13 seconds rears its head, Gable Steveson!

[WotAGuy]

2 hours ago, buffblue said:

There is nothing serious enough in life to deserve that level of vitriol imo.

You ain’t from around these parts, is ya?

[Rampant Buffalo]

8 hours ago, Billl said:

https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2024/05/31/the-buffalo-bills-signing-ex-wrestler-gable-steveson-reeks-of-hypocrisy-and-tone-deafness/

 

Before commenting on that article, let's ask a few questions.

 

Scenario 1: a sober woman has consensual sex with a drunk man. Afterwards, the man withdraws consent, and seeks to press charges against the woman for being a rapist.

 

Scenario 2: a drunk woman has consensual sex with a drunk man. Afterwards, they both withdraw consent, and both press charges against each other for rape.

 

Scenario 3. A drunk woman has consensual sex with a drunk man. Afterwards, the woman withdraws consent, and seeks to prosecute the man as a rapist.

 

The author of the article is seeking to destroy Steveson's life. This effort includes public shaming of Steveson, attempting to shame potential employers not to hire him, and the claim that Steveson escaped prosecution for rape on the basis of a "loophole." All this, because of Steveson's involvement in scenario 3. Would the reporter be equally fervent in his wish to destroy the lives of the accused parties in scenarios 1 and 2? If a reporter lacks a moral compass, should we listen to his or her words of moral indignation? What does the reporter's effort to destroy Steveson's life say about his moral compass?

[hondo in seattle]

19 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Wasnt really lack of evidence. It was the way the law was written.

 

And to add some perspective, Steveson's case was the inspiration for Minnesota legislation to CHANGE THE LAW so this wont happen again. Under today's law, he's likely charged.

 

According to the prosecutor it was.

 

Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said at the time, “There are often conflicting versions of what happened and this case is no exception.  In the interest of justice, there is inadequate evidence to fairly charge and prosecute this case.”

 

Steveson's attorney said a change in legislation wouldn't have affected the outcome.  The prosecutor didn't say anything one way or the other.  Why do you say he'd likely be charged under today's law?  

 

Steveson said, "No charges were ever brought by anyone and the entire episode has been difficult for everyone involved … Going forward people who don’t know me will hopefully see that kindness, respect and empathy are virtues I take very seriously in my life.

 

I hope that's true.  Since the DA didn't proceed "in the interest of justice," I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.  

 

apnews.com/general-news-1221944d273eb2cdb0d285de3d665b3f

 

www.ringsidenews.com/2021/12/11/gable-steveson-clears-the-air-after-past-assault-allegation-resurfaces/

 

 

 

Edited June 13 by hondo in seattle

[Gugny]

19 hours ago, boyst said:

USA today can go F themselves. every single bastard that works there needs to flown on a Skyvan to the Ocean.

Rapists can go F themselves. 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

Rapists can go F themselves. 

agreed. but he is not one.

[birdo67]

20 hours ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

But not the word glamour, for whatever reason.

You're not gonna believe this...

[dollars 2 donuts]

20 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

‘Nobody as a tough as an elite wrestler.  I was very good, but not that good.  I moved to powerlifting in college.  I had enough of rolling around a mat with another sweaty body.

 

 

Please, Guns, we know with you it all depends upon the "opponent" as well as...the pinability.

 

😂  😉

 

 

21 hours ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

 

 

 

Maybe the best skit, along with Beavis and Butthead, this season.

 

Haven't been a fan in years, but tuned in at the right times lately.

 

 

[Rampant Buffalo]

3 hours ago, Gugny said:

Rapists can go F themselves. 

 

As we've just established, Steveson appears to be innocent. Not sure where your comment is coming from.

[BillsShredder83]

22 hours ago, julian said:

Yeah that’s a total lack of good judgment to say the least, I taught my sons when they were growing up to never engage in sexual relations with women who are drinking.

 

 It’s never a good look, and I know most women that are having a good time drinking and want to hook up 99% of the time are willing participants, but it only takes one time to have your life ruined.

 

I went so far as to tell them to just leave any private party where women are clearly drunk.

My question is, where are people allowed to meet now? I'm not talking about passed out unconscious, that's obv heinous.

 

Good faith question though here.... dating or trying to date in the workplace is a huge no no now. Approaching women in public is pretty frowned upon from the "just let them be" crowd.

 

The one constant all through modern time has been, has been everyone get dressed up, hit the watering holes, have some drinks. It's THE place for singles to meet. Two singles meet and have chemistry. They're not both allowed to enter into, the things humans do, willingly? Are they allowed to kiss? What if it's 4 drinks in 3 hours and both are willing?

 

If the guys willing, but the girl is the one pushing for them to "leave". Should she not have the right to decide that for herself? Whether it's out of being promiscuous or out of a legit attraction? Who's to decide? The whole things so convoluted.

 

Seems like the only safe place to try and date for young kids is on the dating apps... which certainly carry their own problems.

 

I'm glad to be married and done with figuring any of that out. 

 

To the poster I quoted, this is great advice to your sons or any single men. It's just a shame that they have to keep their guard up around the 99%, because of the bad actors 1%. 

 

Also to be clear, I'm not saying it's only tricky for men. I fully understand women also have to keep their guards up at all times because of a nasty 1%. That 1% of males/females have an evil way of camouflaging in with the 99

[julian]

26 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

My question is, where are people allowed to meet now? I'm not talking about passed out unconscious, that's obv heinous.

 

Good faith question though here.... dating or trying to date in the workplace is a huge no no now. Approaching women in public is pretty frowned upon from the "just let them be" crowd.

 

The one constant all through modern time has been, has been everyone get dressed up, hit the watering holes, have some drinks. It's THE place for singles to meet. Two singles meet and have chemistry. They're not both allowed to enter into, the things humans do, willingly? Are they allowed to kiss? What if it's 4 drinks in 3 hours and both are willing?

 

If the guys willing, but the girl is the one pushing for them to "leave". Should she not have the right to decide that for herself? Whether it's out of being promiscuous or out of a legit attraction? Who's to decide? The whole things so convoluted.

 

Seems like the only safe place to try and date for young kids is on the dating apps... which certainly carry their own problems.

 

I'm glad to be married and done with figuring any of that out. 

 

To the poster I quoted, this is great advice to your sons or any single men. It's just a shame that they have to keep their guard up around the 99%, because of the bad actors 1%. 

 

Also to be clear, I'm not saying it's only tricky for men. I fully understand women also have to keep their guards up at all times because of a nasty 1%. That 1% of males/females have an evil way of camouflaging in with the 99

100% agree with this, my sons are in their mid 20s now and one is in a stable committed relationship and the other is single.

 

 I too haven’t needed any “game” since I haven’t been single since 1990 and well before dating apps or social media lol. I met my wife when I was a teenager and she was the older sister of two of my friends from school, I think it’s a nightmare trying to navigate the dating field now watching my sons go through it.

 

 It’s too bad that approaching a woman in person to start a discussion is now looked upon as weird or creepy, because I think that’s how humans are hardwired to initiate and form bonds.

 

 The social media apps are creating a false impression that there’s always somebody better if you just click or swipe one more time. I think the advent of social media is created the single largest harm to western civilization, we’re in the middle of an experiment and we’re all along for the ride and nobody knows long term just how bad it’s going to be.

[Ralonzo]

6 hours ago, Gugny said:

Rapists can go F themselves. 

 

If they could F themselves maybe they wouldn't be doing the other thing?

 

Just a thought.

[Gugny]

4 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

As we've just established, Steveson appears to be innocent. Not sure where your comment is coming from.

The state did everything short of naming the new law “The Steveson Law,” but yeah … let’s just go with the “he’s a big, strong, white guy associated with the Bills, so he can do no wrong,” narrative and call it a day. 

[WickedGame]

21 hours ago, boyst said:

Yes. And rightfully. 

 

Do some research on what USA and gannet have done to local news reporting. How they've mass consumed all local print media and have monopolized it. They've fired tons of local staff to regionalize papers into national group think bird cage lining. They've destroyed one of the most important parts of rural America singularly.

Do some research on America’s recent history of airplanes full of people being flown to their deaths by angry men. 
 

Or do some research into rural America’s experience with violent, angry young men. May I suggest the memorial museum in Oklahoma City. It paints a far better portrait of what rural communities are capable of at their best than your words do. And a far more terrifying portrait of the consequences of violent-minded, angry individuals.
 

There is no place for calling for violence like you’ve done, no matter how angry you are.

[Dablitzkrieg]

I feel like anything 13 second related can be posted in the ad nauseum thread.  How much longer are people going to obsess about it?

[PonyBoy]

23 hours ago, buffblue said:

Jesus dude, angry much??

 

No....What makes you ask that?

🤣

 

 

[Chuck Schick]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

The state did everything short of naming the new law “The Steveson Law,” but yeah … let’s just go with the “he’s a big, strong, white guy associated with the Bills, so he can do no wrong,” narrative and call it a day. 

He’s not white

[PonyBoy]

4 hours ago, julian said:

100% agree with this, my sons are in their mid 20s now and one is in a stable committed relationship and the other is single.

 

 I too haven’t needed any “game” since I haven’t been single since 1990 and well before dating apps or social media lol. I met my wife when I was a teenager and she was the older sister of two of my friends from school, I think it’s a nightmare trying to navigate the dating field now watching my sons go through it.

 

 It’s too bad that approaching a woman in person to start a discussion is now looked upon as weird or creepy, because I think that’s how humans are hardwired to initiate and form bonds.

 

 The social media apps are creating a false impression that there’s always somebody better if you just click or swipe one more time. I think the advent of social media is created the single largest harm to western civilization, we’re in the middle of an experiment and we’re all along for the ride and nobody knows long term just how bad it’s going to be.

 

Funny story. My young single neighbor guy Mike in CA. He was early 30's using a dating app.

I'm in late 40's married for decades, but curious. 

Mike how do those apps work? In my day we went to bars, parks, malls etc.. asked them out face to face with fear of rejection. 

 

He said it's pretty much the same. You reply in a post, ask them out, they see your pic and profile & reject you. You just don't get used for the drinks. Lol!!

Different world. 

[Mr. WEO]

Is “Gable Stevenson” a top 5 Bills D lineman of all time?

[boyst]

1 hour ago, WickedGame said:

Do some research on America’s recent history of airplanes full of people being flown to their deaths by angry men. 
 

Or do some research into rural America’s experience with violent, angry young men. May I suggest the memorial museum in Oklahoma City. It paints a far better portrait of what rural communities are capable of at their best than your words do. And a far more terrifying portrait of the consequences of violent-minded, angry individuals.
 

There is no place for calling for violence like you’ve done, no matter how angry you are.

I'm So AnGrY. rAwR!!111

 

Thanks for the virtue, pal.

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

The state did everything short of naming the new law “The Steveson Law,” but yeah … let’s just go with the “he’s a big, strong, white guy associated with the Bills, so he can do no wrong,” narrative and call it a day. 

That's the worst part of all of this.  The nuance. He's innocent so we have to treat him as innocent but...he may not have been a choir boy that night. He wasn't proven guilty but can't be proven innocent, either.

 

Giving him the benefit of the doubt is the best we can do for a guy who will never know our name who wears the laundry of a team we like that doesn't know we exist.

[Rampant Buffalo]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

The state did everything short of naming the new law “The Steveson Law,” but yeah … let’s just go with the “he’s a big, strong, white guy associated with the Bills, so he can do no wrong,” narrative and call it a day. 

 

"let’s just go with the “he’s a big, strong, white guy associated with the Bills . . . "

 

You either did not read my post earlier on this page, or else are ignoring it and responding to arguments no one here on this thread has made.