I'm no victim ...I enjoy the Blazers..if I offended you by saying Stotts detractors feel a certain way that I disagree with, sorry to upset you but I will not play a line in the sand game about opinions...I own my take on Stotts and the franchise and am happy to talk about why.
River its okay to correct someone or point out something without it having to be offensive to do so. I read Hoops as simply saying don't lump me in with them. Instead of just saying , oops, I didn't mean all. it comes to a back and forth.... Compromise is a fine and rare skill! Its okay to point out a mistake without it being offensive. Its also okay to admit a miss type or mistake without feeling wrong too. Blazer hugs?
It really feels like we are missing something by not having a thread about "Some generalizations about some generational talents."
yeah...Laker fans, Pedophiles, Racists.....there are some topics to lump together and have strong opinions about....I taught an English class overseas that was called "topics of controversy"...it never fails when I look back on it
I actually wasn't thinking of hoops when I talked about Stotts detractors.....and I did mention that to him...I've moved on ...
They actually had a band and played instruments....that's funk.....disco to me isn't funk...it's Gloria Gaynor or Donna Summers..a singer with a dj
Exactly this! Arguing about Stotts' ability as a coach is completely different than saying if you don't like Stotts that you're rooting for them to do bad so he gets fired. Instead of just saying that he's seen posts on here that certain people want the team to do bad so Stotts gets fired he said Stotts detractors. I pointed out that those things aren't automatically tied together. Like you mentioned in a previous post this is the problem when people generalize comments like that.
Generalizing Stotts system is ok though eh?....or Tolliver's game...or Neil's valet parking.....c'mon folks...we all use generalizations....what we shouldn't do is make it "personal"..which happens around here. In regards to hoops....I tried to use a disclaimer my second response and say it wasn't personally directed at him, then got called....."cowardly"....ok....if one considers themselves objective about a topic...have the conversation...in regards to my opinion, it seems I got a subjective response.
So you meant to call out every Stotts detractor except for me or only those that respond to your post? This is what happens when you call out a generalized group. This same shit happened a couple days ago on Twitter with Dan Marang. He called Anti-Stotts people flat-earthers. Then when called out about it he says he wasn't directing it at anyone specific while also doubling down on the original statement. He could of just said it was wrong of him to equate everyone critical of Stotts to being a crazy moron. This has nothing to do with me. There are extremes on both sides of the argument of Stotts. When you call out Stotts detractors either defend your stance or say you didn't mean to lump everyone together (NOT JUST ME, I DON'T MATTER IN THIS STATEMENT). I don't understand how people can't see that calling out a group like that IS in fact making personal.
Not at all....CC is a Stotts detractor, Darkwebs is a Stotts detractor on and on....all people I really like.....bones seems to hate Stotts...you guys are in the majority...if you say you don't understand how people could like Chiefs game...big deal....it's ok to say "people"....and there ARE people who want this coaching change....see the "Fire Stotts" thread. I try to have Stotts back because I like a player's coach with a calm demeanor that gets loyal support from the team and not a Stan Van Gundy micro managing screamer. Every game thread is filled with Stotts critics.....that's not generalization hoops, it's observation...for the sake of capping this back and forth I'm going to go back and add "some" to my post so you don't interpret it as an affront....my post you had issue with was a response to a question by Rasta about do people want Stotts to fail...or something like that
It's an issue, insulting a group is always in one way or another insulting anyone who believes they are part of that group, it's stereotyping, and the cause of tribalism, racism, sexism, etc. However at the same time, one can use generalities and also be mindful of the fact that not everyone under that generalization belongs in that group. For instance, River claims that you or Bones have said that if you're a Stotts supporter that you don't know basketball, do you believe that to be one hundred percent the case? Obviously Dame thinks he knows basketball, he was on Rick Carlisle's staff, he's played professionally. I'm guessing you didn't mean Dame, in particular, doesn't know basketball or Carlisle doesn't know basketball or a plethora of other NBA guys who are Stott's "supporters". My point is generalizations are definitely dangerous and can lead to weird arguments like this, but we all use them to some extent and we all know that they don't apply to everyone in a particular segment of the population who identify a certain way. What Marang did was try to belittle all Anti-Stotts people by calling them basically an idiot, and he was wrong and his argument weak, but it goes both ways, and we all need to be mindful of that when using generalities, and calling out every single person for their use of generalities is going to be pretty time consuming.
