new things you've said.

And as I said and as shown even in the SJW linked study I posted, blacks are more likely to repeat offend then more likely to end up in jail again (recidivism) and are therefore more likely to receive longer sentences.

So longer sentences for the same crime? well, not quite. Longer sentences for the same time, repeated a few times.

No. the point I was making is that they are more prone to recidivism, which was made by the study. I was making that point and saying that's why they tend to get longer sentences for the same crime. Still, it's all flying over heads here.

"Court Processing
• African Americans were more likely to be sentenced to prison and less likely to be sentenced to probation than Whites."

That doesn't say for the same crimes. And when black males commit 52% of the nations murders perhaps that plays a part in it, yes?

"
• The average prison sentence for violent crime was approximately one year longer for African Americans than for Whites."

And what were the TYPES of violent crimes? I've already addressed the higher amount of murders but they're also higher in aggravated assault which courts longer sentences than other assaults.

"
• African Americans were convicted for drug charges at substantially higher rates than those for Whites."

So more blacks were caught than whites. So what? They could prove more blacks did drugs than whites. What is your point?

Still, flying over everyone's head is that blacks or more likely to be sentenced by black majority juries and by black judges. They're also more likely to be caught by black police as these problems are more likely to happen in black communities.

But forget that, because something something racism something something male privilege.

Funny to me how you will surmise that whites getting shorter sentences than blacks is racism but not blink an eye when women get shorter sentences than men for the same crime by even smaller amounts. It's like you pick and choose your outrages depending on how virtuous you will seem by fighting for them.

Funny little hypocrisy there.

"Yes, but the study (and common sense) does not say that they continue to commit crimes because of the color of their skin. There are a number of other factors, including poverty, employment opportunities, policing in certain areas, that are impacted by the color of the skin (by racists like you) and after years of this, it leaves little option but to turn to crime. "

The number one indicator of poverty is a fatherless home as I said. You also seem to think that culture has nothing to do with it. I don't give a shit about skin color, I think having a culture where criminality is seen as cool, so is a distrust of authority, and a victim complex pumped to you by rap music and the media, comes together in a perfect storm that helps to make black communities ghettos.

In the 1940s only 6 percent of African Americans were living in poverty, now it is 26 percent. Do you think racism has gotten WORSE since the Jim Crow days?

No, the culture has got worse. the excuses have got worse. The fathers have either gone to jail or fled. That's your problem.

"No, I just don't have half an hour to try and parse that post to figure out which bits of it are new things you've said."

Your posting history would suggest that you have many half hours to do so...

You said poverty was a cause of crime and I gave you the cause of the poverty. seems appropriate to me. I know you were going to try to insert a "white racism" thing there so I just removed the little gap you were going to place it in.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

So they dug up a 22-year-old interview that is basically unverified and that's your evidence? His children refute it. I'll need more evidence than an unverified interview that was released 22 years after the fact. Maybe if he were still alive to confirm or deny his statements I would give it some credence. Not saying this absolutely didn't happen but this better not be the strongest thing you have to show me.

This claim is about as concrete as the claim that Elvis used to dig up dead bodies.

Also when laying a claim on someone, or a charge, you might want to present a motive.

In this article they say that Nixon wanted to destabilize the anti-war and black communities. Okay, we get why the anti-war brigade, but why blacks? Just because he didn't particularly like them for some reason?

Going to need to assert a motive to make these claims. And I don't think "eerr, just don't really like blacks" counts as a reason when you're talking about someone who was the leader of the free world.

In this article they say that Nixon wanted to destabilize the anti-war and black communities. Okay, we get why the anti-war brigade, but why blacks? Just because he didn't particularly like them for some reason?

The big change came in 1964 with Barry Goldwater and ''states' rights,'' a phrase and philosophy widely seen as anti-black and opposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the godfather of voting rights for blacks. In that Presidential election and the seven after, no Republican gained more than 15 percent of the black vote.

That actually doesn't answer the question. So basically there were rights enforced that were seen as racist in 1964 and that's why they struggled for votes leading into 1996 and everything in between.

Well, yeah. Still doesn't explain what you assume Nixon's motive was. And while we're on the subject, I think anyone is willing to concede that there was racism towards black people in the past. The point I am making is that as of 2018, white male privilege doesn't really exist. Are there echoing affects from past political decisions? Sure. But everything else is just trying to shield black people from the blame of their own actions.

Well, yeah. Still doesn't explain what you assume Nixon's motive was.

The point I am making is that as of 2018, white male privilege doesn't really exist.

"You...don't know why a political party might consider a voting block that votes against them at a rate of at least 85% to be a political opponent? Are you dense?"

Well the normal reaction is actually trying to appeal to them like normal people do.

"I'm glad to hear they've fixed it in the past three months then."

Naw, was that your attempt at wit?

Will you two just bang already?

"You...don't know why a political party might consider a voting block that votes against them at a rate of at least 85% to be a political opponent? Are you dense?"

Well the normal reaction is actually trying to appeal to them like normal people do.

And that is meant to prove what? I never said that parties didn't manipulate groups to win elections. I am saying there is no real concrete evidence to suggest that drug laws is a political tool against blacks. And furthermore, being seen as mistreating a group that doesn't vote for you isn't about to win you their vote.

And that is meant to prove what?

And furthermore, being seen as mistreating a group that doesn't vote for you isn't about to win you their vote.

Black people have never represented a high turnout. In fact the only time they really showed up in numbers was Obama elections. A drug war seems like a big move to make to disenfranchise a fairly inactive voting block. Probably easier to appease them than anything.

There's the saying that the biggest threat to democracy is when we can’t have an agreed set of facts.

The problem we have is there a critical mass of people who aren’t very well informed or educated enough to have a good general understanding,mixed with a culture of deferring evidenced based decisions to each individual backing their own unsubstantiated logic of how the world works.

We have the issue such as in the last US election where a lot of people like ME have convinced themselves that there’s somehow a logic against Political Correctness or Social Justice. I think the concepts of political correctness (ie not making making generalisations that don’t reflect reality) or social justice (ie don’t treat people like shit even if you feel like being jerk) are common sense for most people.

You gotta love when someone starting a genuine discussion about representation of the sexes is met with someone who can't wait to turn it into a conversation about why he doesn't like black people.

Wow.

American history revisionism, amateur criminology, the motives of Richard Noxious (can't we just accept that he was twisted individual craving power for the sake of power) and arguments about whether intrinsic societal imbalances still exist.

I think the OP didn’t want to open up quite this many cans of worms.

In regards to the courts, the US system is vastly different to the Australian system. They even have a jury consultancy industry due to the way their jury selection processes work. Both prosecution and defence counsel get a chance to question potential jurors and object to them. The longest potential juror survey was well over 200 pages, and was used in the trial of an African American... but that was OJ’s murder trial so he was relatively privileged (read way more wealthy and powerful than all but an elite in the US).

I hope in your regular life you aren't given a soap box to stand on too often ME. Wow.

"ie not making making generalisations that don't reflect reality"

This is the key point. This type of discussion becomes so polarised these days in large because each side thinks their generalisations are accurate while their counterparts' generalisations are deplorable.

Class war, Race war now the 'modern day' Gender war....Oh dear, bring on the Grand Final series...and I don't give a shit who commentates it!!

Haha what an explosive Monday.

Let's ramp up this thing incrementally until Game 1 on Friday.

COME ONNNNN

Serious is this still going on hahaha. This is what happens when you space the finals out too far apart.

They're having basketball withdrawals. Getting the shakes real bad

""Did someone above say that white people take more drugs than blacks? Really? Now that's racist."

Um what?

"
----

Well it would be seen that way if you said it about blacks, illustrating the double standard we have here.
----

""The point I am making is that as of 2018, white male privilege doesn't really exist."

Sadly. The inmates now run the asylum."
----

You can make snide remarks but can you debate me with facts? The obvious answer is NO or you would have.

-----
"You gotta love when someone starting a genuine discussion about representation of the sexes is met with someone who can't wait to turn it into a conversation about why he doesn't like black people.

"
===

Mind showing me where I said or even implied I didn't like black people? I am kind of a passionate fan of a sport dominated by them. If I seriously disliked black people I would find the sport hard to watch and I certainly wouldn't be calling for more imports in the NBL as I have been doing. I just think that we need to stop acting like they're victims of everything and start being realistic.

-----

"I think the concepts of political correctness (ie not making making generalisations that don't reflect reality) or social justice (ie don’t treat people like shit even if you feel like being jerk) are common sense for most people"

----

How about no? Political correctness means people cant speak freely about real issues, as shown here, without being labeled for drawing a natural conclusion. You cannot say any other group other than white people have a problem or you're being racist. I don't think you've been paying enough attention to just how bizarre it has become. You cannot say that men and women are different or the transgender activists have a meltdown. You cannot say that blacks have a responsibility to themselves or them and the white guilted have a meltdown. You basically have to walk on egg shells and the only people you can make any harsh but true statements on are white. Political correctness in moderation may have a place in keeping discourse decent and respectful, but it has gone way too far.

"What isn't a fact is you providing flimsy substantiation like "but fatherless homes and rap music" without exploring anything else, or you continuing telling anyone that disagrees with your bullshit analysis that they are virtue signalling or being a SJW."

Fatherless homes statistically and directly correlate to poverty in all races and happens more in the black community. That was my point.

"You simply refuse to accept that racism exists, and it always has, because you are too lazy and selfish to change your views because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Instead, you attack the minorities that are the victims of the easily-provable systemic racism. That is the very definition of white privilege."

I never said racism doesn't exist anymore. I am saying systemic racism isn't really a thing anymore. There might be isolated instances of it but it isn't really the prevailing attitude in our society anymore and it isn't really a reflection of legislation. You say say this racism is easily-provable but you're yet to come anywhere near proving it.

Imagine the reply count if the Perth Wildcats (coached by Trevor Gleeson) had an overtime game against female commentators, and it was poorly reffed. And Shawn Redhage made a flopping cameo. Cha-ching!

"I am saying systemic racism isn't really a thing anymore."

Yes it is. Read a book. Watch a documentary. Take your blinkers off and you will find that it does."

Oh I am sure if you did things blindly and uncritically and made brain dead assumptiosn like "more blacks in jail equals racism because there's no way they could be committing more crimes", then maybe.

"One massive factor is the continual oppression in many areas of their life. T"

And not one of you can actually illustrate that continued oppression.

Anyway I am not replying anymore until someone comes up with something worth replying to, because it's all the same crap I am reading and none of it is really properly rebutting me.

Isaac - are you allowed to give yourself a ball?

Yes but no.

ME do you have any background or reasoning of credibility that you can rely on? All you say is "open your eyes" but you're the one who’s departing from evidence and anyone with any real expertise in the purview of the topic.

Your confidence in yourself and how you twist your reasoning doesn’t translate into anything substantiated, and yet you get exasperated. You’re too caught up in your own world you haven’t noticed that your efforts aren’t being influential all you’re doing is trying to get a rise out of others but because you’re on a small minority you get beaten down with no chance of gaining any headway, it’s a lost battle - especially as society becomes more educated and accepting of people.

Isaac, I hope you appreciate all the page views I've concocted for you here :-)

I feel partly responsible because of what I said about decoding and responding to others

I like cereal

Don't lock this thread Isaac its entertaining reading some of the waffle.
The title should be changed it doesn't look like anyone is talking about female commentators at all.

How many editors do you reckon have politely asked kobe to stop sending them letters over the years?

It's got to be at least 6, right?

Any of the casuals reading this on the sidelines might be interested in listening to this, a podcast about naive realism which also has nothing to do with basketball:

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2015/11/09/yanss-062-why-you-often-believe-people-who-see-the-world-differently-are-wrong/

Anything I have said can be easily verified and a lot of it is just applying common sense. People here are just too invested in finding the racism in the gaps they can't explain, kind of how religious people find god in everything they don't understand.

"whites are not handed everything to us"

From birth, whites are significantly more advantaged than blacks, and those advantages just increase as life goes on. That is white privilege and it exists.

White privilege is also someone bemoaning a comment they read on the internet as the "worst form of racism.""

Yet none of you have been able to show any real evidence of this. It's just "it is true because I say it is true".

"ME is saying racism doesn't exist, or that black people have only themselves to blame. People are countering with differing points of view, or examples of how systemic racism works. ME responds by saying racism doesn't exist or that black people have only themselves to blame.

He isn't interested in evidence, his mind is made up, he pretends he has critically analysed the situation and anyone that disagrees has a problem. Like I said earlier, that is the very definition of white privilege.

"

Yes by saying they go to jail more, and I've explained why, yet you don't want a bar of the fact that blacks commit more crimes.

"I want to see an experiment where European refugees are sent to Africa to start a new life. Then we can see how they are treated and start using the term "black privilege" and go on about that."

You'd end up like South African farmers right now. These "white privileged" nations are the only places people flock to, so they can live lives insurmountably better than they would at home, all the while bemoaning the host population for not handing them even more.

Just came in here and have only read the last post. Appears to have gotten off topic somewhat..

ME, remember when you said that you wouldn't keep replying? ;)

If you're all arguing across each other, I'm not sure what the aim is here? Any reasonable discussion about female commentators is long gone. Any potentially fruitful discussion about broader issues looks to be beyond everyone too. They're all hugely interesting discussions, but people discuss them like it's a personal war rather than with any realistic goal. I suspect people naturally clump into ways of viewing the world which make knife-edge issues really difficult to find consensus with.

To the topic! Almost every NBL commentator is an ex-player, an ex-athlete from another sport, or a career sports commentator. There are not so many positions that the league freelances much with their selections. A while back, people would've viewed Tragardh and Rosen as bold picks. Someone like Carfino has been there for many, many years, virtually locking down one of the few positions. Female commentators who played WNBL might target WNBL positions first. Or the league might be too cautious to break much ground? Does the NBA even find primary commentary positions for women? Perhaps there aren't many coming up and getting interest?

The sideline reporters like Gelmi are great IMO - very professional. It's very possible they maximise their opportunities by being broader than just play-by-play for a second-tier sport. More jobs doing sideline commentary for basketball, tennis, swimming, etc than just AU basketball.

Not sure if it helps to consider something like podcasts. It's the market at large - anyone can start a podcast and anyone can choose what they listen to. I'm not aware of any NBL podcasts with female hosts - they aren't popular or they don't exist or some combination of the two.

Are there aspiring female NBL commentators?

BTW, CT, you did your share of pointing the disussion in awkward directions in the topic itself. I don't know if I'd agree with this being a dramatic issue, for example:

the only ones who get to commentate are old (mostly white) dudes.

True, but I think the old white dude thing is broadly true in most Australian sports commentary.

In all honesty I just like hearing a range of smart, informed people commentating on basketball. My personal preference would be hearing female as well male commentary on all the sport I watch, but I also expect commentary on the sport I watch to be informative, entertaining and balanced. I'm not suggesting shoehorning a token woman in there who's unqualified to be there, but as a large proportion of the crowd are female clearly women watch the sport in large numbers and have something to say about it.

Good point about podcasting though.

I also think having a public female perspective on sport makes sport more accessible for women and helps destroy the myth that sport is something boys do, or that women (and men for that matter) should only play certain sport, something that I've personally negotiated in my own life with my experiences of raising my own daughter. But that's beside the point really.

The podcasting/content creation point is a good one.

Liam Santamaria and Tommy Greer both started with a podcast and are both now more involved with mainstream outlets. Its a good way to get reps on the mic in more of a low pressure environment.

I've listened to a few things with Megan Hustwaite on SEN and Basket Case although both are WNBL focused.

There are very few of these gigs going and they aren't going to be handed to anyone. Especially someone without an interest or knowledge of the league.

As the great Charlamagne Tha God says, opportunity comes to those who create it.

I attempted to read this thread and got a migraine. FWIW I enjoyed Carly Wilson's commentary and I'd be pretty happy if she became part of the NBL commentary team.

ferd:

opportunity comes to those who create it

My personal preference would be hearing female as well male commentary on all the sport I watch, but I also expect commentary on the sport I watch to be informative, entertaining and balanced. I'm not suggesting shoehorning a token woman in there who's unqualified to be there, but as a large proportion of the crowd are female clearly women watch the sport in large numbers and have something to say about it.