Stephen A Smith suspended for Rice comments

[Mark80]

I look at it this way and somewhat agree with what Firechan and Stephen A. Smith said.

 

As a man, I know that there are others out there who are bigger and stronger than I am and I should not provoke those people as I may get my a$$ beat if I cross the line with them. It could be saying something wrong to them, hitting them, spitting on them (which I believe is part of what happened in Ray's case). If I do cross the line, I could fully expect to pay for it and it is partly my fault (even if I didn't physically do anything to that person). I think Stephen A. was trying to say something similar.

 

I've seen women INTENTIONALLY provoking men through slapping them, through words, through kicking them, through spitting on them, through various mediums. Now, should a man react to this and hit her back, no (unless he is in real physical danger or someone he knows and loves is in real physical danger), but some of them do. And in these instances I do agree that the woman in PARTLY to blame for this, however small that blame may be. You should not antagonize someone who is physically superior to you to the point of them reacting physically. Man or Woman.

[IDBillzFan]

You know what's really messed up about this?

 

Technically speaking, you could argue Smith was suspended for five working days because of commenting on something Ray Rice did that got him suspended for only two working days.

 

America. Phuck yeah!

[RuntheDamnBall]

I think the instances of guys hauling off and Ray Ricing their wife without any previous warning sign or history are exceedingly rare.

 

There's a whole psychology about why certain women stay with wife beaters.

Right, which is why reinforcing it by suggesting that there's provocation involved is stupid, at best.

 

Wife beaters also inflict psychological abuse and often do their best to make the victim feel as though she would be powerless without the man, even though she is already in a very powerless situation.

 

S.A. Smith is an idiot on most matters, but a good point I heard raised is that he basically doubled and tripled-down on these statements on Twitter, then had to take more airtime to make his apology, when he has 2 freaking hours of live airtime a day to explain himself fully.

 

If you truly care about women in your life - sisters, daughters, mothers - then you have a very low tolerance for the kind of man who hits women. Good men can help women look out for the warning signs of an abuser, and women can learn how to avoid these people, but that doesn't ever, ever make the victim deserving of the abuse or culpable in the situation. The crime and the blame for it rest with the person who strikes.

[FireChan]

Right, which is why reinforcing it by suggesting that there's provocation involved is stupid, at best.

 

Wife beaters also inflict psychological abuse and often do their best to make the victim feel as though she would be powerless without the man, even though she is already in a very powerless situation.

 

S.A. Smith is an idiot on most matters, but a good point I heard raised is that he basically doubled and tripled-down on these statements on Twitter, then had to take more airtime to make his apology, when he has 2 freaking hours of live airtime a day to explain himself fully.

 

If you truly care about women in your life - sisters, daughters, mothers - then you have a very low tolerance for the kind of man who hits women. Good men can help women look out for the warning signs of an abuser, and women can learn how to avoid these people, but that doesn't ever, ever make the victim deserving of the abuse or culpable in the situation. The crime and the blame for it rest with the person who strikes.

 

Stephen A said that.

 

Also, let's say some guy runs around downtown shouting the N-word and gets beat up. Does the blame solely rest with the person who strikes? Or maybe, just maybe, there's something the victim could have done to not antagonize his attacker?

 

Are you serious??

 

Yes. Read the thread.

Edited July 30, 2014 by FireChan

[DC Tom]

IMO, I think there are always warning signs.

 

Like most warning signs, then can be very ambiguous except in hindsight. How do you know that an insecure !@#$ is an insecure violent !@#$ until he throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Stephen A said that.

 

Also, let's say some guy runs around downtown shouting the N-word and gets beat up. Does the blame solely rest with the person who strikes? Or maybe, just maybe, there's something the victim could have done to not antagonize his attacker?

I'm sorry, the attacker is still going to prison and is still the most wrong person in your hypothetical. People have the freedom to say something hurtful, awful, racist, spiteful, mean-spirited, and stupid. They don't have the freedom to physically attack someone, though a court may rule in someone's favor in a physical altercation if self-defense can be proven.

 

And Stephen A also said that women should think about their role in provoking abuse. Sorry, abuse isn't provoked. Could an argument be provoked? Yes. Physical violence and even extreme verbal abuse is the responsibility of the abuser, plain and simple. It is that person's action and they own it.

 

You know what's really messed up about this?

 

Technically speaking, you could argue Smith was suspended for five working days because of commenting on something Ray Rice did that got him suspended for only two working days.

 

America. Phuck yeah!

That's more of a reflection of the NFL's being in the wrong than of ESPN's. Also, Smith is being paid to talk, so the ramifications of his saying something damaging to the network should be taken seriously by his employer.

 

Whether or not that employer should even include evaluating domestic abuse as a discussion point for its sports analysts and programs is another matter, and the answer is pretty clear IMO.

 

Also, the NFL could have made this easy on everyone by just making the suspension four games, which is the usual punishment for a first major infraction or repeat smaller ones. Fewer would be talking about it, which is what they want anyway.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Right, which is why reinforcing it by suggesting that there's provocation involved is stupid, at best.

 

Wife beaters also inflict psychological abuse and often do their best to make the victim feel as though she would be powerless without the man, even though she is already in a very powerless situation.

 

S.A. Smith is an idiot on most matters, but a good point I heard raised is that he basically doubled and tripled-down on these statements on Twitter, then had to take more airtime to make his apology, when he has 2 freaking hours of live airtime a day to explain himself fully.

 

If you truly care about women in your life - sisters, daughters, mothers - then you have a very low tolerance for the kind of man who hits women. Good men can help women look out for the warning signs of an abuser, and women can learn how to avoid these people, but that doesn't ever, ever make the victim deserving of the abuse or culpable in the situation. The crime and the blame for it rest with the person who strikes.

 

And in this case, didn't the woman strike first?

[John from Riverside]

He said "preventative measure." Just because he didn't cite martial arts specifically, doesn't make him wrong.

 

You know what, here are a couple more "preventative measures," that are obviously too offensive for you to consider.

 

-don't get drunk enough to lose control of yourself

-don't punch, slap, or get violent with others

-don't date guys prone to violent outbursts or with short tempers

 

Are those okay? Just like "don't wear a dress?"

 

Stephen A said also, specifically, that women need to look out for themselves because there isn't much that can be done after the crime happens. That was his point.

 

- Men do this....should they also stop drinking this way?

- Men do this....should they also keep their hands to themselves?

- On the third one I have to agree with that. You should know what kind of person you are dating and if they are prone to aggression.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Like most warning signs, then can be very ambiguous except in hindsight. How do you know that an insecure !@#$ is an insecure violent !@#$ until he throws his girlfriend down a flight of stairs.

 

I would think not touching him first would help.

 

Avoidance. Remain calm and get away from a heated argument. This enables the person to not be anywhere near the violent offender. Gettingup in somebody's grill is a no no and just asking for it. Did I say asking for it? Of course nobody is asking for it. Self-preservation should prevail here, get away from a heated argument w/somebody you know can beat you down. Isn't that common sense?

[RuntheDamnBall]

And in this case, didn't the woman strike first?

There are conflicting reports. Obviously the solution in such a situation is to knock your partner unconscious and drag her from an elevator, though.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

There are conflicting reports. Obviously the solution in such a situation is to knock your partner unconscious and drag her from an elevator, though.

 

LoL... Of course not. That's besides the point, he just won the arms race. Same could be said with playing with and adult tiger and things get out of hand. I am not siding with the dirtball. But, don't get in people's grill that you know can kick your azz...

[RuntheDamnBall]

LoL... Of course not. That's besides the point, he just won the arms race. Same could be said with playing with and adult tiger and things get out of hand. I am not siding with the dirtball. But, don't get in people's grill that you know can kick your azz...

There is a difference between picking a fight with someone bigger at the gym or the club, and knocking your loved one unconscious if she spits in your face. I would hope, at least.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

There is a difference between picking a fight with someone bigger at the gym or the club, and knocking your loved one unconscious if she spits in your face. I would hope, at least.

 

I would hope too. BUT are these guys raised in said "good" environment. Some guys just "react" back.

[FireChan]

I'm sorry, the attacker is still going to prison and is still the most wrong person in your hypothetical. People have the freedom to say something hurtful, awful, racist, spiteful, mean-spirited, and stupid. They don't have the freedom to physically attack someone, though a court may rule in someone's favor in a physical altercation if self-defense can be proven.

 

And Stephen A also said that women should think about their role in provoking abuse. Sorry, abuse isn't provoked. Could an argument be provoked? Yes. Physical violence and even extreme verbal abuse is the responsibility of the abuser, plain and simple. It is that person's action and they own it.

 

 

That's more of a reflection of the NFL's being in the wrong than of ESPN's. Also, Smith is being paid to talk, so the ramifications of his saying something damaging to the network should be taken seriously by his employer.

 

Whether or not that employer should even include evaluating domestic abuse as a discussion point for its sports analysts and programs is another matter, and the answer is pretty clear IMO.

 

Also, the NFL could have made this easy on everyone by just making the suspension four games, which is the usual punishment for a first major infraction or repeat smaller ones. Fewer would be talking about it, which is what they want anyway.

 

You seem to think I'm defending Rice's actions, or explaining away abusive behavior. I'm not.

 

- Men do this....should they also stop drinking this way?

- Men do this....should they also keep their hands to themselves?

- On the third one I have to agree with that. You should know what kind of person you are dating and if they are prone to aggression.

Of course men should. That's the whole point. A man gets drunk, and gets his ass kicked. A women gets drunk, spits on her boyfriend and punches him, and he loses control and hits her. The difference in the situations is that some don't see the probable cause in the second situation, even thought the criminals are still wrong to do what they did.

 

There is a difference between picking a fight with someone bigger at the gym or the club, and knocking your loved one unconscious if she spits in your face. I would hope, at least.

 

Rice is a million percent in the wrong. But I doubt he just said hi and cold-cocked her.

Edited July 30, 2014 by FireChan

[ExiledInIllinois]

Rice is a million percent in the wrong. But I doubt he just said hi and cold-cocked her.

 

Exactly.

 

They got into a heated argument... It got physical with her touching him and he leveled her. Totally wrong.

 

My neighbor said he heard a domestic next door. The chick was screaming @ the guy for him to "Go ahead and shoot me!" WTF? Why poke a stick in a hornet's nest? That's all Stephen A. was saying, IMO. Let self-preservation prevail and remain calm, get away from the situation... Don't provoke the situation more.

 

What's so wrong with that?

Edited July 30, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[RuntheDamnBall]

You seem to think I'm defending Rice's actions, or explaining away abusive behavior. I'm not.

I don't. I just believe strongly that there's a culture around abuse that needs to be broken down. Part of that culture is men making really tone deaf statements like SAS did. If you've seen abuse in your family, you know how harmful seeds of doubt are to the abused. Even if he meant well - and his "I'm convinced I'm right on all matters tone" really hurt him in attempts 2+3 before he got somewhere better on attempt 4 - he just shouldn't have waded into these waters. It doesn't really belong on a sports program and he is not an expert even if he has life experience with this.

 

I don't expect much from SAS because I think he's a knucklehead and a bloviating idiot on most matters, but ESPN is both right to cover their asses, and not smart for relying on this kind of simplistic binary argument-based programming to begin with.

 

Exactly.

 

They got into a heated argument... It got physical with her touching him and he leveled her. Totally wrong.

 

My neighbor said he heard a domestic next door. The chick was screaming @ the guy for him to "Go ahead and shoot me!" WTF? Why poke a stick in a hornet's nest? That's all Stephen A. was saying, IMO. Let self-preservation prevail and remain calm, get away from the situation... Don't provoke the situation more.

 

What's so wrong with that?

If he said "I hope all women can find the courage to flee their abusers or protect themselves if a situation gets dangerous," I could handle this. The widespread reaction from women, some with abuse in their pasts, suggests he really failed if that's what he meant to say.

[John Adams]

What Smith said is pretty much inmprehensible but my interpretation is that if you don't want to get into trouble, don't walk into a trouble zone. That makes sense to me.

 

When I'm in India, I don't go out and walk the streets of Delhi at night. Why? Because I'm not an idiot.

 

Yes, it's "someone else's fault" if I get mugged but that won't make me feel better when I'm in the Delhi ER getting injected with MRSA.

 

If you start physically beating up a guy with a short fuse, it's not a good idea. That doesn't mean that Ray Rice is not a dumbass. It just means that beating up a big strong dumbass may lead to bad outcomes.

 

Eff you all for making me defend that douchenozzle Stephen A Smith.

Edited July 30, 2014 by John Adams

[RuntheDamnBall]

What Smith said is pretty much inmprehensible but my interpretation is that if you don't want to get into trouble, don't walk into a trouble zone. That makes sense to me.

And if that "trouble zone" is a partner who has never hit you before, dishing out a left uppercut in a public place of business with cameras all over the place?

 

Sorry, I still feel like SAS is the one provoking trouble by talking about something he clearly can't express in a way that doesn't sound idiotic.

[FireChan]

And if that "trouble zone" is a partner who has never hit you before, dishing out a left uppercut in a public place of business with cameras all over the place?

 

Sorry, I still feel like SAS is the one provoking trouble by talking about something he clearly can't express in a way that doesn't sound idiotic.

 

Stephen A Smith was NOT talking about this situation specifically. How do you not understand? He's talking about some cases of DOMESTIC ABUSE. Not what Rice's girlfriend should have or should have not done.

Edited July 30, 2014 by FireChan

[John Adams]

And if that "trouble zone" is a partner who has never hit you before, dishing out a left uppercut in a public place of business with cameras all over the place?

 

Sorry, I still feel like SAS is the one provoking trouble by talking about something he clearly can't express in a way that doesn't sound idiotic.

 

I used to play basketball with an NFL D-lineman. Nice guy. Huge but gentle and good natured. Would it be a good idea for me to hit him even though he could turn my skull to mush? I could try it. He'd probably not react or even notice. But on the off chance he decided to kill me, it's not the best idea.

Edited July 30, 2014 by John Adams