What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38 and no Slams...

r2473

G.O.A.T.
1) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38 and no Slams...

2) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams and is white......

3) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams, is white and is male......

4) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams, is white, is male and isn't American......
---------------------------------------------------------
A) Would your reaction be any different to any of her "outbursts" over the years?

B) Would the general public's reaction be any different to her "outbursts" over the years?

C) Would the WTA / USTA / ITF's reaction be any different to her "outbursts" over the years?

D) Would she have had repeated "outbursts" over the years?
---------------------------------------------------------
AA) Do you think Serena is better or worse off as it relates to reactions to her "outbursts" because of who she is? In other words, if her reality was one of the scenarios in 1-4 above, would it be better or worse for her?
-----------------------------------------------------------
AAA) Keeping in mind your answers so far, what do you make of her claims / accusations over the years as it relates to being treated unfairly?
-----------------------------------------------------------

-In all cases, she still has a daughter

-In all cases, she has the same personality, etc. Nothing changes except for what is noted above

----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your participation in this questionnaire.
 
Last edited:

guanzishou

Hall of Fame
I would still be appalled. I remember I was so wanting to puke when Roddick was berating Fergus Murphy in Brisbane (vs Soderling). I hate players throwing tantrum.

The same with Troicki's tantrum at Wimbledon, Jerzy's tantrum at AO.

And that crazy Iranian player who shrieked, wailed and chased an umpire out of the court...it wasn't even a big tournament.. Was it ITF or future or challenger?

Umpires are just doing their job. Players should have more respect towards them.


Found the video

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Hm.

What if the umpire is : a) a woman; b) a black woman; c) afroamerican woman.
Recall that during some of her "outbursts" over the years, the umpire was in fact a woman.

Feel free to embellish each case as you desire. But please note all embellishments.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
D) Would she have had repeated "outbursts" over the years?
For me the key here is in part D.
---------------------------------------------------------
A) Would your reaction be any different to any of her "outbursts" over the years?

B) Would the general public's reaction be any different to her "outbursts" over the years?

C) Would the WTA / USTA / ITF's reaction be any different to her "outbursts" over the years?
And part D is highly dependent on A-C.

A) Wouldn't care
B) Nobody would care
C) It simply would not be tolerated
-------------------------------------------
D) Would she have had repeated "outbursts" over the years?
D) No
 

spirit95

Professional
Some instances she'd be treated the same some different. But one thing for sure Ramos would NEVER interrupt the mens final of a slam in the way he did. And he knows he was wrong hence why he didn't come out for the ceremony
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Ramos would NEVER interrupt the mens final of a slam in the way he did.
Why do you think that?

There isn't much precedent in either the men's or women's game for this (can you think of an instance?).

As such, I'd like to hear your argument if you don't mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

spirit95

Professional
Why do you think that?

There isn't much precedent in either the men's or women's game for this (can you think of an instance?).

As such, I'd like to hear your argument if you don't mind.
Because it the media/public reaction would be different, almost everyone would be on the side of the male player and he'd get an inbox full of death threats etc from internet fanatics (at the end of the day we all know that mens singles is the main event at any slam). You could tell he was thinking about this because of the gap between Serena saying 'thief' and him announcing the violation - why else would he delay? If doing it in the womens' final caused him that much pause for thought I think in the mens' final he was making that decision he'd quickly have come to the conclusion that the hell he'd have to pay wouldn't be worth it.

The public response would be different because in the mens' final everyone would see it for what it was - shoddy umpiring. He made no attempt to even give Williams a soft warning and the offence itself was only worth a violation by zealously observing the letter rather than the spirit of the umpiring code (listen to the reactions of the commentators - they're like 'wtf? because she said "thief?"'. It just wasn't a sensible umpiring decision). However when Williams said 'sexism' people on internet forums such as this, in some sections of the media etc saw a chance to be like 'hurr durr she's saying because she's a mom she can do what she want stupid feminists' which is obviously not what she or anyone else was saying, and this aspect of the affair was allowed to cloud the matter

Make no mistake I don't personally like Serena either but the obvious double standard being applied just irritates me. For example imagine if Roddick had called an umpire a 'thief' one time - would anyone be making youtube videos about it called 'the day Andy Roddick disgraced America'? I doubt it
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
The idea that Ramos wouldn't do what he did in a men's final is actually unfounded since we haven't seen any male in a slam final in this era flip out the way Serena did accompanied by 3 clear code violations. We do know that Ramos is a very strict umpire though, often nailing the very biggest of stars (all of which calmed down enough not to get subsequent violations) so that quells that notion in a sense. And in a bygone era, McEnroe was DQ'ed from the AO so it's not like something even worse than losing a game had never happened to a male before the Serena incident. There's also the Tarango incident.

All in all, if Serena had calmed down this wouldn't have happened like it did. It's not like Carlos Ramos did anything wrong.
 

spirit95

Professional
The idea that Ramos wouldn't do what he did in a men's final is actually unfounded since we haven't seen any male in a slam final in this era flip out the way Serena did accompanied by 3 clear code violations. We do know that Ramos is a very strict umpire though, often nailing the very biggest of stars (all of which calmed down enough not to get subsequent violations) so that quells that notion in a sense. And in a bygone era, McEnroe was DQ'ed from the AO so it's not like something even worse than losing a game had never happened to a male before the Serena incident. There's also the Tarango incident.

All in all, if Serena had calmed down this wouldn't have happened like it did. It's not like Carlos Ramos did anything wrong.
Mac's DQ was a clear instant violation, he was f'ing and blinding at the umpire and the linespeople. The umpire clearly had no choice

Everyone has had time since to get worked up and look up the textbook definitions of 'verbal abuse' but the reactions of the people who heard it first hand are telling. The commentators can't believe it, Serena laughs because it's such a bad decision, the crowd clearly think it was a ridiculous decision. If the umpire of a match has any choice in the decision which Ramos clearly did then they should always choose not to make themselves noticed.

“Ramos would never interrupt a men’s final “


That’s a sexist argument in itself while accusing Carlos of sexism.
Your point appears to be based on your belief that Men’s Tennis is more important or “noticeable” than Women’s Tennis?
Don't even know how to respond to this. What a legendary debater and poster
 

reaper

Legend
Mac's DQ was a clear instant violation, he was f'ing and blinding at the umpire and the linespeople. The umpire clearly had no choice

Everyone has had time since to get worked up and look up the textbook definitions of 'verbal abuse' but the reactions of the people who heard it first hand are telling. The commentators can't believe it, Serena laughs because it's such a bad decision, the crowd clearly think it was a ridiculous decision. If the umpire of a match has any choice in the decision which Ramos clearly did then they should always choose not to make themselves noticed.



Don't even know how to respond to this. What a legendary debater and poster
The decision was correct. Reflecting on the integrity of the umpire is far more serious than swearing at them.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Mac's DQ was a clear instant violation, he was f'ing and blinding at the umpire and the linespeople. The umpire clearly had no choice

Everyone has had time since to get worked up and look up the textbook definitions of 'verbal abuse' but the reactions of the people who heard it first hand are telling. The commentators can't believe it, Serena laughs because it's such a bad decision, the crowd clearly think it was a ridiculous decision. If the umpire of a match has any choice in the decision which Ramos clearly did then they should always choose not to make themselves noticed.



Don't even know how to respond to this. What a legendary debater and poster
The commentators couldn’t believe it because they work for ESPN, and they’re all part of the Serena fan club. You only have to listen to Chris Evert for 2 minutes, sometimes less, to figure that out. Serena can laugh all she wants, but what she said was the textbook definition of verbal abuse. It doesn’t matter what the crowd or anyone else thinks. For god sakes, they were in NYC. What did you think would happen when Ramos called the game penalty. You can’t be serious with this line of reasoning. Questioning the integrity of the umpire is a clear violation as the rule is written.
 
Last edited:

spirit95

Professional
The commentators couldn’t believe it because they work for ESPN, and they’re all part of the Serena fan club. You only have to listen to Chris Evert for 2 minutes, sometimes less, to figure that out. Serena can laugh all she wants, but what she said was the textbook definition of verbal abuse. It doesn’t matter what the crowd or anyone else thinks. For god sakes, they were in NYC. What did you think would happen when Ramos called the game penalty. You can’t be serious with this line of reasoning. Questioning the integrity of the umpire is a clear violation as the rule is written.
The decision was correct. Reflecting on the integrity of the umpire is far more serious than swearing at them.

0:40, Federer to Lahyani 'you don't see it good', clearly implying that he thinks Lahyani is lying to hide the fact that he didn't know the truth and is being less than honest?


0:35 umpire: 'we're not supposed to tell you' stan: 'yes you are and you know it' clearly questioning the umpire's integrity

Neither of these occasions earned a verbal abuse warning despite falling under the ITF definition of verbal abuse which includes the questioning of an umpire's honesty or integrity. Why? Is it because pedantically sticking to the letter of the rules that closely would be ridiculous? Is it because the verbal abuse rule is for exceptional circumstances such as Troicki literally having a nervous breakdown on court at Wimbledon and not for off the cuff comments made whilst venting over an umpiring decision? Is it because even though the umpire's feelings may have been hurt they decided not to interrupt the match, because that's his job unless he really has no choice?

Or is it all three?
 

Guy Jones

Rookie
Because it the media/public reaction would be different, almost everyone would be on the side of the male player and he'd get an inbox full of death threats etc from internet fanatics (at the end of the day we all know that mens singles is the main event at any slam). You could tell he was thinking about this because of the gap between Serena saying 'thief' and him announcing the violation - why else would he delay? If doing it in the womens' final caused him that much pause for thought I think in the mens' final he was making that decision he'd quickly have come to the conclusion that the hell he'd have to pay wouldn't be worth it.

The public response would be different because in the mens' final everyone would see it for what it was - shoddy umpiring. He made no attempt to even give Williams a soft warning and the offence itself was only worth a violation by zealously observing the letter rather than the spirit of the umpiring code (listen to the reactions of the commentators - they're like 'wtf? because she said "thief?"'. It just wasn't a sensible umpiring decision). However when Williams said 'sexism' people on internet forums such as this, in some sections of the media etc saw a chance to be like 'hurr durr she's saying because she's a mom she can do what she want stupid feminists' which is obviously not what she or anyone else was saying, and this aspect of the affair was allowed to cloud the matter

Make no mistake I don't personally like Serena either but the obvious double standard being applied just irritates me. For example imagine if Roddick had called an umpire a 'thief' one time - would anyone be making youtube videos about it called 'the day Andy Roddick disgraced America'? I doubt it
You are directing a generalised personal view on an individual person, as though this is some kind of answer. How do you personally know Ramos in order to attach this broad opinion at him? I imagine you are using popular (easy/lazy) assumptions to form your own opinion, this actually says much more about yourself than it does about the umpire in question.
 

Tornes

Semi-Pro

0:40, Federer to Lahyani 'you don't see it good', clearly implying that he thinks Lahyani is lying to hide the fact that he didn't know the truth and is being less than honest?


0:35 umpire: 'we're not supposed to tell you' stan: 'yes you are and you know it' clearly questioning the umpire's integrity

Neither of these occasions earned a verbal abuse warning despite falling under the ITF definition of verbal abuse which includes the questioning of an umpire's honesty or integrity. Why? Is it because pedantically sticking to the letter of the rules that closely would be ridiculous? Is it because the verbal abuse rule is for exceptional circumstances such as Troicki literally having a nervous breakdown on court at Wimbledon and not for off the cuff comments made whilst venting over an umpiring decision? Is it because even though the umpire's feelings may have been hurt they decided not to interrupt the match, because that's his job unless he really has no choice?

Or is it all three?
Not sure if serious or just troll because that is so, so stupid argument.

How in the world can "you don't see it good' imply "that he thinks Lahyani is lying to hide the fact that he didn't know the truth and is being less than honest"? That clearly imply that Federer think umpire made wrong decision (did not see it good) and nothing else. Absolutely different from calling umpire "thief", "lier" and demanding an apology, also in totall different manner.

The second one - well for one Stan was right, as evidence by reaction of tournament referee (and commentators as well). Umpire made mistake (unlike Serena call) and could not make it right because Nadal and physio was already out. However even so Wawrinka was still much more civil than Serena. And eventhough he disagreed with umpire he was far, far away from something like calling him lier, thief or demanding an apology and again, talked in totally different manner too.

Serena's outburst was much, much worse than these too and every sane person have too see it. Even before calling him thief it was already much worse, not even talking after that.
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
Because it the media/public reaction would be different, almost everyone would be on the side of the male player and he'd get an inbox full of death threats etc from internet fanatics (at the end of the day we all know that mens singles is the main event at any slam). You could tell he was thinking about this because of the gap between Serena saying 'thief' and him announcing the violation - why else would he delay? If doing it in the womens' final caused him that much pause for thought I think in the mens' final he was making that decision he'd quickly have come to the conclusion that the hell he'd have to pay wouldn't be worth it.

The public response would be different because in the mens' final everyone would see it for what it was - shoddy umpiring. He made no attempt to even give Williams a soft warning and the offence itself was only worth a violation by zealously observing the letter rather than the spirit of the umpiring code (listen to the reactions of the commentators - they're like 'wtf? because she said "thief?"'. It just wasn't a sensible umpiring decision). However when Williams said 'sexism' people on internet forums such as this, in some sections of the media etc saw a chance to be like 'hurr durr she's saying because she's a mom she can do what she want stupid feminists' which is obviously not what she or anyone else was saying, and this aspect of the affair was allowed to cloud the matter

Make no mistake I don't personally like Serena either but the obvious double standard being applied just irritates me. For example imagine if Roddick had called an umpire a 'thief' one time - would anyone be making youtube videos about it called 'the day Andy Roddick disgraced America'? I doubt it
Why are you not telling the truth about what happened? Williams didn't call the umpire a "thief"; she called him a "liar and a thief" and threatened to have him banned from ever umpiring any of her matches.

The umpire was 100% correct to impose the penalties he imposed.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru

0:40, Federer to Lahyani 'you don't see it good', clearly implying that he thinks Lahyani is lying to hide the fact that he didn't know the truth and is being less than honest?


0:35 umpire: 'we're not supposed to tell you' stan: 'yes you are and you know it' clearly questioning the umpire's integrity

Neither of these occasions earned a verbal abuse warning despite falling under the ITF definition of verbal abuse which includes the questioning of an umpire's honesty or integrity. Why? Is it because pedantically sticking to the letter of the rules that closely would be ridiculous? Is it because the verbal abuse rule is for exceptional circumstances such as Troicki literally having a nervous breakdown on court at Wimbledon and not for off the cuff comments made whilst venting over an umpiring decision? Is it because even though the umpire's feelings may have been hurt they decided not to interrupt the match, because that's his job unless he really has no choice?

Or is it all three?
Federer could've/should've gotten a code there for sure, but that's Lahyani too, and he's known to be less strict. Ramos is not. Accusing him of sexism the way Serena did for calling it to the letter of the law is stretching it very far, especially when he has called many top male stars for various penalties.

The Stan example just shows the difference a tone of voice can make in an argument. It just shows that you can disagree with an umpire without getting a violation. Serena didn't just disagree, she lost her mind, and was consistent in her berating across changeovers.

In this case, Ramos had had enough of her straight up accusations and finger pointing.
 
Last edited:

spirit95

Professional
How in the world can "you don't see it good' imply "that he thinks Lahyani is lying to hide the fact that he didn't know the truth and is being less than honest"? That clearly imply that Federer think umpire made wrong decision (did not see it good) and nothing else. Absolutely different from calling umpire "thief", "lier" and demanding an apology, also in totall different manner.
'I saw it good'

'You don't see it good'

Pretty cut and dry Fed was accusing him of lying

The second one - well for one Stan was right, as evidence by reaction of tournament referee (and commentators as well). Umpire made mistake (unlike Serena call) and could not make it right because Nadal and physio was already out.
You are correct that it would have been ridiculous. But it would have been within the letter of the law, which is the same justification everyone gives for Ramos

Why are you not telling the truth about what happened? Williams didn't call the umpire a "thief"; she called him a "liar and a thief" and threatened to have him banned from ever umpiring any of her matches.

The umpire was 100% correct to impose the penalties he imposed.
Doesn't justify totally destroying one of the sport's biggest events of the calendar. I still believe that if Delpo for example had used the same words and tone he would not have given a game penalty
 

reaper

Legend

0:40, Federer to Lahyani 'you don't see it good', clearly implying that he thinks Lahyani is lying to hide the fact that he didn't know the truth and is being less than honest?


0:35 umpire: 'we're not supposed to tell you' stan: 'yes you are and you know it' clearly questioning the umpire's integrity

Neither of these occasions earned a verbal abuse warning despite falling under the ITF definition of verbal abuse which includes the questioning of an umpire's honesty or integrity. Why? Is it because pedantically sticking to the letter of the rules that closely would be ridiculous? Is it because the verbal abuse rule is for exceptional circumstances such as Troicki literally having a nervous breakdown on court at Wimbledon and not for off the cuff comments made whilst venting over an umpiring decision? Is it because even though the umpire's feelings may have been hurt they decided not to interrupt the match, because that's his job unless he really has no choice?

Or is it all three?
Very weak examples. If Serena had have said "I don't get coached and you know it" and stopped there (equivalent to the Wawrinka comment) no further action would have been likely. Directly calling the umpire a thief and a liar at the end of multiple long tirades is entirely different. The umpire's handling of the matter was excellent. Perhaps his only error was not calling a time violation on Williams after the game penalty when she delayed play, thus defaulting her.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Doesn't justify totally destroying one of the sport's biggest events of the calendar. I still believe that if Delpo for example had used the same words and tone he would not have given a game penalty
This is only a belief you hold to try and defend Serena though. It's unprovable until Delpo does something like Serena did. In which case we'll probably be waiting a long time.

Also, there is such a thing as having a reputation and Serena has a reputation for this stuff now. You might be right in your belief, but that's the way these things go as unfair as it is. First time offenders are never given as big a penalty as repeat offenders. In any sport, not just tennis. Football/soccer, hockey, basketball, you name it. It doesn't have anything to do with gender or race necessarily. It's about being a repeat offender.
 
Last edited:

George Turner

Hall of Fame
'I saw it good'

Doesn't justify totally destroying one of the sport's biggest events of the calendar. I still believe that if Delpo for example had used the same words and tone he would not have given a game penalty
But Del Po didn't use those words and tone. Infact no male player in the history of tennis has used those words/tone in the final of a major. So your point is irrelevant.

The only male comparison to Serena Williams (questioning an umpires integrity like that) i can think of is what Tarango did. He called the official "Corrupt" and got a violation, same as Serena. The umpire in question there was known to favour certain players, but that's a different matter.

Serena destroyed the occasion, nobody else.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal did almost the exact same thing to Ramos over something as trivial as a time volation.

But Del Po didn't use those words and tone. Infact no male player in the history of tennis has used those words/tone in the final of a major. So your point is irrelevant.

The only male comparison to Serena Williams (questioning an umpires integrity like that) i can think of is what Tarango did. He called the official "Corrupt" and got a violation, same as Serena. The umpire in question there was known to favour certain players, but that's a different matter.

Serena destroyed the occasion, nobody else.
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
Nadal did almost the exact same thing to Ramos over something as trivial as a time volation.

I suspect You will not see Ramos umpire another Serena match, same as Nadal had Bernandes banned from his matches.

Male and Female superstars allowed to influence who umpires their matches. That would be sexual equality.
 

Tornes

Semi-Pro
'I saw it good'

'You don't see it good'

Pretty cut and dry Fed was accusing him of lying



You are correct that it would have been ridiculous. But it would have been within the letter of the law, which is the same justification everyone gives for Ramos



Doesn't justify totally destroying one of the sport's biggest events of the calendar. I still believe that if Delpo for example had used the same words and tone he would not have given a game penalty
So your stand is that any action that MIGHT be verbal abuse should be called that and punished accordingly? OK, than comparable to Feds and Wawrinkas offense is Serena first "I demand an apology". And after second "I demand an apology" she should be defaulted. That would be comparable to warnings in your examples.

Today's general use of rules is that every tennis player should be given a benefit of doubt and only after there is no doubt given violation. Not Fed, not Wawrinka has got so far.
Serena on the other hand had almost 15 minut to get together but she was even more and more abusive. There was left no doubt if it was werbal abuse or not. It just was and Ramos was left with no other possibility than another code violation.
 
'IDoesn't justify totally destroying one of the sport's biggest events of the calendar. I still believe that if Delpo for example had used the same words and tone he would not have given a game penalty
So he's responsible for destroying the event?
Do you really believe this?
"Oh well, we all know what Serena is like, so we better not do anything otherwise she'll just be Serena and we don't want any of that! But it's still not Serena's fault!"
Is what you're implying here.

And if we're assuming things about the umpire and assuming things that would or wouldn't happen in men's matches, then I'm sure we can also assume that Serena wasn't actually doing this out of a genuine sense of injustice (towards women, and more specifically women who are mothers), but that she was merely using it as a tactic to derail the more inexperienced Osaka's concentration.
Or shouldn't we presume it?
 

Midaso240

Hall of Fame
She wouldn't have had any of those outbursts if she was a high of #38 in the world because she wouldn't have the same pressure,expectations etc. She wouldn't have the big ego...
 
Can I ask what the questionnaire is supposed to show? Some are going to claim that changing her race/gender would make no difference, some that it would make the public view her more harshly (this will be the popular attitude on this board, dominated as it is by men who are very right wing), and some that it would make the public view her less harshly (this is my own view).

But these answers tell us more about the worldview of the people answering the questionnaire than they do anything else.

And most are probably going to say that it would make no difference to their own attitude (although that is almost certainly not true).

1) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38 and no Slams...

2) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams and is white......

3) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams, is white and is male......

4) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams, is white, is male and isn't American......
---------------------------------------------------------
A) Would your reaction be any different to any of her "outbursts" over the years?

B) Would the general public's reaction be any different to her "outbursts" over the years?

C) Would the WTA / USTA / ITF's reaction be any different to her "outbursts" over the years?

D) Would she have had repeated "outbursts" over the years?
---------------------------------------------------------
AA) Do you think Serena is better or worse off as it relates to reactions to her "outbursts" because of who she is? In other words, if her reality was one of the scenarios in 1-4 above, would it be better or worse for her?
-----------------------------------------------------------
AAA) Keeping in mind your answers so far, what do you make of her claims / accusations over the years as it relates to being treated unfairly?
-----------------------------------------------------------

-In all cases, she still has a daughter

-In all cases, she has the same personality, etc. Nothing changes except for what is noted above

----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your participation in this questionnaire.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Can I ask what the questionnaire is supposed to show?
Sure. It just asks if the message is important because of the message itself, or just because of the messenger. And if because of the messenger, if we "strip away" parts of the messenger, what effect does it have on the message?

Think about this in terms of Trump for example. Trump could say the grass is green and the sky is blue and I'm sure lots of people would vehemently disagree (but of course wouldn't disagree if someone they respected said the same thing).

Does that make sense?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

The structure of Rhet. I & II is determined by two tripartite divisions. The first division consists in the distinction among the three means of persuasion: The speech can produce persuasion either through:

1) the character of the speaker,
2)the emotional state of the listener,
3)or the argument (logos) itself


So by which of these ways (or by what combination) does Serena's message persuade those that are, in fact, persuaded by it? Would it be persuasive by 3 (the logos of the argument) alone?

I'd admit, I didn't do a great job with this with my questionnaire. It's pretty clunky. If I cared enough, I'd rework it. But I don't.
 

donquijote

Legend
Americans need to question why fame, business success and money are worshiped so much in their country.
Had Serena been from another country, she would have been fixed many years ago after the lines judge incident and learned not to behave like this. If not, she would not be accepted by public and wouldn't appear in all those commercials.
 

EkVraNaamEnVan

New User
4) What if Serena had a career high ranking of #38, no Slams, is white, is male and isn't American......

I would have said Alex de Minaur has married too young, and now has big responsibilities as a dad, and on behalf of all young dads, and as a teenager, he deserves a second chance like we gave the two Aussie Tanks: Nick and Tomic. I would of roped in Lahyani for talkdown.
 
Okay, I get the goal now. Thanks for the explanation You are absolutely right that both classic rhetoric and contemporary psychology teach us that the reception of the message depends on the identity of the messenger.

The issue I have in this case is that people are likely to be so lacking in self-awareness and as a result, the answers to the questionnaire are likely to be rather muddled. For example, I said before that it seems likely that most people are going to say that their reaction to Serena would not change based on her race or her gender and that it seems likely that most people are going to say that the public reaction (e.g. most people's reaction) to her would change based on her race or her gender. I stand by the claim that that is an overwhelmingly likely response to this questionnaire, because nobody wants to claim that they would themselves change their reaction, as that seems prejudiced, but people are likely to claim that most other people would change their view, because we know that there's a strong correlation between political opinion and attitudes to racial and gender inequality. Yet it cannot both be true that most individuals are unlikely to change their mind and that the public as a whole is likely to change its mind. Either one or the other answer must be giving us misinformation. Perhaps both are, indeed.

Let me give you an analogy. I'm a college professor. Halfway through the semester, I often ask my students to fill out a progress report. I ask them a bunch of questions about class reading, class discussion, lecture, etc. Invariably, almost all students report to me that they are doing the vast majority of the reading. Sometimes they admit to not doing all of it. But equally invariably, most students report a problem with group discussion because a large proportion of students haven't done the reading for class. In other words, every student says that they have done the reading, but that most others have not. Such a claim may be true in any one student's case but can't be true overall. The same is true here: everyone is going to report that they are unprejudiced, but that most people are prejudiced. It might be true for any one individual but it can't be true across the whole range of answers.

Sure. It just asks if the message is important because of the message itself, or just because of the messenger. And if because of the messenger, if we "strip away" parts of the messenger, what effect does it have on the message?

Think about this in terms of Trump for example. Trump could say the grass is green and the sky is blue and I'm sure lots of people would vehemently disagree (but of course wouldn't disagree if someone they respected said the same thing).

Does that make sense?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

The structure of Rhet. I & II is determined by two tripartite divisions. The first division consists in the distinction among the three means of persuasion: The speech can produce persuasion either through:

1) the character of the speaker,
2)the emotional state of the listener,
3)or the argument (logos) itself


So by which of these ways (or by what combination) does Serena's message persuade those that are, in fact, persuaded by it? Would it be persuasive by 3 (the logos of the argument) alone?

I'd admit, I didn't do a great job with this with my questionnaire. It's pretty clunky. If I cared enough, I'd rework it. But I don't.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
I stand by the claim that that is an overwhelmingly likely response to this questionnaire, because nobody wants to claim that they would themselves change their reaction, as that seems prejudiced, but people are likely to claim that most other people would change their view, because we know that there's a strong correlation between political opinion and attitudes to racial and gender inequality. Yet it cannot both be true that most individuals are unlikely to change their mind and that the public as a whole is likely to change its mind. Either one or the other answer must be giving us misinformation. Perhaps both are, indeed.
Well, you uncovered one of my actual motives (the implicit is usually more interesting than the explicit)

I'm a college professor.
Congrats!! That's not an easy position to earn.

That's what I wanted to do, but I realized I wasn't close to being smart enough (and I was going to end up teaching intro to idiocy at a community college to a bunch of "slack jaws" who are much too smart to learn anything).
 

spirit95

Professional
This is only a belief you hold to try and defend Serena though. It's unprovable until Delpo does something like Serena did. In which case we'll probably be waiting a long time.

Also, there is such a thing as having a reputation and Serena has a reputation for this stuff now. You might be right in your belief, but that's the way these things go as unfair as it is. First time offenders are never given as big a penalty as repeat offenders. In any sport, not just tennis. Football/soccer, hockey, basketball, you name it. It doesn't have anything to do with gender or race necessarily. It's about being a repeat offender.
1) Like I said before I don't like Serena either and am not defending her actions, all I'm saying is that if a top male player had done the same things I don't think they would have got the game penalty, and I am 100% sure that the public/internet/media reaction would be much more sympathetic to the player and hostile to the umpire

2) Nadal has a reputation for time violations, doesn't mean he gets punished for them. I don't think this argument holds up

Nadal did almost the exact same thing to Ramos over something as trivial as a time volation.
URL?

I suspect You will not see Ramos umpire another Serena match, same as Nadal had Bernandes banned from his matches.
Bernardes has umpired Rafa recently, sometimes organisers will give a player a 'break' from a particular umpire but it's not because the player had them banned. Ramos will umpire Serena again assuming she plays a few years more

So he's responsible for destroying the event?

And if we're assuming things about the umpire and assuming things that would or wouldn't happen in men's matches
1) His direct action cause the event to be ruined. And as it's not cut and dry like in the 2011 incident when she undeniably deserved disqualification and imo a nice ban. So he definitely bears at least a little responsibility no matter how you look at it

2) Difference between an 'assumption' and the conclusion of my entire argument

Federer could've/should've gotten a code there for sure

In this case, Ramos had had enough of her straight up accusations and finger pointing.
1) No he shouldn't because he broke the letter not the spirit of the law. If he'd gotten a violation for that nobody would be arguing that it was reasonable or fair and the umpire would probably be demoted

2) So he'd 'had enough of it' implying he let his emotions get in the way of his umpiring decisions? Not good umpiring practice

Very weak examples. If Serena had have said "I don't get coached and you know it" and stopped there (equivalent to the Wawrinka comment) no further action would have been likely. Directly calling the umpire a thief and a liar at the end of multiple long tirades is entirely different. The umpire's handling of the matter was excellent. Perhaps his only error was not calling a time violation on Williams after the game penalty when she delayed play, thus defaulting her.
Intentionally so. In that post I was countering the argument of a poster who was claiming that questioning the umpire's authority is the worst thing a player can do and that's why Serena undoubtedly deserved that violation. However when shown videos of your favourite ATP stars doing just that (and in fact doing it intentionally and coolly rather than off the cuff during a rant), you all as if on cue jumped in to defend them. So either questioning an umpire's integrity is really not what 'verbal abuse' is really about, or there is actually a massive subconscious double standard at play. Either which way I have been proven correct
 
Top