Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[NoHuddleKelly12]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yep. Utter nonsense and should be called out on it. 

 

Fromm not wanting to get into politics - fine. But then playing the religion card? Well yea.... that brings its own connotations with it too.

 

I won't tell Jake Fromm how to practice his religion, but when he uses it as a defense mechanism I reserve the right to call cop out.  

He brought it up in the context of making an observation of how the world could be made better--how is that a defense mechanism per se? If loving God & others is how he chooses to then do his part, maybe MLJ could've followed up with asking for specific examples, what concretely that means to Fromm now in his daily life, how can he better serve his "neighbor" in the context of improving racial relations, etc.? Since the text messages didn't show that type of neighborly conduct, it's fair to ask what's changed for Fromm since then? 

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

He wasn't asking him about his tweets, he was baiting him into a conversation about a separate issue that he knows from is going to disagree with. 

 

Fromm says "I don't plan on answering about that specific situation, but my plan is to live my life by this certain ethos." 

 

Marcel says this is an unacceptable response... If he was happy with the ethos that Fromm plans on living with, he wouldn't find his answer unacceptable because it would conform with what Marcel believes Fromm owes society. 

I don’t plan on speaking to that issue but here’s my ethos is an answer that will get your answer criticized, even by people that like your ethos. 

[Rico]

29 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Again - what does Fromm want?  If he wants to persuade people he's learned and changed, shouldn't he be able to come up with a bit of a better answer in two months?

 

I think that's L-J's point.   Fromm  could even decline to answer - he could say "This is a topic where I'm still educating myself and I want to keep those conversations private".  I could be wrong, but I think L-J would have been chill with that.

 

If Fromm doesn't want that, or doesn't GAF, then your "if I were Fromm" makes perfect sense as a strategy.

 

 

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to explain what you meant.  I don't think it's acceptable as a response showing that he's been having conversations about a different point of view on race, but as a general scriptural response I can see where you're coming from.

Yes,  Fromm doesn't need to persuade anyone that he's "changed and learned".

Edited August 7, 2020 by Rico

[Royale with Cheese]

The sensitivity of everything is really annoying.

[NoSaint]

18 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

So you don’t think he was “wrong” in his answer or not wanting to answer?  

I think loving your fellow man and serving god is totally fine. I’m not religious but I’m generally all for people finding ways to live with love in their hearts.
 

I think In response to that question, and compounded further by the context of his situation and his previous comments, it’s a rather lackluster answer both if he was truly answering or if he was dodging the question.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

He brought it up in the context of making an observation of how the world could be made better--how is that a defense mechanism per se? If loving God & others is how he chooses to then do his part, maybe MLJ could've followed up with asking for specific examples, what concretely that means to Fromm now in his daily life, how can he better serve his "neighbor" in the context of improving racial relations, etc.? Since the text messages didn't show that type of neighborly conduct, it's fair to ask what's changed for Fromm since then? 

 

Because what it essentially said with God 1st, people 2nd was "well God is more important than people anyway". When being asked about issues affecting society to start your answer with that is a defense mechanism. 

 

It might be his religious belief and though I vociferously disagree with it I equally vociferously defend his right to hold that belief. But using it as a means of deflecting that question is a cop out and I don't think it does him any favours. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

He wasn't really asked about the texts or his attitudes either though, he was asked about the "things that have happened in this country" over the past couple months.  

 

Actually since the racial injustice movement has been global and not just confined to “in this country”, Fromm may have thought he meant the great “tastes great, less filling” debate. 

[whatdrought]

18 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

It blows my mind how much time is wasted; how grown adults act like babies who can’t get along with others; all because of two choices that are both very flawed.  
 

america, the “greatest “ country in the world, has 2 guys in their 70s who are losing their minds competing to be our leader.  Good job America!!!

 

The real race is which one will lose it faster. 

[Chaos]

Sometimes things are simple. Fromm's answer was fine. Reporter's commentary was ridiculous. 

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I don’t plan on speaking to that issue but here’s my ethos is an answer that will get your answer criticized, even by people that like your ethos. 

You seem to be assuming that a grown man is responsible for answering a question about the cluster-youknowhat that is the current climate in this country.

 

He gave a general answer for how a lot of issues can be solved- people loving each other. Do you disagree that that would solve problems? Does Marcel?

 

Either Marcel finds that wrong and thus unacceptable, or he finds how fact that Fromm won’t be baited into a no-win conversation as unacceptable. Either way, an back to the point of the thread - bad journalism. 

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

You seem to be assuming that a grown man is responsible for answering a question about the cluster-youknowhat that is the current climate in this country.

 

He gave a general answer for how a lot of issues can be solved- people loving each other. Do you disagree that that would solve problems? Does Marcel?

 

Either Marcel finds that wrong and thus unacceptable, or he finds how fact that Fromm won’t be baited into a no-win conversation as unacceptable. Either way, an back to the point of the thread - bad journalism. 

you act like asking the guy that made a racist tweet what he thinks about this civil rights movement going on is some insurmountable perfect trap of nefarious intent.
 

yea, as a rule of thumb lots of good comes from people loving each other but without saying what that looks like - it amounts to saying thoughts and prayers. 
 

there are plenty of better ways to navigate that question, and what marcel thinks of the answer means little to me.

 

and no, Fromm isn’t obligated to answer anything but he is accountable to the response he gives. In this case a minor flub that had minor pushback.

Edited August 7, 2020 by NoSaint

[mjt328]

2 hours ago, Dragoon said:

Im sick of cancel culture and we all need to stand up to it. 

 

This morning, I was listening to a talk show.  The two hosts were suggesting this country has reached a tipping point, where we are completely beyond civil discourse.  The two political/cultural sides are so far apart, it's hard to believe we can ever find common ground.  

 

I mean... we have reached the place where phrases like "All Lives Matter" and "Love God, Love People" are considered hateful and disrespectful.  

 

 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Because what it essentially said with God 1st, people 2nd was "well God is more important than people anyway". When being asked about issues affecting society to start your answer with that is a defense mechanism. 

 

It might be his religious belief and though I vociferously disagree with it I equally vociferously defend his right to hold that belief. But using it as a means of deflecting that question is a cop out and I don't think it does him any favours. 

Gunner, but at the very heart of the belief that undergirds the point behind Mark 12:28-31, is that you are directed to love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule)--not loving God at the expense of loving others, but rather, because of loving God, you also love others (in fact are directed to love others equally to yourself). This is why Jesus taught what He did concerning "The Good Samaritan," a story which in and of itself makes no earthly sense because the Samaritan personally himself got nothing out of helping his tribal enemy in need. But seen in the broader context of the scripture I referenced, it makes perfect sense. My point is, these are not mutually exclusive concepts such as your comment indicated you may think Fromm presented them as?    

[HappyDays]

36 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree. He isn't. Playing the religion card however is a cop out. 

 

A cop out of what? I think it was a polite way of saying he doesn't want to step into a political debate. I respect that decision. Maybe you and I are on the same page here.

2 hours ago, Logic said:

Hopefully, he does some self reflection and realizes that “everyone should love God”, while a fine idea, is not in itself a sufficient answer to the question of “how can we foster meaningful change to the problems of systemic racism and endemic white supremacy”.

 

Why does a football player need to answer that question to the media? He didn't state an opinion one way or the other. Some girl put out an image of a private conversation he had over a year ago where he made a dumb and tasteless joke. Does that mean he now has to be the face of racial equality for the rest of his career? MLJ was baiting him, plain and simple.

 

Still better than Mike Rodak though.

[YoloinOhio]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

A cop out of what? I think it was a polite way of saying he doesn't want to step into a political debate. I respect that decision. Maybe you and I are on the same page here.

 

Why does a football player need to answer that question to the media? He didn't state an opinion one way or the other. Some girl put out an image of a private conversation he had over a year ago where he made a dumb and tasteless joke. Does that mean he now has to be the face of racial equality for the rest of his career? MLJ was baiting him, plain and simple.

 

Still better than Mike Rodak though.

So ironically I heard Rodak on the radio today and had to do a double take. He was being interviewed on our local station about previewing Alabama’s football season. I agree that marcel is a major upgrade!

[HamSandwhich]

26 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I think loving your fellow man and serving god is totally fine. I’m not religious but I’m generally all for people finding ways to live with love in their hearts.
 

I think In response to that question, and compounded further by the context of his situation and his previous comments, it’s a rather lackluster answer both if he was truly answering or if he was dodging the question.

What informs you that it’s lackluster or perhaps dodging the question. Another words, what is your moral compass? Where does it come from? 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

A cop out of what? I think it was a polite way of saying he doesn't want to step into a political debate. I respect that decision. Maybe you and I are on the same page here.

 

If he had made statement without throwing God into the first sentence I would have zero issue. 

11 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Gunner, but at the very heart of the belief that undergirds the point behind Mark 12:28-31, is that you are directed to love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule)--not loving God at the expense of loving others, but rather, because of loving God, you also love others (in fact are directed to love others equally to yourself). This is why Jesus taught what He did concerning "The Good Samaritan," a story which in and of itself makes no earthly sense because the Samaritan personally himself got nothing out of helping his tribal enemy in need. But seen in the broader context of the scripture I referenced, it makes perfect sense. My point is, these are not mutually exclusive concepts such as your comment indicated you may think Fromm presented them as?    

 

It is not everyone else's responsibility to interpret what Jake Fromm means from scripture. It really isn't. That is him imposing his belief system on me. That is why he should not have made his first comment on the situation about God. 

 

[TigerJ]

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

I just felt like he judged Fromm’s response personally, and attached it to his reporting of the quote. It struck me as unprofessional.

Wholeheartedly agree.  It's trendy right now that when there's been a whiff of racism in the air for everybody to pile on.  Don't let the perpetrator up until he's been bloodied beyond recognition.  I don't really know Jake Fromm at all.  What he said was fine, but what really matters is how he conducts himself going forward, particularly with his teammates who may be a bit sensitized because of his earlier tweets.

[C.Biscuit97]

9 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

This morning, I was listening to a talk show.  The two hosts were suggesting this country has reached a tipping point, where we are completely beyond civil discourse.  The two political/cultural sides are so far apart, it's hard to believe we can ever find common ground.  

 

I mean... we have reached the place where phrases like "All Lives Matter" and "Love God, Love People" are considered hateful and disrespectful.  

 

 

Because people keep purposely try to ignore the message.  Not one person has said other Lives don’t matter.  So people saying this are being completely disingenuous.

 

the best way to understand how dumb saying all lives matter is right now is to think of a funeral.  Someone’s family member died.  What kind of disrespectful idiot would get up in the middle of the service and start yelling “what about my grandmother who passed away??? Doesn’t her life matter?”

 

if you told me something you were struggling with and bothering you, I would listen and be empathetic.  I won’t be like I have my own problems and find reasons not to listen. 
 

as for love god, love people, a lot of people love to say that but not as many truly do that.  A lot of people love using God as a crutch.

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If he had made statement without throwing God into the first sentence I would have zero issue. 

I have no problem with him tossing his faith into his lack of response. I have an issue with everyone who cannot admit that he dodged the question, which is painfully clear, and instead want to argue about the profundity of "i think the world can be a better place if we can love god first and then love people".  He may as well have said  the world can be a better place if we recycle.  Both statements are true, as deep as a bumper sticker, and only tangentially related to the question.