Scoop Jackson did a nice interview with Tim Hardaway, to get Tim's version of what was behind his radio comments about hating gays.
Essentially, and we knew this from the beginning, it was a miscommunication. Hardaway stands by his right to not condone the gay lifestyle. And, regardless of where you stand on the issue, THAT is his right. If he chooses to disassociate himself from homosexuals, who are YOU to tell him he HAS to accept them?
But, the thing that needs correcting is the "hate".
Tim doesn't HATE homosexuals. He just hates them. Dig?
"But I was never brought up to hate anybody, you know that. But that's just the word and that's how we used it. You know when we got a whopping we'd be like, "I hate my moms" or "I hate my dad," and at the time you really didn't hate them, but that was the word you used. You know I can go into a restaurant and say, "I hate this food, I hate the chef, I don't even know why I came back to this restaurant." But I know I can't use the word like that, or let's say I'm not supposed to. People have come up to me and told me, "Tim, you can't say that you hate gay people because it's not the same term." But that's how I talk. That's the way I am."
So, Mr. Hardaway was just speaking in the vernacular that he used coming up on his block. And, of course, rather than investigate what he meant or where he was coming from, the white media decided to make a sacrificial lamb at the alter of gaydom out of Mr. Hardaway. Rather than trying to understand the terms in which Mr. Hardaway was speaking, it was easier to vilify the man in an attempt to ruin the life of a successful Negro.
Any person with half a brain would clearly equate Mr. Hardaway's "hating gays" with you or I "hating to go to the dentist". See? You don't HATE the dentist. You just hate dentist.
Once again, the white media attempts to destroy the Negro with his own words. Twisting the meaning of a harmless vernacular into a hurtful commentary intended to cause pain and suffering.
Rest easy tonight Gay America. Tim Hardaway loves you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
If he HATES or hates he's still an idiot. Hello, Timmy...you're on the radio!!!!
"Hello, Timmy...you're on the radio!!!!"
Sir, we refer you to the Scoop Jackson interview; Tim clearly points out that he FORGOT he was on the radio.
What more do you want from him?
"The White Media" ??
Oh please. HATE means hate means HATE. And of course he knew he was on the radio! If he were white and said "I hate black people... they have no place in the world or in America" just how would you re-interpret that? Please stop insulting our intelligence :) He and your organization are hate-mongers.
"If he were white and said "I hate black people... they have no place in the world or in America" just how would you re-interpret that?"
Sir, being a Negro isn't a lifestyle choice, so your "point" is moot.
"Please stop insulting our intelligence"
Sir, your "intelligence" is the only insulting aspect of this dialogue.
I don't understand why Tim Hardaway has to feel like he should justify himself. So what if he "hates" gay people? As long as he isn't taking years if Negro oppression out on said gay folk than let him simmer. This non-story is the actual problem of our country...confusing political correctness with everyone has to think the same.
"As long as he isn't taking years if Negro oppression out on said gay folk than let him simmer"
Sir, such a thing has never happened.
After reading NOIS, I look at my white, hairy arms and curse the lack of melanin in my body. I must remain anonymous for now, but I wish to profess my undying appreciation for NOIS. (In a heterosexual way, of course; Timmy understands what I'm saying).
To be fair, the Cuban media (Dan Le Batard) baited him. The White media ran with it. Don't be stingy with the blame.
"Sir, being a Negro isn't a lifestyle choice, so your "point" is moot."
I am not one to compare the civil rights movement or the plight of African-Americans to that of gays in the United States. Mostly because an African American cannot hide thier "blackness" (not that they should or would ever want to) whereas homosexuals can and often do (however, the fact that they need to hid thier identity is a major portion of thier plight).
All that being said, the problem I have with your post is the line I quoted. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. You are born gay or you are born straight. Now, some people may make a choice to be bi-sexual...
"After reading NOIS, I look at my white, hairy arms and curse the lack of melanin in my body."
Sir, don't curse your lack of melanin. Embrace your hirsute-ness, and realize: there is an entire segment of the porn industry based on that fetish. Go get some work!
"I must remain anonymous for now, but I wish to profess my undying appreciation for NOIS. (In a heterosexual way, of course; Timmy understands what I'm saying)."
Sir, as long as you aren't asking Timmy questions on the radio...he understands what ya saying!
And, despite the fact we might not support the homosexual lifestyle, we still believe that it is one's perrogative. Therefore, we even accept appreciation in a homosexual way. To quote LLCoolJ, "We need Love"...well, not THAT much...
"To be fair, the Cuban media (Dan Le Batard) baited him. The White media ran with it. Don't be stingy with the blame. "
Ma'am, believe us; we try to throw blame everywhere. Really we do.
"All that being said, the problem I have with your post is the line I quoted. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. You are born gay or you are born straight. Now, some people may make a choice to be bi-sexual... "
Sir, no genetic evidence has been offered that indicates a genetic predisposition to sexual orientation. None. Therefore, we stand by the inclination that sexual preference is a choice.
Pedophiles have a sexual preference. We don't say, "oh, a pedophile is born that way, it's not a choice, it's who they are". No, we try to cure them and outlaw their behavior on moral grounds.
I am not suggesting that homosexual behavior should be outlawed (as long as it is between consenting adults). I am just saying that despite the political dictates that you are "born" gay:
i)there is no genetic evidentiary support, despite the fact we can isolate many other "born" traits
ii) we don't argue that other sexual preferences (ie, pedophilia, beastiality) are "born" or "who someone is". We say they are CHOICE and a sexual preference/behavior.
You can't have it both ways.
I Agree with NOISB, there is no evidence that people are "born gay". It just like religion, there is NO EVIDENCE that god exists, people just choose to be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or whatever.
"I Agree with NOISB, there is no evidence that people are "born gay". "
Sir, we don't want to get into a debate over homosexuality. Really we don't. Our main point is simply that comparing the trials and travails of the homosexual to the plight of the Negro is an incongruous supposition.
It's simply not the same thing. Sorry if that offends some.
I'm not trying to have anything both ways.
Your comparison of homosexuality and Pedophiles is WEAK. I would assume that pedophiles too would have to be predisposed for thier sexual preference, however, thier sexual partners are children who are not capable of understanding what is going on and they almost always without a doubt are unwilling partners not sharing the same predisposition.
Homosexuals are consenting. So please quit with that comparison, I've seen you use it before.
Now as far as a genetic evidence, I guess I'll have to concede you are correct (take your word for it), although I haven't researched it myself. Although, homosexuality does occur within nature with certain animals. However, in our society why would someone CHOOSE a "lifestyle" in that they would feel the incredible need to conceal and in which you are looked upon unfavorably by a large segment of the population?
"Your comparison of homosexuality and Pedophiles is WEAK."
Sir, as we said, the topic of homosexuality is not very interesting to us, and frankly we leave it up to the individual to make their choice.
The only thing we will address is your quote above. For some reason, I thought it made sense to compare a sexual proclivitity to a sexual proclivitiy. Both of which are found to be morally reprehensible to segments of the population. And neither of which have been exposed by the scientific community as having a defining genetic indicator. It just made more sense to me to compare THOSE things, rather than to compare sexual preference to RACE. MY BAD! Sexual proclivity to sexual proclivity seem more logical comparisons than sexual preference to Race. Call us crazy and weak. (I think here is were you would put the little "rolls eye" emoticon)
Post a Comment