MDH Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 I get it. That's kind of the point. There was a day and a time when Americans valued open discourse which meant allowing speech you disagree with because it's preferable to the alternative. Now whenever someone says something slightly outside the mainstream PC line, we the public demand to see them punished. We can't have them arrested because of the 1st amendment, so we punish unpopular speech by attacking their ability to earn a living. I find this aspect of our emotionally charged, intellectually vacant, narcissistic pop culture far more disturbing than a play by play guy saying something I may disagree with. You need to study some history if you think it's a recent thing in America where people shout down those who don't agree with them. Shouting them down on twitter and putting pressure on someone who has authority over the person are nice compared to what people used to do. What is happening now is how things are supposed to work. The public, not the government, decides what is acceptable or unacceptable. They do that by stating their opinion. But go ahead and bemoan a "PC society." This is the open discourse you pine for. They state their beliefs and you state yours. It's funny that you're doing your part by voicing the opposite opinion but you believe this right is strictly reserved for you. Do you only like "open discourse" when the majority agrees with your side? Now I will say that I find it humorous that people are calling for Goodell to resign. As if he is a governmental figure who the people have a right to dismiss. The man works for the owners and nobody else and they're going to be looking out for their best interests here. Why do people care if Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL? He's not setting public policy.
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 What is happening now is how things are supposed to work. The public, not the government, decides what is acceptable or unacceptable. No, it's not. The public is supposed to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable via their elected representatives. THAT'S how it's supposed to work. The country was not founded on the fickle mob.
MDH Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 No, it's not. The public is supposed to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable via their elected representatives. THAT'S how it's supposed to work. The country was not founded on the fickle mob. The government is supposed to work that way, not society as a whole. The public has always decides what was acceptable in their community/society. Granted, that used to involve just a small community but with the advent of new technologies it's spread much, much wider.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 No, it's not. The public is supposed to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable via their elected representatives. THAT'S how it's supposed to work. The country was not founded on the fickle mob. And the market -- i.e. us -- decides what is acceptable and unacceptable via our decisions about purchases as well as the ways in which we spend our time. If a lot of people threaten to spend their Sundays with someone other than the NFL, the NFL has to listen.
FireChan Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 And the market -- i.e. us -- decides what is acceptable and unacceptable via our decisions about purchases as well as the ways in which we spend our time. If a lot of people threaten to spend their Sundays with someone other than the NFL, the NFL has to listen. But the mob wants it both ways. They claim that the NFL is a private business that has to submit to the desires of their customers, while claiming that they didn't prosecute a case in the role of the judiciary system. You can't have it both ways.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 @WillBrinson Bears issued a statement on Ray Rice/Roger Goodell
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 The government is supposed to work that way, not society as a whole. The public has always decides what was acceptable in their community/society. Granted, that used to involve just a small community but with the advent of new technologies it's spread much, much wider. And the public is deciding now that it's more acceptable to knock a woman out if you're not filmed doing it? That's why the public shouldn't have direct input. That's why we have REPRESENTATIVES, to mitigate the mob mentality. That's also why Goodell's !@#$ed up, because he's accepting at face value and exclusively reacting to the mob's outrage, when the mob's outrage is based on nothing more than the portrayal of the moment. A sane, coherent disciplinary policy based on something more than Goodell's whimsy would have avoided this altogether.
jimmy10 Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 @WillBrinson Bears issued a statement on Ray Rice/Roger Goodell There we go, it begins. The affirmations of support always precede a resignation.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 And the public is deciding now that it's more acceptable to knock a woman out if you're not filmed doing it? That's why the public shouldn't have direct input. That's why we have REPRESENTATIVES, to mitigate the mob mentality. That's also why Goodell's !@#$ed up, because he's accepting at face value and exclusively reacting to the mob's outrage, when the mob's outrage is based on nothing more than the portrayal of the moment. A sane, coherent disciplinary policy based on something more than Goodell's whimsy would have avoided this altogether. Here's the way I see this. Goodell would be in far less deep sh--, if he had simply held to his original suspension and said "I saw the video, this was the policy, we're revisiting it, but we're not going to try past offenses under a new policy." If he went further and said that based on what he saw, he felt law enforcement could and should have given Rice a stiffer penalty, this would be a clear and definitive response to all of this, and to the NFL's role in it. He could cite past suspensions and consistency, and then also point to counseling that the NFL offers to try to help players with their domestic and family lives. He could characterize this as a work in progress, and say that the NFL is likely to increase the penalty because it wants to show that there is zero tolerance going forward. He could even mention his twin daughters, and how seeing the tape disgusted him when he thought about the fact that Janay Rice is someone's daughter. Changing the policy, and then the penalties, assessed to Rice based on mounting public pressure was simply going to backfire. As was using trusted NFL mouthpieces like Peter King -- who had to then look like complete idiots -- to share the news that the NFL saw all of the tapes. You've got to get out in front of a story, even if you don't make all the right moves or satisfy all comers. If your entire strategy is reactionary, people are going to call you out on it. It's the reality of PR as it exists today. The NFL can't have things both ways either. If they want to base their brand heavily on image (toughness, intense fan support, families and friends bonding together over the game), then they have to respect the power of image when a negative one arrives.
Rocky Landing Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 I'm probably going to sound a bit boorish in this sentiment, but I don't believe it is the NFL's responsibility to "punish" athletes for their off-field issues. It is their responsibility to protect the image of the NFL, and the interests of shareholder's, fans, and other stakeholders. Rice screwed up in this regard, and he is gone as a result. When, and if, public opinion sways enough to let him back in, and a team wants him, he will be back in. Just Like Michael Vick. This is not about justice-- that is up to the legal system. This is about football, and the NFL's image. I'm not going to waste any emotional energy on how the NFL handled this, and I'm not going to feel any "outrage" over how well the NFL, or Goodell, managed the NFL's image in this one case. It's just not that important.
MDH Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) And the public is deciding now that it's more acceptable to knock a woman out if you're not filmed doing it? That's why the public shouldn't have direct input. That's why we have REPRESENTATIVES, to mitigate the mob mentality. That's also why Goodell's !@#$ed up, because he's accepting at face value and exclusively reacting to the mob's outrage, when the mob's outrage is based on nothing more than the portrayal of the moment. A sane, coherent disciplinary policy based on something more than Goodell's whimsy would have avoided this altogether. It seems to me that your issue is more with Goodell than with the public. The public is always going to state their opinions about any number of topics. However, Goodell (and the NFL owners) are the ones who give those complaints power. Without somebody doing something those opinions hold no weight. The bottom line is that it's the bottom line. If the NFL fears people will boycott their product they'll react to the mob, if they don't they'll ignore them (or placate them.) Nobody can force them to do anything. They have to power to do what they want and the public has the right to state (shout, tweet, etc.) their opinions. The system appears to be working just fine even if those shouting are highly obnoxious. Edited September 11, 2014 by MDH
dubs Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 And the public is deciding now that it's more acceptable to knock a woman out if you're not filmed doing it? That's why the public shouldn't have direct input. That's why we have REPRESENTATIVES, to mitigate the mob mentality. That's also why Goodell's !@#$ed up, because he's accepting at face value and exclusively reacting to the mob's outrage, when the mob's outrage is based on nothing more than the portrayal of the moment. A sane, coherent disciplinary policy based on something more than Goodell's whimsy would have avoided this altogether. If we put twitter at the bottom of a cliff do you think the mob would walk right off it? It's worth a shot!
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 @WillBrinson Bears issued a statement on Ray Rice/Roger Goodell The Bears should have had Virginia McCaskey issue the statement, as she is the owner of the Bears. Oops.
Bufcomments Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Goodell should be toast . Either him or somebody directly under him will get fired. But since Robert Kraft has a man crush on him (because they burned the Cheater Tapes) I doubt the owners will boot him. But I hope they fine him a years salary .
mitchmurraydowntown Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Will the NFLPA defend Ray Rice for the commissioner breaking a newly instituted policy about suspending first time offenders 6 games?
May Day 10 Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 I'm probably going to sound a bit boorish in this sentiment, but I don't believe it is the NFL's responsibility to "punish" athletes for their off-field issues. It is their responsibility to protect the image of the NFL, and the interests of shareholder's, fans, and other stakeholders. Rice screwed up in this regard, and he is gone as a result. When, and if, public opinion sways enough to let him back in, and a team wants him, he will be back in. Just Like Michael Vick. This is not about justice-- that is up to the legal system. This is about football, and the NFL's image. I'm not going to waste any emotional energy on how the NFL handled this, and I'm not going to feel any "outrage" over how well the NFL, or Goodell, managed the NFL's image in this one case. It's just not that important. agreed
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 He said that the fiance was pathetic for not speaking up. He was very hesitate to call her a victim because she played her part. He talked about how many women lure men into sexual assault situations. But way to leave out the facts, jump to a conclusion to support your biased view. Says the person who first posted about this, made a conclusion, and started blaming people. You are walking contradiction. I'm shocked we dont see threads of you asking yourself questions over and over You're like a tick hanging off my scrotum. You need to study some history if you think it's a recent thing in America where people shout down those who don't agree with them. Shouting them down on twitter and putting pressure on someone who has authority over the person are nice compared to what people used to do. What is happening now is how things are supposed to work. The public, not the government, decides what is acceptable or unacceptable. They do that by stating their opinion. But go ahead and bemoan a "PC society." This is the open discourse you pine for. They state their beliefs and you state yours. It's funny that you're doing your part by voicing the opposite opinion but you believe this right is strictly reserved for you. Do you only like "open discourse" when the majority agrees with your side? Now I will say that I find it humorous that people are calling for Goodell to resign. As if he is a governmental figure who the people have a right to dismiss. The man works for the owners and nobody else and they're going to be looking out for their best interests here. Why do people care if Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL? He's not setting public policy. What in God's name are you blathering about?
26CornerBlitz Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Goodell Under Siege The cries for Roger Goodell's resignation are reverberating across the football world after the AP reported the league office had indeed received the second Ray Rice video. At least one owner isn't sure the NFL commish will survive the saga Just before 11 p.m. Eastern Time, minutes after the league announced the Mueller appointment, one league owner told me, “This is a good first step. But we need to be prepared for any outcome.”
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 And the market -- i.e. us -- decides what is acceptable and unacceptable via our decisions about purchases as well as the ways in which we spend our time. If a lot of people threaten to spend their Sundays with someone other than the NFL, the NFL has to listen. What we're talking about in the context of speech is that the media has exploited this reality to ban unpopular speech. The only reason it has this power is because enough useful idiots jump on board with it. If the public didn't dutifully take up the outrage as instructed when someone says something unpopular we wouldn't be dealing with this on such an obnoxious level.
NoSaint Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Not a chance. They want this buried as quickly as possible. They just have nothing else to distract mainstream. That is why I think this story fades quickly after this weeks games. Well, they've done a pretty good job keeping it there with a promised investigation due to their terrible statements on the videos release.
Recommended Posts