EMAIL us your comments, insights or whatever

  • NOISportsblog@gmail.com

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Billy Packer, Duke, Fags and ESPN

By now, most are aware of the -phobia faux paux committed by Billy Packer on Charlie Rose's interview show. Packer used the term "fag out" (in actuality, we believe anyone named "Packer" can use the word fag in any context they choose, you can't be a -phobic when your driver license says "packer"), in reference to Rose not following through on something he said he might do. Of course, the -phobia crowd is having a field day with it .

While we reserve the right to use any language or reference we choose, we will admit that it is plain foolhardy to get on a "nationally" viewed TV show and speak in such colloquialisms. Especially given the charged environment the anti- and the -phobia crowd are currently operating.

But all this is irrelevant. Truly. Billy Packer said "fag out". It isn't the end of the world for homosexuals. When in the past have they ever cared what Packer said previously? When did we, for that matter?

The insidious and truly flagrantly offensive aspect of this event isn't the term Packer used, and it isn't the overly defensive and borderline histrionic sensitivity of the -phobia folks (aside: if you don't want people to use the term "fag" interchangeably with "wimp" and "pussy", don't stamp your feet and act like a wimp and pussy every time the world doesn't greet you with a hug and a cookie).

The truly egregious aspect of all this is the fact that ESPN hasn't given front page coverage to this. ESPN's columnists (except for a reference by Simmons) haven't been treating this as if it were an earth shattering event. It must be upsetting to Packer that he isn't getting Hardaway level exposure from the WWL. Maybe ESPN isn't releasing a book this week that touches on this subject? Or maybe ESPN only feels inclined to castigate Negro athletes that make -phobia sensitive statements?

We posted the other day about the persecution that Duke suffers. And in that, it was argued by a Duke defender that ESPN is biased and anti-Duke. Now, anyone with a rational and logical intellect can deduce that Duke's basketball coverage team includes Duke's biggest fan and a Duke graduate, and calling the coverage anti-Duke sounds like the ruminations of a wandering, homeless whino. One would have to be either so blinded by their fanship of Duke; or so intellectually barren that the grey matter encased in their soft, malformed cranium is dried and cracked at Sahara desert levels, to take credit for such a diarrheal flow of obstinance, misinformation and unabashedly vacuous suppositions.

The notion that ESPN is anti-Duke is further refuted by the Packer incident and the lack of critical light ESPN is shining on it.

How so, you ask?

ESPN is a protector of the Dark Dungeon of Cameron in the bowels of Dukedom. And the handling of the "fag out" reference displays incontrovertible proof.

In an effort to protect Duke and its associates from negative press, ESPN has chosen to ignore the story. Charlie Rose went to Duke. As a result, Packer's transgression on his show gets a pass from ESPN.

Now, try and make the argument that ESPN is anti-Duke.

Checkmate.

10 comments:

the butler said...

ESPN sucks, anyway. I wouldn't be able to argue whether they are anti-Duke or not because I don't watch ESPN that much (all the neon pink and purple lights are too much to handle in HD). And their analysts always "fag out" and pick the favorite of every game they cover (see Ron Jaworski, Lee Corso).

And what if Packer just got back from London or something, and he was merely using their word for cigarette?

And why should they give this as much coverage as the Hardaway deal (not that I give a crap about Billy Packer)?

I'd say Packer's "fag out" is a little less newsworthy than Hardaway's "I hate gay people"...

Both said dumb things, agreed. But a "woops, I said fag" is not quite the same as declaring one's loathing for all gay people.

I'd compare Packer's slip to what Irvin said about Romo, or even what Packer said about AI way back when (calling him a "tough monkey").

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Both said dumb things, agreed. But a "woops, I said fag" is not quite the same as declaring one's loathing for all gay people."

Sir, Packer's "slip" was a vocal and obvious attempt to undermine Gay Rights. It was clearly his personal way of saying "I hate gays".

After all the hub-ub over Hardaway, who can say that they have not been re-educated to understand that using a term that in any way, shape or form can be construed as being -phobic is a clear admission of hatred?

At this point in time, after the wonderful effort of the pc educators in the media, if an individual doesn't understand that perpertuating a negative stereotype (even if it was meant as a positive...see M.R. Richardson) or using a word that any religion, ethnicity, club, defamation league or advocacy group feel is derogatory is a clear admission of hate, well, then they are beyond stupid.

It has been laid out for us by the anti-s and the -phobia's: Stereotypes and negative language = hatred.

"You fag out" is congruent to "I hate gays".

Someone please rehabilitate Mr. Packer.

Mills said...

The Packer story is a non-story, just as the Salisbury "jew" story was a non-story. Speaking extemporaneously is much more difficult than most people believe (not everybody gets to hide behind a blog where they are allowed an seemingly unlimited amount of time to come up with "clever" prose).
Slip-ups happen. Also, "fag-out" is a british saying. Packer was borrowing from the Queen.

Dirty Sanchez said...

Maybe he really said chew, like Salisbury claimed.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"non-story"

Sir, we'll decide what constitutes a story and what doesn't, mmmkay?


"Speaking extemporaneously is much more difficult than most people believe"

Sir, agreed. However, when your JOB is to speak extemporaneously, the expectations change, don't they? For instance, you are a lawyer? If you are give a client bad advice and say, "hey dude, this is harder than you think"...does that cut it? Of course not. The man is paid to be an extemporaneous speaker. The standards he is held to should reflect that.

"(not everybody gets to hide behind a blog where they are allowed an seemingly unlimited amount of time to come up with "clever" prose")"

We all choose our medium. If one chooses to blog anonymously, and another chooses to be an "extemporaneous" speaker...it is unreasonable to compare them to try to justify the mistakes of the other. They are unrelated undertakings.

"Also, "fag-out" is a british saying."

Packer was on AMERICAN television. And, the man does not normally "borrow from the queen".

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

"Maybe he really said chew, like Salisbury claimed."

Sir, maybe he said "chew on a fag"....

Steve said...

ESPN is pro Duke because Duke brings the ratings. I don't think that you can argue that most of the writers for ESPN or not anti-duke though.

DannyFairy said...

"ESPN is pro Duke because Duke brings the ratings."

ESPN is merely exploiting Duke for their own benefit. Because we all hate them and tune in hoping they will lose, bunch of coffee cake-eating pansies that they are.

"Packer was on AMERICAN television. And, the man does not normally 'borrow from the queen'"

However, I suspect that he is in the habit of accepting donations from the Kween.

nation_of_islam_sportsblog said...

" Because we all hate them "

Sir, that is a sentiment that extends beyond the chains of race, creed, ethnicity and religion.

If we all hung the "Duck Fook" banner outside our homes, we'd have no need for boundaries.

Pierce said...

Very well explained DannyFairy, I also think as you, ESPN always take advantage of their games, well it is understandable, the ratings are amazing when they play.


------------------------------------------
generic viagra