Meanwhile, the inevitable hyperbole comparing gays in 2014 to Jim Crow era blacks came pouring in. As one commenter put it, Dungy’s remarks were “Jim Crow era awful.” Yes, because racial segregation and lynching can be appropriately compared to some guy saying he wouldn’t draft another guy into the NFL. Surely, it’s impossible to find any significant difference between those two things.
Dan Wetzel at Yahoo Sports extrapolated on this idea, employing all of the self-righteous hyperbole you might expect. He lectured Dungy about civil rights, and sermonized about how Dungy’s attitude mirrors that of whites who didn’t want to share schools or public restrooms with black people.
By the way, Tony Dungy looks like this:
And Dan Wetzel looks like this:
This pompous, pasty white carnival barker actually has the gumption to lecture an older black man about the plight of blacks in America. That kind of paternalistic, degrading racism would never be tolerated or accepted if it was applied in any other situation or used to make any other point. But even the progressive ‘sensitivity’ about race takes a backseat when the hallowed homosexuals need defending.
Tony Dungy is a good and decent man who has accomplished a lot in the face of great adversity. Dan Wetzel is a sycophantic hack who fails to understand the distinction between race versus sexuality, and the persecution of being locked in chains and enslaved versus the persecution of being heralded and admired by the media and most of mainstream society simply because you enjoy sex with members of the same gender.
Another very white sportswriter made the same point, and a quick Google search can find many more examples of this tactic. None more irritating than the king of pomposity, Keith Olbermann, who told his 9 viewers that Dungy is the ‘worst person in the world’ because he’s treating Sam like white team owners treated black players:
I’ll say this for Olbermann: once he’s fired again, he can look back at his stints on Current TV, MSNBC, and ESPN 2, and take pride in being the only guy who wasn’t good enough to hold a job at the three most irrelevant networks in the history of television.
In any case, his view is the liberal view. Homosexuality and abortion come first for these people. Everything else is second. They will say anything, no matter how absurd or degrading, in order to defend the only two things they seem to really care about.
Now, if I wanted to explain why you can’t compare pre-civil rights blacks to modern gays, I might point out the dramatic disparity in how the two groups were treated. I might say that black people went from being used like farm animals to being ‘freed’ but still deprived of their most essential human rights and most basic protections under the law. I might point out that gays are not subject to that kind of oppression, and to insist otherwise is to demonstrate a complete lack of integrity or sanity. I might tell you that a black man could be hung from a tree without legal repercussion, whereas a gay man in modern times can’t even be refused a wedding cake without the full weight of the justice system coming down upon the offending baker.
I might go a step further and explain that blacks are a people. A culture. A race. A heritage. Black is part of their identity, by any measure. Physically, genetically, socially, culturally. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not a race. They are not a people. They are people, individually, but they are not an actual community as a whole. There is no ‘gay heritage.’ They are not any different physically or genetically. You are gay because of your sexual activities, whereas you are black because that’s who you are. The two are not analogous, they are not similar, they are not in the same vein, they are not comparable. They are two completely different things. Just as I am not in a ‘straight community’ or part of a ‘straight culture’ or a member of a ‘straight lineage,’ neither are gays. My people are not heterosexuals. I do not have a shared ancestry with straights, nor does our straightness align us in any deep or meaningful way. Your sexual proclivity is different from your ethnicity, just as it is different from your religion or your gender.
These are all of the things I might say, but it’s probably useless. This isn’t a discussion, anyway. When you degrade and attack a man for holding a sensible and utterly unremarkable opinion about something as inconsequential as hypothetical draft strategies, you are obviously not interested in having a conversation. You only want to punish the transgressor for his scandalous lack of progressive piety, and you’re willing to say anything to make sure that he feels your rage.
In the end, ironically, Tony Dungy’s stance was immediately vindicated by the very people disagreeing with it. He was worried that Sam would create a media frenzy, and it turns out that even saying Sam would create a media frenzy actually creates a media frenzy.
So Dungy was right, which is why he’s now hated.
This is how the game will be played.
Get ready for it.
You’re either with them or against them.