Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#31 PiratePanther189

PiratePanther189

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:03 PM

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.



#32 CoastalCat

CoastalCat

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 282 posts
  • LocationWilmington, NC

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:07 PM

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.  



#33 RoaringRiot

RoaringRiot

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • ALL-PRO
  • 4,126 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:43 PM

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. 



#34 Mojo

Mojo

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,003 posts
  • LocationPasadena, CA

Posted 30 July 2014 - 08:37 PM

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. 

 

 

 



#35 RoaringRiot

RoaringRiot

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • ALL-PRO
  • 4,126 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 31 July 2014 - 01:07 AM

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

#36 Mojo

Mojo

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,003 posts
  • LocationPasadena, CA

Posted 31 July 2014 - 10:18 AM

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


Edited by Mojo, 31 July 2014 - 10:25 AM.


#37 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:25 AM

In the context of the show, I think it's worth discussing that they should change from talking on social issues.  Yeah, we are all in agreement that Stephen A made a mistake, but the show censored him and they didn't debate this issue like others.  Here is a youtube clip talking on the situation from a black perspective. (There's some cursing in it but it's not overly so.  Probably curses 4 or 5 times in the video for those of you who are like me who wince at 'em)

 

 

 

Overall I have to agree with this video.  As I said I can't look at First Take in the same light anymore after they ran away from this topic.  If you are going to let your anchors on all these sports shows discuss social issues, don't punish them when they say something that sets off a firestorm, and don't censor them.  If you're going to do sports, do it.  Don't have a sports version of "The View". (Notice how Whoopi Golberg wasn't suspended for her defense of Stephen A.  That is because that show is about discussing social issues)  Now when Stephen A. comes back, I'm going to question if something is his opinion or is he simply towing the company line?  If I ever thought he was fake before, which many believe he is at times, I'm definitely going to believe he's fake now.  I laugh at some of the things that are mentioned in that youtube clip because they are true.  Smith offended black people for supporting Cuban's usage of walking on the other side of the street when he sees a black guy with a hoodie.  For him to walk on the other side of the street when a white guy is coming at him, he has to be a skin head who's body is covered in tatoos.  Can't you see the unfairness in those statements?  All the black guy has to do is have on a "Bill Belichick" hoodie to appear menacing enough for Cuban, yet the white guy has to look like an all around thug. (Of course we know the "hoodie" thing brought back allusions to the Trayvon Martin case)  People were offended by those statements, and Stephen A was unapologetic in his defense of Cuban.  What did First Take do?  They continued to discuss it.  They brought on Michael Eric Dyson to debate with Smith.  They didn't censor that one.  Why censor the debate now?  Why suspend Stephen A. now?

 

 

So I agree with the youtube clip.  If you are going to censor a guy for making comments on a social issue, no longer talk on social issues.  Just talk sports, that's where these guys are experts, or suppose to be experts heehee!  Stephen A. can offend as many people as he wants on sports issues, and that is fair game. (And that really goes to all the other ESPN shows as well.)  Of course from time to time you sometimes will have to dive into social issues because athletes do live lives, but keep it in the realm as it relates to sports.  Say Ray Rice should have been suspended for more games, don't let your anchors dive into the issue of domestic violence.


Edited by Matthias, 01 August 2014 - 01:23 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com