Josh Rosen Details Anti-Semitic Slurs Used Against Him by Opponents During Games

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,566
Reaction score
15,640
Points
113
per Bleacher Report:

Josh Rosen recently said he has heard a lot of anti-Semitic slurs used against him by opponents so far in his career.

"I get a lot of Jewish things," the former UCLA quarterback said about trash talk, per Michael Silver of NFL.com. "My nose, particularly. I get, like, 'Stay the f--k down, you Jewish bastard ... I'm gonna break your f--king nose, you Jew.'"

Rosen, who is usually not afraid to speak his mind, said the taunts don't bother him.

"I really like when people try to get in my head," he added. "I like away games more than home games. I like silencing crowds; that's a big thing."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...om&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Go Gophers!!
 



A couple of things come to mind here:

1). Why would any of these people know he's Jewish, or care?

2). Is saying "Jew" to a Jewish person really anti-semetic? It does t sound anyone like anyone wanted to exclude him from anything for being Jewish.

3). Chances are many of the people calling him "a Jew," thus being anti-Semitic, were African-American. I was under the impression from the climate of today's society that only white Christian males are capable of such discrimstory behavior.

4). People still make nose jokes about Jews? It's ridiculous. I have a big nose, and I'm Scandinavian.

I Ann just getting so damn sick of crap like this being in the news Every. Single. Day. There is nothing here. Nothing. Frankly, I don't even know if I believe him.
 

A couple of things come to mind here:

1). Why would any of these people know he's Jewish, or care?

2). Is saying "Jew" to a Jewish person really anti-semetic? It does t sound anyone like anyone wanted to exclude him from anything for being Jewish.

3). Chances are many of the people calling him "a Jew," thus being anti-Semitic, were African-American. I was under the impression from the climate of today's society that only white Christian males are capable of such discrimstory behavior.

4). People still make nose jokes about Jews? It's ridiculous. I have a big nose, and I'm Scandinavian.

I Ann just getting so damn sick of crap like this being in the news Every. Single. Day. There is nothing here. Nothing. Frankly, I don't even know if I believe him.

1. Umm- maybe because Rosen is about as Jewish as last names get and his religious affiliation is often mentioned in press regarding him.

2. Like most things it's all about context - if the inflection is done a certain way i imagine it can be extremely derogatory, especially when prefaced by an f-bomb or the like.

3. I think most people acknowledge any race/color/ethnicity is capable of making racist remarks.

4. Good for you and your probiscus. Yes people still make stereotypical off-color jokes/taunts Jews and any minority member.

You really are an idiot aren't you? Awfully easy to be sick of the reporting of these acts when you're a member of the predominant white ethnic group in Minnesota- you're probably Lutheran too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


A couple of things come to mind here:

1). Why would any of these people know he's Jewish, or care?

2). Is saying "Jew" to a Jewish person really anti-semetic? It does t sound anyone like anyone wanted to exclude him from anything for being Jewish.

3). Chances are many of the people calling him "a Jew," thus being anti-Semitic, were African-American. I was under the impression from the climate of today's society that only white Christian males are capable of such discrimstory behavior.

4). People still make nose jokes about Jews? It's ridiculous. I have a big nose, and I'm Scandinavian.

I Ann just getting so damn sick of crap like this being in the news Every. Single. Day. There is nothing here. Nothing. Frankly, I don't even know if I believe him.

... well this is the dumbest thing I'm going to read for the next month. Wtg.
 

1. Umm- maybe because Rosen is about as Jewish as last names get and his religious affiliation is often mentioned in press regarding him.

2. Like most things it's all about context - if the inflection is done a certain way i imagine it can be extremely derogatory, especially when prefaced by an f-bomb or the like.

3. I think most people acknowledge any race/color/ethnicity is capable of making racist remarks.

4. Good for you and your probiscus. Yes people still make stereotypical off-color jokes/taunts Jews and any minority member.

You really are an idiot aren't you? Awfully easy to be sick of the reporting of these acts when you're a member of the predominant white ethnic group in Minnesota- you're probably Lutheran too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shockingly, this isn’t actually true. I agreed with your sentiment until the last couple years when I was made “woke” by various people that told me “racism” is only possible if there is a structural and systemic power imbalance. I subsequently found out this is common thought amongst at least a pretty broad swath of the progressive element of the country. Don’t blame the messenger.

Is it ok I make this comment as a minority in the state of CA? How do know Heracles is white?

Beyond that, IMO Rosen won’t make it in the NFL. He’s soft, and a dink.
 

A couple of things come to mind here:

1). Why would any of these people know he's Jewish, or care?

2). Is saying "Jew" to a Jewish person really anti-semetic? It does t sound anyone like anyone wanted to exclude him from anything for being Jewish.

3). Chances are many of the people calling him "a Jew," thus being anti-Semitic, were African-American. I was under the impression from the climate of today's society that only white Christian males are capable of such discrimstory behavior.

4). People still make nose jokes about Jews? It's ridiculous. I have a big nose, and I'm Scandinavian.

I Ann just getting so damn sick of crap like this being in the news Every. Single. Day. There is nothing here. Nothing. Frankly, I don't even know if I believe him.

MA3rMjc.gif
 

Shockingly, this isn’t actually true. I agreed with your sentiment until the last couple years when I was made “woke” by various people that told me “racism” is only possible if there is a structural and systemic power imbalance. I subsequently found out this is common thought amongst at least a pretty broad swath of the progressive element of the country. Don’t blame the messenger.

Is it ok I make this comment as a minority in the state of CA? How do know Heracles is white?

Beyond that, IMO Rosen won’t make it in the NFL. He’s soft, and a dink.

No problem with your opinion although I think the non vocal majority don't believe a "progressive" position such as you assert.

I presume Heracles is white given that the great majority of Scandinavians are Caucasian and the vast majority of the immigrants to at least Sweden that I've met refer to themselves as Swedish but not Scandinavian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



We've mastered the art of diversion as a country. Something comes up such as this and we look for holes in a statement or holes in an argument instead of the actual issue at hand. Threads like these pop up in the sports sections of this site every so often and it could go on a dozen pages but the majority of the comments will not have anything to do with the actual fact Rosen said he faced verbal abuse which should never happen. As a human, it shouldn't take deep thought on the person's character or paragraphs of debate to reach a conclusion about how you feel. Some will say he should have thicker skin but why? What is to be gained from being negative towards someone else?

We've normalized this type of wrongdoing and much worse to a point where we aren't dramatically affected. Whether it be verbal abuse, violence, sexual abuse and so on there isn't a lasting feeling of needing to take action against these things. We rant and argue for a couple days and then it's back to normal without any change made. If we are to a point where we are deciding whether a slur is harsh enough to get upset over than that should be a sign that things have gone too far in our country and that racial abuse is far too prevalent as is. Whether you believe this specific case or not doesn't really matter but if your first reaction isn't to sympathize with the victim to a certain extent then who knows how far all this could go.

I would hope if someone ran up to you on the street in need of help that your first reaction wouldn't be to question them over whether they truly deserve it or not.
 

No problem with your opinion although I think the non vocal majority don't believe a "progressive" position such as you assert.

I presume Heracles is white given that the great majority of Scandinavians are Caucasian and the vast majority of the immigrants to at least Sweden that I've met refer to themselves as Swedish but not Scandinavian

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reluctant to wade into the morass of identity politics...but I disagree with your first point. I’m not necessarily saying they’re wrong, I’m simply saying that’s the position that is very frequently heard if one has sites like Vox or Huffington Post on their news feed (I enjoy all views). I don’t have a poll handy to break down the demographics of what part of the population has distorted the definition of racism but it’s a healthy proportion.
 

We've mastered the art of diversion as a country. Something comes up such as this and we look for holes in a statement or holes in an argument instead of the actual issue at hand. Threads like these pop up in the sports sections of this site every so often and it could go on a dozen pages but the majority of the comments will not have anything to do with the actual fact Rosen said he faced verbal abuse which should never happen. As a human, it shouldn't take deep thought on the person's character or paragraphs of debate to reach a conclusion about how you feel. Some will say he should have thicker skin but why? What is to be gained from being negative towards someone else?

We've normalized this type of wrongdoing and much worse to a point where we aren't dramatically affected. Whether it be verbal abuse, violence, sexual abuse and so on there isn't a lasting feeling of needing to take action against these things. We rant and argue for a couple days and then it's back to normal without any change made. If we are to a point where we are deciding whether a slur is harsh enough to get upset over than that should be a sign that things have gone too far in our country and that racial abuse is far too prevalent as is. Whether you believe this specific case or not doesn't really matter but if your first reaction isn't to sympathize with the victim to a certain extent then who knows how far all this could go.

I would hope if someone ran up to you on the street in need of help that your first reaction wouldn't be to question them over whether they truly deserve it or not.

Well, if you’re into censoring or punishing human emotions and thoughts you’d love this gem from JR:

An economics major who has aspirations in the business world, Rosen is full of ideas, at least one of which pertains to social media: "There should be a Twitter democratic jury that reviews tweets and fines idiots a few dollars. You should have to link to your credit card to be on Twitter, and if you say something that's just stupid or offensive or ridiculous, and the jury rules against you, you should get fined like five bucks."

http://www.nfl.com/labs/cfb247/josh-rosen/josh-rosen.html
 

Well, if you’re into censoring or punishing human emotions and thoughts you’d love this gem from JR:

An economics major who has aspirations in the business world, Rosen is full of ideas, at least one of which pertains to social media: "There should be a Twitter democratic jury that reviews tweets and fines idiots a few dollars. You should have to link to your credit card to be on Twitter, and if you say something that's just stupid or offensive or ridiculous, and the jury rules against you, you should get fined like five bucks."

http://www.nfl.com/labs/cfb247/josh-rosen/josh-rosen.html

I'm gonna take a stab at it and say no he's speaking rhetorically.

It's not viable as Twitter owns that market, but I think a paid social network where your identity was "real" would be a sort of interesting experiment if you could compare it to what Twitter is today. I suspect accountability even if in a weird way that's what he's getting at, and how it might change things.

But panic if you want, that's the thing these days. Don't think critically or anything.
 



I'm gonna take a stab at it and say no he's speaking rhetorically.

It's not viable as Twitter owns that market, but I think a paid social network where your identity was "real" would be a sort of interesting experiment if you could compare it to what Twitter is today. I suspect accountability even if in a weird way that's what he's getting at, and how it might change things.

But panic if you want, that's the thing these days. Don't think critically or anything.

How am I “panicking”? It’s pretty simply...a dumb idea to think people would sign up for a service that will fine them for stating their opinions. Plenty of echo chambers out there.

Accountability...like thought police? Why do you want everyone to be like you - embrace diversity.

Can you expand/explain the last insult?
 



We've mastered the art of diversion as a country. Something comes up such as this and we look for holes in a statement or holes in an argument instead of the actual issue at hand. Threads like these pop up in the sports sections of this site every so often and it could go on a dozen pages but the majority of the comments will not have anything to do with the actual fact Rosen said he faced verbal abuse which should never happen. As a human, it shouldn't take deep thought on the person's character or paragraphs of debate to reach a conclusion about how you feel. Some will say he should have thicker skin but why? What is to be gained from being negative towards someone else?

We've normalized this type of wrongdoing and much worse to a point where we aren't dramatically affected. Whether it be verbal abuse, violence, sexual abuse and so on there isn't a lasting feeling of needing to take action against these things. We rant and argue for a couple days and then it's back to normal without any change made. If we are to a point where we are deciding whether a slur is harsh enough to get upset over than that should be a sign that things have gone too far in our country and that racial abuse is far too prevalent as is. Whether you believe this specific case or not doesn't really matter but if your first reaction isn't to sympathize with the victim to a certain extent then who knows how far all this could go.

I would hope if someone ran up to you on the street in need of help that your first reaction wouldn't be to question them over whether they truly deserve it or not.

+100.
 

Just say you don't like Jews if you don't. We know you exist, so stop tap dancing you a$$holes.
 

Shockingly, this isn’t actually true. I agreed with your sentiment until the last couple years when I was made “woke” by various people that told me “racism” is only possible if there is a structural and systemic power imbalance. I subsequently found out this is common thought amongst at least a pretty broad swath of the progressive element of the country. Don’t blame the messenger.

Is it ok I make this comment as a minority in the state of CA? How do know Heracles is white?

Beyond that, IMO Rosen won’t make it in the NFL. He’s soft, and a dink.

Go **** yourself
 

We've mastered the art of diversion as a country. Something comes up such as this and we look for holes in a statement or holes in an argument instead of the actual issue at hand. Threads like these pop up in the sports sections of this site every so often and it could go on a dozen pages but the majority of the comments will not have anything to do with the actual fact Rosen said he faced verbal abuse which should never happen. As a human, it shouldn't take deep thought on the person's character or paragraphs of debate to reach a conclusion about how you feel. Some will say he should have thicker skin but why? What is to be gained from being negative towards someone else?

We've normalized this type of wrongdoing and much worse to a point where we aren't dramatically affected.Whether it be verbal abuse, violence, sexual abuse and so on there isn't a lasting feeling of needing to take action against these things. We rant and argue for a couple days and then it's back to normal without any change made. If we are to a point where we are deciding whether a slur is harsh enough to get upset over than that should be a sign that things have gone too far in our country and that racial abuse is far too prevalent as is. Whether you believe this specific case or not doesn't really matter but if your first reaction isn't to sympathize with the victim to a certain extent then who knows how far all this could go.

I would hope if someone ran up to you on the street in need of help that your first reaction wouldn't be to question them over whether they truly deserve it or not.

We certainly don't normalize racial slurs. We, rightly, condemn them. We treat them as something unacceptable and considerably worse than other insults. This is why this entire thing is a story. For example, if the headline read "Josh Rosen Details Incidents Where Opponents Called Him Ugly/Dumb/Weak", it would NOT be a story. So despite all of your virtue signaling in this post, we do not normalize racial slurs. We condemn them. Hence the story.

As to your second point, please don't lump in verbal insults with violence/sexual abuse. It's silly and makes your discussion look deluded. People being called horrible names is not in the same ballpark, stadium, zip code or planet to sexual abuse and violence.

Your last point is just weird virtue signaling. What do you mean? I think the overwhelming vast majority of people would condemn anyone for using racial slurs. We also (obviously) would condemn sexual assault and violence. There are a couple fringe groups who seem to be OK with violence (Klan, Antifa, etc.), and you're right, those people are vile. However, I think the society as a whole seems to be disgusted with them.

I'm glad you took the time to show us just how much you care. It's really virtuous of you. As a country, we could really learn a lot from your post.
 


We certainly don't normalize racial slurs. We, rightly, condemn them. We treat them as something unacceptable and considerably worse than other insults. This is why this entire thing is a story. For example, if the headline read "Josh Rosen Details Incidents Where Opponents Called Him Ugly/Dumb/Weak", it would NOT be a story. So despite all of your virtue signaling in this post, we do not normalize racial slurs. We condemn them. Hence the story.

As to your second point, please don't lump in verbal insults with violence/sexual abuse. It's silly and makes your discussion look deluded. People being called horrible names is not in the same ballpark, stadium, zip code or planet to sexual abuse and violence.

Your last point is just weird virtue signaling. What do you mean? I think the overwhelming vast majority of people would condemn anyone for using racial slurs. We also (obviously) would condemn sexual assault and violence. There are a couple fringe groups who seem to be OK with violence (Klan, Antifa, etc.), and you're right, those people are vile. However, I think the society as a whole seems to be disgusted with them.

I'm glad you took the time to show us just how much you care. It's really virtuous of you. As a country, we could really learn a lot from your post.

Now you’ve done it.
 

Not since Brendan Fraser in "School Ties" has a QB as talented as Rosen received an anti-semitic message like this.....
 

Is it me or do the top QBs in this draft sound like they aren't worth a high draft choice?

Let me know when you find someone who can tell people that in a reliable way..... nobody ever knows about QBs....

The only way to be right is just declare they all suck every yearn ad you'll have a good chance of being right. Otherwise it is a crap shoot.
 

Let me know when you find someone who can tell people that in a reliable way..... nobody ever knows about QBs....

The only way to be right is just declare they all suck every yearn ad you'll have a good chance of being right. Otherwise it is a crap shoot.

I mean all these guys have noticeable deficiencies:

Josh Allen is the most physically talented but very raw.

Sam Darnold is the most refined but has Daunte Culpepper hands, turnover issues, and sounds like his arm strength is suspect.

Baker Mayfield seems to be the second coming of Jonny Football.

Josh Rosen appears to lack leadership abilities.

If I'm the Browns, the best course might be to take Barkley and go with Tyrod Taylor for a couple of years and look at a QB draft choice next year.
 

I mean all these guys have noticeable deficiencies:

Josh Allen is the most physically talented but very raw.

Sam Darnold is the most refined but has Daunte Culpepper hands, turnover issues, and sounds like his arm strength is suspect.

Baker Mayfield seems to be the second coming of Jonny Football.

Josh Rosen appears to lack leadership abilities.

If I'm the Browns, the best course might be to take Barkley and go with Tyrod Taylor for a couple of years and look at a QB draft choice next year.

The problem is that assumes that there will be a better choice next year AND that the Browns will be in a position to get them. Neither or which might be true.

They have two first round picks. They have to take a QB. There was even some talk of them hedging their bets and taking two, though I think that'd be a huge mistake as they have too many other needs.

Besides, who was the last QB that didn't have one or more of those issues or similar? Rodgers was a "system QB" that couldn't transition to the NFL. Brady wasn't even a day 1 QB in a two day draft. Heck, the last few "can't miss" QB's have been busts. The Browns might as well try again this year.
 

I mean all these guys have noticeable deficiencies:

Josh Allen is the most physically talented but very raw.

Sam Darnold is the most refined but has Daunte Culpepper hands, turnover issues, and sounds like his arm strength is suspect.

Baker Mayfield seems to be the second coming of Jonny Football.

Josh Rosen appears to lack leadership abilities.

If I'm the Browns, the best course might be to take Barkley and go with Tyrod Taylor for a couple of years and look at a QB draft choice next year.

That's what I mean, you can pick out negatives easily as you never know if that is the problem in the end and you'll likely be right most of the time as most don't pan out.

Pick some winners on a regular basis and I'll be interested ;)
 

Some people will say anything to try to get under the skin of an opponent. Doesn't mean it's okay, I just don't always think everyone believes what they're saying.
 

We've mastered the art of diversion as a country. Something comes up such as this and we look for holes in a statement or holes in an argument instead of the actual issue at hand. Threads like these pop up in the sports sections of this site every so often and it could go on a dozen pages but the majority of the comments will not have anything to do with the actual fact Rosen said he faced verbal abuse which should never happen. As a human, it shouldn't take deep thought on the person's character or paragraphs of debate to reach a conclusion about how you feel. Some will say he should have thicker skin but why? What is to be gained from being negative towards someone else?

We've normalized this type of wrongdoing and much worse to a point where we aren't dramatically affected. Whether it be verbal abuse, violence, sexual abuse and so on there isn't a lasting feeling of needing to take action against these things. We rant and argue for a couple days and then it's back to normal without any change made. If we are to a point where we are deciding whether a slur is harsh enough to get upset over than that should be a sign that things have gone too far in our country and that racial abuse is far too prevalent as is. Whether you believe this specific case or not doesn't really matter but if your first reaction isn't to sympathize with the victim to a certain extent then who knows how far all this could go.

I would hope if someone ran up to you on the street in need of help that your first reaction wouldn't be to question them over whether they truly deserve it or not.

Good post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 





Top Bottom