See Cohen no shot. From dunks and basketball to lynches and church bombings. Nice comparison.
I'm sorry that you also missed the point. The "when" is irrelevant. The "right way" to behave will always vary based on societal norms, culture, and context. So people will always disagree on the "right way" to behave.
What's clearly "wrong" is that which is "not allowed". So, obviously, in basketball that means whatever is against the rules. So in our context, the only "wrong" way to behave is that which earns a technical. Everything else is up for debate based on personal preference and how you define "right". In this case, Jackson got a tech, so the behavior was wrong. I prefer someone who needs to be reigned in a little bit, than someone who doesn't show any passion.
I don't have any issue with people arguing he should "act like he's been there". But
there is no reason to introduce a time period for the type of behavior, you prefer. That players behaved differently in a different time period doesn't mean that's the correct behavior for today.
When someone posts the following, they're making the time period relevant to the discussion
What causes this chest pounding stuff is the crappy example of others for the last 25 years or so. I went to a really good hoops high school in the 1960s. A bunch of the players could dunk but never did this ego stuff. I guarantee you the emotion was the same, but the spotlight wasn’t. The role modeling kinda sucks.
And if you follow that up with...
The point is missed. And some things from the 6os were worlds better. So you like it, hooray for you.
You double down on making the time period relevant to the behavior you prefer. So if he's going to say some things were "worlds better", I can certainly bring up the fact that things weren't for a significant portion of society. If he wants to sit and reminisce on the good old days, we can remind him those days weren't as good for some people.
I didn't make a comparison between basketball and lynchings, that's you not keeping up with the conversation. I made the obvious argument that some things weren't worlds better in the 60s. That some things were better and some things were worse shows how completely irrelevant the 60s are to the conversation.
What do lynchings have to do with the argument? About as much as the short shorts do (or whatever
@cohenzone believes was "better" then). That was then, this is now.
I'll say it again.
It's best to argue for the behavior you prefer based on the merits of that behavior instead of talking about when people behaved that way. Or else you open yourself to judgments on the other ways people behaved during that time.
And despite
@cohenzone 's snark, he's yet to point out exactly "why" the behavior of the 60s is better. If you can decipher it from his posts, good for you. I see no arguments on why one way is better than another. Only references to crappy examples, role models that suck, and some things being worlds better inthe 60s.
He didn't even point out the obvious layup (but I did in the 2nd paragraph above). So much snark
and fail combined into one poster. It's impressive.
