Recent comments in /f/sports

timegoesboom t1_j8tblsw wrote

Reply to comment by harceps in Black Quarterbacks in the Super Bowl Reflect Progress and Lost Opportunity by SaraShane

Idk - I read an article a while back that had mixed people always be considered the minority. If you're mixed in a majority black population, you're considered the race that isn't black. Mahomes would be white in nigeria, but black in usa. Idk if this still holds true. Same with Obama and all that.

6

DangerBay2015 t1_j8qy9u1 wrote

Reply to Bills' Damar Hamlin says he meant no disrespect with jacket. by PrincessBananas85

Was there really that much criticism?

Fox News talking heads found ONE ex-NFL player that I saw speak out.

Adrian Peterson, so-called Christian man. You, know, the kind of Christian man who pleads guilty to misdemeanour assault for beating his son, and then says “yeah, I still hit him with a belt, but at least it’s not a switch, I learned my lesson.”

The kind of Christian man who defrauds a bank and gets ordered to repay $2.4 million dollars. And then defaults on two other lawsuit settlements, of $5 million and $8 million respectively.

The kind of Christian man who gets charged with assault for slapping his wife around on a flight.

If that’s the kind of Christian man who’s being offended by Damar Hamlin’s Jesus jacket, he’s probably walking with Christ more than the ONE football player Fox News found to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Adrian Peterson was the BEST mouthpiece Fox News could find. The BEST. I mean it probably didn’t help they were dividing their Super Bowl outrage between Damar Hamlin’s Jesus threads, the black national anthem, and the pregnant black gal dancing with all of her clothes on, but they were REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel with this phoned in meltdown.

At least Damar Hamlin has the grace to say he meant no disrespect, that’s one step more than Adrian Peterson ever made.

125

losprimera t1_j8qewj2 wrote

Reply to comment by Sub7Agent in Michigan State cancels athletic events for 48 hours after campus shooting by PrincessBananas85

It's not rocket science, but claims must still be substantiated by science. And that means using scientific methodologies. Your article brings up interesting points, but ultimately fails cite anything more than conjecture. That is expected of a non-academic piece of writing, but it holds little persuasive power. Obviously there must be hard data pointing towards your claim, but until you and I both know it, claims of any sort are rather pointless. Surely you see the logic here?

Edit: violent crime is predominantly men because males exhibit more violent tendencies at the extreme percentiles than women. That is to say, if one witnesses a violent crime, it's more than likely perpetrated by a man. So if extreme violence tends to be committed by a male, then all the more so for mass shootings. What even is the argument here?

1