Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Not Panthers News, But Some of you will be happy at this suspension

37 posts in this topic

Posted

Just playing devil's advocate....isn't that what SAS was trying to say to women?

Sent from my iPhone

 

Yeah, women would do well to to keep themselves out of certain situations as well.  

 

 

We live in a helluva world.  Someone up there monitoring the human race has to be shaking their head.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

When that debate show is on a major network they can do whatever they want if they feel their employee was out of line.

Sent from my iPhone

I guess so, but I just don't see the point of having a show based around debates and discussion where you are limited in what you can say.  I'm sure every person on this board has a conversation every day in which our opinions would leave someone shaking their head. It seems nothing can be said anymore unless you side with the victim. Anything else deems you a suspension, fine, or a firing. The only opinion you can have is the popular one. But hell, that's ESPN in a nutshell.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess so, but I just don't see the point of having a show based around debates and discussion where you are limited in what you can say.  I'm sure every person on this board has a conversation every day in which our opinions would leave someone shaking their head. It seems nothing can be said anymore unless you side with the victim. Anything else deems you a suspension, fine, or a firing. The only opinion you can have is the popular one. But hell, that's ESPN in a nutshell.  

 

 

You're right. It's really any big business. ESPN has many stakeholders to consider so they have an obligation to be politically correct. I get what he was trying to say, but it certainly could (and did) be misinterpreted. Not to mention the group that was offended were women.

 

He should have phrased it better, but he didn't deserve a week off.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What fuging pisses me off the most is deadspin trashing him for a heartfelt apology.

 

I like deadspin sometimes but they are such a bunch of pompous, hypocritical, liberal fugs it makes me so mad.

 

I literally watched that and thought...wow this is one of the best apologies I've ever heard. I gained so much respect for SAS, and I already respected him a lot before because he's an accomplished, well educated and spoken journalist that is comfortable in his OWN SKIN (something many journalists can't do and it makes them fuging hacks)

 

What happens next? Suspension and trashed by deadspin

 

fug this country, man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This isn't the first time Stephen A mentioned this line.  He talked about it during the whole thing with Chad Johnson headbutting his girlfriend or wife at the time.  I think the biggest difference between that time and this is Michelle Beadles comments, and the whole injustice of Rice getting the two game suspension.  This is probably not just within black culture or within black families, but I think a lot of black people automatically got the drift of what Stephen A was getting at.  Mostly not to hit a man and partly not getting in his face.  He should have clarified what he was talking about, and sadly they couldn't discuss it this past Monday.  People were offended with Stephen A's talk concerning racism and probably his comments on Tony Dungy, so I have a problem with ESPN not allowing this debate to continue Monday.  I can't see First Take anymore in the same way after this incident and cover up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The other thing is, I DONT THINK HE WAS WRONG

 

What he was trying to say was, if you're the woman in the middle of a domestic dispute, ask youself "Do I deserve to get hit, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT?" IF you do, what level does that put you on? Not as low as a man who would hit a woman, but it's still pretty damn low.

 

A man should never, under any circumstances, place his hands on a woman in an overly forceful manner unless it's a matter of self defense from death or otherwise serious bodily injury. BUT, that does not mean that there are not women in this world who don't deserve it, and need to learn that just because there are laws AND societal ethics that prevent a man from hitting a woman, that doesn't mean that you can become a sh*t talking bitch and use it to your advantage.

 

That's what SAS was saying in my opinion. And in my opinion, he was right.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm still with Stephen A. on this. Like he said, you should never hit a woman, period. But women should also not antagonize. There are certain things that, if I were to do them to another man, I would expect to get punched.(i.e. hitting, pushing, throwing things). All he meant was, make a half-way conscious effort not to do those things with reckless abandon just because you are a woman, and hitting you is frowned upon. It's still his fault if he hits you, but you're still an a**hole.

 

PS: Michelle Beadle can kiss my ars with her "mini-skirt" comments.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a pretty slippery-slope, man. How do you tell a woman that she should know not to go "too far" in a dispute? And how do you measure what is too far and what isn't? Different men will respond differently to a dispute. Some will not hesitate to knock a woman out, and some will never hit a woman under any circumstance. For us to tell a woman to not provoke a man to hit you is not the correct thing to say, especially if we're all on here saying that a man should never hit a woman under any circumstances. "I would never hit a woman, but you shouldn't do anything to get me to that point" doesn't make sense. 

 

Again...I get what he was trying to say, but it didn't come out correctly. 

 

And to talk poo on Michelle Beadle for being upset about it is also ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Everyone has their breaking point, everyone.  It's a harsh reality.  It's a very gray area and yes a slippery slope.  
 

But Beadle took his comments a bit too far out of context.  That's pretty black and white.  

Now as for her being offended, I'm not a woman so I won't say she shouldn't be offended or upset but the miniskirt thing kind of skewed his original comment.  It's clear he knew he wasn't as accurate in his articulation as he should/could have been, but c'mon man.

 

Wearing a miniskirt is not comparable to a woman hitting and spitting on a man with the assumption he can't/won't do anything in retaliation.  Michelle was in a past abusive relationship (sorry to hear) and it probably included her asshole of a man roughing her up because he was insecure about her going out in public looking sexy around all those athletes.  Anyway I know it rubbed her the wrong way (which isn't wrong by any means, that's her right) but it really is a different situation than what Stephen A was referring too. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Everyone has their breaking point, everyone. It's a harsh reality. It's a very gray area and yes a slippery slope.

But Beadle took his comments a bit too far out of context. That's pretty black and white.

Now as for her being offended, I'm not a woman so I won't say she shouldn't be offended or upset but the miniskirt thing kind of skewed his original comment. It's clear he knew he wasn't as accurate in his articulation as he should/could have been, but c'mon man.

Wearing a miniskirt is not comparable to a woman hitting and spitting on a man with the assumption he can't/won't do anything in retaliation. Michelle was in a past abusive relationship (sorry to hear) and it probably included her asshole of a man roughing her up because he was insecure about her going out in public looking sexy around all those athletes. Anyway I know it rubbed her the wrong way (which isn't wrong by any means, that's her right) but it really is a different situation than what Stephen A was referring too.

Her mini skirt comment was suggesting that if she dressed sexy was she inviting the opportunity for rape. This has been a common "thought" by some people when discussing rape - their stance is victims shouldn't dress a certain way to provoke or invite rape. So, yes it's kind if extreme to use it to compare to what SAS said, but it's not that far off from what he was also suggesting. What's the line a women shouldn't cross so they don't get hit? What's the line a women shouldn't cross so that men don't take advantage of them sexually? SAS is not a woman so he will never know what a woman's frame of reference is, especially one who has been a victim of abuse. He doesn't need to tell them not to provoke a man to hit them the way he did, and we certainly don't need to talk poo on a woman for the way she reacted to it. SAS sincerely apologized and admitted he was wrong, it's not up to us to continue to defend him or justify his statements.

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Her mini skirt comment was suggesting that if she dressed sexy was she inviting the opportunity for rape. This has been a common "thought" by some people when discussing rape - their stance is victims shouldn't dress a certain way to provoke or invite rape. So, yes it's kind if extreme to use it to compare to what SAS said, but it's not that far off from what he was also suggesting. What's the line a women shouldn't cross so they don't get hit? What's the line a women shouldn't cross so that men don't take advantage of them sexually? SAS is not a woman so he will never know what a woman's frame of reference is, especially one who has been a victim of abuse. He doesn't need to tell them not to provoke a man to hit them the way he did, and we certainly don't need to talk poo on a woman for the way she reacted to it. SAS sincerely apologized and admitted he was wrong, it's not up to us to continue to defend him or justify his statements.

Sent from my iPhone

Guess you skimmed over the part where I said I don't blame her for reacting or being offended because I'm not a woman.

Taking advantage of someone sexually was not the initial point.  And the core context was exaggerated. His initial statements were not bad enough to get suspended. TO ME.  But I also admit things could have been articulated better. I have already reiterated that I am not a woman so I can't blame a female for interpreting comments in the way they see things.   But the miniskirt was a stretch. Hard to argue that.  But yes I do understand why ESPN had to do what they had to do and he'll be alright, he's a grown ass man.

But to your point I can defend whoevers statements I choose. Last I checked there's no law against that. People should not provoke other people and escalate situations! Male or female. Agree to disagree. I respect your opinion but you're not changing mine and that's that.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites