|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
ChefLinda wrote:
| Quote: | | Jodeke, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are obviously from a generation that was taught to think a certain way about this issue and no amount of facts will change your mind. Right now all you are doing is playing a semantic word game |
Returning due respect, it's you who have no idea what I'm talking about. My generation was taught hitting a woman is taboo. I'm not playing with semantics, I'm rendering my interpretation. We obviously see things differently. As we are allowed.
| Quote: | | There is nothing to interpret. When you or Stephen A say "Don't do anything to provoke men into beating you" it implies that if a woman just didn't do anything to provoke a man, he wouldn't beat her. This is placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions rather than on the man who apparently can choose to beat her or not depending on if her behavior "pleases" him or "annoys" him. Ugh. |
Here's where we part. I don't think it implies if a women didn't provoke a man he wouldn't beat her, that kind of thinking would be asine. There are men who think they can control a woman with violence.
What it implies is, if a woman senses her actions are causing anger, change directions, don't continue to anger the man. What SAS said was "Don’t Do Anything to Provoke’ Men Into Beating You" it might provoke him to violence. That doesn't give him, or anyone, the right to get violent, it's provocation that could and should be avoided.
i.e. If a man calls another man a MoFo it might anger him, cause him to chin check him, provoke him to violence. Would he be right, IMO, no. ("Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me") It's a confrontation that could be avoided. Example that to woman, man, same thinking applies. | Quote: | | Therefore this line of reasoning leads to a logical conclusion that Stephen A is "blaming the victim" whether those words were uttered or not, or intended or not. |
You're not allowing me to decipher SAS's rant, you're suggesting I have to accept your logic. Sorry, I march to my own drummer. | Quote: | | Any person is capable of provoking another person's anger. But how the other person responds to their own anger is completely up to them. |
Agree. | Quote: | | People with anger issues will often use ANY reason to blow their top and lose it. It is impossible for the the people related to them to "just say the right thing" or "avoid saying the wrong thing" "or just stay out of their way" or "just don't provoke them." People with anger issues are going to blow eventually. It's up to them to get help and figure out another way to deal with their anger rather than resorting to physical violence. |
Again, I agree. How the person responds to provocation is up to them. I'm saying avoid provoking a person whenever possible, don't put self in harms way. It can't always be avoided, whenever possible, avoid it. SAS ‘Don’t Do Anything to Provoke’ Men Into Beating You
| Quote: | | Therefore when a "man" (in this case Stephen A) with no particular expertise in the psychology of violence offers up his just-don't-provoke-your-man advice, it seems uniformed and shallow at best, and offensive and dangerous at worst. |
Again it's a matter of interpretation. Do you have any "expertise in the psychology" or are you as SAS is, offering an opinion?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | DaMuleRules wrote:
| Quote: | | It's not a matter of interpretation at all. You yourself, while explaining AS's words say that it can the fault of the woman if she gets beaten for merely provoking a man. |
Something I don't recall saying. When you point to the other will you also point that out please.
This is what I saidl | Quote: |
It's a matter of interpretation. He said a woman should not put themselves in a situation that would provoke a man to hit her, she has that onus. |
Meaning she has the onus not to put herself in harms way, |
It's plainly evident that you don't understand what the terms "onus" and "provoke" actually mean, particularly in the context of this discussion. You attempt to dance around semantics like Fred Astaire, but in reality you're Michael Scott.
Clearly you are stuck in the antiquated thinking of past generations, so there's little that is productive in engaging you in this fdiscussion. But as ChefLinda stated, while your line of thought can't be altered, perhaps there are some younger members here who could benefit from some more reasonable input on the matter. |
Show me the points I asked, stop with the Texas Side Stepping.
I see you side with those who share your agenda. How about those young people also considering others who posted the opinions of doctors?
onus noun \ˈō-nəs\
: the responsibility for something.
pro·voke verb \prə-ˈvōk\
: to cause the occurrence of (a feeling or action) : to make (something) happen
: to cause (a person or animal) to become angry, violent, etc.
I fully understand the meaning of both.
You and CL are not considering, he also said a man should not hit a woman even if provoked.
DaMuleRules wrote:
Quote:
| Quote: | | It's not a matter of interpretation at all. You yourself, while explaining AS's words say that it can the fault of the woman if she gets beaten for merely provoking a man. |
Something I don't recall saying. When you point to the other will you also point that out please.
This is what I saidl
Quote:
It's a matter of interpretation. He said a woman should not put themselves in a situation that would provoke a man to hit her, she has that onus.
Meaning she has the onus not to put herself in harms way,
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: |
Show me the points I asked. |
What are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
Show me the points I asked. |
What are you talking about? |
It's in the edit.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
Show me the points I asked. |
What are you talking about? |
It's in the edit. |
What? Where you said the onus was on the woman?
Why else do you think I said you don't understand the term?
I'm not going to play these silly "what I said is not what I said so tell me where I said it" games with you dude.
And I as I said, there's nothing you are going to say that is going to swing me around to agreeing with your position on SAS's comments. And I know I'm not going to change your views. So give it a rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/stephen-a-smith-apology_n_5626832.html
"On Friday, speaking right here on "First Take" on the subject of domestic violence, I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career," Smith said in the taped segment that began the program on Monday morning. "While elaborating on thoughts concerning the NFL's ruling versus Ray Rice following a domestic dispute with his then-fiancee, I ventured beyond the scope of our discussion by alluding to a woman's role in such heinous matters, going so far as to use the word "provoke" in my diatribe. My words came across that it is somehow a woman's fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I'm trying to say. Yet the failure to clearly articulate something different lies squarely on my shoulders. To say what I actually said was foolish is an understatement. To say I was wrong is obvious. To apologize to say I'm sorry, doesn't do the matter it's proper justice, to be quite honest. But I do sincerely apologize." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: |
Show me the points I asked. |
What are you talking about? |
It's in the edit. |
What? Where you said the onus was on the woman?
Why else do you think I said you don't understand the term?
I'm not going to play these silly "what I said is not what I said so tell me where I said it" games with you dude.
And I as I said, there's nothing you are going to say that is going to swing me around to agreeing with your position on SAS's comments. And I know I'm not going to change your views. So give it a rest. |
Yes, she has a responsibility not to put her self in harms way.
Also I'm waiting for you to show me | Quote: | Not to mention the fact that you are ignoring that I also stated that I agree with the idea that even if attacked physically by a woman, a man should avoid striking her back - but I can see why you ignored that key piece of information in your reply.
|
I'll give it a rest when you do. This is something you started.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | Jodeke, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are obviously from a generation that was taught to think a certain way about this issue and no amount of facts will change your mind. Right now all you are doing is playing a semantic word game.
There is nothing to interpret. When you or Stephen A say "Don't do anything to provoke men into beating you" it implies that if a woman just didn't do anything to provoke a man, he wouldn't beat her. This is placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions rather than on the man who apparently can choose to beat her or not depending on if her behavior "pleases" him or "annoys" him. Ugh.
Therefore this line of reasoning leads to a logical conclusion that Stephen A is "blaming the victim" whether those words were uttered or not, or intended or not.
Any person is capable of provoking another person's anger. But how the other person responds to their own anger is completely up to them.
People with anger issues will often use ANY reason to blow their top and lose it. It is impossible for the the people related to them to "just say the right thing" or "avoid saying the wrong thing" "or just stay out of their way" or "just don't provoke them." People with anger issues are going to blow eventually. It's up to them to get help and figure out another way to deal with their anger rather than resorting to physical violence.
Therefore when a "man" (in this case Stephen A) with no particular expertise in the psychology of violence offers up his just-don't-provoke-your-man advice, it seems uniformed and shallow at best, and offensive and dangerous at worst. |
Frankly, this is not how I interpreted the comments by SAS. And I think there is a lot of misinterpretation going on with respect to these comments.
The point is, you shouldn't provoke someone, anyone. You have the legal right to however, but just because you have the legal right (or even philosophical right) to do something, doesn't mean someone else isn't going to cross the line in retaliation.
If someone cuts me off and I pull up next to them and tell them "Hey! You cut me off back there man, I want an apology, now!" I should be (and am legally) allowed to say that and should be able to without retaliation. But the reality is, when I choose to do that, I run the risk that I'm saying that to some psycho who has a gun. So that's why I don't. If I do say something and the guy shoots me, we'd be having the same discussion about how the onus is on the guy to redirect his anger but that doesn't pull the bullet out of my arm.
People like to pretend that because they are legally or even morally allowed to do things (say mean things, wear something skimpy, go to bars/clubs, whatever) that then, there will be no repercussions to that behavior. And philosophically, there shouldn't be.
But the point isn't to point the finger and place the blame on the victim or the perpetrator. The comments by SAS aren't directly or indirectly placing the cause of the beating on the woman's actions. The comments are essentially saying hey, be more aware of your surroundings. Be more aware of what you're saying, what you do, who you're with, where you are and how those things can play a role, however slight, in negative consequences regardless of whatever it is right or wrong. |
Another inane attempt to place the burden on the victim.
Of course people should try to be aware of their surroundings and situations. But this notion that if they don't, the consequences are their own doing is ridiculous. |
It's not an attempt to place the burden on the victim. That's just your interpretation of it. Which is a giant leap IMO but it's definitely more fun to be brash online and never accept a middle or reasonable ground.
All he said was don't pour gasoline on a fire to the best of your ability. And that sometimes, fires will occur naturally, but if you want to avoid getting burned, avoid pouring gasoline on a fire. Seems like sound advice.
If you want to prove that you can add accelerant to a fire without getting burned, then pour away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/stephen-a-smith-apology_n_5626832.html
"On Friday, speaking right here on "First Take" on the subject of domestic violence, I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career," Smith said in the taped segment that began the program on Monday morning. "While elaborating on thoughts concerning the NFL's ruling versus Ray Rice following a domestic dispute with his then-fiancee, I ventured beyond the scope of our discussion by alluding to a woman's role in such heinous matters, going so far as to use the word "provoke" in my diatribe. My words came across that it is somehow a woman's fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I'm trying to say. Yet the failure to clearly articulate something different lies squarely on my shoulders. To say what I actually said was foolish is an understatement. To say I was wrong is obvious. To apologize to say I'm sorry, doesn't do the matter it's proper justice, to be quite honest. But I do sincerely apologize." |
Of course that wasn't his intent. It was obvious.
What he said was foolish only because most people can't interpret meaning. So they fixate on a word used "provoke". They can't seem to interpret beyond the use of that word. You're talking about folks that operate to the letter of the law and not to the spirit of the law.
I don't even know what to say if anyone heard SAS and concluded that he believes the victim in this case was 100% responsible for what happened. Dramatic much? Jeez. The fact he has to explain himself is laughable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
That's where I think some in this discussion are riveted. They equate his rant soley to Rice, not considering he was speaking about women in general.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thejet24
Star Player
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 3020
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is pretty simple. Treat others the way you want to be treated. That is all SAS was trying to say.
If you don't want someone attacking you, don't get in their face and start screaming at them, and maybe even slap them around.
Yes, physically obviously it is not a justifiable act, but that should not give anyone the right to hit anyone else. Period.
I would never lay my hands on a women because that's me. But I would not fault another human for defending themselves. Man or Woman.
_________________
2008-2010 Finals. 28.9 PTS 6.1 REB 5.4 AST 2.1 STLs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
That's where I think some in this discussion are riveted. They equate his rant soley to Rice, not considering he was speaking about women in general. |
That is SAS's fault. He tied those things together within the framework of a discussion about Rice, and is now apologizing for it. If he didn't want to link Rice to his comments then he should have chosen any of his other shows to make them.
Last edited by JerryMagicKobe on Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thejet24 wrote: | | This is pretty simple. Treat others the way you want to be treated. That is all SAS was trying to say. |
That is not what he said.
| thejet24 wrote: | | If you don't want someone attacking you, don't get in their face and start screaming at them, and maybe even slap them around. |
I donlt care what she did to Rice. Scream, slap whatever. He was dead wrong, and playing the self-defense card is ridiculous.
| thejet24 wrote: | | Yes, physically obviously it is not a justifiable act, but that should not give anyone the right to hit anyone else. Period. |
No one has the right to hit anyone. Whomever is hit should leave, a point made all the more obvious since Rice is bigger, stronger and has casino security all around.
| thejet24 wrote: | | I would never lay my hands on a women because that's me. But I would not fault another human for defending themselves. Man or Woman. |
Rice was 100% at fault, defending himself or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
That's where I think some in this discussion are riveted. They equate his rant soley to Rice, not considering he was speaking about women in general. |
That is SAS's fault. He tied those things together within the framework of a discussion about Rice, and is now apologizing for it. If he didn't want to link Rice to his comments then he should have chosen any of his other shows to make them. |
I'm not absolving him of fault, I'm saying he may have been misunderstood.
LINK
Stephen A. Smith Blames Those Accusing Him Of Victim-Blaming With Misconstruing What He Said
As I said, a matter of interpretation.
I understood from the beginning where SAS was coming from. I hope his tweets will be read, deciphered, understood and not disregarded because of preconceptions. Also listen closely to the video, all of it.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:07 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leor_77
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Posts: 21920
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have to admit, I was like, "Whats the big deal?" I listen to first take via podcast, and just realized (as I was skimming through Friday's show again) that they actually cut it out. Lol.
Listening to it, I honestly don't see the big deal (I only listened to a 2-minute clip on YouTube, so I'm not sure if he said more) - He could have phrased it better, but he's not wrong to say it. Murder is wrong, and is an act that should not be committed. With that said, if you are dealing with a Psycho, it's probably in your best interest to not provoke them. Doesn't mean anyone is justifying the act or intent of that murderous person, it's just the reality of the situation.
Last edited by leor_77 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 7924
Location: Lake Forest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/stephen-a-smith-apology_n_5626832.html
"On Friday, speaking right here on "First Take" on the subject of domestic violence, I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career," Smith said in the taped segment that began the program on Monday morning. "While elaborating on thoughts concerning the NFL's ruling versus Ray Rice following a domestic dispute with his then-fiancee, I ventured beyond the scope of our discussion by alluding to a woman's role in such heinous matters, going so far as to use the word "provoke" in my diatribe. My words came across that it is somehow a woman's fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I'm trying to say. Yet the failure to clearly articulate something different lies squarely on my shoulders. To say what I actually said was foolish is an understatement. To say I was wrong is obvious. To apologize to say I'm sorry, doesn't do the matter it's proper justice, to be quite honest. But I do sincerely apologize." |
Of course that wasn't his intent. It was obvious.
What he said was foolish only because most people can't interpret meaning. So they fixate on a word used "provoke". They can't seem to interpret beyond the use of that word. You're talking about folks that operate to the letter of the law and not to the spirit of the law.
I don't even know what to say if anyone heard SAS and concluded that he believes the victim in this case was 100% responsible for what happened. Dramatic much? Jeez. The fact he has to explain himself is laughable. |
Don't even try explaining it. That narrative doesn't fit the agenda's being pushed around where everyone can go around being a dumb-ass and they're 100.000% a victim whenever anything doesn't end up sprinkles and rainbows at the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| leor_77 wrote: | I have to admit, I was like, "Whats the big deal?" I listen to first take via podcast, and just realized (as I was skimming through Friday's show again) that they actually cut it out. Lol.
Listening to it, I honestly don't see the big deal (I only listened to a 2-minute clip on YouTube, so I'm not sure if he said more) - He could have phrased it better, but he's not wrong to say it. Murder is wrong, and is an act that should not be committed. With that said, if you are dealing with a Psycho, it's probably in your best interest to not provoke them. Doesn't mean anyone is justifying the act or intent of that murderous person, it's just the reality of the situation. |
Get's it.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
I think this is a fair stance. But there is a huge, HUGE difference between being inappropriate, having poor timing and being accusatory.
In typical interwebs fashion, people are just taking it too far and making ridiculous claims such as that SAS is saying the victim was the cause of her own beating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
I think this is a fair stance. But there is a huge, HUGE difference between being inappropriate, having poor timing and being accusatory.
In typical interwebs fashion, people are just taking it too far and making ridiculous claims such as that SAS is saying the victim was the cause of her own beating. |
What I glean from some posters is they are infusing his rant with the Rice incident only and not considering he's talking about women in general.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| leor_77 wrote: | I have to admit, I was like, "Whats the big deal?" I listen to first take via podcast, and just realized (as I was skimming through Friday's show again) that they actually cut it out. Lol.
Listening to it, I honestly don't see the big deal (I only listened to a 2-minute clip on YouTube, so I'm not sure if he said more) - He could have phrased it better, but he's not wrong to say it. Murder is wrong, and is an act that should not be committed. With that said, if you are dealing with a Psycho, it's probably in your best interest to not provoke them. Doesn't mean anyone is justifying the act or intent of that murderous person, it's just the reality of the situation. |
Yeah, his phrasing wasn't great. He was on live and in a 2 hour show and sometimes when you go down one road it's hard to reel yourself back in a lot of times purely out of pride (believe me, I've seen that with posters in this very thread). I thought his message was clear.
Don't poke the bear.
Pretty basic stuff. Or poke it, but know that if you poke it, you might get bitten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | It's not just what SAS said. It's that his comments were made while discussing a specific event: the suspension of a professional football player who had plenty of other options but chose to resort to physical violence against someone he voluntarily chose to be in a realtionship with. Within the context of the circumstances of that single event there is no doubt that any mention of 'provocation' is inappropriate.
If SAS wants to do a PSA advising women to choose one of the hundreds of millions of men in America who would NOT beat them no matter how they were 'provoked' or educate people about abusive relationships and avoiding conforntation, he could find a more neutral starting point than the backdrop of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious wife from a casino elevator. |
I think this is a fair stance. But there is a huge, HUGE difference between being inappropriate, having poor timing and being accusatory.
In typical interwebs fashion, people are just taking it too far and making ridiculous claims such as that SAS is saying the victim was the cause of her own beating. |
What I glean from some posters is they are infusing his rant with the Rice incident only and not considering he's talking about women in general. |
Ehhh, I think some are doing that as a back track TBH. I mean, come on, he didn't even mention Rice when he brought all of this up. He brought up members of his own family and then went on a tangent about society in general. Later, he even referred BACK to the Ray Rice thing by saying "In Ray Rice's case..." suggesting even further that he wasn't talking specifically about Rice's case prior to that point.
But what I’ve tried to employ the female members of my family, some of who you all met and talked to and what have you, is that again, and this what, I’ve done this all my life, let’s make sure we don’t do anything to provoke wrong actions ... But domestic violence or whatever the case may be, with men putting their hands on women, is obviously a very real, real issue in our society. And I think that just talking about what guys shouldn’t do, we got to also make sure that you can do your part to do whatever you can do to make, to try to make sure it doesn’t happen ...
I mean, no one has a problem talking about gun control issues in general after a school shooting. No one says that is inappropriate. So I'm not really not sure why it is inappropriate for someone to say hey guys, if you're trying to avoid XYZ, just make sure you don't ABC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shansen008
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3568
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/stephen-a-smith-apology_n_5626832.html
"On Friday, speaking right here on "First Take" on the subject of domestic violence, I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career," Smith said in the taped segment that began the program on Monday morning. "While elaborating on thoughts concerning the NFL's ruling versus Ray Rice following a domestic dispute with his then-fiancee, I ventured beyond the scope of our discussion by alluding to a woman's role in such heinous matters, going so far as to use the word "provoke" in my diatribe. My words came across that it is somehow a woman's fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I'm trying to say. Yet the failure to clearly articulate something different lies squarely on my shoulders. To say what I actually said was foolish is an understatement. To say I was wrong is obvious. To apologize to say I'm sorry, doesn't do the matter it's proper justice, to be quite honest. But I do sincerely apologize." |
Since you chose to quote it, ill requote...with my own emphasis in bolded red.
I know you threw it out there as some sort of proof that youre right, because he apologized. But as you can see from my emphasis, his intent on what he meant was not the way it was taken by you, and CL, and others. Some of us understood what he was trying to say. As he stated, he just didnt articulate it well enough for others.
I agree with SAS and Jodeke. Nobody is excusing a man for hitting a woman, and nobody is placing the blame solely at the feet of the woman. Lets be clear though, there was a time when a lady was a lady. Ladies didnt do and say some of the things they will to a man these days. Many women today know (this whole story is agreat example) that there are major repercussions if a man lays hands on a woman, so they use that to their advantage. IMO a man that hits a woman isnt a man, but on the other side of the coin a woman who lets all sort of vile sewage spill out of her wouth or gets physical with her man also isnt a lady.
As the comic Burr said. "Lets not act like every beating just fell out of the sky."
Bottom line is that both parties share in the responsibility for what happened sometimes. Its a mans responsibility to show restraint. Testosterone is a POWERFUL drug. Its a womans responsibility not to knowingly test the limits of that restraint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52657
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This is something you started. |
I didn't start anything. You put words in my mouth and when I pointed out that you were incorrect, rather than acknowledge your error and actually read the thread you are participating in you got defensive and challenged me to show you. It doesn't work that way. |
You could have just not pointed out that he was incorrect.
See, in this case, you didn't do everything in your power, not to poke the bear.
These are the kinds of things SAS was talking about since ... it obviously wasn't very clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
