Official Anthony Edwards Thread

[BlacJacMac]

It's not about condemning Ant as a human being, it's about condemning the behavior. And it really is a big deal that needs this amount of spotlight shined on it.

I think this is a very good point by Canis poster "Pyrrol":

I think that as important as the condemnation of Ant's conduct is, understanding the context, is just as important. Why is context important? Because this type of anti-gay bigotry is systemic. Simply calling out people when folks happen to get wind of attitudes or statements that are anti-gay isn't enough. People need to be educated better in our schools about this. Bullying on basis of sexual orientation in schools needs to be called out by teachers and staff and stopped, rather than ignored or swept under the rug. I mean, any bullying, but anti LGBTQ+ bullying in particular is very harmful and instills bigotry in our society, allows it to take hold with youth and continue as they inherit leadership.

To name a few, anti-gay bigotry is taught or commonplace in 'bro' culture of young males 15-25+, in many Christian or religious organizations and openly fomented by conservative politicians, cultures of poverty and in some subculture groups, as well as in many arenas of 'jock culture,' which certainly includes men's college sports and pro sports. Most dudes who grew up in the 90's lived in a world in which 'gay' was the single most common slang for something that was pointless, contrary, lame, etc. You'd hear the term 20 times a day, and it really wasn't often used as a slur (insult, yes), but it had it's obvious origin in homophobia and it perpetuated it. While this sort of slang and flippantly bigoted attitude is probably slightly more underground with today's youth, it's likely still rampant in places. It lives in parallel with 'woke' ideas of empathy, which often don't run as deep as we'd like to believe yet.

Ant would have run into many hotbeds of this growing up where he did and as an athlete. Was he actually 'raised better than this?' Hard to know, but even if his family did instill a positive attitude toward LGBTQ+ folks and empathy and open-mindedness in general, he likely was surrounded by highly charged anti-gay surroundings and influences nearly his whole life. And I do have some skepticism that he was raised better enough to weather that. And while we can also counter all this by saying that many, many NBA players come from the same challenges and have not gotten into trouble for an anti-gay social media post, it would be disingenuous to pretend that there aren't a lot of these attitudes and language uses behind the scenes in the lives of NBA players. This isn't to excuse Ant. He has no choice but to grow up as a human. He's lucky he has the scrutiny and the people immediately jumping to help him grow in this manner, being a young, star pro athlete. But I do think it is important to realize that Ant's behavior, blindness and bias is a symptom of systemic issues as much as it is a symptom of Ant's own character flaws. If we don't acknowledge that, then the battle continues blind and uphill, only hacking at what we see when it jumps out in front of us, while the whole machinery behind it chugs on, unchallenged. It also puts more blame specifically on Ant himself than is really fair. Someone here mentioned that the process of rewiring the brain on this is a long one (my wording) and though the apology is the correct start it means this process has barely begun. That not only means to not let the apology sweep all the water under the bridge without more growth, but it means that culture has programmed Ant to be bigoted in this respect. He has agency and personal responsibility of course, but unlearning these ideas, which he didn't come up with, is a process. Acting right, getting called out and being genuinely sad you let people down are great starts, but just starts.

https://www.canishoopus.com/2022/9/10/23338232/three-minnesota-timberwolves-breakout-candidates-in-2022-23-nba#comments

[SO_MONEY]

It wasn't inappropriate. They were out in public, not bothering anyone, and wearing what they like. Ant was condemning them.

It is a fetishized outfit. If you don't take offense to sexualized attire in PUBLIC no less you have to understand some of us only want to be subjected to sex by choice. These men removed that choice and by their actions regardless of intent didn't consider others, not really a crime, but not behavior you need to spare their feelings and with hold criticism either as that is exactly the respect they afforded others after all. If ANT can't criticize, it saying his feelings don't matter while others do, on two fronts, both the ability to offend and immunity from critique when concurrently ANT gets neither.

So you'd feel the same way if it was a group of women dressed that way?

Yes. If a woman was wearing a BDSM outfit in public I would feel the same, but it is irrelevant because the argument isn't about consistency of people's sensibilities, and I can't speak for ANT, it is rather about consistency of respect. Typically you give the respect you get. In the case of your hypothetical I would afford the same respect they afforded me.

[BlacJacMac]

It is a fetishized outfit. If you don't take offense to sexualized attire in PUBLIC no less you have to understand some of us only want to be subjected to sex by choice. These men removed that choice and by their actions regardless of intent didn't consider others, not really a crime, but not behavior you need to spare their feelings and with hold criticism either as that is exactly the respect they afforded others after all. If ANT can't criticize, it saying his feelings don't matter while others do, on two fronts, both the ability to offend and immunity from critique when concurrently ANT gets neither.

So you'd feel the same way if it was a group of women dressed that way?

Yes. If a woman was wearing a BDSM outfit in public I would feel the same, but it is irrelevant because the argument isn't about consistency of people's sensibilities, and I can't speak for ANT, it is rather about consistency of respect. Typically you give the respect you get. In the case of your hypothetical I would afford the same respect they afforded me.

If they were "disrespecting" you by simply living their lives unaware of you, I think the problem is not with them...

I see women wearing significantly less than those men all the time and no one bats an eye.

[SO_MONEY]

So you'd feel the same way if it was a group of women dressed that way?

Yes. If a woman was wearing a BDSM outfit in public I would feel the same, but it is irrelevant because the argument isn't about consistency of people's sensibilities, and I can't speak for ANT, it is rather about consistency of respect. Typically you give the respect you get. In the case of your hypothetical I would afford the same respect they afforded me.

If they were "disrespecting" you by simply living their lives unaware of you, I think the problem is not with them...

It is disrespectful to expose people to sexualization without their consent. In public shared spaces you need to understand the world doesn't revolve around you and if you are unaware of this the problem is with people like that.

If you believe people can wear sex outfits in public free of criticism, I reject that in it's entirety.

[Crazy-Canuck]

What was so inappropriate about what they were wearing though? Jeans, no shirts and sports type bras is all I can see... It's not like they were standing there with their tackle out waving it around like a flag or anything...

I mean ****, I get around in summer here in Aus with no shirt on a lot. Shorts and thongs (flip flops) is all I wear in summer.

It wasn't inappropriate. They were out in public, not bothering anyone, and wearing what they like. Ant was condemning them.

It is a fetishized outfit. If you don't take offense to sexualized attire in PUBLIC no less you have to understand some of us only want to be subjected to sex by choice. These men removed that choice and by their actions regardless of intent didn't consider others, not really a crime, but not behavior you need to spare their feelings and with hold criticism either as that is exactly the respect they afforded others after all. If ANT can't criticize, it saying his feelings don't matter while others do, on two fronts, both the ability to offend and immunity from critique when concurrently ANT gets neither.

Just to be clear. If someone does not like a group of people, they should be allowed to use derogatory terms at them, then film it, and share it to millions of followers? Is that what you are saying?

[SO_MONEY]

So you'd feel the same way if it was a group of women dressed that way?

Yes. If a woman was wearing a BDSM outfit in public I would feel the same, but it is irrelevant because the argument isn't about consistency of people's sensibilities, and I can't speak for ANT, it is rather about consistency of respect. Typically you give the respect you get. In the case of your hypothetical I would afford the same respect they afforded me.

If they were "disrespecting" you by simply living their lives unaware of you, I think the problem is not with them...

I see women wearing significantly less than those men all the time and no one bats an eye.

How reveling something is and sexualization of something are not the same, that is an empty argument.

[SO_MONEY]

It wasn't inappropriate. They were out in public, not bothering anyone, and wearing what they like. Ant was condemning them.

It is a fetishized outfit. If you don't take offense to sexualized attire in PUBLIC no less you have to understand some of us only want to be subjected to sex by choice. These men removed that choice and by their actions regardless of intent didn't consider others, not really a crime, but not behavior you need to spare their feelings and with hold criticism either as that is exactly the respect they afforded others after all. If ANT can't criticize, it saying his feelings don't matter while others do, on two fronts, both the ability to offend and immunity from critique when concurrently ANT gets neither.

Just to be clear. If someone does not like a group of people, they should be allowed to use derogatory terms at them, then film it, and share it to millions of followers? Is that what you are saying?

I don't like your framing because it is internally misleading, ignores this very thing is incredibly common and not in how you are painting it, but my answer is yes.

In the same breath I also don't feel people who do so are free of criticism either. Isn't that what people are doing?

[BlacJacMac]

Yes. If a woman was wearing a BDSM outfit in public I would feel the same, but it is irrelevant because the argument isn't about consistency of people's sensibilities, and I can't speak for ANT, it is rather about consistency of respect. Typically you give the respect you get. In the case of your hypothetical I would afford the same respect they afforded me.

If they were "disrespecting" you by simply living their lives unaware of you, I think the problem is not with them...

It is disrespectful to expose people to sexualization without their consent. In public shared spaces you need to understand the world doesn't revolve around you and if you are unaware of this the problem is with people like that.

If you believe people can wear sex outfits in public free of criticism, I reject that in it's entirety.

"sex outfits"?

5 guys (all in full pants). 3 appear to be wearing tank tops, 2 in what look like some kind of halter top.

None of them are anything close to "BDSM outfits".

I double-down on the problem not being the 5 men...

[urinesane]

What a boring argument is taking place in this thread.

He made a mistake and hopefully he is more aware going forward. All we can ask of anyone is better awareness, when you're aware of the effects of your actions/words it's much easier to not repeat that mistake.

Holding someone's feet to the fire or demanding some sort of penance is just weak minded sh*t that gets us nowhere (and usually doesn't actually address the issue). No need for a pound of flesh, he f*cked up, realizes it and apologized.

It's unfortunate that people want to cancel or punish people over these kinds of mistakes. Isn't the goal to be more aware, so that they actually change, rather than just hiding what they truly think out of fear of repercussions?

[SO_MONEY]

If they were "disrespecting" you by simply living their lives unaware of you, I think the problem is not with them...

It is disrespectful to expose people to sexualization without their consent. In public shared spaces you need to understand the world doesn't revolve around you and if you are unaware of this the problem is with people like that.

If you believe people can wear sex outfits in public free of criticism, I reject that in it's entirety.

"sex outfits"?

5 guys (all in full pants). 3 appear to be wearing tank tops, 2 in what look like some kind of halter top.

None of them are anything close to "BDSM outfits".

I double-down on the problem not being the 5 men...

Dude, I am pretty sure those are bondage harnesses not tank-tops.

[BlacJacMac]

It is disrespectful to expose people to sexualization without their consent. In public shared spaces you need to understand the world doesn't revolve around you and if you are unaware of this the problem is with people like that.

If you believe people can wear sex outfits in public free of criticism, I reject that in it's entirety.

"sex outfits"?

5 guys (all in full pants). 3 appear to be wearing tank tops, 2 in what look like some kind of halter top.

None of them are anything close to "BDSM outfits".

I double-down on the problem not being the 5 men...

Dude, I am pretty sure those are bondage harnesses not tank-tops.

The 3 guys in the back are clearly wearing "A-shirt" style tank tops. (And yeah, I googled for a more proper term than the slang one that is typically used).

[SO_MONEY]

"sex outfits"?

5 guys (all in full pants). 3 appear to be wearing tank tops, 2 in what look like some kind of halter top.

None of them are anything close to "BDSM outfits".

I double-down on the problem not being the 5 men...

Dude, I am pretty sure those are bondage harnesses not tank-tops.

The 3 guys in the back are clearly wearing "A-shirt" style tank tops. (And yeah, I googled for a more proper term than the slang one that is typically used).

And the others...the ones I am talking about...

BDSM, bondage harnesses I had to Google it myself.

If the attire were appropriate or if it is not sexualized and just odd, ANT shouldn't feel the need to comment. But it is what it is. If you wear bondage outfits in public some people are going to say things and they might not be nice, much worse than what ANT said honestly.

[BlacJacMac]

Dude, I am pretty sure those are bondage harnesses not tank-tops.

The 3 guys in the back are clearly wearing "A-shirt" style tank tops. (And yeah, I googled for a more proper term than the slang one that is typically used).

And the others...the ones I am talking about...

BDSM, bondage harnesses I had to Google it myself.

If the attire were appropriate or if it is not sexualized and just odd, ANT shouldn't feel the need to comment. But it is what it is. If you wear bondage outfits in public some people are going to say things and they might not be nice, much worse than what ANT said honestly.

Or maybe his issue was 5 openly gay men?

The 2 in front are basically in halter tops. I see women wearing less all the time.

But the real issue remains, why the need to broadcast it to your 1.2M followers? Why not just say it to the people you're with?

He wasn't live streaming or anything. The comment may have been "on the fly", but the decision to post it afterwards was thought out.

It goes back to anti-gay bigotry being a systemic problem.

[SO_MONEY]

The 3 guys in the back are clearly wearing "A-shirt" style tank tops. (And yeah, I googled for a more proper term than the slang one that is typically used).

And the others...the ones I am talking about...

BDSM, bondage harnesses I had to Google it myself.

If the attire were appropriate or if it is not sexualized and just odd, ANT shouldn't feel the need to comment. But it is what it is. If you wear bondage outfits in public some people are going to say things and they might not be nice, much worse than what ANT said honestly.

Or maybe his issue was 5 openly gay men?

The 2 in front are basically in halter tops. I see women wearing less all the time.

They are bondage harnesses not halter tops. How much they are wearing is not the point.

And if you want to jump to ANT saying what he did not because what they were wearing and just because they are gay that is on you. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. I won't do that without a pattern of behavior, I just won't.

[BlacJacMac]

And the others...the ones I am talking about...

BDSM, bondage harnesses I had to Google it myself.

If the attire were appropriate or if it is not sexualized and just odd, ANT shouldn't feel the need to comment. But it is what it is. If you wear bondage outfits in public some people are going to say things and they might not be nice, much worse than what ANT said honestly.

Or maybe his issue was 5 openly gay men?

The 2 in front are basically in halter tops. I see women wearing less all the time.

They are bondage harnesses not halter tops. How much they are wearing is not the point.

And if you want to jump to ANT saying what he did not because what they were wearing and just because they are gay that is on you. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. I won't do that without a pattern of behavior, I just won't.

If what they are wearing is not the point, how come it offends you so much?

I'm jumping on Ant for making the IG post. What triggered him shouldn't matter.

[BlacJacMac]

Duplicate post.

[GreekAlex]

Only recently has this idea where there is no standard for public decency been pushed on us.

Wake me up when when someone truly “minding their business” is a “victim”.

[SO_MONEY]

Or maybe his issue was 5 openly gay men?

The 2 in front are basically in halter tops. I see women wearing less all the time.

They are bondage harnesses not halter tops. How much they are wearing is not the point.

And if you want to jump to ANT saying what he did not because what they were wearing and just because they are gay that is on you. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. I won't do that without a pattern of behavior, I just won't.

If what they are wearing is not the point, how come it offends you so much?

I'm jumping on Ant for making the IG post. What triggered him shouldn't matter.

I never said what they were wearing is not the point, I have said the opposite multiple times. I said how much they are wearing is not the point. How reveling something is and how sexualized something is are completely different for the second time.

so...

What triggered him is the only thing that matters in that it is how you gauge if it is appropriate and proportionate so you know how big a deal his reaction is.

[urinesane]

BlacJacMac and SO_MONEY please just stop.

It's going nowhere and it's a ridiculous argument to have in the first place (i.e. it's pointless).

Move on with your lives.

[Klomp]

But the real issue remains, why the need to broadcast it to your 1.2M followers? Why not just say it to the people you're with?

He wasn't live streaming or anything. The comment may have been "on the fly", but the decision to post it afterwards was thought out.

It goes back to anti-gay bigotry being a systemic problem.

He thought people would think it was funny. It was probably eye-opening to him the backlash he received. It could even be a cultural difference with him being from the more conservative South, he likely wasn't as privy to that lifestyle growing up.

I was born with a permanent disability. To our community, cripple and other terms are deemed as insensitive or derogatory. Someone making a comment towards our community would be seen as insensitive, but the comment might not necessarily be rooted in hatred, fear or bigotry. It could just be a lack of understanding. It's unfortunate but it's a part of life.