Lots of people care, because they think it's important for gay people to be able to live as freely and openly as they'd like, and know that Sam making a roster would be a powerful example of how it's possible to do so. It would be good for an openly gay man to play in the NFL because it would show that a gay man can…

He doesn't have a valid point. Michael Sam is the first openly gay player to be drafted by an NFL team. It's "unfortunate" because he had a chance to make even more history by being the first openly gay player to play in an NFL game, etc. Now all of that is in jeopardy.

Well put. I was rooting for him but I have no problem with the Rams cutting him. They gave him a chance. Teams have preseason film on him. He may yet find a team.

What kind of shit-ass team can't handle the "distraction" of some people *hoping* that a borderline player makes the cut. Holy fuck nuts, if your team can't handle that kind of SEARING INTENSITY, you're already properly fucked out of the gate.

He deserves to be treated like a child for understanding the world like one.

I know! Famous rookies NEVER get attention. They don't star in Snickers commercials (Manziel), snort coke on Instagram (Manziel), engage in public drunkenness (Manziel), obsess over "their brand" (RGIII), drag the Kardashian freak show with them (Reggie Bush), have pimp and crack dealers as parents (Bryant), legions…

No, actually, Sam isn't the "only one". Why whine about something so easily disproven?

"Why exactly is it "unfortunate?""

It's unfortunate because Michael Sam is attempting to become the first openly gay player in the NFL, something of enormous symbolic importance, and while no one wants him to be judged by anything but his merits as a football player, many sports fans were and are rooting for him to succeed.

Easy there. "Unfortunate" because people were rooting for him to make the team. No one said the Rams were obligated to keep him.

Probably unfortunate because people wanted him to play better, not that it was a bad decision by the Rams. Come on.

You're a moron.

Probably the only black man recently to say "Oh no, I have to leave St. Louis."

Urban change is inevitable, and despite being young in absolute terms, almost every neighborhood is old enough to have ups and downs.

Streeterville used to literally be a dump and now it's high-end highrises. Lincoln Park was one of the first 'gentrified' urban areas after white flight in the 50s/60s. Although poorer…

Or were driven out by rising prices, but it's still a conscious choice by the rich to move to the place, which is my point.

They can live anywhere though, and instead of making environmentally sound choices in a lot if cases, they build massive estates. The rich can simply flee areas seeing problems, the poor can't.

I think your simplifying the arguments against gentrification. Personally I think businesses opening up stores in communities, and having wealthy people move into communities that are poor are generally very good things as it provides those communities with an expanded tax base, our new economic opportunity. I think…

"Do people care as much if I class gentrify Columbia Heights if I'm black?"

Except that it's class based vs xenophobia, and being against rich people of any race fucking everything up ain't the same as hating poor immigrants for trying to live. The rich can live anywhere, but they choose so often to take over historically poor areas or destroy natural beauty to do it. It far worse than poor…

I feel like this article is off base and defensive of the rich. I think that when the influx is coming from a group of wealth and privilege the best analogy is not 'immigration' but 'colonization.'