logical_art wrote:campaignist wrote:logical_art wrote:
Yeah, that's not at all what he said.
There’s not really a non-sexist way to interpret that.
Let me take care of this part for you: “you can’t say anything these days, cancel culture, woke mob, sjws, blah blah blah”
Let’s swap out just one word and see if that’s better: “Look I’m not sexist, but I ain’t trying to see blacks coaching in the NBA.” See how that looks?
You claim he says people should be excluded based on their sex. He never said that. He said he doesn't want to see it. Whether or not that's sexists is a different discussion, but at least paraphrase him accurately.
Edit: But lets entertain the sexism claim. If a woman says that she doesn't want to see a man on the View, is that necessarily sexist?
You're focusing rigidly on semantics without considering pragmatic implications, and you're doing it on a statement that quite clearly doesn't mean what its semantics would appear to mean (when someone says "I ain't trying to see..." like that, they aren't speaking as if to answer the question "Are you trying to see X right now?").
To your last: I think it's fine for you to bring up the View as a counter analogy. It's not a perfect analogy, but nothing is. In this case, it matters that sports are first and foremost a competition that simply happens to be put on TV because it draws an audience, whereas the View is a TV show whose fundamental concept is built on courting a particular audience. Hence, whoever ends up as a host on the View, we should expect it was decided by network executives based on what they think will earn the company they work for more profit, and if that means only women, that means only women. However for an NBA franchise, we should expect that decisions are being made based on what will help them win NBA games. Fine to hire who they want based on what they think will help them win, but the idea that they should consider not hiring female coaches because it annoys fans - which is a logical implication of what was said in this thread - that would represent what we typically mean when we talk about discrimination.
Now, you can of course argue that the NBA team wouldn't be guilty of discrimination because they did what they believed they needed to to keep their fans happy, and that's where things get really murky. What would not be murky though is that the NBA would effectively be saying "We're not sexist, but our fans are.", which I think takes us full circle.
Last thing I have to mention: I've always thought it would be quite tricky for a woman to be head coach in the NBA because men often chafe against female bosses, and NBA players specifically have really bought into the notion that they understand basketball better than everyone they could beat 1 on 1. I think the reality is that part of what you're hiring a coach for is the attitude you think they will induce in the players, and so were I an NBA GM I probably wouldn't consider a female head coach in the NBA unless she was already an assistant coach on my roster. I'd want to be able to see her interacting with my players to get a sense of whether they'd respond to her. And so there you could say I'm saying, "I'm not sexist, but I think NBA players are". But there is a difference between factoring in what the players think and feel, and factoring in what fans think and feel, that I would consider crucial.
