Incognito Reaction: I Don't Get It
-
You know the bottom line in this whole situation is two wrongs don't make a right. Incognito is a piece of trash human being by all accounts, but by the grace of God happened to be great at football. Don't show me the guy dressed in his Sunday best in a staged interview and pretend none of it happened. The reason I don't feel bad for him in the slightest is because people like Richie make this world a shitty place to live in. There's a way to bullcrap with your friends and not be a crazy douche. I played football my whole childhood as I'm sure some of you did. I had good-natured shit talking all the time, but there was always a clear line you didn't cross.It really irks me when people defend Incognito-even if it's the 'culture' the way he acts as a human being is unacceptable. I don't care if you're in the NFL or work at the teddy bear factory.
With that being said, I think Martin looking back on the whole thing could have handled it differently. Again, I don't feel bad at all for Incognito being exposed for the jerk he is. However, I think this sets a bad precedent for how to handle things in the work-place. It's obvious that higher ups in the organization were not aware of the alleged bullying. Martin should have gone to these people first, not the press. I think it sets a bad precedent for the entire NFL that locker rooms are places where people get treated like crap. I'm sure most locker rooms are just like what I described earlier with good natured back and forths and the occasional thing that went too far. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.
-
Formerly Sane said:
Thank you liberalism! Will we reach a day when the NFL doesn't keep score and everyone get s a trophy?
So? You think that the NFL cannot survive unless its players I paid bounties to put hits on other players. Or that they cannot survive unless the juvenile locker room hazing is allowed to continue.
How about this idea: Why don't these guys that are paid millions to play this sport act like professionals. Tackle a guy because it is your job to tackle him. Treat another adult like another adult.
I may put a slam on you here (primarily out of jest) because you are a Steeler fan. But if I actually had professional dealings with you I would treat you professionally and I would expect the same of you.
I mean, if we were involved in some legal transaction I would not tell you during the course of such that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries.....even if she was and he did.
-
Formerly Sane said:
Thank you liberalism! Will we reach a day when the NFL doesn't keep score and everyone get s a trophy?
So? You think that the NFL cannot survive unless its players I paid bounties to put hits on other players. Or that they cannot survive unless the juvenile locker room hazing is allowed to continue.
How about this idea: Why don't these guys that are paid millions to play this sport act like professionals. Tackle a guy because it is your job to tackle him. Treat another adult like another adult.
I may put a slam on you here (primarily out of jest) because you are a Steeler fan. But if I actually had professional dealings with you I would treat you professionally and I would expect the same of you.
I mean, if we were involved in some legal transaction I would not tell you during the course of such that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries.....even if she was and he did.
So? You think that the NFL cannot survive unless its players I paid bounties to put hits on other players. Or that they cannot survive unless the juvenile locker room hazing is allowed to continue.
How about this idea: Why don't these guys that are paid millions to play this sport act like professionals. Tackle a guy because it is your job to tackle him. Treat another adult like another adult.
I may put a slam on you here (primarily out of jest) because you are a Steeler fan. But if I actually had professional dealings with you I would treat you professionally and I would expect the same of you.
I mean, if we were involved in some legal transaction I would not tell you during the course of such that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries.....even if she was and he did.
Way to shoe-horn a movie quote in there...
-
The NFL is lucky martin didn't come in and shoot up the locker room . Richie Incognito is a classless dick but Martin clearly has mental problems. I'd avoid both. ad press is unneccesary for the browns
-
Ugh. This is another case of people saying one thing, and the other side arguing against something else entirely.
Statement: "This was a huge overreaction by Martin, his camp, the media, the public, and the NFL. It was completely unnecessary, and instead of embracing that unnecessary reaction, someone should have acknowledged the ridiculousness of its intensity."
Reaction: "Richie Incognito IS a jerk, and this behavior is NOT preferable."
Lol, what? There are very few people out there who think, "What Richie Incognito did was fine, he's a model saint, and we should encourage not only him but other people to act like he has." So why are people arguing against that? Let's try this one more time:
Richie Incognito is a jerk. It is not ideal to have some of your players making some of your other players so uncomfortable that it has a negative effect on the team chemistry.
There, we've got that part handled. It's out there. So now you don't need to feel compelled to respond with "But Richie Incognito is a jerk!" We good? Okay, now...
What Incognito and a number of the other Dolphins did was not the worst thing in the world. It is, in my opinion, less wrong than beating your fiancΓ©e, sexually assaulting someone, dealing/doing drugs, etc. Yet, this Incognito thing has been met with more public and media outrage than any of those things have. (I agree that it is due to desensitization, but that doesn't justify it.) My suggestion, then, is that we apply a little perspective to this whole thing, and scale the outrage either down to what actually happened or the outrage about more serious behavior problems up to a proportionate level.
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
-
Ugh. This is another case of people saying one thing, and the other side arguing against something else entirely.
Statement: "This was a huge overreaction by Martin, his camp, the media, the public, and the NFL. It was completely unnecessary, and instead of embracing that unnecessary reaction, someone should have acknowledged the ridiculousness of its intensity."
Reaction: "Richie Incognito IS a jerk, and this behavior is NOT preferable."
Lol, what? There are very few people out there who think, "What Richie Incognito did was fine, he's a model saint, and we should encourage not only him but other people to act like he has." So why are people arguing against that? Let's try this one more time:
Richie Incognito is a jerk. It is not ideal to have some of your players making some of your other players so uncomfortable that it has a negative effect on the team chemistry.
There, we've got that part handled. It's out there. So now you don't need to feel compelled to respond with "But Richie Incognito is a jerk!" We good? Okay, now...
What Incognito and a number of the other Dolphins did was not the worst thing in the world. It is, in my opinion, less wrong than beating your fiancΓ©e, sexually assaulting someone, dealing/doing drugs, etc. Yet, this Incognito thing has been met with more public and media outrage than any of those things have. (I agree that it is due to desensitization, but that doesn't justify it.) My suggestion, then, is that we apply a little perspective to this whole thing, and scale the outrage either down to what actually happened or the outrage about more serious behavior problems up to a proportionate level.
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
Ugh. This is another case of people saying one thing, and the other side arguing against something else entirely.
Statement: "This was a huge overreaction by Martin, his camp, the media, the public, and the NFL. It was completely unnecessary, and instead of embracing that unnecessary reaction, someone should have acknowledged the ridiculousness of its intensity."
Reaction: "Richie Incognito IS a jerk, and this behavior is NOT preferable."
Lol, what? There are very few people out there who think, "What Richie Incognito did was fine, he's a model saint, and we should encourage not only him but other people to act like he has." So why are people arguing against that? Let's try this one more time:
Richie Incognito is a jerk. It is not ideal to have some of your players making some of your other players so uncomfortable that it has a negative effect on the team chemistry.
There, we've got that part handled. It's out there. So now you don't need to feel compelled to respond with "But Richie Incognito is a jerk!" We good? Okay, now...
What Incognito and a number of the other Dolphins did was not the worst thing in the world. It is, in my opinion, less wrong than beating your fiancΓ©e, sexually assaulting someone, dealing/doing drugs, etc. Yet, this Incognito thing has been met with more public and media outrage than any of those things have. (I agree that it is due to desensitization, but that doesn't justify it.) My suggestion, then, is that we apply a little perspective to this whole thing, and scale the outrage either down to what actually happened or the outrage about more serious behavior problems up to a proportionate level.
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
i think everyone here on the board understands what type of environment an NFL (HS or college) locker room can be like.
i persay don't blame incognito for doing what he was told to do, but as a human being you can always tell when you are imposing your will upon someone else to their disregard. a bully is a bully is a bully.
a lot of people get shot for that shit nowadays. i sure as hell wouldn't teach me kids to act in that way. you might get columbined.
-
Lol, wow. STILL didn't get through. I agree that Incognito was probably "a bully."
Here, maybe an analogy will help:
You're a teacher in an elementary school classroom. In the back of the classroom, Timmy is stabbing Jane to death with a knife, and Bobby is snorting coke off the top of his desk. In the front of the room, Johnny just took Sally's pencil. You look at the back of the classroom and you say, "Timmy, Bobby, come on,... knock that off." Then you look at Johnny and say, "Johnny! What have you done! Oh my God! Go to the principal's office! I never want you in my classroom again!"
And when I say, "Hey, why did you come down so hard on Johnny when you've got Timmy and Bobby committing murder and doing blow in the back of the room?" your response to me is, "Well, there's been a lot of violence and drugs in the back of the room for awhile now. This pencil-stealing thing, though, that's new. That's gotta be addressed. It's not okay to steal other people's pencils, you know."
Do you see how ridiculous that is? Now sure, I've exaggerated it some, but the general idea is the same: The "newness" of a behavior (or the recognition of a behavior) doesn't really (or shouldn't)increase or decrease the seriousness of it. I'm pointing at the back of the room and yelling, "There's kids attacking each other and doing drugs back there!" and you're looking me dead in the face with a blank look (or an insanely angry look) and saying, "People should not take other people's pencils!"
-
Ugh. This is another case of people saying one thing, and the other side arguing against something else entirely.
Statement: "This was a huge overreaction by Martin, his camp, the media, the public, and the NFL. It was completely unnecessary, and instead of embracing that unnecessary reaction, someone should have acknowledged the ridiculousness of its intensity."
Reaction: "Richie Incognito IS a jerk, and this behavior is NOT preferable."
Lol, what? There are very few people out there who think, "What Richie Incognito did was fine, he's a model saint, and we should encourage not only him but other people to act like he has." So why are people arguing against that? Let's try this one more time:
Richie Incognito is a jerk. It is not ideal to have some of your players making some of your other players so uncomfortable that it has a negative effect on the team chemistry.
There, we've got that part handled. It's out there. So now you don't need to feel compelled to respond with "But Richie Incognito is a jerk!" We good? Okay, now...
What Incognito and a number of the other Dolphins did was not the worst thing in the world. It is, in my opinion, less wrong than beating your fiancΓ©e, sexually assaulting someone, dealing/doing drugs, etc. Yet, this Incognito thing has been met with more public and media outrage than any of those things have. (I agree that it is due to desensitization, but that doesn't justify it.) My suggestion, then, is that we apply a little perspective to this whole thing, and scale the outrage either down to what actually happened or the outrage about more serious behavior problems up to a proportionate level.
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
Since that was a classless cheap shot at what I said I feel compelled to respond. I can state my opinion even though it's the popular one. Furthermore, all you're doing is providing subjective fodder to this whole argument and trying puff out your chest and say you're right. To you, this whole situation may be less serious than drugs or assault but that's a completely subjective, ignorant point of view. Thousands of people from adults to children commit suicide or self harm because of rampant bullying. This was not a case of 'name-calling'. This by all accounts fully functioning member of society was harassedand bullied so much he ruined his reputation in many ways to end it. The reason this was brought to the limelight was because it was new to the NFL, not because people hold it in the same regard as murder or serious crimes. When Big Ben allegedly raped those girls it got just as much media attention as this did if not more. To look at things as more wrong than others is again an ignorant way of viewing societies' problems.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark that you weren't bullied in school. If you were and feel this way, I feel sorry because that means the vicious cycle continued. Edit: Also, your 'analogy' is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply in any way to this situation.
-
Pass on them both. We don't need either locker room cancer.
-
I don't see the conflict in the statements Mr Cow.
Sure I think martin is a big puss and overreacted and the press eats this shit up. On the other hand sure Richie incognito is probably one of the 3 or 4 biggest assholes in the league and since he's not and all pro then I wouldn't want him on the Cleveland Browns. If he were a future Hall of Famer, well at least I think about it. Where's the rub? Send him to Al Davis.
WSS
-
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
Since that was a classless cheap shot at what I said I feel compelled to respond. I can state my opinion even though it's the popular one. Furthermore, all you're doing is providing subjective fodder to this whole argument and trying puff out your chest and say you're right. To you, this whole situation may be less serious than drugs or assault but that's a completely subjective, ignorant point of view. Thousands of people from adults to children commit suicide or self harm because of rampant bullying. This was not a case of 'name-calling'. This by all accounts fully functioning member of society was harassedand bullied so much he ruined his reputation in many ways to end it. The reason this was brought to the limelight was because it was new to the NFL, not because people hold it in the same regard as murder or serious crimes. When Big Ben allegedly raped those girls it got just as much media attention as this did if not more. To look at things as more wrong than others is again an ignorant way of viewing societies' problems.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark that you weren't bullied in school. If you were and feel this way, I feel sorry because that means the vicious cycle continued. Edit: Also, your 'analogy' is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply in any way to this situation.
Since that was a classless cheap shot at what I said I feel compelled to respond. I can state my opinion even though it's the popular one. Furthermore, all you're doing is providing subjective fodder to this whole argument and trying puff out your chest and say you're right. To you, this whole situation may be less serious than drugs or assault but that's a completely subjective, ignorant point of view. Thousands of people from adults to children commit suicide or self harm because of rampant bullying. This was not a case of 'name-calling'. This by all accounts fully functioning member of society was harassedand bullied so much he ruined his reputation in many ways to end it. The reason this was brought to the limelight was because it was new to the NFL, not because people hold it in the same regard as murder or serious crimes. When Big Ben allegedly raped those girls it got just as much media attention as this did if not more. To look at things as more wrong than others is again an ignorant way of viewing societies' problems.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark that you weren't bullied in school. If you were and feel this way, I feel sorry because that means the vicious cycle continued. Edit: Also, your 'analogy' is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply in any way to this situation.
You sound like the new generation of pussies who was rewarded for just participating in a sport with a letter or trophy.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.β - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
If he came at a discount sure why not. I would say its a good guess that there are more RI's playing in the NFL than some of you would assume. He is a good guard and we have openings. I think the media attention has pulled him back some and this will probably tame him down some.
The only thing now has he lost his edge? He may have thrived and played better by being a bully, which mentally made him feel better about himself.
-
He's never been that good. He has slow feet that are getting slower. He was a 4th alternate to the pro bowl once.
There's no reason for us to get him. The negative attention doesn't help either.
-
jrb,
The idea that name-calling or giving someone a male blowup doll is less serious than drug use/abuse, assault, or rape is not my idea that I'm trying to force on other people. Our society (and many societies) has decided that those latter things are serious enough to be considered crimes while name-calling and giving someone a blowup doll are not. So, are these categorizations subjective? Sure. But they're not my intellectual property. I called them "less serious" based on the laws and norms already in place in the U.S. Our legal system and our societal expectations both already arrange "wrongs" on a scale of less and more serious. So, unless all of that is "ignorant", it's not "ignorant" to view some things as more or less wrong than others.
Also, I'd like to see the footage of sportscasters screaming in rage about how terrible Big Ben is and how there's no place for him in the league. I'm sure I can find the footage where a number of them said that about Incognito. A couple of guys may have made a derogatory comment about Big Ben's off-field behavior here or there, but it is ridiculous to say it got the same reaction. In fact, I'll do you one better: Ray Rice just physically assaulted his girlfriend the other day. Where's the negative reaction to that which is equivalent to the Incognito thing? If the reaction was equivalent, I should be able to turn on ESPN right now and see red-faced folks ranting about how awful Rice is and how he shouldn't be in the league, just like it happened for days/weeks after the Incognito thing broke. Maybe my clicker is broken, because the ESPN I am seeing doesn't show that.
Also, what do you not understand about the analogy? I'll explain it to you.
Westside Steve,
You are exactly right, sir. There is no conflict in the two statements. In fact, that was kind of my point. People are responding to my statement that there was an overreaction by "arguing" back that Incognito is a jerk. Yes, Incognito is a jerk. That doesn't mean there wasn't a huge overreaction to what he did.
-
If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.
So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".
Since that was a classless cheap shot at what I said I feel compelled to respond. I can state my opinion even though it's the popular one. Furthermore, all you're doing is providing subjective fodder to this whole argument and trying puff out your chest and say you're right. To you, this whole situation may be less serious than drugs or assault but that's a completely subjective, ignorant point of view. Thousands of people from adults to children commit suicide or self harm because of rampant bullying. This was not a case of 'name-calling'. This by all accounts fully functioning member of society was harassedand bullied so much he ruined his reputation in many ways to end it. The reason this was brought to the limelight was because it was new to the NFL, not because people hold it in the same regard as murder or serious crimes. When Big Ben allegedly raped those girls it got just as much media attention as this did if not more. To look at things as more wrong than others is again an ignorant way of viewing societies' problems.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark that you weren't bullied in school. If you were and feel this way, I feel sorry because that means the vicious cycle continued. Edit: Also, your 'analogy' is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply in any way to this situation.
Since that was a classless cheap shot at what I said I feel compelled to respond. I can state my opinion even though it's the popular one. Furthermore, all you're doing is providing subjective fodder to this whole argument and trying puff out your chest and say you're right. To you, this whole situation may be less serious than drugs or assault but that's a completely subjective, ignorant point of view. Thousands of people from adults to children commit suicide or self harm because of rampant bullying. This was not a case of 'name-calling'. This by all accounts fully functioning member of society was harassedand bullied so much he ruined his reputation in many ways to end it. The reason this was brought to the limelight was because it was new to the NFL, not because people hold it in the same regard as murder or serious crimes. When Big Ben allegedly raped those girls it got just as much media attention as this did if not more. To look at things as more wrong than others is again an ignorant way of viewing societies' problems.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark that you weren't bullied in school. If you were and feel this way, I feel sorry because that means the vicious cycle continued. Edit: Also, your 'analogy' is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply in any way to this situation.
If someone commits suicide over bullying, especially an adult, they probably got out at the right time. Life would be too goddamn rough for them.
-
Since that was a classless cheap shot at what I said I feel compelled to respond. I can state my opinion even though it's the popular one. Furthermore, all you're doing is providing subjective fodder to this whole argument and trying puff out your chest and say you're right. To you, this whole situation may be less serious than drugs or assault but that's a completely subjective, ignorant point of view. Thousands of people from adults to children commit suicide or self harm because of rampant bullying. This was not a case of 'name-calling'. This by all accounts fully functioning member of society was harassedand bullied so much he ruined his reputation in many ways to end it. The reason this was brought to the limelight was because it was new to the NFL, not because people hold it in the same regard as murder or serious crimes. When Big Ben allegedly raped those girls it got just as much media attention as this did if not more. To look at things as more wrong than others is again an ignorant way of viewing societies' problems.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark that you weren't bullied in school. If you were and feel this way, I feel sorry because that means the vicious cycle continued. Edit: Also, your 'analogy' is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply in any way to this situation.
You sound like the new generation of pussies who was rewarded for just participating in a sport with a letter or trophy.
You sound like the new generation of pussies who was rewarded for just participating in a sport with a letter or trophy.
you had me when you said pussies.
You are exactly right, sir. There is no conflict in the two statements. In fact, that was kind of my point. People are responding to my statement that there was an overreaction by "arguing" back that Incognito is a jerk. Yes, Incognito is a jerk. That doesn't mean there wasn't a huge overreaction to what he did.
wow! you just made incognito look like a hero.
need some puffs?
-
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean...
-
jrb,
The idea that name-calling or giving someone a male blowup doll is less serious than drug use/abuse, assault, or rape is not my idea that I'm trying to force on other people. Our society (and many societies) has decided that those latter things are serious enough to be considered crimes while name-calling and giving someone a blowup doll are not. So, are these categorizations subjective? Sure. But they're not my intellectual property. I called them "less serious" based on the laws and norms already in place in the U.S. Our legal system and our societal expectations both already arrange "wrongs" on a scale of less and more serious. So, unless all of that is "ignorant", it's not "ignorant" to view some things as more or less wrong than others.
Also, I'd like to see the footage of sportscasters screaming in rage about how terrible Big Ben is and how there's no place for him in the league. I'm sure I can find the footage where a number of them said that about Incognito. A couple of guys may have made a derogatory comment about Big Ben's off-field behavior here or there, but it is ridiculous to say it got the same reaction. In fact, I'll do you one better: Ray Rice just physically assaulted his girlfriend the other day. Where's the negative reaction to that which is equivalent to the Incognito thing? If the reaction was equivalent, I should be able to turn on ESPN right now and see red-faced folks ranting about how awful Rice is and how he shouldn't be in the league, just like it happened for days/weeks after the Incognito thing broke. Maybe my clicker is broken, because the ESPN I am seeing doesn't show that.
Also, what do you not understand about the analogy? I'll explain it to you.
Westside Steve,
You are exactly right, sir. There is no conflict in the two statements. In fact, that was kind of my point. People are responding to my statement that there was an overreaction by "arguing" back that Incognito is a jerk. Yes, Incognito is a jerk. That doesn't mean there wasn't a huge overreaction to what he did.
jrb,
The idea that name-calling or giving someone a male blowup doll is less serious than drug use/abuse, assault, or rape is not my idea that I'm trying to force on other people. Our society (and many societies) has decided that those latter things are serious enough to be considered crimes while name-calling and giving someone a blowup doll are not. So, are these categorizations subjective? Sure. But they're not my intellectual property. I called them "less serious" based on the laws and norms already in place in the U.S. Our legal system and our societal expectations both already arrange "wrongs" on a scale of less and more serious. So, unless all of that is "ignorant", it's not "ignorant" to view some things as more or less wrong than others.
Also, I'd like to see the footage of sportscasters screaming in rage about how terrible Big Ben is and how there's no place for him in the league. I'm sure I can find the footage where a number of them said that about Incognito. A couple of guys may have made a derogatory comment about Big Ben's off-field behavior here or there, but it is ridiculous to say it got the same reaction. In fact, I'll do you one better: Ray Rice just physically assaulted his girlfriend the other day. Where's the negative reaction to that which is equivalent to the Incognito thing? If the reaction was equivalent, I should be able to turn on ESPN right now and see red-faced folks ranting about how awful Rice is and how he shouldn't be in the league, just like it happened for days/weeks after the Incognito thing broke. Maybe my clicker is broken, because the ESPN I am seeing doesn't show that.
Also, what do you not understand about the analogy? I'll explain it to you.
The biggest problem with your whole argument is that you're basing what's more right or wrong on media coverage. I hate to break it to you, but ESPN and media outlets could care less about what's morally worse or better, it's all about ratings. People wanted to see about constant coverage about the bullying/harassment because it was something that never really happened outwardly in the NFL. It's the same thing when the bounty program broke, the same when Tebow eats a sandwich, and the same when Favre was seen throwing a football to high school kids. The job of ESPN is to pander for views, plain and simple. NFL players get busted for DUI, drugs, and assault all the time. Most people don't care to hear 24/7 coverage on that because it's not fresh. The whole thing then goes back to what I've said all along: what's "more wrong" is subjective. There's a growing movement in the United States that those who severely harass/bully an individual to be tried as murderers. Is that serious enough for you?
Your example is again objectifying a subjective situation. Any sane person of course would stop someone being killed from someone abusing a drug. But that's not what this situation is in the slightest. Everyone you've said is based on how media and people react to the wrong things happening. If you said something like the kid who was doing drugs got all the local news headlines while the kid getting stabbed didn't, then maybe. But this whole thing isn't mutually exclusive, it should never be about saying one thing is 'more wrong'. There's obvious things that tip the scale like murder, but when the Aaron Hernandez stuff happened they pretty much camped out at his house.
I'm admittedly biased. I was viciously harassed growing up because I moved a lot and for a decent while had a stutter/speech problem. If you haven't felt what it's like to be put through that, you just can't understand. I never thoughts of suicide or whining to all the teachers to get my way, but that 2-3 years before I grew into the person I am today were awful. For anyone who thinks it's as easy as fighting back, it's not in any shape or form. I would have GLADLY been beating up one time and be done with it than gone through the mental harassment I did every day. So yeah, to me this type of stuff is just as serious as guys abusing drugs or getting into fights. If you can't understand that, I just don't know what else to say.
-
It's not that I don't understand why the media coverage has been the way that is has with the Incognito case, it's that I don't think that reasoning is justified. I know that it was covered more because open discussion of and criticism of the issue was fairly "new". What I am saying is that if we want to right wrongs, we should prioritize how we react to things based on their severity, not based on their "newness" or "freshness". And when we recognize we are not doing that, we should correct it.
One of my undergraduate degrees is in "Speech/Language Pathology and Audiology", so I've spent some clinical time with children with speech impediments, even though I don't have one myself. Obviously, if I chose that area of study even though it's not what I do for a profession, there's a decent chance I have some compassion for people who live with speech impediments. My family was poor and also moved 10 times before I graduated from high school. When you move that many times, you're going to be the target of some people who don't like the new kid. So was I ever targeted or picked on? For brief periods of time, sure. Did anyone ever make fun of me or say mean things to me? Yep. I don't consider myself as ever having been bullied, though. However, I've seen and worked with (clinically) some kids who have. I'm not saying that it is not an issue to be addressed on some level. I'm saying, let's maintain a sense of perspective and scale about it.
Is bullying a bad/unfortunate thing? Sure. Does it deserve the death penalty? I suppose we'd have to hear the specifics of the case (torture, rape, etc.), but in the vast majority of cases, no. What about in the Richie Incognito case? Did those guys do anything serious enough to warrant severe legal punishment? Think about what they actually did, now. You can't heap all of the punishment for all of the bullying in all of the world on these guys' shoulders. Is what they actually did as serious as raping a woman or beating a woman to the point that you have to drag her out of an elevator? Come on, now. There are serious cases of harassment and bullying out there, but this isn't one of them. If you really think that what these guys did in their locker room was as serious as physically assaulting or raping a woman, then you may have to consider the fact that your own personal experience has left you too biased to consider the situation rationally.
-
I was watching an interview with Scott Pioli - when he was with the Chiefs...
back when Colt McCoy and Suh were at the combine...
and Pioli said that it wasn't just athletic ability, but also who the person the player was,
and how they could be a good fit in the locker room and community.
That avoids, surely, the incognito jerks who for sick reasons, harrass other people
by crossing way past the limit of teasing, joking around.
Nobody is perfect, but allowing extreme harrassment as easily as allowing just teasing somebody,
or giving them some non-personal harmless crap, is dangerous.
Most folks would consider that there are lines of teasing that should not be crossed. Some others
cross it to get attention, I guess. That's screwed up in a bad way.
There was kid in hs.. had disabilities. Walked extremely awkwardly, and had limited use
of one arm, and slurred speech. I remember going back to my locker for something just before class started, and on the way back to class, there this kid was, trying to get to class less late that usual. And there was two football players, Laughing.
Mocking his very awkward movements, and calling him "Retarded" and a bunch of other taunts.
Even to the point of bumping him off gait when he kept trying to ignore them and move away.
All I remember is, I flew off the handle, and told them to knock it off now, and they said they'd
kick my teeth in instead. I yelled that at least I'd be able to fight back.
But before they had time to kick my ass, a male teacher bolted out of his classroom
and instructed me escort this kid to his class, and there was a lot of one sided yelling and those two idiots
were suspended. He had heard what they'd been saying, and was on his way to his door when
I yelled at them. He was a very tough assistant football coach, but he still knew bullying when he heard it.
Now, Logic would think that kid should kill himself ?
Not so one-sided with two pro football players. But crossing the line is still bullying. And can be just as destructive to the one who gets bullied.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login