Flores sues NFL

[Tater]

Why are owners racist? By that logic then Wal Mart is a racist Mfer

I mean anyone who's worth billions is by no means a saint...

But no where did anyone say owners = racist. You're out in the field arguing with a scarecrow. That strawman argument ain't exist. The Giants and Broncos owners have been accused of undergoing some extremely awful behavior. Literally just one rule they can easily follow and doesn't really do much to help minorities but it's good virtue signaling. AND THEY CANT EVEN BRING THEMSELVES TO DO THAT!

[Tater]

Hopefully people will wake up and realize that none of this is about "equality" but it's about "equity and control". We have equality in our country today. But alot of people dont want that. They want to control from a minority position. They want control.

I mean... Power is everything. I wouldn't call it equity. There is no equity to be gained anymore. Zuckerberg is the last of the self made billionaires. This case is just a clear case of blatant "i'm above the rules cause i'm rich" vibes more than strictly racism vibes if we're being honest. I personally just want the Snyder emails to come out in this or Gruden's suit.

It's such a weird take for people on this board to take up and defend some of society's worst people. The ultra-wealthy (read: billion+, not someone anyone who regularly uses this board will every be) are not the ones to be defending here. And we've got two sides of the coin, a guy who made sexist / racist remarks suing the nfl for defamation and then another guy suing the league for a structure of racism. How did Gruden get so far with who he was behind closed doors with so many owners? Just stinks rotten.

[662dawg]

I mean... Power is everything. I wouldn't call it equity. There is no equity to be gained anymore. Zuckerberg is the last of the self made billionaires. This case is just a clear case of blatant "i'm above the rules cause i'm rich" vibes more than strictly racism vibes if we're being honest. I personally just want the Snyder emails to come out in this or Gruden's suit.

It's such a weird take for people on this board to take up and defend some of society's worst people. The ultra-wealthy (read: billion+, not someone anyone who regularly uses this board will every be) are not the ones to be defending here. And we've got two sides of the coin, a guy who made sexist / racist remarks suing the nfl for defamation and then another guy suing the league for a structure of racism. How did Gruden get so far with who he was behind closed doors with so many owners? Just stinks rotten.

They are absolutely some of the worst people in the world. White & Black elites. Race isn?t a factor to why they are scum of the earth nor does it factor in when they are about to make a hire that could make them a ton more money. I can assure you that they are hiring the person they feel can make them more money & they aren?t looking at the race of that person. Green is the only color they see. It?s not really debatable. Only someone who has racist vibes themselves would think otherwise.

[Pancho]

I mean anyone who's worth billions is by no means a saint...

But no where did anyone say owners = racist. You're out in the field arguing with a scarecrow. That strawman argument ain't exist. The Giants and Broncos owners have been accused of undergoing some extremely awful behavior. Literally just one rule they can easily follow and doesn't really do much to help minorities but it's good virtue signaling. AND THEY CANT EVEN BRING THEMSELVES TO DO THAT!

So what are we to do about all the employees who are asian or hispanic or white regardless of whether they work at wal mart of for the dolphins? Do they need some special treatment too? My 2 bosses were a black man and a white woman and they only cared if employees are productive. I'm waiting to see how many million Gruden wins in his suit as well since all conversations are open to the public. Flores made it to the top and I want to know was he swayed to do this now or was it all on his own.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

I mean anyone who's worth billions is by no means a saint...

But no where did anyone say owners = racist. You're out in the field arguing with a scarecrow. That strawman argument ain't exist. The Giants and Broncos owners have been accused of undergoing some extremely awful behavior. Literally just one rule they can easily follow and doesn't really do much to help minorities but it's good virtue signaling. AND THEY CANT EVEN BRING THEMSELVES TO DO THAT!

There are two scenarios. One is that the owners are racist. If so, they can’t be trusted to make decisions based upon merit. So we need a Rooney rule for coaches, office folks, scouts, and players (including kickers and cornerbacks).

The second scenario is that owners just want to win. If so, they will hire the best people regardless of race.

But Tater, you are a bigot. Because you think that in a country that is roughly 12% black, it’s conceivable that blacks could hold all 64 cornerback positions based solely on merit. Yet at the same time, the fact that 3 of 32 NFL coaches were black signifies discrimination because it couldn’t possibly be merit based. Statistically it is far more likely that all head coaches would be white rather than all cornerbacks being black. The math is clear and decisive.

[Pancho]

So if the owners aren't racist, it must be the NFL who is? Am I understanding this the proper way?

[Leroy Jenkins]

If I know the person I want to hire, why do I have to go through this dog-and-pony show of extra interviews? That system is set up to fail and be disrespectful/hurtful to the other token interview candidates. It really is amazingly stupid.

[662dawg]

So what are we to do about all the employees who are asian or hispanic or white regardless of whether they work at wal mart of for the dolphins? Do they need some special treatment too? My 2 bosses were a black man and a white woman and they only cared if employees are productive. I'm waiting to see how many million Gruden wins in his suit as well since all conversations are open to the public. Flores made it to the top and I want to know was he swayed to do this now or was it all on his own.

I?d go out on a limb and say he was swayed to do this. These types of things are always perfectly timed. Take the Jussie Smollet hoax. Just days before the idiotic anti-lynching bill hit the Congress floor. 1. Lynching isn?t a thing in the 2020?s, 2. Those MAGA country white dudes ended up being buff Nigerians 😂

Now this right at the beginning of black history month & ever since it?s been known, my ESPN app has had it front & center. I?m sure I?m just a conspiracy theorist though.

[Johnson85]

I mean anyone who's worth billions is by no means a saint...

Not sure what your definition of saint is, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_...(entrepreneur)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Cathy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch

Depending on your worldview, one or more of those should probably look pretty good to you. You could probably include Warren Buffet in their too, although I find some of the things he does odious, he seems to be pretty decent mostly.

I doubt billionaires are any better or worse than other people on average. They probably face a lot more temptation so they may err a little more, particularly when it comes to marital fidelity, but they probably stack up much better on other metrics (like likelihood to commit violence).

[OLJWales]

I mean... Power is everything. I wouldn't call it equity. There is no equity to be gained anymore. Zuckerberg is the last of the self made billionaires. This case is just a clear case of blatant "i'm above the rules cause i'm rich" vibes more than strictly racism vibes if we're being honest. I personally just want the Snyder emails to come out in this or Gruden's suit.

It's such a weird take for people on this board to take up and defend some of society's worst people. The ultra-wealthy (read: billion+, not someone anyone who regularly uses this board will every be) are not the ones to be defending here. And we've got two sides of the coin, a guy who made sexist / racist remarks suing the nfl for defamation and then another guy suing the league for a structure of racism. How did Gruden get so far with who he was behind closed doors with so many owners? Just stinks rotten.

You have a very dictatorial attitude filled with hate and division creating problems that don't exist while hiding behind a false SJW blanket.

[Johnson85]

Do you know who the most discriminated against people in the world are right now? Straight white males & black conservative free thinkers.

Not that there isn't some pretty visible animus towards those two groups from some people, but Asians are discriminated against in school admissions at pretty much every level. Conservative/libertarian blacks are really only discriminated against because of their beliefs if they are in politics plus a few highly partisan industries (hollywood, academia, "journalism", etc). And as much as the country has improved, I'm pretty sure being a straight white male on a day to day basis is a pretty good gig compared to most alternatives. Certainly run the risk of discrimination when looking at being hired or promoted at a big company and some "woke" organizations, and that is bad and wrong and should be stopped, but there are still plenty of jobs available where you won't be discriminated against and even then discrimination that people face doesn't stop them from being successful, they just don't move as far up the ladder as they otherwise might have.

[Johnson85]

You've literally been proven wrong several times over.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/....1981.12022238

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0048546

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2015.1121474

Start there. These are people more educated than you. Trust them to do the research. You can't grasp that a "piece of paper" was decided upon by individuals in power with certain biases. And if you don't like my links, there's 1000s of other scholarly article for you to search up and read.

If you prefer an analogy. Think about it like this. There's a standardized test. It was made by a monkey to help see how smart someone it. The test was to climb up a tree and grab an apple. All the monkeys passed the test with flying colors. They are so smart. None of the fish could climb off the ground. Monkeys are clearly smarter than fish and are there because of their merit. There is no way this test could be biased because it was just a standardized test with simple instructions. How could it be biased?

You need to read the articles you are citing. The first one argues that standardized testing drives segregation of schools. WHile they claim raciacl bias in the testing, they don't prove it. It's assumed. (They are probably right about their main claim though; I think a lot of parents get concerned about a schools average test scores rather than trying to figure out how students with similar socioeconomic status as their children perform; a school that is 90% disadvantaged could look like a failing school even if the 10% non-poor knocked it out of the park, and indeed even if every child in the school performed better than average compared to other students with a similar socioeconomic status).

The second link states that higher test anxiety could contribute to the racial bias of testing. I didn't bother seeing if I could get access to the actual paper because even if there is a racial difference between the rates that people experience test anxiety, that's not really racial bias.

The last link talks about how standardized testing was used to eliminate bias in injury assessment.

There are better and worse versions of standardized testing, but standardized tests are usually trying to measure something and are validated the best they can. Some aren't really susceptible to racial bias as they pretty much rely on logic involving shapes and figures rather than language.

[Extendedcab]

I will preface this by saying I am not a wealthy person, I am upper middle class but I am not wealthy (born and raised poor) - <$5M total assets. I don't have boats, multiple expensive vehicles, multiple houses, planes, etc. I have started 4 businesses in my career and I know the struggles and the rewards for doing so.

My comments here are not for or against any person mentioned in any posts here, these are general observations of other posts only.

Some posters bother me as to blaming the rich person (rich meaning owners of medium/large businesses) for all of the worlds ills. Having money is not the problem it is the love of money or greed that is the problem and that is not race specific. You do not have to be rich or white to be greedy or love money. Look at violent crime for example (theft, armed robbery, etc.), the perps are not typically rich people. I am not exonerating the rich either as they have their own set of problems. We can't lump everybody in the same bucket regarding wealth - they are all greedy for example as that is not necessarily true. Can't a man/woman enjoy the fruit of their labor and the business risk they took to get there?

It sounds like some here blame rich people for being rich, like they have no right and they should give everything they own to the working class just because they are rich. You know the entitlement attitude.

Consider the following from the Bible (Matthew 20 1:15):


“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius[a] a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?"

[Johnson85]

I know this: You are wrong when you call him a crybaby. The easy thing for him to do would be to walk away. He could have gotten another job, he is a good coach. Now, maybe not and I assure you he knows the risk he is taking and was willing to do it anyway. That takes balls, not a crybaby.

The Giants may not have purposely not hired him because of race but they damn sure didn't give him or any other minority a legit interview as required by the NFL rule. So, that lawsuit may just win. Like it or not.

These are the NFL Rules put in place to give minorities a chance. They didn't have to hire him but they were expected to interview him in good faith and they didn't. The NFL as a whole has made a mockery of their own rule by allowing the Giants and others to circumvent the Rooney Rule for years. It's been a topic and anyone paying attention knew this was bound to happen at some point. Somebody would have the balls to stand up and say, this is wrong.

But but I wanted this other guy. They still could have hired him but they had to interview a minority candidate before making the hire and didn't. What were they scared of? Him interviewing well?

I doubt them not following NFL rules gives FLores a claim of action. The league may have the ability to fine them as a contractual matter, but Flores would have to show that he was discriminated against because of his race. Pretty much all of the discussion on discrimination contemplates an adverse action, less favorable treatment, an act of harm, etc. I'm not sure getting an interview is going to be considered discrimination. Maybe if he claims a sham interview subjects him to shame and ridicule that he would have avoided if he were not a member of a protected class? Would be a different case for sure. IF he is successful, it would be interesting to see a minority that is promoted and then subsequently receives negative reviews and termination/demotion was harmed by the promotion he would not have otherwise received.

[Pancho]

Evidently Flores is just tired of being an NFL HC. He would have landed on his feet coaching another team in the future but he sure blew that chance now. It's baffling, really.

[OLJWales]

I will preface this by saying I am not a wealthy person, I am upper middle class but I am not wealthy (born and raised poor) - <$5M total assets. I don't have boats, multiple expensive vehicles, multiple houses, planes, etc. I have started 4 businesses in my career and I know the struggles and the rewards for doing so.

My comments here are not for or against any person mentioned in any posts here, these are general observations of other posts only.

Some posters bother me as to blaming the rich person (rich meaning owners of medium/large businesses) for all of the worlds ills. Having money is not the problem it is the love of money or greed that is the problem and that is not race specific. You do not have to be rich or white to be greedy or love money. Look at violent crime for example (theft, armed robbery, etc.), the perps are not typically rich people. I am not exonerating the rich either as they have their own set of problems. We can't lump everybody in the same bucket regarding wealth - they are all greedy for example as that is not necessarily true. Can't a man/woman enjoy the fruit of their labor and the business risk they took to get there?

It sounds like some here blame rich people for being rich, like they have no right and they should give everything they own to the working class just because they are rich. You know the entitlement attitude.

Consider the following from the Bible (Matthew 20 1:15):


“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius[a] a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?"

Have some Rep. I've always loved that Bible. Story. Great Post.

[Tater]

There are two scenarios. One is that the owners are racist. If so, they can’t be trusted to make decisions based upon merit. So we need a Rooney rule for coaches, office folks, scouts, and players (including kickers and cornerbacks).

The second scenario is that owners just want to win. If so, they will hire the best people regardless of race.

But Tater, you are a bigot. Because you think that in a country that is roughly 12% black, it’s conceivable that blacks could hold all 64 cornerback positions based solely on merit. Yet at the same time, the fact that 3 of 32 NFL coaches were black signifies discrimination because it couldn’t possibly be merit based. Statistically it is far more likely that all head coaches would be white rather than all cornerbacks being black. The math is clear and decisive.

"There are two scenarios"

Nah bro. That's you trying to frame the argument to be right because you can't fathom a wide breadth of scenarios across a spectrum so you resort to a logical fallacy to try to win an argument.

Try again.

And you can't sit here and tell me what I think when it's so blatantly wrong. Considering I said if you wanna call corners only being black an even more indicator of racial bias, go ahead. Like... the point is that clearly there are some appalling biases. But one bias you can measure empirically. We have the combine for a reason. One bias you can't measure empirically. You can't fathom those words, so you're arguing like a simpleton instead.

[Tater]

If I know the person I want to hire, why do I have to go through this dog-and-pony show of extra interviews? That system is set up to fail and be disrespectful/hurtful to the other token interview candidates. It really is amazingly stupid.

Because it was shown that "knowing the person you want to hire" had racial bias in it so the NFL came up with a virtue signaling rule to combat it. No one is arguing that the rule works. That's not the point. The point is that it's such a small simple thing to do, AND THEY COULDNT EVEN DO IT!

[Tater]

You need to read the articles you are citing. The first one argues that standardized testing drives segregation of schools. WHile they claim raciacl bias in the testing, they don't prove it. It's assumed. (They are probably right about their main claim though; I think a lot of parents get concerned about a schools average test scores rather than trying to figure out how students with similar socioeconomic status as their children perform; a school that is 90% disadvantaged could look like a failing school even if the 10% non-poor knocked it out of the park, and indeed even if every child in the school performed better than average compared to other students with a similar socioeconomic status).

The second link states that higher test anxiety could contribute to the racial bias of testing. I didn't bother seeing if I could get access to the actual paper because even if there is a racial difference between the rates that people experience test anxiety, that's not really racial bias.

The last link talks about how standardized testing was used to eliminate bias in injury assessment.

There are better and worse versions of standardized testing, but standardized tests are usually trying to measure something and are validated the best they can. Some aren't really susceptible to racial bias as they pretty much rely on logic involving shapes and figures rather than language.

Full disclosure, i hit google for scholarly articles for standardized test racial bias. Grabbed the first three links without looking. Then moved on as I (rightly) assumed those I was arguing with in the moment wouldn't even click it. Have some rep for actually reading them and proving my point that people on here aren't actually here to have a debate, there hear to shout their opinion and be right. Anything someone they perceive as wrong is just simply wrong and there's no changing it.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Johnson85 again.

[Tater]

I will preface this by saying I am not a wealthy person, I am upper middle class but I am not wealthy (born and raised poor) - <$5M total assets. I don't have boats, multiple expensive vehicles, multiple houses, planes, etc. I have started 4 businesses in my career and I know the struggles and the rewards for doing so.

My comments here are not for or against any person mentioned in any posts here, these are general observations of other posts only.

Some posters bother me as to blaming the rich person (rich meaning owners of medium/large businesses) for all of the worlds ills. Having money is not the problem it is the love of money or greed that is the problem and that is not race specific. You do not have to be rich or white to be greedy or love money. Look at violent crime for example (theft, armed robbery, etc.), the perps are not typically rich people. I am not exonerating the rich either as they have their own set of problems. We can't lump everybody in the same bucket regarding wealth - they are all greedy for example as that is not necessarily true. Can't a man/woman enjoy the fruit of their labor and the business risk they took to get there?

It sounds like some here blame rich people for being rich, like they have no right and they should give everything they own to the working class just because they are rich. You know the entitlement attitude.

Consider the following from the Bible (Matthew 20 1:15):


?For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius[a] a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ?You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.? 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ?Why do you stand here idle all day?? 7 They said to him, ?Because no one has hired us.? He said to them, ?You go into the vineyard too.? 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ?Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.? 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ?These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.? 13 But he replied to one of them, ?Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?"

This is so ****ing hoity toity.

I'll sum it up for you simpler. Having money ain't everything, not having it is.

Ain't no one saying that you can't have nice things. But if 10 people have more wealth than over half of America and those 150,000,000+ people live paycheck to paycheck, skip meals, can't afford rent, are in mountains of debt, forego medical procedures... then those 10 people are a problem.

If you think it's entitlement to say that people deserve a roof over their head, a full belly, and help when they are sick... then call me Mr. Entitled.

And to quote the Bible after making that statement.... yeah Lucy got a nice spot for you to burn next to. How ****ing dare you take the Lord's name in vain like that.