Jerry Sullivan crosses the line. Comments against women.

[Rochesterfan]

2 hours ago, clayboy54 said:

Hopefully, we'll never know where Jerry is buried.

 

I believe they marked the 50 yard marker for the new stadium if you need a marker.

[Blank Stare]

I’ve been fine with Sully’s schtick in the past. It was a grumpy institution. That said, what an absolute delta bravo. He really stepped in it here, and, while I’m sure it was awkward in the moment, the Trainwreck boys really dropped the ball by not correcting him right away. By doing so, if that wasn’t what Sully meant, it would’ve given him an opportunity to clarify (not sure he was capable of making it better). Instead, they all come across as giant jackasses. 

[Coldfronts]

4 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I've had Sullivan "canceled" for years. In that I refused to read his drivel, or even give him a click on his articles. Where you cry "canceling" I just call it exercising my choice as a consumer.

 

And when his employers realize his statements have hurt their bottom line, they will fire him. That's free market capitalism, baby.

 

Take your adolescent drama, and crying over fake crap like "woke" and "canceling", back to twitter.

 

 

Wow, such tolerance 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Coldfronts said:

Wow, such tolerance 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

Congrats tho. You're the first person I've ever seen defend Sullivan over the past 20 years. And it isnt for his bad football takes, it's his hating on women that got you excited. Good look.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, Coldfronts said:

Wow, such tolerance 

You seem an unlikely arbiter of tolerance, considering your position.

[Coldfronts]

7 minutes ago, SageAgainstTheMachine said:

I love the inevitability of the first amendment being invoked, as if it’s meant to prevent you from getting fired from your job.

OK so you think that was a offense that he should be fired for.  Who make that decision the small mob of angry villagers or the company controlled by them?  Not much of a choice is there? You only have the illusion of free speech.  I say live and let live...no one is perfect

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

You seem an unlikely arbiter of tolerance, considering your position.

Why? I am tolerant of all voices especially the ones I disagree with

Edited December 13, 2022 by Coldfronts

[Gugny]

4 minutes ago, Coldfronts said:

OK so you think that was a offense that he should be fired for.  Who make that decision the small mob of angry villagers the company controlled by them?  Not much of a choice is there? You only have the illusion of free speech.  I say live and let live...no one is perfect

 

OK so you think that was a offense that he should be fired for.   -  Yes.

Who make that decision the small mob of angry villagers the company controlled by them?   -  His employer.  That's how the whole firing thing works.

Not much of a choice is there?  -  He made the choice to represent his employer with his words; his employer now has the choice whether to retain his services.

You only have the illusion of free speech.   -  This is just stupid.

I say live and let live...no one is perfect  -  Nope ... no one is perfect.  And it's okay to hold people accountable.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Gugny

[appoo]

Time to be put out to pasture. No one cares about your personal opinions as an angry old grandpa. But quite different when you’re an angry old grandpa with media credentials 

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

1 minute ago, Coldfronts said:

OK so you think that was a offense that he should be fired for.  Who make that decision the small mob of angry villagers the company controlled by them?  Not much of a choice is there? You only have the illusion of free speech.  I say live and let live...no one is perfect

His employer will decide if he gets fired.  They can see the reaction to his asinine comments and decide if he is worth keeping.  Based on his approval rating prior to this issue, I don't think he is an essential employee. 

 

This has absolutely zero to do with "free speech".  why do people that use this as an excuse for ignorant, offensive rhetoric have such a hard time grasping the concept that there are still consequences for things that you say.  Unless the government is going after Jerry, his free speech is still intact. 

[GoBills808]

Freedom of speech is a la carte. It doesn't include freedom of consequences.

[appoo]

I mean this aired over 12 hours ago and he still hasn’t apologized. 

[Warcodered]

Just now, appoo said:

I mean this aired over 12 hours ago and he still hasn’t apologized. 

He probably still has a hangover.

[Draconator]

Just now, Warcodered said:

He probably still has a hangover.

High Noon's will do that to ya...

[muppy]

22 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:

Pretty sure the other guys were all laughing with Sullivan. Did they condone the comments then, but not now?

If you click the link again check out the guy in the white sweat top. He was bobbin his head up and down which could be seen as he giving some credibility to what he was hearing Sullivan say. acknowledgment at the very least. Tacit approval? Meh prolly not but who knows.  Bad optics though .

Edited December 13, 2022 by muppy

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, BobbyC81 said:

Good Morning Football played the postgame with Josh where somebody asked a question about the offense and then said “This doesn’t look like a Super Bowl offense.”  Sullivan immediately came to mind.  Whether it was or not, I don’t know.

 

Yeah, I asked who that was in another thread, the response was "Jerry Sullivan"

 

The GMFB crew discussed.  The GMFB host with the most actual training as a journalist is apparently Jamie Erhdahl (degree in broadcasting and communications).   She seems to feel that Sullivan doesn't "get" journalism (critical or other) in the sense that the journalist's job in an interview is to - wait for it - ask questions, not state his personal views or beliefs. 

 

IOW:

"Do you feel this offense is currently performing on the level to win a Super Bowl?"  (wait for response) - critical journalism

"This offense is not performing on the level to win a Super Bowl"  - not journalism, statement of opinion out-of-place in an interview

[BringBackFergy]

Just now, muppy said:

If you click the link again check out the guy in the white sweat top. He was bobbin his head up and down which could be seen as he giving some credibility to what he was hearing Sullivan say. acknowledgment at the very least. Tacit approval? Meh prolly not.  Bad optics though .

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.  It was condoned at the time he made those dumb ass, drunken comments, but now they retract with a Twitter post and all is well?  Nahhh. They're as guilty as Sullivan.

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, muppy said:

If you click the link again check out the guy in the white sweat top. He was bobbin his head up and down which could be seen as he giving some credibility to what he was hearing Sullivan say. acknowledgment at the very least. Tacit approval? Meh prolly not.  Bad optics though .

 

When someone does the dumb crap like Sully pulled live and in real time, I give most of the people surrounding them the benefit of the doubt. It's tough to react in real time to things. Especially when you are in the middle of work, hosting a talk show, and thinking about how to change topics or the next topic or WTF is this guy saying?!?!?

 

Sullivan made the statements. That's the extent of it.

 

It would be different if they piled on with their own dumb stuff, but I dont think they did unless I missed it.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by DrDawkinstein

[YoloinOhio]

 

[Rochesterfan]

34 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Too Little - they had a chance to stand-up for women last night - one guy looked upset and said nothing - one guy shook his head in mock agreement.

 

It was unacceptable!

 

[appoo]

1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Too Little - they had a chance to stand-up for women last night - one guy looked upset and said nothing - one guy shook his head in mock agreement.

 

It was unacceptable!

 

What irritates me about the entire thing is like we sit here and say “stand up for women!” And we really should. Fully agree with you. But I think I the irritation is how much women need allies….STILL. 
 

Like we can’t just treat them like human beings, because there’s too many in this world that treat them like a monolithic minority that men need to deal with. It’s dehumanizing.