So the expectation is that a student at Notre Dame would not be articulate? Really?
Having been there, I can tell you that, as stated 6 pages ago, articulate isn't the same as intelligent. There are lots of great students and student-athletes at ND who aren't the best public speakers.
Not really. Considering that the people in question are students at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the country, it seems that being articulate would be as much par for the course as being able to breathe. I see no reason why it would merit mention.
Did you/do you attend Notre Dame? Again, you are making the mistake of confusing intelligence with being articulate.
Yes but we're not discussing ordinary people on a news cast. We're discussing students at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the USA. Why would you not expect them to be articulate? Why would you even have to SAY that a particular student at Notre Dame is thoughtful and articulate? Isn't that to be expected? Either the implication is that black people are not generally thoughtful and articulate, or that football players are not generally thoughtful and articulate. Pick one.
False dichotomy. It isn't "either blacks aren't articulate or football players aren't articulate." It's "some people are articulate, and others aren't--even smart people at a prestigious university such as Notre Dame."
Considering the content of the post, the possible implications of the post, and the poster's history, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to, not jump to, but rather arrive at in a timely fashion.
No, it wasn't. You accuse someone of racism on a public forum. What SEEMED like a REASONABLE conclusion was rash judgment on your part.
Really? Do you praise Jeopardy contestants for being articulate? How about experts featured on programs on The History Channel? Something tells me you aren't being completely honest.
I
am being honest. There is a reason why certain experts are selected for History Channel documentaries, and why Jeopardy contestants are selected beyond their ability to be intelligent. There are lots of brilliant historians who are as dry as toast, and they don't make the cut for the History Channel. Nor is Jeopardy a representative sample of those in the US with the smarts to be on Jeopardy. You are talking about subsets where lack of public speaking has already been controlled for, self-selected.
Most colleges I know don't have a public speaking skill requirement, hence the fact that there are plenty of intelligent students who are not articulate, plenty of articulate people who are not very intelligent, and people in between.
Have you ever praised him for it, before you were prompted to? If a "best sportscasters" thread were started, would you praise certain sportscasters for being articulate? I've posted on many boards before and have had many discussions of many TV sports announcers, and have heard some very eloquent, articulate ones praised, and never in any of those conversations has someone called one of those announcers articulate. Never.
And what does that prove? We've had plenty of people here discuss how incoherent Keith Jackson has been the last few years, so there IS an expectation of a certain amount of ability.
That said, if you were to have a thread about "Articulate Sportscasters," you would find that there are people who believe certain announcers are more articulate than others. As you yourself said, context is important.
I did. This was a thread posted with no malicious intent, carelessly, without much consideration, by a young, white, reactionary, presumably middle class (but perhaps lower middle class, or even poor) male. And, fully aware of that context, I made my comments.
Wow, lots of passing judgment here. Should we presume that you are some elitist snob who automatically assumes that such a person is racist? You have made prejudicial statements here about age, color, political spectrum and economics. You should spend more time seeking to understand what the person meant by, I don't know, asking him, rather than making assumptions about his point of view or his socioeconomic background.
And the reason there is a 9-page thread is that everyone here, being white, got immediately uncomfortable when someone called someone else out for posting what is in all likelihood an unconsciously racist topic.
What makes you think everyone here is white?
And, yet again, what you state is "in all likelihood an unconsciously racist topic" is not "in all likelihood." It is possible that a post was made with racist overtones, but not definitely or even likely. It is also possible that Darius Walker impressed someone with his eloquence, regardless of Darius' racial background, the background of the author of the post, or the background of any of the rest of us. You, in your attempt to "enlighten" us as to subconscious racism in the thread, made jumps to conclusions that would make Bob Beamon proud. You did so because you yourself exhibited subconscious judgment of the author of the post based on your assumptions about his background. You are a hypocrite in so doing.
Edit. I should also point out that not only did you make assumptions about background, but also that this background is somehow given to racism.
