Revealing An Iceberg

That leaves us here: Your points on the nature of language were brilliant, and absolutely correct — and in a way, I’m glad you posted them, because I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. However, they were not actually relevant to the point Erez was making, since, while he said “meaning,” I believe the context shows that he was actually talking about “intent” and “personal feelings.” And when viewed in that context, I think his comment (the one you quoted) is absolutely true.

I agree with much of what you’ve said, including that Danny went overboard with his piece. That is why I felt compelled to weigh in on the subject in the first place. My comment should not be viewed as a defense of Danny’s writing, because I do not believe that is what he was trying to say. Much of the Kobe defense I have read has centered on the concept that he didn’t mean (or intend) the word he used the way many took it and that to me is not a valid defense.

If Erez did in fact want to accuse the author (or anyone) of telling Kobe what he intended with his statement, then yes most of what I have said does not apply to the accusation. But I believe my comment applies intimately to the topic at hand. I don’t think we need to know what Kobe intended to condemn his statement. From what I’ve read of your comments, I think you agree with that.

In my reading on the subject I haven’t seen anyone make quite the point I was trying to get at. Most of the attacks from various writers were centered, as you have pointed out, on trying to read Kobe’s intent. That is a frivolous endeavor. We can’t read minds, and basing judgment of actions on that premise is a failure out of the gates.
That said, my points on meaning get at a view that I think we may hold in common. We don’t have to know how Kobe intended his words to consider them ill fitting of an athlete in a public setting. The fact that his words could be taken by an impartial third party as slur against homosexuals makes uttering those words a bad idea if that is not the message he wants to convey. Furthermore treating them as generalized invective, which is the only alternate meaning we can reasonably infer, does not absolve him of guilt here since that intent does not exclude the more targeted invective meaning that many have taken issue with.

If anything the specific, anti-gay sentiment is a subset of the generalized anger Kobe was expressing. He fished around for a suitably potent phrase in his mind and that was what came out. I don’t need to be a psychologist or projecting beliefs onto him to understand that Kobe’s statement implies (not proves) he has a negative connotation attached to the words he used in that situation. The only other reasonable answer is that he believes his target has a negative connotation associated with the words, and his use of those words in that case is equally bad.

I don’t scream out “darn kitten” in my frustration because I don’t have negative associations with kittens and neither does anyone I might want to insult. I scream out other things which I find suitable to the frustration I feel and the anger I have for those I feel are responsible. That, and not any sort of diminishing of the speaker in relation to the listener is what I believe Danny was trying to get at in his original article. It is worth saying again that my view is that his specific beliefs regarding the words he used are next to meaningless in overall picture, and certainly immaterial to whether or not his words caused harm to others.

The moral grand standing on both sides is a regrettable side effect of the desire to sensationalize one’s point. I don’t think this situation needed sensationalizing. It has made it difficult for me, at least, to agree with those condemning Kobe. While their conclusion is one I support (Kobe was wrong to say what he said, regardless of how he wanted to mean it), their reasons are faulty, and that creates all sorts of other problems.

“At what point do we, in a Free Society, get to use words and not be penalized for the possible emotional distress that word caused, although without the intention if the speaker?”

Here (via Erez) I think rests the bone of contention between your view and mine. I see nothing wrong with holding a speaker accountable for unintentional consequences of their words, especially if the speaker is using slurs or curse words. Kobe used both, and it is a measure of how far the discussion has run astray that only the one is being talked about.

In all other legal areas, intent can be a mitigating factor, but it does not erase the actions of a defendant. If I am reading a text in traffic and I accidentally veer off the road, striking a pedestrian and paralyzing them; then my intent is less important than the outcome my actions have achieved.

Yes, I know there is no physical harm we can point to in this case to mirror my hypothetical, but this does not take away from my main point that intent is not of primary concern in American society. Results matter; and the results of Kobe’s actions are a good many offended people. If he weren’t a public figure caught doing it on the job that would be the end of it. Since he’s famous and a figurehead for his league (which is not bound to honor free speech); the entire situation is rendered larger than life. Kind of like the Decision, in some ways.

The legal instances of harm via words are usually reserved for the civil courts with libel or slander cases; but some jurisdictions have hate crime laws which include hateful speech clauses. There is precedence for prosecuting someone for hateful speech. By no means am I suggesting Kobe committed a hate crime here, intent comes into play in determining that. I think you, Erez, and others have fairly clearly demonstrated Kobe’s intent was likely not to denigrate a way of life with his comments. My point is merely that speech is not a category separate from other actions in the eyes of the law. We are granted freedom of speech only so long as that speech does not impinge upon the rights of others. “Fire” in a movie theater, “bomb” on an airplane, and hate-speech are all examples of rights-abridging speech. The bounds of decency stop well short of the legal limits of speech, and there is nothing wrong with expecting professional athletes to adhere to those either.

This is not a point that I think Danny was making, and it is not a point I’ve seen others make. I believe driving in traffic is an excellent parallel to speech, because in both situations there are multiple other people involved and you as an actor do not control their actions (or beliefs in the case of speech). In both cases I could, despite my best intentions, cause severe harm to someone via my actions. In neither case do I believe that my lack of intent absolves me of guilt for harm I cause. Due to this, care is warranted in both cases. I certainly take care in what I say; to do otherwise is to disregard the power of words.

I could go on to the "slippery slope" counterargument, but I do not agree with it. So if someone else wants to make it they can and I will probably respond.

P.S. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading these comments, especially yours Josh. It’s been refreshing to see a comments section stay above board and away from exaggeration on this topic.

LeBron's comment was veiled, was not on prime-time TV (it was a quote on text, i believe; if not it definitely wasn't during a game when all cameras were focused on him), and expressing homophobia is a bit more acceptable than disparaging it.

Also, LeBron does not have a history of alleged rape/adultery on his resume. LeBron could probably get away with making lewd comments too, whereas Kobe... heh, media will have a field day if Kobe threw a Malonesque comment on somebody else's wife.

That is the reality of things. You are received in a way because of who you were, who you are, and who people think you are. And you really can't force or ask people to change their perceptions so that your baggage do not influence others' thoughts.

Kobe gets the kind of scrutiny for the person he was/is/perceived to be. Some of it is his own doing, some of it is not, but that's just the way things work.

A question for Danny Savitzky, the author of the original post, as well as for Matt Moore:

When John Amaechi came out a couple years ago, LeBron James had this to say:

"You take showers together, you're on the bus, you talk about things. With teammates, you have to be trustworthy. If you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, you're not trustworthy. It's the locker room code; it's a trust factor."

Now, I personally see at least some potential validity in that claim, simply because of the fact that a gay guy showering next to LeBron is similar to a woman showering next to LeBron, in that both could be turned on by what they see — except that if it was a woman, LeBron would have the advantage of seeing and knowing that for himself. So I'd give him some leeway on that statement — but then, I'm the guy that thinks Kobe's slur was vulgar and a terrible choice of words (not to mention overall behavior), but not at all hateful or discriminatory.

So let's talk about the people who have responded to Kobe's statement as though it were a much more egregious crime than I see it to be. I feel fairly confident in saying that most of them, including the gay community in general (or at least its spokespersons, who were very vocal in the Kobe incident) would consider that equally discriminatory — or worse, since (a) it's a thought out response, and (b) it is undeniably directed towards and spoken about gay people, which Kobe's was not.

You want to talk about disparate responses: Why did LeBron's statement not receive as harsh a public response as Kobe's? More importantly, why did it not receive as harsh a media response? That's the one that really bothers me, since the media and blogosphere are the most vocal critics of Kobe in the current incident.

Let's compare apples to apples. Why the disparity?

Harold:

Some interesting points. I believe there is an element of truth in your explanation. In evaluating the context (something that, as I've mentioned, the author fails to do), people recognize easily that Kobe was NOT expressing malice, hate, or discrimination towards the homosexual community. They recognize what he was actually intending to say, though his choice of words (and his behavior) in saying them was absolutely awful. Thus, they accept the "apology" as having an element of truth to it, since they already recognized that that was not Kobe's intent. His second apology expresses sincere regret at having offended people, and they accept his humanity. The fact that they believe his action was unintended, and LeBron's clearly premeditated, probably does subconsciously affect the way many people respond to the actions of each. The fact that LeBron's decision was much more drawn out, and that he involved us in it to an infinitely greater degree, also contributes to the disparity in public reaction.

Jon:

Some deeply insightful points regarding the nature of language. However, I think that the real issue here, quite ironically, is one of miscommunication.

You're responding to the quote by Erez that starts like this:

"You, and many others, are waging a battle of meaning. You are telling me what I mean when I say something."

While your points are quite correct with regards to meaning, I think Erez's mistake was actually in using the word "meaning." I think the context of this discussion shows that a more accurate word, for what I believe Erez's meaning was, would have been "intent."

Consider this initial statement, by the author of the original post, from the post itself:

"By expressing his disgust with those words in a negative connotation, he necessarily implied discriminatory feelings toward the homosexual community."

With this ridiculous statement, the author goes far beyond criticizing Kobe for using a word that is offensive to gays. He pretends to know Kobe's intent, and the nature of Kobe's feelings towards gay people. Kobe cannot express discriminatory feelings towards the homosexual community if he does not have those discriminatory feelings. The author is playing God, pretending to know Kobe's thoughts, feelings, and intentions. Even worse, he's doing so in a context in which every indication (notice I didn't say that we know with certainty) would be that he was NOT expressing such discriminatory feelings.

Bottom line, the author started a conversation about intent and personal feelings towards a group of people, and this was the most egregious statement that I took issue with, as did Erez shortly after.

Consider also the very next paragraph in Erez's comment (right after what you quoted), with the contextually significant part in bold:

"To me, the appropriate call and response to this situation would be, “Hey, what you said offended me”. “Oh, I’m sorry I offended you. That was not my intention”."

And again, at the end of his comment:

"At what point do we, in a Free Society, get to use words and not be penalized for the possible emotional distress that word caused, although without the intention if the speaker?"

These context clues help us to see that Erez was taking issue with that idea that the author (and others) thinks he knows what Kobe, Erez, myself, or anyone else is thinking, feeling, and intending.

Or this, also from Erez but earlier — actually, it's the part that the author was responding to, which then led to Erez's further response which you took issue with. So this next quote was the origin of that train of thought. Again, contextually relevant part in bold.

"As for the logic of his comment indicating issues with homosexuality. That might be the case, but your logic I plies that when I call someone a F-er, I’m derogating people who have hot, filthy, sex. Somebody else might have that iceberg beneath the tip of such a comment but I sure don’t."

Here again, we can see that Erez is responding to the author's claim that he can determine whether Kobe has issues with homosexuality based on the word he used in a context completely unrelated to sexuality. The "iceberg beneath the tip" comment Erez makes again shows that he is taking issue with the author's claim to know what feelings and intentions are behind our words.

Or this, a response by the author of the post to one of my comments:

"“By this reasoning, every person who has ever said, “Dude, that’s retarded,” has implied discriminatory feelings toward mentally retarded people.”

Yep.

“For that matter, everyone who has ever called another person “slow” has expressed the same discriminatory feelings, since that term gets its meaning from MR people. We could go on and on.”

Yep."

Here again, the author restates that he believes he has the ability to know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, my feelings towards certain people, regardless of context, and based solely on my (hypothetical) usage of a word that can have multiple meanings, depending on their context.

Here's what I'm getting at: A whole slew of contextual clues make it clear that the huge problem Erez and I are both articulating in the author's position is not actually that he can determine the meaning of our words (as you skillfully pointed out, he certainly can — though his primary tool in doing so ought to be context, which it clearly is not). It is that he thinks he can determine a person's inward feelings on a particular issue, and their intent, regardless of context.

That last bit is important, because it certainly is possible, in certain contexts, to determine a speakers intent, and part of that comes from the words he uses. But to actually assess that intent requires far, far more than just the word(s) the person spoke. One has to evaluate the context, who he was speaking to, what he was speaking about, the entire context of the situation. To know the speaker's feelings or intent without knowing the context is usually impossible. But this is precisely what the author of the original post claims to do. And that's what Erez was taking issue with.

That leaves us here: Your points on the nature of language were brilliant, and absolutely correct — and in a way, I'm glad you posted them, because I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. However, they were not actually relevant to the point Erez was making, since, while he said "meaning," I believe the context shows that he was actually talking about "intent" and "personal feelings." And when viewed in that context, I think his comment (the one you quoted) is absolutely true.

You make some good points. I am a Laker fan, but Bryant needs to take some, uhh, heat for this. He has handled it pretty well since it happened; no one except him knows how sincere the apology is or whether he is a homophobe. But he was wrong. Maybe some good can come out of it.

But using a quote Matt Moore on a Kobe issue is just silly. Moore, like Abbott and Simmons, has a weird fixation on Bryant and when it comes to Bryant stuff, Moore like Simmons and Abbott, is an arrogant, gutless, dumbass--as his Tweet shows yet again. As note, James didn't take crap for "changing jobs" he took crap--deservedly--for HOW he "changed jobs."

It's akin to Obama calling the Japanese Japs in his speech - you should get crucified if you make that mistake in public.

But that's where it ends. You don't need to go further and say that this is some screwed up society because such slurs are more 'acceptable' than an hour long decision show... because it is not. The apology (or not really an apology, whatever) was accepted because everyone knew that it was an honest mistake, something that could happen to anyone and everyone.

LeBron's hour-long decision show? Hard to say that it wasn't planned. Badly, yes, but deliberately planned and staged. There is a difference between self-defense, involuntary manslaughter, homicide and premeditated killing, despite the fact that the victim's state is the same.

Did you seriously compare using the n-word to what Kobe said? Hilarious. There's no comparison especially not in American history and language. Bad or not, the "other f-word" has multiple meanings now. The n-word does not. There's no barrier to interpretation. The player you used as an example would have had his face clocked by his own teammates.

“You, and many others, are waging a battle of meaning. You are telling me what I mean when I say something. Okay, you have the right to your opinion, but I know what I mean when I use my sounds. Instead of taking me at my word (which is the level at which we are interacting) you elevate yourself to the position of telling me what I am really expressing when I use the word.”

A speaker does not own the meaning of the words they use. You are borrowing public property when you speak, renting ideas that a group of other people (the group consists of the set speakers of the same language with access to your words) share.

That sharing is what allows words to function as a means of communication. When you speak as if you have the ability to exert executive control over that public meaning, you lose sight of the very purpose of language. Worse, you are left in a mistaken position where you believe yourself to be the master of language when the truth is far different.

The truth is that the vast majority of a language’s speakers will never make a meaningful or lasting contribution to the language such that they could claim something like ownership with respect to even a tiny portion of it. Think about it, how many words that have passed into common usage have you invented? I haven’t invented any. When you invent a word, you control its meaning (at least until it passes into general usage, where it will take on a life of its own). When you speak a word someone else invented, you borrow existing meaning.

A speaker has every right to say that the words they spoke did not achieve the meaning they intended them to have with their audience. I believe that is the exact sentiment Kobe is expressing here. When you say to someone "that's not what I meant, this is what I meant" you are refining the level of communication between your audience and yourself and eliminating potential sources of misunderstanding.

However a speaker does not have the right to tell the audience they are wrong in a valid application of the meaning of the words that speaker uses. It is important at this point to stop and say that I do not believe Kobe is doing this. However some of the comments, such as the one I quoted, seem to view this as a defensible position to take when you offend someone with your speech. It is not.

You may know perfectly well what you intend your words to mean; you have less perfect control over whether that meaning is faithfully communicated to your audience. Accepting that imperfect interfacing is part of the bargain we make by using language, especially in public settings. Certainly, the danger posed by miscommunication is less than the benefits we stand to gain by communicating; else language would never have come to pass. But that danger leads to a very real possibility of audience offense when pejorative words enter into the mix.

Speakers are best suited to avoiding slurs entirely if their intent is not to offend. Slurs are pejorative in nature. Using one and then acting surprised when someone is offended by that use displays either egoism with regards to your place relative to language, or naivety with regards to the effects your words can have on others.

Neither of these misconceptions- which I will repeat occur within an individual speaker and not between speaker and audience; excuses the speaker if they give offense with their words. Kobe blurted out offensive words, he may not have known he was the focus of a camera, but he was in an arena full of people who came in no small part to see him, and so he was acting in public none the less. The words were not taken out of context: he was frustrated and lashing out. He was not lashing out at millions of homosexuals in his anger, but his words affected them regardless of that.

It bears repeating that Kobe has not displayed the mindset I am taking issue with here. I believe he made a regrettable choice of words and that he may honestly be trying to make amends for that. He may not have done enough to please everyone with his apology, but there will never be an 'enough' for everyone involved so that point is moot. He may not even be done turning this into a teachable moment; his words seem indicate he does not see the process as complete. All that is left to do is observe what he does with this opportunity.

@ Josh Tucker
While I agree Jordan could go on his rants as well, I still think he did a better job of covering it up when he realized that the NBA had cameras all over the place.
Kobe is just like the general public however, he allows his temper to get the better of him. It should be pointed out that not every competitive super star has these rants. What does this mean? Nothing. Just means there are those that know how to handle problems differently, rather than cursing up a storm. I feel Kobe's issue isn't how he feels about gays or anyone else, I feel he is just hot-headed.
Good comments for the most part by everyone here. Very eye opening stuff.

Humberto:

MJ called Kwame Brown a "flaming f**got." He punched teammates in the face in practice. He chewed out his teammates for not passing him the ball. He did ALL of these things you say he never did. Jordan did a lot of pretty shitty stuff in the heat of the moment.

But he's an athlete, and we allow that type of heated, testosterone-driven behavior in sports. I'm sure it's a hard habit to break when it's part of sports culture from a very young age, especially when it's not really discouraged even in the NBA -- and certainly not by the media or fans, who are content to marvel at his accomplishments and gloss over his shortcomings.

It doesn't make it right. It just makes it the way things are. But it doesn't make Kobe any different from anyone else, including Jordan. The biggest difference, right now, is the 24/7 media coverage of every microscopic aspect of the sport, and of the lives of its participants. Sometimes that sucks; this time, it may lead us one step further towards putting a stop to unacceptable behavior.

This is also very astute:

"You, and many others, are waging a battle of meaning. You are telling me what I mean when I say something. Okay, you have the right to your opinion, but I know what I mean when I use my sounds. Instead of taking me at my word (which is the level at which we are interacting) you elevate yourself to the position of telling me what I am really expressing when I use the word."

The harshest critics of this incident, the author included -- those who are not satisfied with criticizing it for what it is, but villifying it as something much worse than it actually is -- are relying HEAVILY on meaning. First, it's quite arrogant, since it assumes some sort of supernatural power to know a person's thoughts. Second, it's simply inaccurate, and pretty blatantly so, since the only way to claim to know a person's meaning without knowing their thoughts (and without accounting for context) is to insist that any word or phrase can have ONLY one meaning, which is absurd. Third, it's clear from the context that that was NOT what he meant, as any discerning person can tell that Kobe was NOT suggesting that the ref is homosexual in his sexual preference.

Great point, Erez. And the rest of your comment is fantastic, as well.

I find this to be an intriguing point:

"Why did the cameras have to be on him right after he received a technical? Plenty of times, after a guy gets a T, the camera focuses in on him, waiting for him to mess up. Now Kobe isn’t the only one to get caught either. Ive seen plenty of guys say “f*ck”, “motherf*cker”, etc."

In no way does it absolve Kobe. Not at all, not for one moment. But it also says two things, about two other groups of people. First, the producers of the showing of that game: They should know better. We should absolutely try and stop the behavior, but we should also hold an expectation that, when we know families are watching (and we do), they be smart about it. When you know a player might do something inflammatory, don't go hunting for it. Look elsewhere, so our kids aren't exposed to it. Second, it says something about us, the consumers. They give it to us because we want it. And it's hypocritical to clammor for it one moment, and then become outraged about it the next.

Great point.

"The obvious difference here is that people who have sex aren’t a marginalized group. They’re totally accepted in society. The homosexual community still hasn’t reached that level of societal tolerance."

This is preposterous, and it reveals a deeper problem, in the form of a subtler form of the very same discrimination. I also addressed this yesterday on Twitter:

"[Our protection of certain groups, as a society] reveals that "our" true concern isn't for a certain standard of behavior, but for a certain group of people. And I can't get behind that. It's just as discriminatory as what "we" claim to speak out against."

"Inconsistency reveals a lack of conviction in your stated position."

If you truly find a behavior deplorable, then it is unacceptable towards anyone. But if, in fact, you only object to a certain type of behavior when it is directed towards a certain group or type of person, then it reveals that your concern is NOT for the behavior at all. Your concern is for that specific group or type of person. And if that is the case, then you are guilty of treating people differently on the basis of their gender preference, skin color, or whatever it is that identifies this group or type of person.

You want the moral high ground? Protecting only certain groups of people doesn't get it for you. You want to speak out against certain types of behavior that are unacceptable? Then such behavior must be unacceptable regardless of who is the target or victim of the behavior.

But your response to Erez Buki would seem to make clear that you do not apply that standard consistently. So what reason do I have to accept your standard, if you don't really seem to believe it, yourself?

How can a reasonable person decry discrimination one moment, and then advocate special consideration from certain groups (which excludes other groups from such consideration) then next?

Sorry for all the typos. Editing is difficult on PDAs.

Again, just because these things are commonplace doesn’t make them acceptable. When you take a negative tone with one of those words, it represents a disregard for the legitimacy of the relevant group. “Gay, “retarded,” become synonyms for stupid, wrong, whatever.

This is ridiculous. Context matters. The fact that in some contexts those words would absolutely indicate discrimination towards gay people does NOT mean that such is the case in all contexts.

My mom hates the word "sucks." Growing up, she never let us say, "That sucks." To her, it is a direct reference to oral sex. To her, it conjures that image. I've never really researched the etymology of it, but to hear her tell it, that's where the term comes from. And that seems plausible enough.

When I'm not around her, I use that word. I say, "Dude, that sucks." It's not a big deal. At no moment am I EVER referencing oral sex. I'm simply saying, "That's crappy."

But according to your reasoning, I'm "necessarily" making a direct reference to a sexual act, and in many cases, that would be inappropriate. And that's just absurd.

Words have meaning in context. You don't get to strip away the context and claim that a certain word always carries a certain meaning, regardless of context -- or always indicates a clear and undeniable ("necessarily") attitude towards something that the word may be connected to in certain contexts. I doubt there's a single word or phrase in the English language that can be accurately given a single definition outside of context.

Honestly, I agree with your point that those parenthetical clauses were misplaced. They didn’t really belong here. But it still wasn’t “hating.” It was the manifestation of residual anger from the comments, in my best estimation at this point.

Sure, and I certainly never called you a hater. But it undermines both the position you're trying to take, and also the simple claim you made earlier on that you're not a hater. People are going to be inclined to throw that disclaimer out, since the evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.
When I say that someone is slow, I may simply be saying it took them a while to get what I just said. Or I may be saying that they're fairly unintelligent, but not in a way that references mental retardation in any way, shape or form. I know this, because I've done it. Plenty of people have. The fact that the word, at some point or in some contexts, was and/or is connected to mental retardation does NOT mean that EVERY time I use it, it refers to mental retardation. That's just ridiculous, and ignores the way language works, with regards to context and the many meanings of words.

As for your qualm with the Kobe-LeBron point, their two relative actions are completely incomparable. Bryant made a regrettable comment about a marginalized group. LeBron exercised a right to free agency, which is commonly exercised every year. No one else gets crap for it. He should have to consider other people’s feelings when others don’t because he’s legendarily good? That doesn’t make sense.

It's not about the move. Here's what I was telling MM about it yesterday, and about why the reaction is different:

"I don't think it's because LeBron's decision was worse than Kobe's vulgar expression. I think it's because of the scale. Simply put, it was much bigger, and we were much more involved. To treat it like an isolated incident (on July whatever, LBJ switched teams) is to completely misunderstand the event. It was something LeBron had drawn out for 2-3 years. It was the way he toyed with franchises. Especially his own. The way he didn't give them the courtesy of advance notice. The way he always led them on, probably knowing he didn't want to stay, and constantly handcuffing them in their attempts to build a team that would be worth his staying. And yet, leading them to believe he would stay.

It was the egotism of thinking that he was deserving of EXPONENTIALLY more fanfare than any player has ever expected. (See, Jordan: "I'm back.") It was the fact that he spent 7 years promising to be something, pretending to be something, that he clearly no longer cared to be. And most importantly, it was the fact that he involved us in all of that as much as he possibly could, at every turn. We were constantly inundated with it, and he wanted it that way. HE is the one that made it into a huge deal, because HE turned it into a big show. We were so, so much more involved. Because he wanted us to be.

And so, it's not that the sin was worse. It's that it hit closer to home, seemed to affect us more, generated stronger feelings in us because we were more invested in it, at every point along the way. That's why the bigger reaction. It is not a verdict on the nature of the act. It is simply a result of our much greater involvement in the entire process."

It would be a mistake to read into the fact that the reaction was bigger an assumption that the action is considered more serious, or more wrong. That's overlooking why we cared, and you have to understand that to comprehend what it is we're actually upset about.

And you simply can't compare the one moment in time in which he decided to switch teams to the one moment in which Kobe behaved and spoke dishonorably. Because LeBron's decision wasn't a single event that happened in a single moment in time. The show may have lasted an hour, but the decision itself was drawn out over 2-3 years, and in the most public and flaunting way possible. Because all of that build-up to it -- which was his decision, not ours -- impacted the eventual act itself, you have to consider it all. You can't just throw out all the rest, the way you do when you equate it to "switching jobs." It was so, so much more than that. And we all know that, and we're pretty sure everyone else realizes that, which makes it feel pretty damn disingenuous, misleading, and manipulative when you (or MM) try to pull that move, calling it "switching jobs" and "standard conduct".

And here's how you know that's true: Because if he had handled his free agency, and the years leading up to it, the way, say, Amar'e Stoudamire did, we wouldn't care. And let's be clear -- I'm really not that high on Stoudamire. But the way he handled his free agency, THAT is what you could refer to as "standard conduct". No big build up. No deliberately leading his franchise on and then leaving them with NOTHING. His free agency came, he made the decision that was best for him, he did it without acting as though he was GOD Himself and all of creation should hang on his decision, and he acted respectfully and appropriately to all who were involved in and affected by the process.

(Side note: I didn't follow Amar'e's free agency as closely as some may have, so if any of the above is actually untrue regarding Amar'e, then I'm assuming we can get past the details and simply substitute the name of any one of the dozens of players who do handle their business in that "standard" way.)

Had LeBron done that, would we have been that upset about his decision? No, because it wasn't the decision itself that bothered us. That's why your point doesn't apply. You can't compare "switching jobs" to Kobe's slur, because the switching jobs wasn't actually what people were upset about. It was all the rest.

There is, of course, one caveat. Yes, there would still have been some backlash. Not NEARLY as much -- not even close -- but some. But it wouldn't be "hating"; it would be a reevaluation of LeBron's quality as a player. It's the, "Clearly, LeBron doesn't have what it takes to be the franchise player who leads his team to a title," bit. Yes, that would still be there, because that was about joining other superstars to make chasing a championship easier than it's ever been.

So let's go back to Amar'e. Because he also didn't tout himself as the saviour, the chosen one, the best in the world, etc., and then decide he wasn't up to it. LeBron did. He blatantly told the world, "I'm the greatest, I am basketball god," and expected us all to bow down. To go from that to taking the easy road by teaming up with superstars, it was essentially saying, "Nevermind, I'm not up for what's involved in being that guy."

But let's be clear -- we wouldn't have cared that he didn't want to be that guy if he hadn't spent the previous 7 years proclaiming himself to be that guy! Again, it's about the build-up. It's a form of betrayal.

And that's what it's about. Because if he hadn't flaunted himself as the greatest ever, and if he hadn't made a huge freakin' deal about his free agency for 2-3 years leading up to it, and if he hadn't handcuffed his franchise and then left them with nothing, and if he hadn't treated them so disrespectfully... then we would have treated his decision to move teams the same way we do any other free agent's.

Had his behavior ACTUALLY been "standard behavior," and had he conducted his free agency in the same way that it is "commonly exercised every year" by other players, we would have responded the same way we do to other players. But he didn't, so it's different, and you know it. And calling it "standard behavior" and just "switching jobs" is an insult to our intelligence.

The sidepoint in parenthesis about luck makes no sense whatsoever. Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Kobe was born into the genetic lottery because his father was a former NBA player. Anytime your parent was a professional athlete you have special advantages over others. Call this luck, but someone else would have been born into it if he wasn't, and he's obviously not the only son of a former NBA player. You're basically saying he's lucky to have been born, which wow, we can make the case for every single person.

Secondly, it's not condone this concept of bad luck, but what does it say about society that we caught Kobe at this low moment? Why did the cameras have to be on him right after he received a technical? Plenty of times, after a guy gets a T, the camera focuses in on him, waiting for him to mess up. Now Kobe isn't the only one to get caught either. Ive seen plenty of guys say "f*ck", "motherf*cker", etc. Should we condone this language? No. If NBA players are role models for kids, then vulgar language shouldn't be tolerated. Now obviously those words aren't as bad as gay slurs, but they are still bad examples of being a role model.

Now I dont know you Danny, but if you honestly never discriminate or use derogatory language even just in spite of anger than more power to you. I have find that hard to believe, especially because you're a sophomore in college. Now, that's not a generalization so don't take it the wrong way, especially because you are obviously very intelligent and successful, but at the same time, so many people express their anger this way and it's honestly nothing personal against anyone. Is that right? No. Is it going to change? Quite frankly no. We can try, but at this point it's been too deeply engraved in society.

"The obvious difference here is that people who have sex aren't a marginalized group. They are totally accepted in society"

How is that relevant? The logic of the commentary holds. I am not derogating people with the f-word by implying that f-ing is somehow repulsive. The same can hold for the word Kobe used. You, and many others, are waging a battle of meaning. You are telling me what I mean when I say something. Okay, you have the right to your opinion, but I know what I mean when I use my sounds. Instead of taking me at my word (which is the level at which we are interacting) you elevate yourself to the position of telling me what I am really expressing when I use the word.

To me, the appropriate call and response to this situation would be, "Hey, what you said offended me". "Oh, I'm sorry I offended you. That was not my intention". "You did not mean to offend me with that word"? "No, I am sorry you were offended but I was mad at this other guy and expressed my anger using this word".

You choose to continue to be offended by the comment or not. That is up to you. What you want from him is that he also say, "Not only am I sorry for offending you, but the word itself should not be in my vocabulary because it only serves to marginalize a group of people who should not be marginalized, plus here is some money because I need to make a financial sacrifice for my sin".

"They're (not) totally accepted in society. The homosexual community still hasn't reached that level of societal tolerance".

This is a sad truth, but nobody is totally accepted in society. This level of acceptance is an impossibility. I'm going to assume that you didn't exactly mean "totally accepted" and what you really mean is, within a certain spectrum of normal acceptance. Okay, so because some people use a word to offend a certain group, and certain members of that group are insulted by the use of that word, this who use it should not only suffer in kind (meaning being criticized with words) but must make a guilt offering of $100k? Not only is the punishment disproportionate, but the standard is arbitrary. At what point will homosexuals be accepted enough that the fine be only $25k? What is the level of social acceptance that brings the penalty down to $10k? At what point do we, in a Free Society, get to use words and not be penalized for the possible emotional distress that word caused, although without the intention if the speaker?

"That might be the case, but your logic I plies that when I call someone a F-er, I’m derogating people who have hot, filthy, sex."

The obvious difference here is that people who have sex aren't a marginalized group. They're totally accepted in society. The homosexual community still hasn't reached that level of societal tolerance.

I agree that Kobe Bryant is a mandatory role model, and has been for quite some time in his career. I agree that as a whole we use that particular slur quite freely and frequently with no regard to the gay and lesbian community. The NBA should use this opportunity to police up their own personnel. But do I think Kobe has any idea what he's saying when he gets angry? No.
I hate to bring up MJ vs Kobe comparisons, but in the sense of competitiveness I think we can agree that they are at least near each other's levels. With that said, when Kobe says he did this in the "heat of the moment," all I can think is, why haven't I seen or heard MJ do this? Both of them have media watching them all game long. Both players have exhibited raw emotions openly. Yet it seems like only Kobe has been capable of a loss of his anger in front of a crowd. Something MJ was always careful about for the most part.
I've said mean things to my spouse before, never meaning it, but it comes out and I can't believe I said it.I became so angry that I lost control of my rational side in terms of speaking. I've always felt that strong derogatory words are the resort of those who refuse to use their fist. In other words, they don't want to actually hit a person or physically confront them, they want to lash out mentally because it's all they can do.
I've always wondered if Kobe's perceived cool under pressure was real or not. I don't think it is. Yes he has performed under pressure, but how does he perform when things don't go his way at all? I think we've caught a glimpse of that.
I do believe Kobe was sorry he got caught and for what he said. He went on the radio not too long after and I didn't hear anything rehearsed. At times he struggled to find the right words, occasionally repeating himself. So I'm willing to believe his apology in other words. I just hope Kobe keeps in mind all eyes, and ears, are on him. You can't let your anger become you.

"By this reasoning, every person who has ever said, “Dude, that’s retarded,” has implied discriminatory feelings toward mentally retarded people."

Yep.

"For that matter, everyone who has ever called another person “slow” has expressed the same discriminatory feelings, since that term gets its meaning from MR people. We could go on and on."

Yep.

Again, just because these things are commonplace doesn't make them acceptable. When you take a negative tone with one of those words, it represents a disregard for the legitimacy of the relevant group. "Gay, "retarded," become synonyms for stupid, wrong, whatever.

Honestly, I agree with your point that those parenthetical clauses were misplaced. They didn't really belong here. But it still wasn't "hating." It was the manifestation of residual anger from the comments, in my best estimation at this point.

As for your qualm with the Kobe-LeBron point, their two relative actions are completely incomparable. Bryant made a regrettable comment about a marginalized group. LeBron exercised a right to free agency, which is commonly exercised every year. No one else gets crap for it. He should have to consider other people's feelings when others don't because he's legendarily good? That doesn't make sense.

If you want to talk about The Decision, the egoism he displayed there was no different from the egoism he showed throughout his entire career. And I suppose it's wrong for people who idolize him to take note of the $3 million in proceeds that he donated to charity after the event -- or all the publicity he generated for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

ok please i agree on everything but did you also have to be such an idiot and include the perkins injury really its pathetic to try and squeeze it in a completed unrelated point that is not even true.

So, when somebody calls me the f@&$er, is that a derogatory against people who are sexually active?

Words have power, but they don't cause harm. The person who speaks has one set of baggage and the person hearing it has theirs. It's nice to take account of the luggage others carry, and that goes for both sides. But financially penalizing someone for words used, when all that was effected were metaphorical items (baggage) is disproportionate. Criticize away but keep it on the level of the social infraction.

As for the logic of his comment indicating issues with homosexuality. That might be the case, but your logic I plies that when I call someone a F-er, I'm derogating people who have hot, filthy, sex. Somebody else might have that iceberg beneath the tip of such a comment but I sure don't. Iit makes little to no sense to penalize people financially for the things they say. If Kobe were to beat up a homosexual, then I would be all for laying the penalty to him for an action that actually causes harm. He should be penalized in that case in the same way as he would be penalized for bashing anyone else.

The worst part is that he's also going to appeal the fine. What a jerk. What he should do is donate an extra $100k to an appropriate charit that fights homophobia.

By expressing his disgust with those words in a negative connotation, he necessarily implied discriminatory feelings toward the homosexual community.

This is just absurd. I mean, what a leap. Let's be clear: I don't at all condone Kobe's actions in this scenario, nor am I happy with his sad excuse for an apology. But this overreaction is just pathetic.

By this reasoning, every person who has ever said, "Dude, that's retarded," has implied discriminatory feelings toward mentally retarded people. For that matter, everyone who has ever called another person "slow" has expressed the same discriminatory feelings, since that term gets its meaning from MR people. We could go on and on.

From a linguistic perspective, it's important to note that the meaning of a word is derived not from its etymology, but from its context. "Gay" used to mean happy; now, it means "homosexual," to a point of near exclusivity. Meanings of words change, and what the word actually means is determined by how it is used, not what the word meant at its origin. From this perspective, context matters a great deal. None of us is actually silly enough to believe Kobe was actually calling Bennie Adams a homosexual, right? No, context makes clear that he was using the term much in the same way that he might use "a**hole," "bitch," or any number of very distasteful derrogatory words that all share the same quality of not actually expressing discrimination toward gay people.

I agree with your overall point, but when you escalate it into something worse than it is, you lose any credibility with which your criticism might be well received.

Then, of course, there are things like these:
(After all, when has Kobe ever had something positive to say to a referee?)

It was the same luck in the genetic lottery that got Bryant to the NBA, the same luck with Kendrick Perkins’ injury that giftwrapped the 2010 NBA Title.

You make sure to point out that your not a "Kobe hater," but your inability to restrain your apparent bitterness towards him seems to belie that claim -- or at the very least, undermine your credibility. Kobe very frequently converses with referees in a very positive manner, and I'm pretty sure you know that. So what was the purpose of that comment? As for the latter, the idea that Game 7 was "giftwrapped" to the Lakers is absurd, at best. In Game 6, the Lakers were blowing the Celtics out of the water before Perkins ever went down. In Game 7, as so many people like to forget, Rasheed Wallace played out of his mind in replacing Perkins, providing not only a truly impressive performance defensively, but also providing much on offense that Perkins cannot be counted on to supply. Furthermore, the Celtics were up 13 at the half, and still held a lead in the 4th quarter. Meanwhile, the Lakers center -- someone named Andrew Bynum, whom I think we can all agree is a pretty huge component in any Lakers championship aspirations -- played not only Game 7, but the entire series strongly limited by injury. Are you ready to admit that earlier games in the series were "giftwrapped" to the Celtics by this fact? Of course not, nor should you.

Finally, Matt's tweet was deliberately manipulative, and everyone here knows it. Painting LeBron's actions this summer -- and in truth, for the previous 2-3 years leading up to this summer, since it's all connected -- as nothing more than "switching jobs" and "standard conduct" is misleading, and in the context of pitting it against another player's actions to make them seem worse, dishonest. Your willingness to endorse actions and a mentality that are self-centered, blatantly disrespectful, ingrateful, egomaniacal, and promote a general attitude that "anything goes so long as I get mine" are as two-faced as the "discrepancy between the reception of words like the one Bryant used and that of racial, religious, or gender-based slurs" that you bemoan. LeBron James is every bit the role model Kobe Bryant is. Are self-centeredness, egocentrism, disrespect, and a general idea that he can do whatever he wants, regardless of who gets hurt, so long as he gets his, ideas that you want your son picking up from him?

It's all really unfortunate, because your overall point is a good and valuable one, and one that I applaud. Your conclusion, regarding the general state of things and the continued need to address those shortcomings in the overall culture, is one that ought to be brought up more often. Characterizing this specific action as far worse than it was (i.e., deliberately discriminatory when it clearly was not so), tossing in bitter barbs at Kobe, and glossing over a different, but also wrong, action by another playing in a manipulative attempt to make this incident seem worse than it was were all completely unnecessary. They did nothing to support your point or further your message; in fact, they significantly undermined your ability to deliver that message.

These things are bad enough as they truly are. They don't need to be blown out of proportion and made to seem even worse in order for us to take them seriously. And unfortunately, you lose the credibility with which to admonish us to take these things seriously when you start making it into something it's not. Argue things as they really are; they stand on their own, and it makes you a lot easier to hear.