rtyuio wrote:
what is an sjw?
A social justice warriar, a contemptuous term for a political activist.
Is it wrong to boycott Hoka for cowing to SJW threats?
LRC Community/Where to Run/Race Reviews
LetsRun.com Community
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
A social justice warriar, a contemptuous term for a political activist. -
OP, you want what I think?
1. The volunteers need to chill the f^ck out. They obviously made poor presentations of themselves, never did anything to welcome them, and flat out just messed up. The guy writing the article is an ultra runner himself.
2. The Race Director should never have responded.
3. This is America. Anyone has the freedom to visit a course when "closed". I did it this year at Lake Sonoma. I actually ran on the trail while the race was in action - why? Because I wanted to experience the trail, course, Lake Sonoma and I was out there.
4. The writer has also admitted he's an idiot and has made up excuses for himself, like he has aspergers and I absolutely hate how he speaks about his partner in such demeaning, patronizing, and racist tones himself ("how she shrinks, etc.") like he knows what she is feeling and experiencing. As a strong LGBTQ Latinx, she can stand up for herself and doesn't need a male Aspie chaperone.
5. Bad choices all around. If HOKA wants to terminate, good for them, there are other great events in this nation that are not supported by racist cliques. -
OP so triggered
-
All this bullshit arises from the definition of racism.
In its strict sense, it is the belief that there are human races and that some are better than others. In that case, no person in this dispute is racist. I mean, there's only a minority who would take pride in thinking like Nazis or slave owners...
In a wider sense, racism is the set of beliefs and biases, conscious or not, that make us treat people differently according to the colour of their skin or their perceived ethnicity. In that case, all person in this feud are, to a certain extent, racist. It is likely that some of the nasty behaviours related in the articles are linked to these biases.
If you are not convinced, do this experiment a few times: go fuc k about with two White friends, then repeat it with two Black or Latino friends. Try and see if people watch and treat you the same. -
loqueelvientoajuarez wrote:
rtyuio wrote:
what is an sjw?
A social justice warriar, a contemptuous term for a political activist.
It's also a term white dudes use to try to downplay/enable something or a situation they don't agree with, much like what is going on here. Yes, you're wrong to boycott Hoka as one person dying on a hill over and for the fun of it let's just call it possible racism because you don't think it's racism. Boycott a company over how they treat workers or how they sell product at a loss to undercut small businesses, over how so many profitable companies pay workers as little as they can get away with. Boycott a company over real injustices. I don't know all of what happened here but it's foolish to think race didn't play a role. It's foolish to start a thread like this, throw out SJW, and think you're standing on some moral high ground with this kind of a position. -
I'm with Bernie Sanders. Diversity is a weakness.
Americans should support what Bernie supports for Israel. Minimal diversity, big walls, and a clear and inflexible declaration of the nature of the USA.
Diversity is for svckers, or "freiers" as they say in Israel.
If Bernie Sanders and Israel "celebrated" diversity, all they would be inviting is endless accusations of racism by aggressively tribal non-J's.
Diversity equals nothing but trouble, like this:
"The aftermath was textbook stuff: white people explaining racism to a person of color, white people blaming a person of color for the racist hostility she experienced, and white people circling the wagons around white people, the same sh1t we see happening with increasing brazenness all over the country these days." -
White people are the only ethnic group that even admits to having issues with racism. Just admitting to having racists among them makes white people an easy target for willy nilly accusations of racism.
No other group has the self-awareness and ability for self-criticism to admit that they have issues with racism. But this lack of self-awareness is ultimately a strength.
Every aggressive, tribal group views public self-criticism of the tribe as a betrayal of the tribe, and grounds for expulsion from the tribe.
Js, bl_cks, etc view whites as nothing but an enemy tribe to be conquered, and 40-60% of whites just want to be conquered as quickly as possible, thinking that the criticism will stop when whites are a minority.
And do you want to know why non-whites are always so eager to call white people "white supremacists"?
The answer is related to the fact that the entire world desperately wants to live in a white majority country. -
InfomativeRunner wrote:
http://www.ultraholic.com/racism-ultrarunning-and-san-diego-100/
I call BS on this. This guy is looking for a reason to scream racism when it doesn’t exist. As an ultra runner, he should have known and respected the volunteers who told him is was a “no crew” aid station. This is parking issue and maybe even rules set by the National Forest that only a certain number of cars of people (meaning volunteers) can be there. But rather then apologize and ask where the nearest crew aid station was, he stayed, not only stayed but went back again knowing full well he was not welcome.
I have volunteered at ultra aid stations and volunteers are usually told to make it clear the food/drink is for runners only. The volunteer most likely thought she was coming to get food and not throw her gum out. All they did was tell her the food was for runners. They didn’t say any racist.
No one said anything racist to his Mexican girlfriend. They were not welcome at an aid station, they knew it, and instead of politely leaving they chose to stay and go back again.
The second account where he went to a crew allowed aid station sounds completely fabricated, and again, nothing racist was said. For all we know he was a complete prick to the volunteers. Also, why did he say they were tourists and not say they were spectating friends in the race? It sounds like this guy is just trying to find some excuse to cry racism.
It would be really interesting to hear from those aid station captains to get another side to this story. -
Ultra Runner Chick, what does it mean "not welcome at their aid station"? What does that mean? I can go up to any damn aid station in any major race without questions asked. You can hang around any aid station. Ever been to Lake Sonoma at the turnaround? No Hands Bridge? UTMB and La Flegere?
You sound just like the guilty party: not welcome. That language alone is cause for concern. -
Ultra runners are douches. This is not news.
-
Ultra Runner Chick wrote:
InfomativeRunner wrote:
http://www.ultraholic.com/racism-ultrarunning-and-san-diego-100/
I call BS on this. This guy is looking for a reason to scream racism when it doesn’t exist. As an ultra runner, he should have known and respected the volunteers who told him is was a “no crew” aid station.
He said they weren't crew, and I see no reason to challenge that. Why are people trying to justify volunteers being jerks to random strangers in a park that is not closed to other users? -
nothing to see here, move along wrote:
Summary: a couple who are neither in the race nor supporting any particular runner decides to awkwardly hang out at aid stations in the middle of the race. Nothing much happens except the aid station workers are more interested in doing their jobs than in kissing the couple's butts quite right. One of the couple might sorta look kinda Hispanic, therefore racism.
I really like tacos. I think your comment is racist toward taco lovers. I also drive a Tacoma. I think your comment is racist toward mothers who make tacos for taco lovers. Please stop being racist. Thank you. I am glad that we had this discussion. -
First things first.
Is it right that Hoka is dropping its sponsorship?
Is it right that Hoka is dropping its sponsorship because of the claims of racism?
I couldn't find anything to corroborate these "apparent" statements.
So for the moment I will assume what is wrong is to claim it is apparent that Hoka is dropping its sponsorship based on claims of racism.
It is also wrong to use the term SJW to condone socially unnacceptable behavior, by switching the roles of the victim and the accused.
Citrix wrote:
Apparently Hoka is dropping its sponsorship of the San Diego 100 mile endurance race (I know, it's an ultra, but that isn't the point) after some bogus and thoroughly debunked claims of racism towards observers (not runners or crews) by an aid station volunteer. These were professional activists making the claims and are classic SJWs who do far more harm than good (but are too dumb and disillusioned to understand this). I think Hoka's weakness and willingness to so easily bend on this is pathetic. Is it wrong to boycott them for cowing to activista out of fear of a boycott from them? If it were the other way around (i.e. they told the activists to go eat a di*k) I feel like I would want to support them even more. Just curious what LRs think about this (obviously at least half of the responses will be retarded, but should at least be amusing). -
Get Woke, Go Broke. Good luck, HOKA!
-
That article gave me cancer. Holy crap, I spent 10 minutes of my life reading a manifesto about how much white men suck because of something that they perceived as racist.
-
REAL. wrote:
Ultra Runner Chick, what does it mean "not welcome at their aid station"? What does that mean? I can go up to any damn aid station in any major race without questions asked. You can hang around any aid station. Ever been to Lake Sonoma at the turnaround? No Hands Bridge? UTMB and La Flegere?
You sound just like the guilty party: not welcome. That language alone is cause for concern.
At some races there are aid stations that are limited to certain number of people and vehicles. There may have been a valid reason that he was asked to leave. Instead of respecting that, he continued to stay and even went back. Also, I don’t believe his story of how the volunteers acted or talked to him at all. Just looking at his blog it is clear he has an agenda is is just looking for a reason to cry racism. -
zzzz wrote:
Ultra Runner Chick wrote:
InfomativeRunner wrote:
http://www.ultraholic.com/racism-ultrarunning-and-san-diego-100/
I call BS on this. This guy is looking for a reason to scream racism when it doesn’t exist. As an ultra runner, he should have known and respected the volunteers who told him is was a “no crew” aid station.
He said they weren't crew, and I see no reason to challenge that. Why are people trying to justify volunteers being jerks to random strangers in a park that is not closed to other users?
Because “no crew” often means no one at the aid station outside of volunteers and runners. Also, we only have one side of the story. Like I said, I’d love to hear from the volunteer captain or volunteers who were at the aid station. -
It's not a boycott if it's merely a few LRMB dorks who have never bought Hokas continuing to not buy Hokas and effectively influencing nobody to change buying habits. Welcome to reality.
-
Is it wrong to boycott Hoka for making stubby looking, unattractive running shoes?
-
If you go through life expecting to find racism behind every tree and aid station, you will probably do so. I have a Latino wife. We have never experienced a similar situation, but then we haven't gone out of our way to find one. OP, Hoka's cowardly reaction was their own decision, as is your decision to boycott. Personally, I can't run in Hokas because I feel like I'm wearing high heels, so I have no dog in this fight.
