martin wrote:

callmened wrote:

martin wrote:

callmened wrote:

martin wrote:I am not at all trying to pretend that Phil wasn't trying to get under that skin. It's EXACTLY what he was doing. He was 100% pointing out that LeBron was getting special treatment. That was Phil's whole point. But inflammatory because of the use of the word posse? I find that a stretch.

Also, I am not presenting any type of plausible deniability. I am presenting different takes.

that's exactly it...and a sensitive LeBron (from the racial tension) interpreted that as something it wasnt

You know what would have been a great response from LeBron?

"You know, I don't really like the characterization of posse and would have preferred that Phil used a different term, these are both my business partners and friends and family and to me the word posse is a bit demeaning to me. But for real, me and my Cleveland Cavaliers posse are concentrating on repeating a championship so I don't worry about it too much and don't have too much time to put into the **** that comes out of Phil's mouth; Phil and his posse should spend more time worrying about getting over .500 and making it into the playoffs".

BAM

exactly. I think he went to far by saying "if he were white would that term be used?" but like I said, dude was emotionally hurt (especially during these recent events) + he's not a expertise in these things. he probably DID misinterpret it the wrong way because hes sensitive - and I really think he deserves a pass for that. but his response could've been better

yeah we get it, you think LeBron is the emotionally girly type

Dude is trying to portray his group (notices that I was being as PC as I could there) as a high level business team that should be respected... and his first response is an emotional one. That's not a good look and shows how far he has to go?

Ha exactly. I'm just getting caught here but that is exactly what was going on in my head some pages back. That harsh fact should put an end to this silly
Discussion here and in the national media

Knixkik wrote:

Clean wrote:I think this was an attempt at character assassination by Lebron and Mav. Phil has been poking them for years now. I remember Lebron talking about Phil and his failing to create a winning team as a GM in the last year or so. This last poking by Phil was the last straw and they attempted to assassinate his character by labeling him a racist. The fact that Mav took a screenshot of the definitions of posse and purposely left off the relevant one shows this was intentional. I don't mind Lebron/Mav having a beef with Phil for what he said. I have a problem with them trying to turn this into a race issue. Racism is not something to casually throw around. To the people that saying this is a poor choice of word I disagree. The word is outdated but I have no problem with its usage here. According to the informal definition is was the perfect choice of word. Not that this matters much but I am a black man and I still find this abhorrent.

Here is the full screenshot of the definition of Posse that Mav purposly cut off.

Exactly, there are already too many issues going on today to try to make this into something it's not.

Maverick sounds more like a small minded/Cleveland local/Childhood buddy than some kind of
Philanthropist "business partner" Make no mistake he wouldn't be any of those things without Lebron. A type of "business partner" he thinks of himself as being doesn't speak like that. They usually think before they speak.

PresIke wrote:

KNICKSdom wrote:This is basic human interaction stuff. Lebron's jimmies were ruffled by Phil's use of the word posse. I don't see racial tones in Phil use of word posse. Group of friends, families, animals, whatever that hangs together and clearly make decisions together is a dear group aka posse. Anyone can have a posse. Phil hit this home to Lebron. It shows how irresponsible LBJ is and his reaction is because of racial tones from use of word posse? Crybaby like those easily offended by WORDS. Words are powerful my friends. Ask Phil

If your argument and several others here is so accurate then where did Lebron this notion from? He made it up out of thin air?

http://time.com/4573913/phil-jackson-is-wrong-about-lebrons-posse/

Jackson bares the blame here. According to academic experts who’ve closely studied race relations, James had every right to be offended. At its most benign, “posse” calls to mind hangers-on orbiting a celebrity or athlete, particularly an African-American basketball player. So by referring to James’ business team as a “posse,” Jackson linguistically derides their credentials, whether intentional or not.

A 2002 Sports Illustrated story exploring the growth and dynamics of NBA entourages noted that, “they’re often viewed with suspicion–and sometimes it’s justified–but many NBA players couldn’t cope without their posses.” The story touched on the racial elements:

Then there’s this nettlesome question: Would there be any such angst if the entourage members weren’t black and didn’t wear billowy jeans and copious jewelry? No, says [Alvin] Poussaint, the Harvard psychiatrist, “these are African-Americans making lots of money, and having these entourages looks like loose spending, and I think that turns people off.”

So who to believe when it comes to understanding human behavior, random folks on a message board or a Harvard psychiatrist??

Bottom line is many whites seek to avoid responsibility about our own participation in such behavior quite regularly. It is uncomfortable and often feels stigmatizing, so we prefer to deny at first.

Maybe I should start applying for jobs as Psychiatrists at Ivy League schools because that is exactly what I said without "closely studying race relations as a Harvard academic expert" :)

nychamp wrote:

PresIke wrote:

KNICKSdom wrote:This is basic human interaction stuff. Lebron's jimmies were ruffled by Phil's use of the word posse. I don't see racial tones in Phil use of word posse. Group of friends, families, animals, whatever that hangs together and clearly make decisions together is a dear group aka posse. Anyone can have a posse. Phil hit this home to Lebron. It shows how irresponsible LBJ is and his reaction is because of racial tones from use of word posse? Crybaby like those easily offended by WORDS. Words are powerful my friends. Ask Phil

If your argument and several others here is so accurate then where did Lebron this notion from? He made it up out of thin air?

http://time.com/4573913/phil-jackson-is-wrong-about-lebrons-posse/

Jackson bares the blame here. According to academic experts who’ve closely studied race relations, James had every right to be offended. At its most benign, “posse” calls to mind hangers-on orbiting a celebrity or athlete, particularly an African-American basketball player. So by referring to James’ business team as a “posse,” Jackson linguistically derides their credentials, whether intentional or not.

A 2002 Sports Illustrated story exploring the growth and dynamics of NBA entourages noted that, “they’re often viewed with suspicion–and sometimes it’s justified–but many NBA players couldn’t cope without their posses.” The story touched on the racial elements:

Then there’s this nettlesome question: Would there be any such angst if the entourage members weren’t black and didn’t wear billowy jeans and copious jewelry? No, says [Alvin] Poussaint, the Harvard psychiatrist, “these are African-Americans making lots of money, and having these entourages looks like loose spending, and I think that turns people off.”

So who to believe when it comes to understanding human behavior, random folks on a message board or a Harvard psychiatrist??

Bottom line is many whites seek to avoid responsibility about our own participation in such behavior quite regularly. It is uncomfortable and often feels stigmatizing, so we prefer to deny at first.

How ironic (and pathetic) that the Time magazine writer (and editor), in an article lecturing on the meaning of the word "posse" undermine their credibility as a "word authority", by saying in the same breath that Jax "bares the blame" rather than the correct "bears". So what other finer nuances of language would you like to teach us about today?

Well, I somehow just accidentally deleted my entire response to this...

I'l try again, and if possible briefer...

Firstly, with all due respect, I think you perhaps do not know of what you speak of to make such a comment as labeling the Time Magazine writer as "pathetic." I will explain in a moment why.

You could understandably not be so familiar with the topic of microaggressions, yet, why you felt the need to use the term "pathetic" to describe a sincere effort to examine the issue, and where every use of the word "posse" in the article is just as I wrote it here...in quotes. This is not the same thing as using it as Phil did. "Posse" is not the N word, but using it in the context of describing a group of fairly young, successful black NBA players, and their associates/friends, it holds a bit more weight, as the Harvard psychiatrist demonstrated why in the piece.

This is also not about linguistics. The author did not quote a linguist, he quoted a psychiatrist.

Microaggressions occur when members from a dominant group in society engage in use of language as well as exhibit behaviors that are NOT INTENDED to do harm, but do so by falling into various categories of harm towards others in less dominant or oppressed groups. It can be a straight person towards a queer identifying person. It can be a man towards a woman. It can be a white woman towards a male of color.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201011/microaggressions-more-just-race

Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership. In many cases, these hidden messages may invalidate the group identity or experiential reality of target persons, demean them on a personal or group level, communicate they are lesser human beings, suggest they do not belong with the majority group, threaten and intimidate, or relegate them to inferior status and treatment.

"...most well-intentioned White Americans have inherited the racial biases of their forebears; that the most harmful forms remain outside the level of conscious awareness; and that making the "invisible, visible" is the first step to overcoming hidden prejudices."

You can see examples here where Phil's comments about Lebron and his "posse" fall into the category of Criminality:

http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

This does not mean Phil's an overt KKK member, but he should be more careful about what he says, and think about it. Being more mindful of this reality tends to sound overly sensitive mostly when you are not a member of a group experiencing this reality.

gunsnewing wrote:

nychamp wrote:

PresIke wrote:

KNICKSdom wrote:This is basic human interaction stuff. Lebron's jimmies were ruffled by Phil's use of the word posse. I don't see racial tones in Phil use of word posse. Group of friends, families, animals, whatever that hangs together and clearly make decisions together is a dear group aka posse. Anyone can have a posse. Phil hit this home to Lebron. It shows how irresponsible LBJ is and his reaction is because of racial tones from use of word posse? Crybaby like those easily offended by WORDS. Words are powerful my friends. Ask Phil

If your argument and several others here is so accurate then where did Lebron this notion from? He made it up out of thin air?

http://time.com/4573913/phil-jackson-is-wrong-about-lebrons-posse/

Jackson bares the blame here. According to academic experts who’ve closely studied race relations, James had every right to be offended. At its most benign, “posse” calls to mind hangers-on orbiting a celebrity or athlete, particularly an African-American basketball player. So by referring to James’ business team as a “posse,” Jackson linguistically derides their credentials, whether intentional or not.

A 2002 Sports Illustrated story exploring the growth and dynamics of NBA entourages noted that, “they’re often viewed with suspicion–and sometimes it’s justified–but many NBA players couldn’t cope without their posses.” The story touched on the racial elements:

Then there’s this nettlesome question: Would there be any such angst if the entourage members weren’t black and didn’t wear billowy jeans and copious jewelry? No, says [Alvin] Poussaint, the Harvard psychiatrist, “these are African-Americans making lots of money, and having these entourages looks like loose spending, and I think that turns people off.”

So who to believe when it comes to understanding human behavior, random folks on a message board or a Harvard psychiatrist??

Bottom line is many whites seek to avoid responsibility about our own participation in such behavior quite regularly. It is uncomfortable and often feels stigmatizing, so we prefer to deny at first.

How ironic (and pathetic) that the Time magazine writer (and editor), in an article lecturing on the meaning of the word "posse" undermine their credibility as a "word authority", by saying in the same breath that Jax "bares the blame" rather than the correct "bears". So what other finer nuances of language would you like to teach us about today?

lol nice catch

Did some of you go to high school? Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but using quotes when writing a word in an article is not the same as using it in the way Phil did.

PresIke wrote:

nychamp wrote:

PresIke wrote:

KNICKSdom wrote:This is basic human interaction stuff. Lebron's jimmies were ruffled by Phil's use of the word posse. I don't see racial tones in Phil use of word posse. Group of friends, families, animals, whatever that hangs together and clearly make decisions together is a dear group aka posse. Anyone can have a posse. Phil hit this home to Lebron. It shows how irresponsible LBJ is and his reaction is because of racial tones from use of word posse? Crybaby like those easily offended by WORDS. Words are powerful my friends. Ask Phil

If your argument and several others here is so accurate then where did Lebron this notion from? He made it up out of thin air?

http://time.com/4573913/phil-jackson-is-wrong-about-lebrons-posse/

Jackson bares the blame here. According to academic experts who’ve closely studied race relations, James had every right to be offended. At its most benign, “posse” calls to mind hangers-on orbiting a celebrity or athlete, particularly an African-American basketball player. So by referring to James’ business team as a “posse,” Jackson linguistically derides their credentials, whether intentional or not.

A 2002 Sports Illustrated story exploring the growth and dynamics of NBA entourages noted that, “they’re often viewed with suspicion–and sometimes it’s justified–but many NBA players couldn’t cope without their posses.” The story touched on the racial elements:

Then there’s this nettlesome question: Would there be any such angst if the entourage members weren’t black and didn’t wear billowy jeans and copious jewelry? No, says [Alvin] Poussaint, the Harvard psychiatrist, “these are African-Americans making lots of money, and having these entourages looks like loose spending, and I think that turns people off.”

So who to believe when it comes to understanding human behavior, random folks on a message board or a Harvard psychiatrist??

Bottom line is many whites seek to avoid responsibility about our own participation in such behavior quite regularly. It is uncomfortable and often feels stigmatizing, so we prefer to deny at first.

How ironic (and pathetic) that the Time magazine writer (and editor), in an article lecturing on the meaning of the word "posse" undermine their credibility as a "word authority", by saying in the same breath that Jax "bares the blame" rather than the correct "bears". So what other finer nuances of language would you like to teach us about today?

Well, I somehow just accidentally deleted my entire response to this...

I'l try again, and if possible briefer...

Firstly, with all due respect, I think you perhaps do not know of what you speak of to make such a comment as labeling the Time Magazine writer as "pathetic." I will explain in a moment why.

You could understandably not be so familiar with the topic of microaggressions, yet, why you felt the need to use the term "pathetic" to describe a sincere effort to examine the issue, and where every use of the word "posse" in the article is just as I wrote it here...in quotes. This is not the same thing as using it as Phil did. "Posse" is not the N word, but using it in the context of describing a group of fairly young, successful black NBA players, and their associates/friends, it holds a bit more weight, as the Harvard psychiatrist demonstrated why in the piece.

This is also not about linguistics. The author did not quote a linguist, he quoted a psychiatrist.

Microaggressions occur when members from a dominant group in society engage in use of language as well as exhibit behaviors that are NOT INTENDED to do harm, but do so by falling into various categories of harm towards others in less dominant or oppressed groups. It can be a straight person towards a queer identifying person. It can be a man towards a woman. It can be a white woman towards a male of color.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201011/microaggressions-more-just-race

Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership. In many cases, these hidden messages may invalidate the group identity or experiential reality of target persons, demean them on a personal or group level, communicate they are lesser human beings, suggest they do not belong with the majority group, threaten and intimidate, or relegate them to inferior status and treatment.

"...most well-intentioned White Americans have inherited the racial biases of their forebears; that the most harmful forms remain outside the level of conscious awareness; and that making the "invisible, visible" is the first step to overcoming hidden prejudices."

You can see examples here where Phil's comments about Lebron and his "posse" fall into the category of Criminality:

http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf

This does not mean Phil's an overt KKK member, but he should be more careful about what he says, and think about it. Being more mindful of this reality tends to sound overly sensitive mostly when you are not a member of a group experiencing this reality.

Ike,
First let me point out that I didn't call the guy himself pathetic, but rather I said that it was ironic (and pathetic) that he undermined his credibility as an authority on words by carelessly or perhaps ignorantly (not sure) using the word "bare" when he meant "bear". It doesn't reflect well on him as a word/semantics analyst.

That said, I'm totally on board with your larger take on microaggressions and other subtle forms of marginalizing people. I would not argue with you about this. I agree about the existence of unconscious bias, historical inheritance and context, and the potential detrimental effect of small yet unintentional acts or utterances. I am a high school teacher at a progressive independent school in Brooklyn and we do a lot of work around developing consciousness in these and other topics related to anti-bias and social justice. And I believe in that work.

That said, in the specific case of "posse" and PJax/LBJ, I must confess I had never considered that word to have racial overtones. I've also never heard anyone say that they believed it to have racial overtones, until now. I've heard it used in a wide variety of contexts, by a wide variety of people of different colors and persuasions. Gun to my head, I truly believe Jackson, as I believe Caseload said in a previous post, is just dated and unhip, trying to use a term he thought was slang-y. I also believe that LBJ is a baby and can't take any criticism without whining his ass off.

That said, if someone tells me that they are offended by a certain word or expression, I'm definitely going to hear them out and not dismiss just because it's not my experience or understanding. I mean, these guys (LBJ et al) are younger than me, and who knows, maybe their experience around this and other words is much different than I imagined. Apparently so. I won't say that they're wrong for thinking that.

I will say though that for the recognized best player on Earth and ultra-rich famous person, he is one whiney dude (in general, not just with this).

With respect-

BRIGGS wrote:This whole 10 page thread is crazy. Phil Jackson had zero racial overtones and people in society cant be that guarded against saying the wrong thing anyway whatever way. If you live your life and try to be a good person--I dont think any of this stuff applies. Get over it.

of course its non-sense. lebron was being super sensitive.

as long as folks understand WHY is really all i care about. black folks are seriously on edge and think that half the country wants them on (not all black people, and im sure not JUST black people). so yes one small thing might be blown way out of proportion.

please just bare with us. lol

BRIGGS wrote:This whole 10 page thread is crazy. Phil Jackson had zero racial overtones and people in society cant be that guarded against saying the wrong thing anyway whatever way. If you live your life and try to be a good person--I dont think any of this stuff applies. Get over it.