Kelly Tilghman suspended by the Golf Channel

[Kilroy]

Danielle Nadon discussed the issue of setup and swing comensation due to chest proportions for wormen in her presentation at last year's golf show. It's not at all hard to see that it would be an issue for busty women. I was very suprised when he got the axe for saying that. What was it 1963? No. It was in the late 90's.

[Indio]

It is a topic of discussion when I golf with my wife. Being well-endowed herself, it also alters her swing. This makes it hard for me to talk to her about ways to improve her swing, because, well, I have no basis for comparison.

You ever need playing partners in your twosome let me know

[nhwott5]

got to love a bunch of white upper class men argueing over this,

i woudl hazzard a guess that none ( or a very very very very small %) of the people posting on this subject are in anyway affected by this, however there are millions of people who are affected and it is to them that the punishment is for.

[jonf]

got to love a bunch of white upper class men argueing over this,

i woudl hazzard a guess that none ( or a very very very very small %) of the people posting on this subject are in anyway affected by this, however there are millions of people who are affected and it is to them that the punishment is for.

That's exactly the problem though. I don't pretend to be able to understand how offensive this might be to some individuals. However, we simply can't start punishing everybody who offends anybody. The result would be absolute absurdity. That doesn't mean people should go around saying anything they want with no regard for others. It does mean, however, that we have to look at what a person intends. I have no problem punishing someone for something that they said which was meant to be offensive, or that could only be construed as offensive. However, punishing people for unintentional, borderline offensive comments simply because some people are offended is absolutely ridiculous and illogical.

[jonf]

got to love a bunch of white upper class men argueing over this,

And, btw, it is ironic that you make that statement given the context of this argument. Now, I know you meant nothing by it, and that there was no malicious intent. However, it is exactly that kind of statement that Tilghman was punished for. It could be construed as bigotted and racist. Now, again, I know that was not your intent, and don't find anything offensive about your comment. But it demonstrates very well how dangerous it is to start punishing people for comments that some construe as offensive. It would be absurd.

[spackler]

And, btw, it is ironic that you make that statement given the context of this argument. Now, I know you meant nothing by it, and that there was no malicious intent. However, it is exactly that kind of statement that Tilghman was punished for. It could be construed as bigotted and racist. Now, again, I know that was not your intent, and don't find anything offensive about your comment. But it demonstrates very well how dangerous it is to start punishing people for comments that some construe as offensive. It would be absurd.

No, it's not, it's not even close.

I think sometimes, because we are Canadians, we don't appreciate the history of race relations in the states. Slavery, war, official segregation, civil rights riots...none of these things happened here, but they did happen there. The effects are continuing and still very painfull. I have travelled in the deep south, in Mississippi and Alabama, where if you go more than a mile away from the interstate you will witness abject poverty and racial homogeny. Inside that mile, with establishments serving the transient traffic, it is very prosperous and african americans are only seen in service positions. It is a form of racial segregation that is enforced along economic lines. It is insane that such things exist in this day and age, but they do. Lynching has occurred in this century, it is not a faint memory. It has a very specific meaning when applied to african americans, and a very hurtful one. Just because it is not offensive to anyone here, does not mean it is inoffensive.

[Daft_driver]

That's exactly the problem though. I don't pretend to be able to understand how offensive this might be to some individuals. However, we simply can't start punishing everybody who offends anybody. The result would be absolute absurdity. That doesn't mean people should go around saying anything they want with no regard for others. It does mean, however, that we have to look at what a person intends. I have no problem punishing someone for something that they said which was meant to be offensive, or that could only be construed as offensive. However, punishing people for unintentional, borderline offensive comments simply because some people are offended is absolutely ridiculous and illogical.

She should of known better, plain and simple. She is not being punished for the intent of her words, but for the simple fact that she was too stupid, live on air, not to say it. Any rational person charged with being on national/international TV should naturally know that some words, for whatever the reasons may be, are off limits.

[Daft_driver]

No, it's not, it's not even close.

I think sometimes, because we are Canadians, we don't appreciate the history of race relations in the states. Slavery, war, official segregation, civil rights riots...none of these things happened here, but they did happen there. The effects are continuing and still very painfull. I have travelled in the deep south, in Mississippi and Alabama, where if you go more than a mile away from the interstate you will witness abject poverty and racial homogeny. Inside that mile, with establishments serving the transient traffic, it is very prosperous and african americans are only seen in service positions. It is a form of racial segregation that is enforced along economic lines. It is insane that such things exist in this day and age, but they do. Lynching has occurred in this century, it is not a faint memory. It has a very specific meaning when applied to african americans, and a very hurtful one. Just because it is not offensive to anyone here, does not mean it is inoffensive.

X2

[sensfan63]

X2

Does anyone here realize that more Irish immigrants were lynched in the Five Points area of New York (upwards of 5 million) than blacks in the US? Where is the cry from the overseers of their culture (like Al Sharpton)...??

By the way, Al Sharpton is supposedly a Reverend. I wonder, if someone asked him "Do you think God has forgiven Kelly Tilghman", what would he say?

[Fallys0820]

got to love a bunch of white upper class men argueing over this,

i woudl hazzard a guess that none ( or a very very very very small %) of the people posting on this subject are in anyway affected by this, however there are millions of people who are affected and it is to them that the punishment is for.

First of all, thank you for considering upper class, my self esteem appreciates it!

Based on your statement, you could also argue that the millions of people you are referring to were not even watching the event to "witness" the offending commentary. You could also argue that potentially, those affected millions were not offended (ie Sharpton) until the media grabbed a hold of this and put it on non-TGC telecasts.

Further to this, is it not insulting/offending to Tiger Woods that people are only seeing the color of his skin instead of his overall heritage? His Thailand-ese (again sp?) mother is being slighted because he doesn't "look" Thai, just African American. Even the African American people are only looking as far as his skin colour and saying she should be suspended because of the connotation lynching has to black people.

Do I actually believe this last paragraph to be a valid vision? No, not even close. It's more an illustration of how quickly the political correctness and offense discussion can get taken and blown out of proportion.

It's too bad that people can't see passed their own agendas. I still don't think that this should have lead to a suspension.

As for Big Ben...he shouldn't have lost his job either. Getting fired for pointing out a valid observation is pretty "cheeky". I wore a puffy vest at Greensmere at the end of the year and it interfered with my swing, and I (arguably) don't have a bust...

Fally
aka Scott

[jonf]

No, it's not, it's not even close.

I think sometimes, because we are Canadians, we don't appreciate the history of race relations in the states. Slavery, war, official segregation, civil rights riots...none of these things happened here, but they did happen there. The effects are continuing and still very painfull. I have travelled in the deep south, in Mississippi and Alabama, where if you go more than a mile away from the interstate you will witness abject poverty and racial homogeny. Inside that mile, with establishments serving the transient traffic, it is very prosperous and african americans are only seen in service positions. It is a form of racial segregation that is enforced along economic lines. It is insane that such things exist in this day and age, but they do. Lynching has occurred in this century, it is not a faint memory. It has a very specific meaning when applied to african americans, and a very hurtful one. Just because it is not offensive to anyone here, does not mean it is inoffensive.

Again, I never said that it wasn't at all offensive. I said it was something that is not universally offensive. The saying is not necessarily offensive, and was not intended to be offensive, and yet could easily be construed as so.

The example I gave was the same, insofar as his statement was one which, though not intended as a racial slur, could easily be construed as one. That is what I have been getting at all along. People interpret things in very different ways, so we can't just decide that certain words are always off limits. Who are the magical word police who are going to tell us what words are right and wrong? I tell you, if we stopped using every word that is offensive to someone, we'd have a damn small vocabulary, especially with out increasingly global culture. Words which may offend one group are commonplace in others (for example, the British wouldn't have a word for cigarettes, apparently nobody would have a word for mob violence). What I've been trying to do all along is to point out that we have to look at the big picture. Can we realistically get rid of offensive language. If so, who gets to decide what stays and what goes? What's more important, free speech, or personal sensibilities? Anyway, It's clear I'm just repeating myself at this point, so I might as well leave this debate.

[Kilroy]

apparently nobody would have a word for mob violence

We cannot continually remove descriptive words from english vocabulary. It weakens the language.

[em69]

Maybe the older generation cares about such things, but many from my generation (gen X) wouldn't even think twice and just take her comment THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED!!!!

Gen Xer here as well...and I agree with you FD.
I honestly didn't see anything wrong with her comment at all.

[sharkhark]

Lynching

Lynching is the illegal execution of an accused person by a mob. The term lynching probably derived from the name Charles Lynch (1736-96), a justice of the peace who administered rough justice in Virginia. Lynching was originally a system of punishment used by whites against African American slaves.

[nhwott5]

i did mean it to be that way, i did not mean it to be completyl ionnocnet actually

and as to punishingintent, so if you ?accidently? hit soemone with your car and kill them, there shodl be no punishemnt? i completly didagree, you punish the act, not the intent, the intent is used to decide the level of punishment, since she most liely did not mean anything by her comment she was simply given 2 weeks off, not firdd and prosecuted undeer the hate crimes laws.

And, btw, it is ironic that you make that statement given the context of this argument. Now, I know you meant nothing by it, and that there was no malicious intent. However, it is exactly that kind of statement that Tilghman was punished for. It could be construed as bigotted and racist. Now, again, I know that was not your intent, and don't find anything offensive about your comment. But it demonstrates very well how dangerous it is to start punishing people for comments that some construe as offensive. It would be absurd.

[Newbie]

Can we get back to the large breast discussion a little more! (Errrrrrr... naturally as it relates to the golf swing)

[Indio]

so if you ?accidently? hit soemone with your car and kill them, there shodl be no punishemnt?

Since when does someone get punished for ACCIDENTLY hitting and killing someone with their car??? (assuming of course they haven't been drinking or didn't break any laws?)

[spackler]

Does anyone here realize that more Irish immigrants were lynched in the Five Points area of New York (upwards of 5 million) than blacks in the US? Where is the cry from the overseers of their culture (like Al Sharpton)...??

Wow. 5 million? I've looked, and I can't find mention of a genocide on that scale, and the numbers don't seem to add up either. As far as I can tell, the Five Points neighbourhood in Manhattan was established in 1820s or 30s, depending on the source, and was demolished sometime between 1885 and 1895. The population of Manhattan in 1820 was 123,000. In 1830 it was 203,000. In 1890 it was 1.4M out of a total city population of 2.5M. So the population of Manhattan went from 123K to 1.4M in 70 years, but in that same time frame 5M Irish men and women were killed there? Wow. That's almost 200 people a day murdered every day for 70 years. Looking at another source, the total Irish immigration to the US (not just Manhattan) from 1820 to 1880 was 3.5M.

Again, I never said that it wasn't at all offensive. I said it was something that is not universally offensive. The saying is not necessarily offensive, and was not intended to be offensive, and yet could easily be construed as so.

The example I gave was the same, insofar as his statement was one which, though not intended as a racial slur, could easily be construed as one. That is what I have been getting at all along. People interpret things in very different ways, so we can't just decide that certain words are always off limits. Who are the magical word police who are going to tell us what words are right and wrong? I tell you, if we stopped using every word that is offensive to someone, we'd have a damn small vocabulary, especially with out increasingly global culture. Words which may offend one group are commonplace in others (for example, the British wouldn't have a word for cigarettes, apparently nobody would have a word for mob violence). What I've been trying to do all along is to point out that we have to look at the big picture. Can we realistically get rid of offensive language. If so, who gets to decide what stays and what goes? What's more important, free speech, or personal sensibilities? Anyway, It's clear I'm just repeating myself at this point, so I might as well leave this debate.

Context is always the arbiter in situations like this. I was trying to point out that we Canadians, because we don't share the same history as Americans, may not quite understand the full context of the statement. In this case, Tilghman was joking that the only way to keep Tiger, a black American, from succeeding was for a group of young men to lynch him in a back alley. When you understand that white Americans lynched black Americans as a means to make blacks subservient to whites, it becomes clear that the statement, whether it was made innocently or not, is offensive. The word 'lynch' used in this context, is not ok.

[jonf]

In this case, Tilghman was joking that the only way to keep Tiger, a black American, from succeeding was for a group of young men to lynch him in a back alley. When you understand that white Americans lynched black Americans as a means to make blacks subservient to whites, it becomes clear that the statement, whether it was made innocently or not, is offensive. The word 'lynch' used in this context, is not ok.

Yes, but look what happens when I take just a couple of words out:

'In this case, Tilghman was joking that the only way to keep Tiger from succeeding was for a group of young men to lynch him in a back alley'

This, I am sure, is how she meant it. If she was not thinking of him as a black man, but rather, just as a man (which she should be commended for, not punished), then there is absolutely nothing wrong. After all, isn't that what we're striving for? To have people stop defining others by race? If that is the case, then looking for racism where it does not exist only hurts the drive for equality.


You say context is the arbiter, but by defining her comment as racially charged, then you are taking the original statement out of its context.

[MusicMan]

I'm getting so sick of Al Sharpton! hes everywhere!!! and everytime he is interviewed / puts his needless .02 worth into everything it always involves the "he (or in this case she) should be fired!"

i say this "get a life Sharpton! and stop getting involved with other peoples business!"

he provokes everything! and then stuff starts getting out of hand! why he insists in getting involved in every case involving an "african american" is beyond me. he needs to mind his own business!

or at least start looking at things the right way, and not always in the worst way possible. i highly doubt that she ment it as a racist remark.

Edit:

society has gotten to the point where EVERYTHING needs to be politically correct or someone will get suspended or fired!

this is 2008 for sake! everyone has respect for other people and their cultures and no one really means what people would have thought it ment 40 years ago!

end of rant and i'm done with this thread.

[MusicMan]

Jon i agree with 99%

[pheenster]

Yes, but look what happens when I take just a couple of words out:

'In this case, Tilghman was joking that the only way to keep Tiger from succeeding was for a group of young men to lynch him in a back alley'

This, I am sure, is how she meant it. If she was not thinking of him as a black man, but rather, just as a man (which she should be commended for, not punished), then there is absolutely nothing wrong. After all, isn't that what we're striving for? To have people stop defining others by race? If that is the case, then looking for racism where it does not exist only hurts the drive for equality.


You say context is the arbiter, but by defining her comment as racially charged, then you are taking the original statement out of its context.

Quoted for truth.

People offended by this are living in the past. The rest of us (including Tiger) have moved on.

[fundonny]

WRONG. My ancestors were basically slaughtered (native canadians), so to say this sort of thing never happened in Canada and no one can relate is incorrect. They were no match for those firesticks.

To me it's history, and I don't go nuts when someone makes a comment about the reservation or windshield washer fluid, etc.

No, it's not, it's not even close.

I think sometimes, because we are Canadians, we don't appreciate the history of race relations in the states. Slavery, war, official segregation, civil rights riots...none of these things happened here, but they did happen there. The effects are continuing and still very painfull. I have travelled in the deep south, in Mississippi and Alabama, where if you go more than a mile away from the interstate you will witness abject poverty and racial homogeny. Inside that mile, with establishments serving the transient traffic, it is very prosperous and african americans are only seen in service positions. It is a form of racial segregation that is enforced along economic lines. It is insane that such things exist in this day and age, but they do. Lynching has occurred in this century, it is not a faint memory. It has a very specific meaning when applied to african americans, and a very hurtful one. Just because it is not offensive to anyone here, does not mean it is inoffensive.

[3Jack]

got to love a bunch of white upper class men argueing over this,.

We're not all necessarily white, nor upper class.

[3Jack]

Quoted for truth.

People offended by this are living in the past. The rest of us (including Tiger) have moved on.

Well, Tiger's management team has. Tiger is notoriously non-political, so we don't really know how he feels on much of anything outside of golf and his charity work.

[3Jack]

Since when does someone get punished for ACCIDENTLY hitting and killing someone with their car??? (assuming of course they haven't been drinking or didn't break any laws?)

If you're driving over the speed limit, following too close, driving agressively, and you hit and kill someone. That's how. You still might think it's an accident, but it's your fault.

EDIT - sorry, didn't see the 'breaking any laws bit at the end before I responded. My bad.

[Indio]

If you're driving over the speed limit, following too close, driving agressively, and you hit and kill someone. That's how. You still might think it's an accident, but it's your fault.

EDIT - sorry, didn't see the 'breaking any laws bit at the end before I responded. My bad.

No prob.... but I also keyed in on the word ACCIDENTLY....

[3Jack]

Not enough caffiene in the bloodstream yet

[Indio]

Not enough caffiene in the bloodstream yet

I hear ya....

[3Jack]

Not that my posts make much more sense after I do though!