Josh Donaldson Suspended for Making Racist Comment

Status
Not open for further replies.

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,776
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I don't get the Yankees play here. At all.

Why not just sit him yesterday and tell him to stay home, announce the COVID test results after the game. He misses the same number of games he would have anyway, and the story is likely virtually gone when he is healthy. He will have come back "from COVID" not "from suspension".

They've taken a 72 hour story and made it many days if not 1-2 weeks longer.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
It doesn't matter what's "in his head and heart." His intent here has close to zero relevancy. We're not trying to figure out whether or not Josh Donaldson is a bonafide racist. To continue to frame this discussion as if that's the goal is to obscure the real work that a lot of well-meaning people in this thread are trying to do by having the discussion in the first place.
Yep.

But it's just as likely, and I think more likely, that Donaldson was calling him out for self aggrandizement, as a I said above.
Even Donaldson didn't say he was doing that. In fact, that's the opposite of what Donaldson claims. From: https://www.mlb.com/news/josh-donaldson-suspension-may-23-2022
Tensions have been high between Anderson and Donaldson since a game at Chicago’s Guaranteed Rate Field on May 13, when both benches cleared after Anderson shoved Donaldson following a first-inning play at third base. Donaldson said that he intended for his comment to neutralize that animosity.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
The reason it came up today is because a lot of people, myself included, never heard about any of this until last night. If you think there should be a separate thread to discuss Anderson's interview you'll get no argument from me. It's clearly the less important issue, but it's obviously related to this story.
It's related to this story as much as any other element of the story that led to Josh Donaldson saying something wildly tone-deaf and offensive in an effort to rile up his Black opponent.

"Who started yelling first?" is just a relevant.

"Did Josh Donaldson have indigestion?" is, too.

You're more than welcome to go ask any of these questions. I just think they all upstage the big, important point.

It's worth noting that navigating stuff like this is precisely why it's so hard for me to feel uplifted anytime a politician, pundit, celebrity, or coworker tells me that "we have to have a national discussion about race in this country." It's like... every time something like that starts to happen, we all decide to ask questions about Josh Donaldson's ostensible indigestion instead.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
I don't get the Yankees play here. At all.

Why not just sit him yesterday and tell him to stay home, announce the COVID test results after the game. He misses the same number of games he would have anyway, and the story is likely virtually gone when he is healthy. He will have come back "from COVID" not "from suspension".

They've taken a 72 hour story and made it many days if not 1-2 weeks longer.
The appeal part isn't up to the team, just the player, and I think they are not allowed to try to influence the decision. Also I don't think he tested positive but was exhibiting symptoms, same as the other two Yankees, so they put them all on the list somewhat preemptively. Also you are not allowed to serve a suspension while on the Covid list and the league might have had an issue if they had pushed that.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I'm talking about the same two people doing a different thing.

The thing that happened:

Anderson: I'm like the guy changed the game by breaking the color barrier
Donaldson: I will mock you based on this I will mock you for appropriating greatness

The thing I was supposing that wouldn't be a big deal:

Anderson: I'm like the guy who changed the game by hitting a metric fuckton of home runs
Donaldson: I will mock you based on this I will mock you for appropriating greatness

Please feel free to disagree, or to let me know that I'm not picking up on sarcasm...

edit: breaking, not broking.
This is where I was, except I think the mocking is the sort of thing seen in sports all the time. Is this like early England where anything non-positive said about the king is simply grounds for the dungeon? And MLB has anointed Robinson the king because he was first? Why is it different than if Anderson had chosen Satchel Paige (an iconic player I associate with enjoying the fun in the game) or Larry Doby? What if Anderson had said Obama the first president of color? Does the opinion change?

FWIW: I'm being sincere here, I'm trying to understand where these lines are being drawn.

As an aside, there is a parallel here: Anderson was being charged with violating unwritten evolving baseball rules/expectations (bat flipping), Donaldson is being charged with violating unwritten evolving racism/expectations laws. There is a certain karma there.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
The problem is, all of these thought exercises come up all the time whenever we're talking about race. "What if he had said this," or, "what if the situation had gone like that," or, "what if the roles were reversed, and..."

Even if you emphasize sincerity, these lines of question always end up projecting that we care more about twisting the situation into something it's not than we do about recognizing our own racist impulses—impulses that exist because we're still embedded in systems that came about and set through hundreds of years of genocide and white supremacy.

These exercises usually take a recurring form: We develop thought experiments that get as close to the original act as possible while changing just enough detail so as to defang the offense. "What if he had said 'Satchel Page?'" Well, he didn't. "What if he had said 'Babe Ruth?'" Again: He didn't.

There's not much to glean from determining "where the lines are drawn." We already know one was crossed. Coming up with a dozen ways that a line could still be faintly visible but technically not crossed does more to obscure the line we're talking about than it does to inform us about hypothetical lines in some other scenario, real or imagined.

I don't mean to single you out here, @RetractableRoof. I do trust people on this board when they emphasize their sincerity. I'm mostly just using your post as a jumping off point.
 

Mr. Stinky Esq.

No more Ramon
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2006
2,421
I am astounded that there are members here who seem ignorant to the fact that Jackie Robinson's legacy is inextricably interwoven with his race.
 

Mr. Stinky Esq.

No more Ramon
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2006
2,421
Sorry if cited previously, and especially sorry because I’m about to say something complimentary about Aaron Boone, but he also didn’t race to defend Donaldson, which Infound surprising.

https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-josh-donaldson-aaron-boone-20220523-ggbnlrdzczguvd64iowjagh66a-story.html

Now Boone did object to Donaldson’s suspension, so while I’m not sure I disagree, I’m using that as an excuse to restore my contempt for him.
Thank you for sharing this as I hadn't seen it. I am pleasantly surprised with Boone's comments*.

<<“When I first heard the name Jackie, I was really taken aback,” Boone said on Sunday. “Frankly, I was upset about it myself.”>>

<<Boone went on to say that even if there was some previous relationship between the players, which Donaldson believed made the comment more of a playful joke, he doesn’t think that’s something his white third baseman should say to a Black person.>>



*Edit: To be clear, my surprise isn't that Boone has an appropriately sensitive take. My surprise just comes from experience telling us that managers almost always back their guys.
 
Last edited:

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Seems like racists love giving themselves dubious outs for their jokes and slurs, in an “I’m not touching you” kind of way. Isn’t that the appeal behind Let’s Go Brandon and a bunch of other attempts at implausible deniability they tend to grasp for. I try not to fall into those traps and don’t see the need to give Donaldson an out just because he’s concocted some cockamamie excuse.

It’s really not difficult - a white ballplayer shoulder call a black ballplayer Jackie. You can just full stop there and not fall into these oblique “China virus - what that’s where it’s from!” excuses.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
The thing is that Donaldson and Anderson aren't friends, they've had a bit of a history for a couple of seasons, so for Donaldson to say, he was just innocently ribbing Anderson doesn't track. I don't know for sure whether JD is a racist (and what I think about him doesn't matter) but he knew exactly what he was saying when he called him "Jackie".

We all have groups of friends where if you're close to a person, you might be able to kid them a little harsher about things that they might otherwise be sensitive if someone else said it. It's not just context of the "joke" (which was fucking lame BTW), but it's a context of relationship. Donaldson doesn't have the latitude to call Anderson Jackie, maybe Yoan Moncada does, but not Donaldson.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,776
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
The appeal part isn't up to the team, just the player, and I think they are not allowed to try to influence the decision. Also I don't think he tested positive but was exhibiting symptoms, same as the other two Yankees, so they put them all on the list somewhat preemptively. Also you are not allowed to serve a suspension while on the Covid list and the league might have had an issue if they had pushed that.
I just gotta think that if Donaldson and the team get in a room and they say, Josh, it's your call but we'd really like to put this to bed and move on, especially since you are not feeling well anyway and we are going to test you in...exactly 4 hours... they could have found a way to do so. Even if it's unofficially.
I dont know. The timing and process as it is unfolding just seems the worst possible outcome.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
I dont know. The timing and process as it is unfolding just seems the worst possible outcome.
No. The worst possible outcome would be to game the covid protocols in an effort to mitigate the well-deserved suspension of a player who was ignorant and stupid.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,318
This is where I was, except I think the mocking is the sort of thing seen in sports all the time. Is this like early England where anything non-positive said about the king is simply grounds for the dungeon? And MLB has anointed Robinson the king because he was first? Why is it different than if Anderson had chosen Satchel Paige (an iconic player I associate with enjoying the fun in the game) or Larry Doby? What if Anderson had said Obama the first president of color? Does the opinion change?

FWIW: I'm being sincere here, I'm trying to understand where these lines are being drawn.

As an aside, there is a parallel here: Anderson was being charged with violating unwritten evolving baseball rules/expectations (bat flipping), Donaldson is being charged with violating unwritten evolving racism/expectations laws. There is a certain karma there.
I honestly don't know what to make of your post. Like, what are you actually asking here? You start out by seeming to imply that what's really behind all of this is that Jackie Robinson is baseball royalty and people like Josh Donaldson are upset that he compared himself to a king. If he'd compared himself instead to Satchel Paige or Barack Obama, you seem to be asking, would that be OK? "Does the opinion change?" Whose opinion, and of what? Are you asking whether people like Josh Donaldson would have been less annoyed by those comparisons? Or are you asking whether it would have been OK for Donaldson to call Anderson "Satchel" or "Barack," but not OK for him to call Anderson "Jackie" because Jackie Robinson is baseball royalty? Here, from my perspective, is the line: If you are calling someone a name with the express purpose of alluding to the person's Blackness, you have crossed the line.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,776
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
No. The worst possible outcome would be to game the covid protocols in an effort to mitigate the well-deserved suspension of a player who was ignorant and stupid.
I'm not trying to game anything. I fully support him being suspended. It's incredibly bad, though, from a PR standpoint to let this become an issue that essentially lives and breathes beyond the COVID window. Get it over with.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,184
Washington
I'm not trying to game anything. I fully support him being suspended. It's incredibly bad, though, from a PR standpoint to let this become an issue that essentially lives and breathes beyond the COVID window. Get it over with.
That you don't think that would be gaming the protocols is mildly interesting, but whatever.

Beyond that, I don't think the situation is incredibly bad PR that needs to be handled in such a way. The organization isn't justifying what Donaldson said or did. Members of the organization have spoken out against it. Donaldson will get his appeal heard and then serve his suspension. Those are good things in a bad situation. This isn't a problem that needs some special effort to make it go away faster. It is an important issue and how it plays out takes as long as it takes.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,776
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
That you don't think that would be gaming the protocols is mildly interesting, but whatever.

Beyond that, I don't think the situation is incredibly bad PR that needs to be handled in such a way. The organization isn't justifying what Donaldson said or did. Members of the organization have spoken out against it. Donaldson will get his appeal heard and then serve his suspension. Those are good things in a bad situation. This isn't a problem that needs some special effort to make it go away faster. It is an important issue and how it plays out takes as long as it takes.
Fair enough. I work in PR and I tend to view these things in that lens. If there is a way to do the right thing neatly, I tend to support that. If there's a way to do the right thing in 72 hours vs 10 days, that's the route I tend to go. But again, it's probably my mindset.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I honestly don't know what to make of your post. Like, what are you actually asking here? You start out by seeming to imply that what's really behind all of this is that Jackie Robinson is baseball royalty and people like Josh Donaldson are upset that he compared himself to a king. If he'd compared himself instead to Satchel Paige or Barack Obama, you seem to be asking, would that be OK? "Does the opinion change?" Whose opinion, and of what? Are you asking whether people like Josh Donaldson would have been less annoyed by those comparisons? Or are you asking whether it would have been OK for Donaldson to call Anderson "Satchel" or "Barack," but not OK for him to call Anderson "Jackie" because Jackie Robinson is baseball royalty? Here, from my perspective, is the line: If you are calling someone a name with the express purpose of alluding to the person's Blackness, you have crossed the line.
In an effort to be transparent, this post reads like you are attacking my attempt to understand a nuance I don't currently understand. That's my feeling, perhaps it has no value to you.

This is my last post in this thread because I'm not sure my attempt to discern the kernel of what is going on versus navigating a bunch of unwritten rules is being received well. For a person with Aspergers, it's a bit of a minefield.

I understand their are cultural deities that can't be touched. Obviously Robinson, MLK, Malcom X, etc. I'd add Bill Russell, Willie O'Ree as well locally. I think we are all at the point where we know, you don't speak negatively about the deities - even if they were human and weren't perfect. Fairly easy. Somewhere I'm sure there is a list of the deities for us to reference. Great, we are on the same page. For discussion, I think the cleanest parallel is Griffey Jr. He was also a recipient of these breaking the unwritten rules criticisms - "not following decorum" (hat on backwards, shirt untucked), not taking the game seriously. Almost a clone of Anderson's situation (as I understand it), and Griffey Jr's greatness was also inspirational. Had Anderson used Griffey as his inspiration would Donaldson's provocation have been wrong? It is a fair question to answer if you want people to grow from the situation. Your bolded statement clearly is accurate, and I don't see anyone questioning that. My issue in this context, is the presumption of Donaldson's intent. You (and others) seem to be comfortable doing that given your life lens. I'm not comfortable stamping a scarlet R on a persons forehead in order to make the bolded statement contextually applicable. (Or in this case, inferring the scarlet R simply because he made the made the statement, and then applying your bolded assessment.) Now, if one assumes that Donaldson is a schmuck, awards him the scarlet R, and condemns him via the bolded I'm not going to argue because I don't know the player - I have no standing. So I ask again, as a person who is trying to understand the nuances in play. If player X who is a decent person, with no scarlet R on his forehead makes the same comment about Anderson hypothetically comparing himself to the great Griffey Jr. - is Anderson experiencing racism if player X intends to mock him because he is appropriating greatness. If we are unwilling, or unable to answer then I feel like something is wrong in the conversation.

@Doc Zero If you can't ask the questions, you can't learn from mistakes of others. Since we are not direct parties to the issue, a discussion board would seem an ideal place to ask the questions (in good faith) without causing further injury to Mr. Anderson. There is a difference between learning the nuance and justifying the behavior. Frankly on this board, too often things are shut down because trying to differentiate the subtleties of XYZ and XYZ1 and XYZ versus 123 is decried as what-about-ism. Or the implication that even asking the question is evidence of racism. Even better is, "if you don't know the answer you are part of the problem"... yeah, way to encourage people. Any moment now I'm expecting someone to ask me what my Donaldson fetish is, yuck, yuck. What if... He didn't. What if... He didn't, asking those questions are rationalizing the behavior. No, it's trying to understand a) where any other lines are, and b) is the thinking behind/underlying this something that I am comfortable being governed by. Just because a large group comes to a conclusion doesn't mean it is accurate or appropriate. I mean a 16 year old boy on the mall in DC was being chased with figurative pitchforks for things he didn't do - standing against that particular consensus turns out to have been the right thing to do. I'm not saying the consensus is very often wrong, but trying to understand the underpinnings of the consensus is worth discussion, and if you decline to participate because you feel it distracts from the 'current' problem then maybe there is never a good time to discuss it. Yes, I understand there are people here who feel this issue personally, just as there are issues in the past few days that I've felt extremely personally. That is the reason we come to a discussion board, for the richness of our experiences - and short circuiting good faith dialog for any reason diminishes us. (I am also not attacking you, but using your post as a volley point.)
 

Tim Salmon

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,297
The problem is, all of these thought exercises come up all the time whenever we're talking about race. "What if he had said this," or, "what if the situation had gone like that," or, "what if the roles were reversed, and..."

Even if you emphasize sincerity, these lines of question always end up projecting that we care more about twisting the situation into something it's not than we do about recognizing our own racist impulses—impulses that exist because we're still embedded in systems that came about and set through hundreds of years of genocide and white supremacy.

These exercises usually take a recurring form: We develop thought experiments that get as close to the original act as possible while changing just enough detail so as to defang the offense. "What if he had said 'Satchel Page?'" Well, he didn't. "What if he had said 'Babe Ruth?'" Again: He didn't.

There's not much to glean from determining "where the lines are drawn." We already know one was crossed. Coming up with a dozen ways that a line could still be faintly visible but technically not crossed does more to obscure the line we're talking about than it does to inform us about hypothetical lines in some other scenario, real or imagined.

I don't mean to single you out here, @RetractableRoof. I do trust people on this board when they emphasize their sincerity. I'm mostly just using your post as a jumping off point.
I agree that the bigger story is about recognizing impulses that reflect embedded racism, regardless of whether Donaldson was focused on Anderson's blackness or on his ego. But I still think it can be useful to discuss where certain lines might be drawn, even when we already know that a line was crossed here.

The point of recognizing our own racist impulses, subconscious or otherwise, is to understand what makes them racist so that we can elevate the discourse going forward. It's not about justifying Donaldson's behavior by suggesting that he was close to being in the clear here (he wasn't). It's about helping people at various stages of enlightenment consider other perspectives before we say something hurtful.

Hypotheticals are one way to jumpstart those conversations. Most here agree that it's not O.K. to call a black baseball player "Jackie" when his name isn't Jackie. And most of us understand why it's not O.K., both in terms of the direct effect on the target and in terms of the institutional racism that such taunts perpetuate.

So I certainly wouldn't make the mistake of derisively comparing a black person to Jackie Robinson. But I might be prone to making other mistakes that are perhaps less obvious, and that's where using Donaldson as a springboard for thought exercises can be useful. For example, if I were reaching for a historical comparator for Juan Soto's impressive OBP skills, my first instinct would be to land on Barry Bonds. But am I picking Bonds over Gehrig, Ruth, or Williams because of recency bias, or because I'm subconsciously trying to calibrate skills with skin tones? More importantly, how would the comparison be perceived by a person of color? By SOSH?

I'm not entirely sure, which is why I like to read the back-and-forth in threads like this. I don't want to discuss where the racist line is so I can dance on it without technically crossing it. I want to discuss where the line is so I can recognize when I might be approaching it and correct course. I'm not too proud to admit that it takes work.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I don’t understand what nuance is required. You don’t address anyone at work with any term that could possibly be construed as race-based. Or religious-based or misogynistic or
referencing sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s not that fucking hard.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I don’t understand what nuance is required. You don’t address anyone at work with any term that could possibly be construed as race-based. Or religious-based or misogynistic or
referencing sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s not that fucking hard.
I'll violate my last post comment to respond here.
  • You used the qualifier "at work". If we are trying to improve the way we view, treat, interact with each other it should not be limited to work or 'not getting caught at work', it should be part of who we are.
  • Or religious-based: there are tons of broad sweeping judgements going on here on SoSH. SoSH has terrible search capability, but the term "white evangelical" turns up way too frequently as a grouping, and not much of it is done in a positive manner.
  • Misogynistic: there was an incorrectly spelled reference to someone being a "douche" in this very thread. Clearly the message still needs work.
[Edit: so for things that are not so hard, we still have some work to do, right?]

If it's not that hard, then pat yourself on the back and let those of us trying get it right ask the questions that help us get to a place where it's not that hard. Discouraging the conversation is perpetuating the problem - and that's not that hard to understand either. The reality is that this country as a whole has been trying to correct this issue on a proper scale since MLK and Malcom X became household names. If it were NOT that hard, maybe we would have solved the problem in the decades since.

Being judgmental and dismissive gains you nothing here.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I agree that the bigger story is about recognizing impulses that reflect embedded racism, regardless of whether Donaldson was focused on Anderson's blackness or on his ego. But I still think it can be useful to discuss where certain lines might be drawn, even when we already know that a line was crossed here.

The point of recognizing our own racist impulses, subconscious or otherwise, is to understand what makes them racist so that we can elevate the discourse going forward. It's not about justifying Donaldson's behavior by suggesting that he was close to being in the clear here (he wasn't). It's about helping people at various stages of enlightenment consider other perspectives before we say something hurtful.

Hypotheticals are one way to jumpstart those conversations. Most here agree that it's not O.K. to call a black baseball player "Jackie" when his name isn't Jackie. And most of us understand why it's not O.K., both in terms of the direct effect on the target and in terms of the institutional racism that such taunts perpetuate.

So I certainly wouldn't make the mistake of derisively comparing a black person to Jackie Robinson. But I might be prone to making other mistakes that are perhaps less obvious, and that's where using Donaldson as a springboard for thought exercises can be useful. For example, if I were reaching for a historical comparator for Juan Soto's impressive OBP skills, my first instinct would be to land on Barry Bonds. But am I picking Bonds over Gehrig, Ruth, or Williams because of recency bias, or because I'm subconsciously trying to calibrate skills with skin tones? More importantly, how would the comparison be perceived by a person of color? By SOSH?

I'm not entirely sure, which is why I like to read the back-and-forth in threads like this. I don't want to discuss where the racist line is so I can dance on it without technically crossing it. I want to discuss where the line is so I can recognize when I might be approaching it and correct course. I'm not too proud to admit that it takes work.
Thank you for this post. I'm also not too proud to admit that it takes work to be where I want to be.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
I'll violate my last post comment to respond here.
  • You used the qualifier "at work". If we are trying to improve the way we view, treat, interact with each other it should not be limited to work or 'not getting caught at work', it should be part of who we are.
  • Or religious-based: there are tons of broad sweeping judgements going on here on SoSH. SoSH has terrible search capability, but the term "white evangelical" turns up way too frequently as a grouping, and not much of it is done in a positive manner.
  • Misogynistic: there was an incorrectly spelled reference to someone being a "douche" in this very thread. Clearly the message still needs work.
[Edit: so for things that are not so hard, we still have some work to do, right?]

If it's not that hard, then pat yourself on the back and let those of us trying get it right ask the questions that help us get to a place where it's not that hard. Discouraging the conversation is perpetuating the problem - and that's not that hard to understand either. The reality is that this country as a whole has been trying to correct this issue on a proper scale since MLK and Malcom X became household names. If it were NOT that hard, maybe we would have solved the problem in the decades since.

Being judgmental and dismissive gains you nothing here.
Josh Donaldson was at work.

edit- you are trying to have a conversation that is tangentially related to the subject at hand. I am sticking to the subject, which is Donaldson/Anderson. I am being judgmental in that it’s not that hard to not make comments like Donaldson’s at work, and dismissive of the notion that it is complicated to abide by the these rules at work. I agree that we can always learn more about how our word choices might impact others who are not identical to us, but I just don’t see this circumstance as that; this was a comment that could easily be construed as race-based and he should have known better.

edit2- was there some part of my actual original point with which you disagreed? Besides the “not that hard” part?
 
Last edited:

natpastime162

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,944
Pennsylvania
When I first heard Anderson’s 2019 quotes I thought he was a bit of an ass for making the comparison.

That said, it turns out I gave Donaldson too much rope thinking maybe, just maybe, he was mocking Anderson’s hyperbole. Turns out I was wrong. Not only was it 3 years ago, Donaldson brought it up 3 years ago, Anderson told him to shut it but otherwise didn’t make an issue out of it, then 3 years later Donaldson wants to get under his skin again and goes back to “Jackie” because he knows it will get under Anderson’s skin.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,482
Garden City
I think it's interesting that every person here has said Donaldson was wrong and yet there is still a need to debate why he was wrong. If you think he's wrong, he's wrong because of the racial implications of his joke. That's it. If it's not racist then the joke is perfectly fine and Tim Anderson is a baby. It doesn't matter if he's racist or not based on this joke. He probably isn't, but it still requires remediation. That remediation comes in the form of embarrassment, a suspension, and a fine.

And by the way, I really do believe JD that his intent was ribbing and I totally buy the arguement that he's too stupid to realize how his joke was in really poor taste. It doesn't matter.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Josh Donaldson was at work.

edit- you are trying to have a conversation that is tangentially related to the subject at hand. I am sticking to the subject, which is Donaldson/Anderson. I am being judgmental in that it’s not that hard to not make comments like Donaldson’s at work, and dismissive of the notion that it is complicated to abide by the these rules at work. I agree that we can always learn more about how our word choices might impact others who are not identical to us, but I just don’t see this circumstance as that; this was a comment that could easily be construed as race-based and he should have known better.
Backpedal all you want. My questions were prefaced with the qualifier that we all know that what he specifically did was wrong "at work". Your post was dismissive and judgmental when it was clear the questions were past the situation at hand.

I think it's interesting that every person here has said Donaldson was wrong and yet there is still a need to debate why he was wrong. If you think he's wrong, he's wrong because of the racial implications of his joke. That's it. If it's not racist then the joke is perfectly fine and Tim Anderson is a baby. It doesn't matter if he's racist or not based on this joke. He probably isn't, but it still requires remediation. That remediation comes in the form of embarrassment, a suspension, and a fine.

And by the way, I really do believe JD that his intent was ribbing and I totally buy the arguement that he's too stupid to realize how his joke was in really poor taste. It doesn't matter.
Your characterization is wrong in my opinion. For myself and perhaps one other I am not viewing this as a debate, rather a learning discussion with people who's experiences I value to try to understand where I want to be in my thinking and as a person - and the ripple affect into my children. Debate suggests I am opposing - clearly (or it should be clearly) I am not debating. I am asking questions, seeking answers, opinions, experience, and viewpoints I do not currently possess. If SoSH declines to entertain the conversation, or dismisses it, or judges that effort, so be it.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
Yeah I’m not backpedaling an inch and it’s bizarre that you think I am. For most of us it is a slam-dunk that Donaldson was wrong. For reasons not known to anyone, probably even you, you are trying to change the conversation into some hypothetical where you can argue it’s all gray and the rules aren’t clear.

The rules are clear. He was wrong.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
Calling a black player “Jackie” for no reason whatsoever is racist as fuck.

Calling a black player “Jackie” who once compared himself to Jackie Robinson, for the purposes of annoying him, isn’t necessarily racist, but is pretty offensive given that Jackie Robinson’s legacy in baseball is inextricably tied to his race.

Calling a black player “Jackie” three years after the first time you did after being told by the black player not to do that makes you a giant fucking asshole.

Donaldson isn’t going to have a scarlet “R” on his forehead (whatever the fuck that means) and honestly if he just took the suspension and apologized sincerely this whole thing would blow over quickly. It isn’t like he’s going to lose his job or anything over this, he’s getting some mild blowback and has to sit out one lousy game. It’s a pretty open and shut case and a bizarre one to use as a jumping off point to figure out where the “line” is. Donaldson acted like a dickhead, that’s it.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,318
In an effort to be transparent, this post reads like you are attacking my attempt to understand a nuance I don't currently understand. That's my feeling, perhaps it has no value to you.

This is my last post in this thread because I'm not sure my attempt to discern the kernel of what is going on versus navigating a bunch of unwritten rules is being received well. For a person with Aspergers, it's a bit of a minefield.

I understand their are cultural deities that can't be touched. Obviously Robinson, MLK, Malcom X, etc. I'd add Bill Russell, Willie O'Ree as well locally. I think we are all at the point where we know, you don't speak negatively about the deities - even if they were human and weren't perfect. Fairly easy. Somewhere I'm sure there is a list of the deities for us to reference. Great, we are on the same page. For discussion, I think the cleanest parallel is Griffey Jr. He was also a recipient of these breaking the unwritten rules criticisms - "not following decorum" (hat on backwards, shirt untucked), not taking the game seriously. Almost a clone of Anderson's situation (as I understand it), and Griffey Jr's greatness was also inspirational. Had Anderson used Griffey as his inspiration would Donaldson's provocation have been wrong? It is a fair question to answer if you want people to grow from the situation. Your bolded statement clearly is accurate, and I don't see anyone questioning that. My issue in this context, is the presumption of Donaldson's intent. You (and others) seem to be comfortable doing that given your life lens. I'm not comfortable stamping a scarlet R on a persons forehead in order to make the bolded statement contextually applicable. (Or in this case, inferring the scarlet R simply because he made the made the statement, and then applying your bolded assessment.) Now, if one assumes that Donaldson is a schmuck, awards him the scarlet R, and condemns him via the bolded I'm not going to argue because I don't know the player - I have no standing. So I ask again, as a person who is trying to understand the nuances in play. If player X who is a decent person, with no scarlet R on his forehead makes the same comment about Anderson hypothetically comparing himself to the great Griffey Jr. - is Anderson experiencing racism if player X intends to mock him because he is appropriating greatness. If we are unwilling, or unable to answer then I feel like something is wrong in the conversation.

@Doc Zero If you can't ask the questions, you can't learn from mistakes of others. Since we are not direct parties to the issue, a discussion board would seem an ideal place to ask the questions (in good faith) without causing further injury to Mr. Anderson. There is a difference between learning the nuance and justifying the behavior. Frankly on this board, too often things are shut down because trying to differentiate the subtleties of XYZ and XYZ1 and XYZ versus 123 is decried as what-about-ism. Or the implication that even asking the question is evidence of racism. Even better is, "if you don't know the answer you are part of the problem"... yeah, way to encourage people. Any moment now I'm expecting someone to ask me what my Donaldson fetish is, yuck, yuck. What if... He didn't. What if... He didn't, asking those questions are rationalizing the behavior. No, it's trying to understand a) where any other lines are, and b) is the thinking behind/underlying this something that I am comfortable being governed by. Just because a large group comes to a conclusion doesn't mean it is accurate or appropriate. I mean a 16 year old boy on the mall in DC was being chased with figurative pitchforks for things he didn't do - standing against that particular consensus turns out to have been the right thing to do. I'm not saying the consensus is very often wrong, but trying to understand the underpinnings of the consensus is worth discussion, and if you decline to participate because you feel it distracts from the 'current' problem then maybe there is never a good time to discuss it. Yes, I understand there are people here who feel this issue personally, just as there are issues in the past few days that I've felt extremely personally. That is the reason we come to a discussion board, for the richness of our experiences - and short circuiting good faith dialog for any reason diminishes us. (I am also not attacking you, but using your post as a volley point.)
I genuinely apologize that my post read as an attack. I didn’t mean to attack you, and I’m sorry that it read that way. Beyond that, I don’t see any lessons here as being particularly complex. When a comment is made to highlight the race, gender, sexuality, etc. of someone in a way that others, demeans, or represents unwanted “teasing” it’s inappropriate. It crosses a line.

We don’t know whether Donaldson is a racist. It doesn’t matter whether Donaldson is a racist. Jackie Robinson’s legacy is inextricably tied to race. So when you call a black ball player “Jackie,” you are unquestionably highlighting his Blackness. It doesn’t matter whether you are attempting to be racist. You should know better. You should know that you have crossed a line. Especially if that player told you as much the last time you called him “Jackie.”

EDIT: I didn’t intentionally plagiarize @Ralphwiggum post, but it looks like I used the exact same terminology. Sorry Ralph! I thought your post was great so please consider it homage.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,677
Maine
I genuinely apologize that my post read as an attack. I didn’t mean to attack you, and I’m sorry that it read that way. Beyond that, I don’t see any lessons here as being particularly complex. When a comment is made to highlight the race, gender, sexuality, etc. of someone in a way that others, demeans, or represents unwanted “teasing” it’s inappropriate. It crosses a line.

We don’t know whether Donaldson is a racist. It doesn’t matter whether Donaldson is a racist. Jackie Robinson’s legacy is inextricably tied to race. So when you call a black ball player “Jackie,” you are unquestionably highlighting his Blackness. It doesn’t matter whether you are attempting to be racist. You should know better. You should know that you have crossed a line. Especially if that player told you as much the last time you called him “Jackie.”
100% right. And I'd add that regardless of intent or whether Donaldson should have known better at the time, he should know now (since he's been told) that he was wrong and his only response (so far) has been a mealy-mouthed "I apologize if anyone was offended" non-apology. Fuck him for that.

To me, Donaldson isn't an asshole for calling Anderson "Jackie". He's an asshole for not acknowledging his error and holding himself accountable for it. He's a gutless button pushing bully, regardless of the racial undertones of what he said.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Yeah I’m not backpedaling an inch and it’s bizarre that you think I am. For most of us it is a slam-dunk that Donaldson was wrong. For reasons not known to anyone, probably even you, you are trying to change the conversation into some hypothetical where you can argue it’s all gray and the rules aren’t clear.

The rules are clear. He was wrong.
You won't find a single post where I defended his actions, I haven't, I wouldn't. Any entity that makes an error would be smart to examine the error and see what can be done about their processes/approaches to avoid that error in the future. Good companies also look for areas that are similar to avoid related errors. Likewise, these questions by me are an attempt to learn from another's mistake.

You are mischaracterizing every post I've made here, and making assertions about my goals or aims that fly in the face of my statements about why I've asked the questions. It's not productive to continue and not fair to the mod(s) of this subforum for me to continue.

Calling a black player “Jackie” for no reason whatsoever is racist as fuck.

Calling a black player “Jackie” who once compared himself to Jackie Robinson, for the purposes of annoying him, isn’t necessarily racist, but is pretty offensive given that Jackie Robinson’s legacy in baseball is inextricably tied to his race.

Calling a black player “Jackie” three years after the first time you did after being told by the black player not to do that makes you a giant fucking asshole.


Donaldson isn’t going to have a scarlet “R” on his forehead (whatever the fuck that means) and honestly if he just took the suspension and apologized sincerely this whole thing would blow over quickly. It isn’t like he’s going to lose his job or anything over this, he’s getting some mild blowback and has to sit out one lousy game. It’s a pretty open and shut case and a bizarre one to use as a jumping off point to figure out where the “line” is. Donaldson acted like a dickhead, that’s it.
I don't disagree, nor have I opposed any of the bold. Frankly, I have no real interest in Donaldson or his outcome. Any resolution that has value for Anderson is a good one in my book. The value to me was as a teaching moment (for myself). Asking questions that move past the exact nature of his mistake allow me to see and guide where I want to be as a person. It's nothing more than that. It might very well be that any conversation outside the confines of his exact situation aren't appropriate for this subforum - but I've only asked questions - I've offered no opposition.

I genuinely apologize that my post read as an attack. I didn’t mean to attack you, and I’m sorry that it read that way. Beyond that, I don’t see any lessons here as being particularly complex. When a comment is made to highlight the race, gender, sexuality, etc. of someone in a way that others, demeans, or represents unwanted “teasing” it’s inappropriate. It crosses a line.

We don’t know whether Donaldson is a racist. It doesn’t matter whether Donaldson is a racist. Jackie Robinson’s legacy is inextricably tied to race. So when you call a black ball player “Jackie,” you are unquestionably highlighting his Blackness. It doesn’t matter whether you are attempting to be racist. You should know better. You should know that you have crossed a line. Especially if that player told you as much the last time you called him “Jackie.”

EDIT: I didn’t intentionally plagiarize @Ralphwiggum post, but it looks like I used the exact same terminology. Sorry Ralph! I thought your post was great so please consider it homage.
I accept that you intended no attack, thank you.

Here is what many that are responding to me so vehemently don't get. It's nice that you don't find this complex. Woohoo! If everyone were so enlightened as you (and others here), our country would be at ease with each other as individuals, as people (with respect to THIS topic). But unless I miss my guess, our country is not currently at peace, we're struggling with what I would characterize as distrust. Do I trust that person is going to see me for what I am versus what I might look like. Again, I have no quibble nor disagreement about the lines in this exact case. As I noted in a previous post. If it removes the agita from the thread, then stop there, move on. On the other hand, there are people in this thread I could learn from, who I've asked questions of in an effort to learn and grow and inform my future actions. Responses could include: 1) say it's beyond the scope of the thread and move on 2) answer the questions in good faith, having the patience to see that not everyone is coming from the same place. 3) Judge, dismiss, mischaracterize the effort in a manner that discourages any conversation and try to make it go away.

The response has mostly been some version of 3 (including among exceptions your post which I indicated contained thoughts/answers I was seeking). Therefore, I will answer to myself that it is closer to approach #1, and move on.

----------------
Let me summarize where I was and still am. Donaldson was wrong, should have simply acknowledged that, and moved on. That was before I entered the thread. Since then, I now believe that of all the things he could have chosen to poke Anderson for - it's concerning that calling him Jackie was his first option, a line he shouldn't have crossed or even come close to. A small change in perspective that I would not have had but for this thread. It's too bad that's all that I leave with, I was hoping for more.

Thanks to the mods/sub mods for being patient in this thread. I apologize if my interactions here have created more of a workload.
 
Last edited:

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I apologize if my interactions here have created more of a workload.
I'm not a mod. It's good that you're open about your Aspergers. Let me give you some pointers for future use.

1) If you don't understand the nuances of an emotionally charged issue, just ask.​
2) If you don't understand the nuances of an emotionally charged issue, do not construct some kind of argument about it. Everything in your post from "cultural deities" on was borderline offensive.​
3) Don't try to make the thread about teaching you, in a way you'd prefer. That's also borderline offensive and inappropriate.​
4) Instead, start another thread saying, "I don't get this - please give me your thoughts on it."​
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I'm not a mod. It's good that you're open about your Aspergers. Let me give you some pointers for future use.

1) If you don't understand the nuances of an emotionally charged issue, just ask.​
2) If you don't understand the nuances of an emotionally charged issue, do not construct some kind of argument about it. Everything in your post from "cultural deities" on was borderline offensive.​
3) Don't try to make the thread about teaching you, in a way you'd prefer. That's also borderline offensive and inappropriate.​
4) Instead, start another thread saying, "I don't get this - please give me your thoughts on it."​
And have someone ask if I have a fetish? I'll get my advice elsewhere, thanks.

Edit: And I did #1, specifically.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
And have someone ask if I have a fetish? I'll get my advice elsewhere, thanks.

Edit: And I did #1, specifically.
Allow me to weigh in whilst in an enlightened state.

Retractable - you’ve given yourself an altruistic motive, you’re trying to improve yourself so that you can function better in society. And, in a vacuum it’s a good thing.

But, you’re missing the narcissism in turning people’s real life experiences - or hypotheticals growing out of them - into character studies for your personal development.

I empathize with you. It sounds like your brain doesn’t run quite like mine. Must be frustrating. I hope this was helpful, but I could also be completely wrong.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Allow me to weigh in whilst in an enlightened state.

Retractable - you’ve given yourself an altruistic motive, you’re trying to improve yourself so that you can function better in society. And, in a vacuum it’s a good thing.

But, you’re missing the narcissism in turning people’s real life experiences - or hypotheticals growing out of them - into character studies for your personal development.

I empathize with you. It sounds like your brain doesn’t run quite like mine. Must be frustrating. I hope this was helpful, but I could also be completely wrong.
My brain doesn't work like anyone's I know, so there is that.

Edit: from your post - "so I can function better in society". No, so I don't unintentionally hurt people with careless/ignorant words - which clearly I did in this thread anyway.

Re the bolded. This was Anderson's life experience - not directly tied to anyone here on SoSH, to the extent that the topic stayed confined to his and Donaldson's interaction. Now, are there X number of people here who have experienced extraordinary similar things (or worse)? Of course, I can't believe it wouldn't be so. Do I want to cause them any discomfort? Absolutely not. But this is a discussion board. People lay bare their souls in the mental health thread, the addiction thread, the divorce thread, the pet loss thread. It is not a character study to be in a thread about an emotional or painful situation or topic and ask questions. Am I lacking sensitivity when/how I ask the questions? Based on the reception, I'll accept that as a given and with embarrassment and remorse apologize for that. I communicated things in the Rondo/gun thread that I've told no other adult outside of a spouse and a clinician. My experience felt relevant and important enough to share, trying to type while tears streamed down my face. I didn't sleep for a night and half the next one after that thread. Isn't that what we do here? We share our experiences. We help each other. We tolerate (barely) those we disagree with and block the rest. We support each others charities, and each others personal growth. We cheer for their successes, we attempt to share some of the emotional burden of the failures and losses. Racism is one of the biggest challenges our country faces. Everywhere we turn there is another item that pushes to divide us. Even simply describing each other is divisive - we've got capital B "Black", and lowercase w "white". Every single topic/discussion/interaction is tensioned with whether or not we can trust the person next to us to see us as we are and not by our appearance. If we can't talk, genuinely talk (including asking potentially uncomfortable questions) about racism here on SoSH, then there's not a single place in this country that the conversation can be had. And if SoSH's definition of talking means that questions can't be asked, or that merely asking the question implies rationalization, then as I just stated in PM we might as well make ALL V&N content off limit on SoSH.

Paraphrasing my PM... I've got a lifetime influenced heavily by significant, substantial, and close multi-year friendships with Black men and one dating relationship with a Black woman that have given me a tiny view into a tiny sliver of the ways that people of all descriptions could and should be interacting with each other. And I know I know jack about it in the end. Those relationships have faded away due to various circumstances and in the absence of current ones to talk with directly, yes, I have tried to learn from SoSH - trying to piece the little bits I know with the large parts I do not know or have an unhelpful viewing platform for. That is my motivation/viewpoint. If that presents a conflict, then shame on all of us. Certainly shame on me for communicating so poorly, no one to blame for that but myself. Who knows, maybe I expect too much of SoSH.

And yes, I need to post better - but it's not for lack of trying.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
It’s a good thing we’ve moved these conversations beyond intent to impact – ie, “Your actions had this result and that’s the real problem.” We can speculate all we want about what someone like Donaldson meant and how much he might or might not have been aware of the consequences of his words.

But the fact that he should have known that his words were hurtful is precisely the point. Too many white people simply don’t understand or consider the impact of their words and actions when it comes to race. The fact that MLB seems to have gotten this right – and that Donaldson is out there having to answer for this and fumble around is a good thing for the next guy who thinks it might be ok to tease someone along these lines.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,247
But it's just as likely, and I think more likely, that Donaldson was calling him out for self aggrandizement, as a I said above.
That Anderson heard "racist comment" when the intent was arguably "you're a blowhard" doesn't convert it into racist.
If someone, even Donaldson, had said, in 2019 (3 years ago, by my math), that Anderson comparing himself to Jackie Robinson for the reactions to his batflips is an insult to what Robinson had to endure, that *might* qualify as "calling out self-aggrandizement." But since that is not what happened, I think what your describe as "just as likely" is, in fact, entirely unlikely.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
718
It’s a good thing we’ve moved these conversations beyond intent to impact – ie, “Your actions had this result and that’s the real problem.” We can speculate all we want about what someone like Donaldson meant and how much he might or might not have been aware of the consequences of his words.

But the fact that he should have known that his words were hurtful is precisely the point. Too many white people simply don’t understand or consider the impact of their words and actions when it comes to race. The fact that MLB seems to have gotten this right – and that Donaldson is out there having to answer for this and fumble around is a good thing for the next guy who thinks it might be ok to tease someone along these lines.
I agree that impact is more important than intent.

But I am surprised that intent doesn't matter to people.

Intent matters in general. In criminal law, killing intentionally garners a much higher penalty than doing so negligently, for example. If a spouse forgets a birthday or an anniversary, the other spouse is often annoyed or hurt, but not nearly as much as if the former says "I knew it was your birthday but decided to pass on mentioning or celebrating the big day." There are countless other examples where what a person intends affects how his statement or action will be perceived. Hell, even my dog will react differently to being kicked or being stumbled over.

Again, I get it, what emerges from an action or a statement is often more important than what is behind it. But it's not binary.

In this case, was Donaldson a foolish boor, who should have known that his reference would be inflammatory, or was he mocking Anderson because of his skin color? I daresay that if MLB perceived that it was for sure the latter, the penalty would have been much greater.
 

Mr. Stinky Esq.

No more Ramon
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2006
2,421
If someone, even Donaldson, had said, in 2019 (3 years ago, by my math), that Anderson comparing himself to Jackie Robinson for the reactions to his batflips is an insult to what Robinson had to endure, that *might* qualify as "calling out self-aggrandizement." But since that is not what happened, I think what your describe as "just as likely" is, in fact, entirely unlikely.
Also, the notion that the guy who describes himeslf as the "Bringer of Rain" and celebrates home runs with umbrellas fake and real was calling out Tim Anderson for self-aggrandizement is laughable.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
I agree that impact is more important than intent.

But I am surprised that intent doesn't matter to people.

Intent matters in general. In criminal law, killing intentionally garners a much higher penalty than doing so negligently, for example. If a spouse forgets a birthday or an anniversary, the other spouse is often annoyed or hurt, but not nearly as much as if the former says "I knew it was your birthday but decided to pass on mentioning or celebrating the big day." There are countless other examples where what a person intends affects how his statement or action will be perceived. Hell, even my dog will react differently to being kicked or being stumbled over.

Again, I get it, what emerges from an action or a statement is often more important than what is behind it. But it's not binary.

In this case, was Donaldson a foolish boor, who should have known that his reference would be inflammatory, or was he mocking Anderson because of his skin color? I daresay that if MLB perceived that it was for sure the latter, the penalty would have been much greater.
It's not that intent doesn't matter so much as that when you're dealing with a systemic problem it's that intent isn't furthering it -- it's patterns of behavior that need to be broken.

And, again, what I think is important here is that the conversation has begun to shift in recognition of that. Judge's comments (which are excellent BTW) almost explicitly say that what Donaldson meant wasn't the issue here -- he keeps coming back to saying that what Donaldson did wasn't right. And you can see that Donaldson in that video where he's answering the question at his locker that seems to be actually kind of realizing that. Yes, there's some protesting about what he meant and the history between him and Anderson. But you can see that he's already kind of resigned to the fact that what he said was much bigger than what he may have meant. That's a good thing.

BTW, it's been mentioned on this thread that MLB doesn't seem to get stuff right that often but that they got it right here. I actually think that almost gives them too little credit. Whereas the NFL's disciplinary system is almost completely an arm of the league's PR shop--where decisions have no rhyme or reason beyond what looks good in the moment and will help them make money--MLB seems to understand (and has always kind of understood) that the game is bigger than the players and owners -- particularly when it comes to race. That doesn't mean they don't flub things or go overboard. But they really do seem to understand the importance of Jackie Robinson to not only the sport but the country on this issue. What's even more impressive is that they chose a 1-game suspension for this -- almost an implicit recognition that the conversation hasn't fully shifted yet and don't want to set things back by reacting too harshly in the moment. Manfred gets a lot of shit, most of it deservedly, but this is Adam Silver-esque stuff here that he should be lauded for.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I agree that impact is more important than intent.

But I am surprised that intent doesn't matter to people.

Intent matters in general. In criminal law, killing intentionally garners a much higher penalty than doing so negligently, for example. If a spouse forgets a birthday or an anniversary, the other spouse is often annoyed or hurt, but not nearly as much as if the former says "I knew it was your birthday but decided to pass on mentioning or celebrating the big day." There are countless other examples where what a person intends affects how his statement or action will be perceived. Hell, even my dog will react differently to being kicked or being stumbled over.

Again, I get it, what emerges from an action or a statement is often more important than what is behind it. But it's not binary.

In this case, was Donaldson a foolish boor, who should have known that his reference would be inflammatory, or was he mocking Anderson because of his skin color? I daresay that if MLB perceived that it was for sure the latter, the penalty would have been much greater.
We’re not in court, Donaldson isn’t charged with anything and we have no responsibility to parse his intent.

He’s a boorish SOB who decided to use Jackie Robinson to mock a black player that he has a history with. Why anyone wants to defend that is baffling to me.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
718
We’re not in court, Donaldson isn’t charged with anything and we have no responsibility to parse his intent.

He’s a boorish SOB who decided to use Jackie Robinson to mock a black player that he has a history with. Why anyone wants to defend that is baffling to me.
I am not defending him. Donaldson is indeed a boorish fool. There is no possible reading of anything I have written that would suggest a defense of him or his actions.

Sorry if discussing the differences between being a boor and an outright racist is not OK with you or anyone else.

Intent matters in this situation, even if it doesn't matter as much as it does in a murder trial. This is beyond obvious. If MLB was certain about his intent, the penalty would have been more severe.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
718
If someone, even Donaldson, had said, in 2019 (3 years ago, by my math), that Anderson comparing himself to Jackie Robinson for the reactions to his batflips is an insult to what Robinson had to endure, that *might* qualify as "calling out self-aggrandizement." But since that is not what happened, I think what your describe as "just as likely" is, in fact, entirely unlikely.
I take your point. Maybe self-aggrandizement was the wrong word. It seems to me that Donaldson could have been mocking Anderson for making a ludicrous comparison. Whatever Anderson is, he is no Jackie Robinson, who was only one of the most courageous and noble men to have played in any professional sport.

I was unaware of Anderson's comments in 2019 but had I heard or read them then, I would have rolled my eyes and said to myself "you are delusional if you think ANYTHING you are doing now likens you to Jackie Robinson." And if I was going to try to get under his skin now, I might think back to that preposterous statement. The difference between me and Donaldson is that I would have the good sense to know that mentioning Jackie Robinson would have the result that it had, whereas Donaldson was unable or unwilling to consider the implications.

Or his is in fact a racist and used Jackie's name because of that reason.

I don't know.

I am just suggesting a possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.