Whitlock Is The Waste Of Ink, Not Tats
Man, has Jason Whitlock done it this time. I was left dumbfounded by his latest piece, a Fox Sports column in which he claims that this NBA postseason has done so well because the Conference Finals involved less tattoos than usual. Is this guy fucking serious? Possibly the five most-popular players in the league–LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Shaq and Carmelo Anthony–have tats. Four of those five have heavy, heavy ink. Other than Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade and Kevin Garnett, almost all of the NBA’s other American-born superstars have tattoos. Even Tim Duncan has a tat.
What does this have to do with the Chiefs? Everything. At the heart of Whitlock’s piece is that lots of sports fans, especially in Middle America, still are old-fashioned, closed-minded, prejudiced and judgmental. Everyone always points out that the NBA has a race or culture problem. Why isn’t it the fans and media who have the problem? After all, NFL players have raised way more hell in the past few years than their hoopster counterparts.
I’m not calling all Midwesterners or sports fans racist here. What I’m getting at is that as a whole both Midwesterners and sports fans are definitely less open-minded and more prejudiced than your average Jane or Joe elsewhere in America and outside the sports world. Or that’s the perception out there, anyway. Personally, I’ve been thinking that a lot of progress had been made. Thanks for ruining that, Big Sexy.
Let’s look at Larry Johnson and Priest Holmes again, to tie this in locally. Priest may have been great with the media, and he may have had a pretty smile and clean-cut image, but he was a lousy teammate. In the end he showed that he was more about Priest than the Chiefs. Additionally, Priest has about half as many illegitimate kids as ODB left behind. Meanwhile, L.J. has been a perfect citizen other than one minor situation five years ago. Johnson may be kind of aloof when it comes to the media, but he’s a dedicated Chief. In reality, Johnson is at least just as much of a role model, a player and a Chief as Priest was. Also, his demeanor might rub some the wrong way, but at least it’s honest. In retrospect, didn’t Priest come off a little fake? Nonetheless, Priest was practically handed the key to the city while L.J. has damn near been ostracized by fans of the Red and Gold.
Do tattoos have something to do with that? I’m guessing yes.
So, Whitlock is partially right–sports fans do judge athletes based on whether they have tattoos or not. Where he’s wrong is: A.) Acting like it’s OK to judge people in a superficial, if not bigoted, manner; and B.) Acting like tats affect the TV ratings.
I have tattoos and was personally offended by the piece. It would be like me saying the NBA Playoffs have done so well because no fat people are involved, Jase. He claims that tattoos are only for those who are insecure. Ever hear of self-expression, doughboy? I have one for my brother, one of a Bible verse and one dedicated to my hero. Most tattoos are symbolic and substantive, big guy. If you don’t like someone’s tat, that’s your prerogative. Even I think some players–like two he mentions, Delonte West and Larry Hughes–have gone overboard for my personal taste. At the same time, I’ve always laughed at Greg Ostertag for his stupid little Fred Flintstone tattoo. Judge the tattoos if you want, but not the person. Besides, Jason is the last person who should judge others or criticize them for what he perceives as character flaws. Dude is a complete egomaniac.
And what about Steve Nash’s long hair? Or Tony Parker’s rap album? There’s a lot of hypocrisy in his article. Jason knows that some great people have tats, he knows better. He also knows that some of the inkless–take him for example, actually–are jerks. He’s a fellow Pacer fan, so he knows that Jermaine O’Neal and Reggie Miller, who both have tats, were/are tremendous role models. He also knows that Jamaal Tinsley, who has no ink at all, is the last person you’d want your kids looking up to.
This piece just blows my mind; here we have possibly the most prominent younger black sportswriter in America telling his mostly white audience that it’s OK to persecute black athletes if they are tatted up. Seriously, this is the most out there Jason has ever gotten. I know he likes to say what nobody else is or even will. I know he likes to stir the pot. But his latest piece not only sets back his race and the sports world, but America as a whole. Jason is stamping his approval on bigotry. His turtleneck idea for A.I. was almost Naziesque. It’s just sad, really.
Whitlock’s missing the point: what makes the NBA so great is its variety. Nash playing next to Shaq. Kobe playing next to Pau Gasol. T-Mac and his sidekick Yao Ming. Manu Ginobli going to the hole like a whirling dervish. LBJ’s larger-than-life personality. I could go all day. Out of all of the world’s professional sports leagues, it’s the NBA that is closest to being a cross-section of the World. Variety is the spice of life, baby. Jason of all people should know about spices. I’m hoping his opinion isn’t a true representation of Kansas City sports fans, because if it is we might as well call up David Stern and tell him to cross K.C. and the lovely new Sprint Center off his list. Hopefully, Stern didn’t read the article.
There’s really no proof that backs up Whitlock’s claim either, which makes it all the more troubling. As pointed out by Inked Magazine, the playoffs have done so well because the NBA’s two most decorated teams–the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers–have been on a collision course that will end with the upcoming NBA Finals. Also, K.G. and Kobe happen to be insanely popular, and Boston and Los Angeles happen to be two of America’s biggest media markets. His whole crackpot theory just doesn’t add up.
Jason, you of all people should know not to judge a book by its cover. Like if I did that with you, I’d have to guess that you were nothing more than a obese, narcissistic, prick shock jock. But I’m guessing deep down you’re a nice person. Maybe some ink–and I’m talking needle-to-skin ink here–would help you express who you really are? Tattoos can be very meaningful, unlike the ink you wasted on this latest piece.
Does anyone outside of KC take Whitlock seriously? They should let him keep his job as a writer but label his column as “Humor” in the final printing.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:29 pmI dont think anyone takes him seriously in Kansas City besides the Star.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pmPersonally, I find Jabba the Witless to be that, Witless. He often lets personal bias affect his judgement. That is poor journalism.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pmGreat post. Well said. And too-tats (as my daughter used to call them) are hardly new – has JW avoided meeting anyone in the military?
May 31st, 2008 at 4:17 pmI actually agree with Whitty that tats look bad, but I disagree with his assertion that they affect viewing habits. Is it tats, or LA and Boston? You decide.
Also, responding to Merlin, Whitlock is a columnist. The whole point of a columnist is to express your opinion. If you are a columnist, and you don’t express your opinion (or your bias), than you’re not actually a columnist.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pmJust like this opinion provides apt rebuttal to Whitlock’s point. It’s really a nonstory, just empty theatre.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:50 pmIt is idiotic (on the part of the writer of this article) to relate the disliking of the “culture” that uses tatoos to racism. They are not even close to the same thing. Whites with tatoos are associated with embracing a certain type of culture and lifestyle that “normal” people find just as distasteful as blacks with tatoos. It has nothing to do with race, everything to do with the statment that people that get them are usually trying to make.
You’re citing peoples liking Priest Holmes and general dislike of L.J. as racism? Got news for you dude, BOTH OF THEM ARE BLACK! Race has nothing to do with it. People dislike LJ because he acts like a spoiled brat when he doesn’t get his way and blames everyone else if he fails to perform.
So lets quit mixing up people that don’t like the rebellious tatoo culture or the rap/prison/pimp culture with people who are actual racists. I don’t like the white trash/NASCAR/trailer trash culture, does that make me a racist against whites?
May 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pmHey, let’s not get into a racist argument here. I don’t think Adam was going in that direction at all. Racism is one of Whitlock’s favorite topics. He does an incredibly horrible job with it every time he tries to incorporate it into an article (see above).
To change the subject a bit – I have a theory and I wonder if you guys agree/disagree:
The tattoo thing seems to be a fad that skips generations.
I’m 25. I have tattoos and so do the majority of my friends that are around my age (5 years give or take). It’s completely normal for us.
My parents (in their mid-50’s) don’t have any tattoos. They don’t particularly have a problem with mine, but think it’s a stupid idea altogether. From what I’ve seen, most people in their age group generally agree.
My grandparents’ generation seems to be the opposite. It’s very common to see old men with faded green tattoos. I’m not sure if the majority were military or non, but this seems to be the norm.
I wonder what my future children will think about tattoos?
Any thoughts?
May 31st, 2008 at 10:17 pmCo-sign this whole post. Once again Whitlock provides cover for bigots everywhere. As you point out his article is completely absurd.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:17 pmDJ, the author here is on target with his connection to racism. While your argument could have some mrit in a different scenario, the author here was responding to JASON WHITLOCK! Even the most remial background and context of Whitlock’s writings will fill in the needed blanks.
This was yet another contrived blast at Whitlock’s favorite subject that has made him millions of dollars: denigrating young black athletes.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:29 pmAdam:
While I agree that it’s ridiculous to blame tattoos for NBA rating, I don’t feel that there was anything racist in Whitlock’s comments.
I also strongly DISAGREE on the perspectives you presented on Priest and Larry.
Priest Holmes was a definite team player. He tended to do things at his own pace and he was a bit of a loner, yeah. But he was the first guy to give his linemen the credit when he did well. I really like LJ and I know he respects his teammates, but when LJ scores a touchdown, the only person he thanks is himself.
As far as Priest proving to be more about Priest than the Chiefs, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. His sudden retirement? Let me remind you that the retirement of Priest Holmes last season was due to his feeling returning sensations of the enigmatc spinal injury that put him out of football for two years. The spinal injury that doctors couldn’t diagnose, which he tried to play through. As a Chief, I might add. Had he kept playing, he could have been risking possible paralysis. Better to stop while your ahead in that regard, no?
May 31st, 2008 at 10:47 pmwell…i was gonna post something but Adam stole each word from my mouth. ill take what he said X’s 2
but really man i understand you love LJ, but he isnt near the man you think he is. you gotta look around bro.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:05 pmoops, i meant what seanbcool said, sorry
May 31st, 2008 at 11:06 pm“I’m not calling all Midwesterners or sports fans racist here. What I’m getting at is that as a whole both Midwesterners and sports fans are definitely less open-minded and more prejudiced than your average Jane or Joe elsewhere in America and outside the sports world.’
Sounds like he’s bringing up race to me. My point is that some people believe that if you don’t like some aspects of another races culture, like tatoos or rap music or whatever, that it makes you racist. That is completely false.
Right after saying that midwesterners and sports fans were closed minded bigots in the above quote, he goes on to talk about how KC fans loved Priest Holmes, A BLACK MAN, but on average don’t care for LJ. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin but rather who they are as a person themselves.
Whitlock, when talking about race, AS A BLACK MAN, is saying that the players that are embracing the, as he calls it, “prison” culture are doing damage to themselves. Look at Michael Vick as a perfect example. He had millions of dollars, more money than he could ever spend, but because he wouldn’t leave that culture of criminal behavior (marijuana use, dog fighting, gambling, etc) he lost it all and fed right into the stereotypes. Exact same thing with players getting tatoos. In most cases they do it to prove what a thug they are and how everyone should respect them just because they’re tough.
White people that do the same thing because they like the black culture and try to emulate it don’t see that there is anything wrong with it as evidanced by the posts of the author of this article because as a white man, it has no effect on them.
For the average fan though, who may not have any racist inclination in his entire being, having players embrace a self destructive culture that celebrates alot of what is wrong with our society. Its not just tatoos, but they are definately part of that culture.
White people will never understand it because they have never been prejudiced against unless it was voluntary (and getting tatoos for white people is generally about trying to shock other people for attention, even negative attention). But for black men who are trying to overcome real bigotry, players that are embracing the negative aspects just feed into that.
Maybe the players don’t care what the average joe thinks of them, but it affects how all black men in America are perceived. THAT is what is wrong with it.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:18 amSorry but your ideas about tattoos are way off and stereotypical. I know lots of people that got tattoos for people who have died, for their kids, family, husband/wife, etc.
And, he wasn’t trying to play race with Larry and Priest. He was trying to show another point about people that are closed minded.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:15 amD.J.,
First off, I am white. So, I’m not going to sit here and try and say that I understand what it’s like to be black, or even not white. At the same time, I’ve played sports my entire life, lived all over this country and have had very, very close friends of pretty much every race. I honestly believe that I understand racial matters in America–especially when it comes to sports–better than most.
Reading your statement “getting tattoos for white people is generally about trying to shock other people for attention, even negative attention.” That’s a racist statement. It’s a generalization that’s just asinine.
Here’s the story of my tattoos for instance. Tattoo A.) I got to celebrate graduating high school. It’s the same tat my hero, Reggie Miller, has, and I got it to remind me of my him and how hard he worked to achieve his dreams, and how hard I would have to work to achieve mine. B.) A bible verse that my mother gave me as a child. I just finished directing my classes’s final film project at film school and was nervous about wrapping up school and entering the “real world.” The verse covers my heart and reminds me of what I’ve been through and where I’m going. C.) This one is for my brother, and serves as a daily reminder how important he is to me, and that I only have one. From my perspective it helped strengthen our relationship.
Do I like the way my tattoos look. Yeah, I do. They’re artistic and expressive. At the same time they are symbolic, serving as daily reminders of the stuff that is most important to me. Every day I look in the mirror and get messages back that are dear to my heart.
Does that change your perspective on white people and tattoos?
See, and this is the problem, that’s what happens when you stereotype, generalize and assume about other people. You can’t judge me and my tattoos just because I’m a white guy who grew up in Missouri. And not all people with tattoos are bad or rebellious. At the same time, I know a lot of bad people with no ink.
L.J. and Priest fit in here. Priest is black, but to many K.C. fans he’s “more white” than L.J. Not tats, that perfect smile. But he isn’t the better player or teammate, and its definitely debatable who is the better role model.
I also don’t like that Whitlock didn’t talk about any white players. Scot Pollard has a billion tattoos and he’s eccentric. Larry Hughes has the same amount and he’s embracing prison culture? I think it’s unfair to put all the emphasis on black athletes when there clearly is a double standard when it comes to fans and the media. I mean, why do we still here more about Tamarick Vanover’s fuck ups than Brian Waters’ good deeds. I think both the fans and the media take a lot of the blame in this situation. Black athletes are still persecuted way worse than their white counterparts. Just compare Big Mac and Bonds, for example.
I could go on and on about this all night, but it’s late, I’m tired, and I totally think I’m right on this one.
Whitlock not only blamed black athletes for judgmental fans, he advocated and in the process has enabled bigotry from fans. Tattoos didn’t originate with either black or white people, and not all tattoos are negative. In fact, I’d say that a lot are positive. It’s time for Jason and tattoo haters to catch up with the times. I understand about professionalism and representing one’s self, but tats don’t keep one from doing that. Jason needs to let other people be themselves, and just worry about Jason for once.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:36 amseanbcool,
Both L.J. and Priest had/have TD celebrations that they did after every score. At least L.J. occasionally involved Jason Dunn
Priest came back for the money. C’mon, now. He never spent an extra minute in K.C. than he had to. Right now L.J. is working his ass off beside his teammates, fully recovered from a pretty grueling injury.
Honestly, I think Priest was a little fake and L.J. is very misunderstood. L.J. is just kind of an intense guy. He’s like Jim Brown. But because of a few tattoos and his connection to Jay-Z it isn’t seen as a football thing it’s a thug thing. Argh.
I’ll never stop arguing for L.J. as long as this site is around. I love you all, but I can’t wait to post the official “Apologize to L.J.” thread for the L.J. haters out there.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:43 amThe highlight of the comments so far. Dead on.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:44 amD.J.,
One more thing.
Why does everybody who watches NASCAR have to be white trash? Why does everyone who listens to rap or have tats have to be a thug or rebellious?
This is the close-minded thinking that I chastised Whitlock for. Just say no to stereotypes.
By the way, I hate NASCAR and like some rap quite a bit, just to show you that there is actually something called diversity in this world. Individuality, it’s a great thing. Argh. Pretty soon Jason will start burning books and demanding the banishment of cornrows. Damn bojanglers.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:47 amAnd tattoos, like anything else, can be extremely positive or negative. It isn’t just black or white, no pun intended.
As for tats, I think they are becoming more symbolic, expressive and artistic, as opposed to the past when they were more about rebellion or identifying with a certain group. I think they are hear to stay and are viewed in a much more positive light. Most jobs don’t even care if you have them, especially if you cover them up. That wasn’t the case as little as five years ago or so.
That was to Scott’s question.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:51 amhttp://s2nblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/jason-whitlock-wants-to-put-allen-iverson-in-a-burqa/
A great rebuttal…check it out.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:53 amAdam
The thing is, you think everyone should do their own thing and everyone else should just have to accept it. While that would be nice, that is not how the world works.
If I go in for a job interview in a ripped up T-Shirt and shorts, a fortune 500 company is not going to hire me for an executive position no matter what my resume says.
There is an old saying, “the clothes make the man”. That applies to anything that you display outwardly. Clothes, Hairstyle, Tatoos, Makeup, etc.
Can someone wearing a ripped T-Shirt and Shorts be the best executive in a Fortune 500 company? Sure they can. But their outward display speaks to a certain attitude or lifestyle that person holds that is in direct opposition to the interests of other people (in this example, the company).
For people that have no idea who you are, your outward display is the only thing they have to go by. If you choose to display yourself with tatoos and dress like a rapper and usually express your attitude in a certain way that goes along with that “look”, people are going to associate you with other people who look the same way. Unfortunately, there are alot of people who have made that image very negative. But for someone who doesn’t know you, thats all they have to go on.
For the NBA, this is the biggest problem they have drawing new fans. It is not that the people who aren’t watching it aren’t watching it because of racism, the vast majority of athletes in all the major sports are black or another race and there isn’t the same problem. They aren’t watching it because the culture that is embraced by alot of NBA players is the same culture that the drug dealer or gangster next door embraces.
So you may think that you are some liberated, open-minded person because you embrace another races culture, and there is nothing wrong with that (except that its pompous to think everyone who doesn’t think like you is close-minded). But Whitlocks argument for years has been that black athletes are not embracing a BLACK Culture, they are embracing a CRIMINAL CULTURE.
Even if the job applicant would be a brilliant executive, he is displaying himself to be a low-rent, lazy person and so is not going to be accepted by hard working people. Maybe the guy doesn’t care how other people view him, but the reality is the reality and he will suffer for his choice.
Just because they are making millions does not mean professional athletes need to stop “Dressing for Success”. Displaying themselves according to that culture is fine for them to thumb their nose at what society expects of them, but it is hurting the impression the general public that is ignorant of the personalities have of the groups associated with them (the NBA and blacks in general).
June 1st, 2008 at 10:05 amWell why can’t we change how the world works? I love the people that have come before us, but why do we have to fall into their stereotypes and downfalls? Why can’t we strive to be more accepting people? I think if we just let the world determine how we act and what is right and wrong, we are close-minded and limiting our potential.
I understand your point about a job interview, but that is a separate issue. I am a business teacher and a football coach (tattoo free) you can bet your ass that I tell my students that for interviews and a job you need to dress for success. But if they want to wear what they want on their own time, why the hell not? This is a free country and if people need to judge on others appearance outside of the workplace than thats their issue.
DJ I know you are trying to give another perspective and are not judging like others do, but I had to put this out there.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pmEminem was “just a white guy from Missouri”, too.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pmOh and one more thing. Baseball has a small number of african-americans in the game today and in Football helmets, pads, etc. cover up tattoos. So obviously, in the NBA (which has the highest % of black athletes) and you can see more “flesh” than any other sport. So this makes it easier to judge guys with tattoos.
And why do all rappers have to be bad?
Common, Talib Kweli, and Jurrassic 5 are all very positive rappers that try and lift up their cultures. Comparing all rappers to gangsters is another issue this country has.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pmD.J.,
It appears we disagree on this, and could keep going on and on for all of eternity.
That being said, the NBA has a dress code, and I actually think at this point NBA players dress nicer than any other group of professional athletes.
Baseball and hockey have white majorities as well. We don’t get on to all the straggly bearded white guys, though, do we. It’s cool, manly or a sports thing when they go all Grizzly Adams on us.
And I still think Whitlock attacks and exploits black athletes and black culture for his own benefit. Nothing you or anyone else will say can change that opinion either.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pmI think Jermaine O’Neal, again, is also a great example of a guy who has a lot of tattoos and tends to dress hip-hop trendy away from work, but still is very professional with his at-work wardrobe and is an absolute role model.
There are lots of guys like that. LeBron James has a ton of tattoos. Do fans not enjoy watching him?
Honestly, I really wish everyone could just agree that this was a ridiculous post by Big Sexy. To me, tattoos blend in just as much as headbands and armsleeves. It’s time for anyone who lets tattoos keep them from enjoying the NBA to catch up with the times and get over themselves.
That’s all from me on this one. D.J., you made some solid points and definitely represented yourself well, I just really disagree with you and Jason on this one.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm“White people that do the same thing because they like the black culture and try to emulate it don’t see that there is anything wrong with it as evidanced by the posts of the author of this article because as a white man, it has no effect on them.”
Since when is having a tattoo trying to emulate the black culture? I don’t associate the two together at all. My getting tattoos was a personal choice, not trying to be like a certain “culture”.
“For the average fan though, who may not have any racist inclination in his entire being, having players embrace a self destructive culture that celebrates alot of what is wrong with our society. Its not just tatoos, but they are definately part of that culture.”
Since when are tattoos part of a self destructive culture that does anything wrong to society? I’m not seeing a connection here. Maybe they used to be nothing but gang symbols, but now they are nothing more than self-expression. Should I assume that an 80 year old man with an eagle on his arm or an 18 year old girl with a butterfly on her ankle are criminals?
“They aren’t watching it because the culture that is embraced by alot of NBA players is the same culture that the drug dealer or gangster next door embraces.”
WHAT?! Does anyone here consider these things when choosing what sport to watch? I don’t watch the NBA because I don’t like basketball. I don’t watch college either because I just don’t like basketball. I don’t watch baseball either because I think the games are boring (I love going, just can’t watch it on TV). Does this mean I think the Royals are a bunch of thugs? Do you actually think the NBA would have higher ratings if the players displayed a different “culture”?
I would venture to say that racism only continues to BE and issue because people continue to MAKE it an issue. It’s something that would die a much quicker death if people like Whitlock would just quit talking about it all the time. I’m not saying that any existing racism should be ignored. I’m saying that Whitlock is CREATING racism with his comments.
He continues to tell us that yes, there is a huge difference between blacks and whites. No. We’re all just people. Never once did I associate the NBA with a thug lifestyle. Never once did I associate tattoos with the scum of society. Shame on Whitlock for trying to put those thoughts in my head. He’s not pointing out issues. He’s making issues.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pmI think Warren Moon said it best during his HOF induction:
“A lot has been said about me as being the first African American quarterback into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It’s a subject that I’m very uncomfortable about sometimes only because I’ve always wanted to be judged as just a quarterback.”
He’s telling us that he’s not dwelling on the fact that he’s black and we shouldn’t either. He accepts the significance of being the first, but at the same time says, “Look it’s no big deal”.
THAT is how to get rid of racism. For a man in his position to say “we don’t need to make an issue out of my race” reinforces to all of us that it’s not an issue anymore.
He points out that things weren’t always this way and that he had a long, hard road to success, but that times are different now. He has helped close the book on the debate of black quarterbacks, not tried to keep it open by stirring the pot like Whitlock.
I know I view quarterbacks as quarterbacks, whether they are black or white. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I think Moon’s way of presenting himself was the perfect way to make society see the same.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:47 pmThis is gay. I’d rather talk about the Chiefs.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pmGood plan. I’m done here.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pmseanbcool,
I think we’d all rather talk about the Chiefs. But with Whitlock in Kansas City and K.C. in the Midwest, race often comes up when discussing the Chiefs.
Scott,
Some great points there, again.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:47 pmPeople get tatoos because they find it impractical to jump up and down, flail their arms, and yell “look at me! look at me!” 24/7.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:07 pmAdam:
Wasn’t criticizing the article, man. Just all the arguing and whatnot.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:09 pmAdam – thanks for linking back.
Whitlock’s just really reaching with this one. Badly.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pmI needed to post this – a rebuttal from the editor of inked magazine who took serious offense to the Whitless article
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 amWhitlock gets owned
Crane,
I already linked that at the end of the piece
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 amMike,
People judge other people because they find it impractical to look in the mirror and find out how they really feel about themselves
Just kidding, me…had to come back with something–I have tats!
Seanbcool,
Yeah, but at this point the debate is civil, and civil debate is pretty much the heart and guts of A.A. I hear you, though.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 amSignal,
Of course and I agree!
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 amWhitlock is the worst type of human being, articles like this one are BAD for society but get him attention; I wish MLK was still around to slap you.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pmYou’d figure that since he’s the size of a small planet he’d get enough attention already. Guess not.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pmNo one wants to look at that, lol.
I would still love to see a Carl Peterson and Whitlock get ran out of KC on the same day. I wonder who people like less? Ok now I might have a new poll…
June 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm[...] May 31, 2008 · Print This Article Man, has Jason Whitlock done it this time. I was left dumbfounded by his latest piece, a Fox Sports column in which he claims that this NBA postseason has done so well because the Conference Finals involved less tattoos than usual. Is this guy fucking serious? Possibly the five most-popular players in the league–LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Shaq and Carmelo Anthony–have tats. Four of those five have heavy, heavy ink. Other than Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade and Kevin Garnett, almost all of the NBA’s other American-born superstars have tattoos. Even Tim Duncan has a tat. What does this have to do with the Chiefs? Everything. At the heart of Whitlock’s piece is that lots of sports fans, especially in Middle America, still are old-fashioned, closed-minded, prejudiced and judgmental. Everyone always points out that the NBA has a race or culture problem. Why isn’t it the fans and media who have the problem? After all, NFL players have raised way more hell in the past few years than their hoopster counterparts. I’m not calling all Midwesterners or sports fans racist here. What I’m getting at is that as a whole both Midwesterners and sports fans are definitely less open-minded and more prejudiced than your average Jane or Joe elsewhere in America and outside the sports world. Or that’s the perception out there, anyway. Personally, I’ve been thinking that a lot of progress had been made. Thanks for ruining that, Big Sexy. Let’s compare Larry Johnson and Priest Holmes. Priest may have been great with the media, and he may have had a pretty smile and clean-cut image, but he was a lousy teammate. In the end he showed that he was more about Priest than the Chiefs. Additionally, Priest has about half as many illegitimate kids as ODB left behind. Meanwhile, L.J. has been a perfect citizen other than one minor situation five years ago. Johnson may be kind of aloof when it comes to the media, but he’s a dedicated Chief. In reality, Johnson is at least just as much of a role model, a player and a Chief as Priest was. Also, his demeanor might rub some the wrong way, but at least it’s honest. In retrospect, didn’t Priest come off a little fake? Nonetheless, Priest was practically handed the key to the city while L.J. has damn near been ostracized by fans of the Red and Gold. Do tattoos have something to do with that? I’m guessing yes. (more…) [...]
June 17th, 2008 at 10:15 pm[...] paper in his Leawood McMansion and turns straight to Whitelock for justification of his views- like tattoos ruining the NBA or hating Larry Johnson’s money and Maybachhs, so he can wail to his wife about how stupid [...]
June 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am