Support NeoGAF

[perfectchaos007]

If you do not think a professional NFL running back has a good amount of strength, you are not so smart...

Now you're putting words in my mouth

 

[RELIGHT]

You are wrong because, barring extreme outliers, men are likely inflict a disproportionate amount of damage absent a double standard. I am a feminist, and I don't have to believe anything by having this double standard other than that men are generally physically stronger than women, to a degree that makes assault for assault a ridiculous notion.

And it's not a response to point to the scant number of feminists that would actually deny this reality. Not only would they be objectively wrong, but not all feminists have to agree for a viewpoint to be logically sound.

By saying this you are essentially saying that by definition, men and women are NOT equal. So Is Ray Rice inherently wrong or is he wrong simply because of how strong he is? Either way you are stating men shouldn't hit women instead of people shouldn't hit each other. What if Ray Rice didn't knock her out when he hit her and she just brushed off the blow? Is he now not wrong because he didn't inflict disproportionate damage? What if Rice was physically smaller and weaker than his gf? Would he still be wrong because he hit a woman?

It's just an interesting notion to me that you can be outraged at what Rice did and not realize the absurdist of this double standard if you also believe women and men SHOULD BE EQUAL. What if his gf were a body builder and he was a scrawny guy and she actually knocked him out? Would people even be outraged at all? Would feminist talk about it? The answers to those questions is what makes this entire thing a double standard and an unique piece of debate.

 

[GiJoccin]

"It's not about him. It's about you." That slip should win Steven A faux pas of the month. Dude totally sabotaged himself with that one.

Otherwise he went on to clarify that: 1) domestic violence is wrong, and 2) men should never attack women, but 3) women involved with violent men should recognize the fucked-up reality of their situation and for their own sake try not to make it worse.

He wasn't justifying the behavior of violent men, he was cautioning women to be careful around violent men.

and number 3 is the ignorant statement that people are taking offense to

again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

one of the aspects of battered person syndrome is that they think it's their fault, when the reality is, it isn't their fault, and it's inevitably chalked up to some perceived slight by the abuser - one of the aspects of the syndrome is that the battered person DOESN'T recognized the fucked up reality of their situation, and to say that they just SHOULD recognize it is what i think people are taking offense to, as it is an ignorant thing to say

not that the case with ray rice necessarily falls under the umbrella of battered person syndrome

 

[TriniTrin]

Now you're putting words in my mouth

what was the point of that correction on weight or that comment about his height then?

correction: this comment:

My former highschool prom date could give him a run for his money. She's 5'8", 150lbs of muscle ( competitive crossfitter ) 24 y/o. Id'e post pics but I don't want to invade her privacy. Trust me she's ripped though, some of the best abs I've ever seen on a woman or otherwise

whats the point of it?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

By saying this you are essentially saying that by definition, men and women are NOT equal. So Is Ray Rice inherently wrong or is he wrong simply because of how strong he is? Either way you are stating men shouldn't hit women instead of people shouldn't hit each other. What if Ray Rice didn't knock her out when he hit her and she just brushed off the blow? Is he now not wrong because he didn't inflict disproportionate damage? What if Rice was physically smaller and weaker than his gf? Would he still be wrong because he hit a woman?

It's just an interesting notion to me that you can be outraged at what Rice did and then say you aren't holding a double standard. What if his gf were a body boulder and he was a scrawny guy and she actually knocked him out? Would people even be outraged at all? Would feminist talk about it? The answers to those questions is what makes this entire thing a double standard and an unique piece of debate.

Who gives a shit about any of this? We have video of something that actually has happened.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

By saying this you are essentially saying that by definition, men and women are NOT equal. So Is Ray Rice inherently wrong or is he wrong simply because of how strong he is? Either way you are stating men shouldn't hit women instead of people shouldn't hit each other. What if Ray Rice didn't knock her out when he hit her and she just brushed off the blow? Is he now not wrong because he didn't inflict disproportionate damage? What if Rice was physically smaller and weaker than his gf? Would he still be wrong because he hit a woman?

It's just an interesting notion to me that you can be outraged at what Rice did and then say you aren't holding a double standard. What if his gf were a body boulder and he was a scrawny guy and she actually knocked him out? Would people even be outraged at all? Would feminist talk about it? The answers to those questions is what makes this entire thing a double standard and an unique piece of debate.

Yes, I am. They aren't equal with respect to their ability to physically harm each other based on general biological differences. I never said I don't hold a double standard, I said I do and that the double standard is the logical position as opposed to yours.

As to every change to the facts you are proposing, I already implied that could change my analysis, and, in fact, a poster asked me that directly and I said as much.

 

[perfectchaos007]

what was the point of that correction on weight or that comment about his height then?

Did you not see how my post was neutral in the point I was making?

edit: oh that comment was just to show that not everyone would be automatically overwhelmed in a domestic assault by Rice. The person I responded to referred to Rice as a "giant man who should physically fear virtually nobody alive on the planet", and I was attempting to address that as a bit of an exaggeration.

 

[TriniTrin]

Did you not see how my post was neutral in the point I was making?

Its interesting how, depending on which side of the argument you're defending, you guys are willing to spin numbers in your arguments favor. He's listed at 206 lbs on ESPN for the record.

I guess you are just fanning flames then...

 

[RELIGHT]

Who gives a shit about any of this? We have video of something that actually has happened.

Well we have video of his gf being unconscious, not video of the fight itself. But let's say we did have video of her hitting him and then him hitting her. So he's just wrong and she isn't? If this were two guys fighting then we'd probably all be laughing at how one got knocked out and saying things like "holy shit that was awesome!"

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Well we have video of his gf being unconscious, not video of the fight itself. But let's say we did have video of her hitting him and then him hitting her. So he's just wrong and she isn't? If this were two guys fighting then we'd probably all be laughing at how one got knocked out and saying things like "holy shit that was awesome!"

Your problem here is you're mostly arguing with yourself. You jump to conclusions about what others mean instead of letting people have their own opinions first. You create strawmen arguments this way.

If you feel violence of any sort is not okay, you have a lot of people who agree with you here.

 

[RELIGHT]

Yes, I am. They aren't equal with respect to their ability to physically harm each other based on general biological differences. I never said I don't hold a double standard, I said I do and that the double standard is the logical position as opposed to yours.

As to every change to the facts you are proposing, I already implied that could change my analysis, and in fact, a poster asked me that directly and I said as much.

The very fact that you are saying that you are a feminist and holding thus double standard is the logical position calls the very ideals of feminism into question. You can't in one breathe state women and men should be treated the same and in another breath state that men shouldn't hit women because they are stronger. That contradicts the first ideal of feminism.

 

[Trey]

Those comments Beadle is receiving are disgusting.

I absolutely LOVE the NFL, but, my goodness, the fans can be totally insane. Read any Twitter/ESPN comment section after a story about an NFL player involved with domestic disputes or homosexuals (like the Chris Kluwe stuff). Completely intolerant of nearly any article that levels criticism.

Literally insane. But that's because the sport is hugely popular in America and with such a huge pool to draw from, the number of idiots will be massive.

 

[Brakke]

Well we have video of his gf being unconscious, not video of the fight itself. But let's say we did have video of her hitting him and then him hitting her. So he's just wrong and she isn't? If this were two guys fighting then we'd probably all be laughing at how one got knocked out and saying things like "holy shit that was awesome!"

"We".

The very fact that you are saying that you are a feminist and holding thus double standard is the logical position calls the very ideals of feminism into question. You can't in one breathe state women and men should be treated the same and in another breath state that men shouldn't hit women because they are stronger. That contradicts the first ideal of feminism.

You just did it again. "Treating people the same" is not the first ideal of feminism.

 

[RELIGHT]

Your problem here is you're mostly arguing with yourself. You jump to conclusions about what others mean instead of letting people have their own opinions first. You create strawmen arguments this way.

If you feel violence of any sort is not okay, you have a lot of people who agree with you here.

But I'm not actually. Everyone seems to be focusing on how wrong Rice is instead of how wrong they both are. They are blaming Rice for the entire thing and when Stephen A comes out and says, "well what about what she did to him?" people call him an idiot and mysoginist.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

But I'm not actually. Everyone seems to be focusing on how wrong Rice is instead of how wrong they both are. They are blaming Rice for the entire thing and when Stephen A comes out and says, "well what about what she did to him?" people call him an idiot and mysoginist.

Because he's not talking about her assaulting him first. He came at it from the angle that she provoked him, which means anything.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

The very fact that you are saying that you are a feminist and holding thus double standard is the logical position calls the very ideals of feminism into question. You can't in one breathe state women and men should be treated the same and in another breath state that men shouldn't hit women because they are stronger. That contradicts the first ideal of feminism.

I already anticipated this in the first post I made.

"And it's not a response to point to the scant number of feminists that would actually deny this reality. Not only would they be objectively wrong, but not all feminists have to agree for a viewpoint to be logically sound."

Also, I will paste this rather lengthy but illuminating quote of Steven Pinker's to rebut what you are saying about the ideals of feminism.

“I am a feminist. I believe that women have been oppressed, discriminated against, and harassed for thousands of years. I believe that the two waves of the feminist movement in the 20th century are among the proudest achievements of our species, and I am proud to have lived through one of them, including the effort to increase the representation of women in the sciences.

But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, ‘I guess sex discrimination wasn’t so bad after all,’ or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism.
..”

 

[RELIGHT]

"We".



You just did it again. "Treating people the same" is not the first ideal of feminism.

So the equality of men and women isn't a feminist ideal? Because that's what I mean by treating people the same.

 

[RELIGHT]

I already anticipated this in the first post I made.

"And it's not a response to point to the scant number of feminists that would actually deny this reality. Not only would they be objectively wrong, but not all feminists have to agree for a viewpoint to be logically sound."

Also, I will paste this rather lengthy but illuminating quote of Steven Pinker's to rebut what you are saying about the ideals of feminism.

“I am a feminist. I believe that women have been oppressed, discriminated against, and harassed for thousands of years. I believe that the two waves of the feminist movement in the 20th century are among the proudest achievements of our species, and I am proud to have lived through one of them, including the effort to increase the representation of women in the sciences.

But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, ‘I guess sex discrimination wasn’t so bad after all,’ or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism.
..”

Hmm. I can actually agree with this. Good post.

 

[Kraftwerk]

I guess you are just fanning flames then...

Are you serious? You are the one constantly quoting him after misunderstanding him. He clarified what he said, but you are still trying to start shit and put words in his mouth, yet HE is the one fanning the flames?

 

[AkuMifune]

Well we have video of his gf being unconscious, not video of the fight itself. But let's say we did have video of her hitting him and then him hitting her. So he's just wrong and she isn't? If this were two guys fighting then we'd probably all be laughing at how one got knocked out and saying things like "holy shit that was awesome!"

To be fair we have no idea what the actual "provoking" was and are only going by hearsay it was spitting. There is a video of what happened in the elevator, but they're not releasing it. And the DA is essentially dropping the case based on what occurred, so it could have been much worse than spitting. Or just the fact she forgave him and $$$.

But with this history of Stephen A saying ignorant shit about domestic abuse coming out now I'd bail from defending him on this.

 

[perfectchaos007]

So the equality of men and women isn't a feminist ideal? Because that's what I mean by treating people the same.

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm
noun
"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."


I stick by and agree with the premise of the google definition.

 

[Two Words]

Whoops. My apologies. That's what I get for multitasking. If you can excuse my lapse in reading comprehension, then I would say he is more reprehensible. She is ultimately at his mercy in the fight, so the fact that she could hypothetically cause the same amount of damage if given free reign wouldn't come into play. He should be intent on defending himself if she intends to harm him.

This is where I find a great disagreement morally. I would find them both equally morally reprehensible since they were both intent on carrying out the same action. It's essentially motvie vs result.

 

[Fenderputty]

Did you not see how my post was neutral in the point I was making?

edit: oh that comment was just to show that not everyone would be automatically overwhelmed in a domestic assault by Rice. The person I responded to referred to Rice as a "giant man who should physically fear virtually nobody alive on the planet", and I was attempting to address that as a bit of an exaggeration.

By bringing up a woman likely in the 99th percentile herself ...

 

[RELIGHT]

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm
noun
"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."


I stick by and agree with the premise of the google definition.

I really and truly fail to see how what I say and what this says are different. In fact the google definition expands on what I saw further, bringing up political and economic equality as well. What we are discussing in this thread stems from a social issue.

 

[PBY]

The very fact that you are saying that you are a feminist and holding thus double standard is the logical position calls the very ideals of feminism into question. You can't in one breathe state women and men should be treated the same and in another breath state that men shouldn't hit women because they are stronger. That contradicts the first ideal of feminism.

This is the most... Like ugh.


You do realize there IS inequality? Like structural and societal outside of pure strength? Like issues with lopsided prosecution, enforcement, and reporting of these issues that significantly disfavor women?

 

[RELIGHT]

This is the most... Like ugh.


You do realize there IS inequality? Like structural and societal outside of pure strength? Like issues with lopsided prosecution, enforcement, and reporting of these issues that significantly disfavor women?

Obviously inequality exists. I'm not saying it doesn't. Check the poster I agreed with

 

[Ultra Magnus]

Wow great EFFing post!! Well said

 

[StoOgE]

How this man has a job is totally and completely beyond me.

I don't even know what his upside is on a "good" day.

 

[Fenderputty]

How this man has a job is totally and completely beyond me.

I don't even know what his upside is on a "good" day.

He's loud.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I remember when the Tiger Woods controversy came out, SAS explained it all away with a smirk and a laugh and essentially said that guys don't care about cheating.

I sat at home watching like "WTF?"

 

[StoOgE]

He's loud.

I actually wonder if that is the ESPN interview process.

Can he scream controversial ideas at people?

HIRE HIM.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

How this man has a job is totally and completely beyond me.

I don't even know what his upside is on a "good" day.

He can talk a lot.

It's not necessarily good or insightful, but you don't have to worry about dead air when he is on tv.

 

[RELIGHT]

I actually wonder if that is the ESPN interview process.

Can he scream controversial ideas at people?

HIRE HIM.

Your name is ironic here because Stephan A is a stooge at times with his over the top shtick. He's totally different on radio though. He came on my local radio station once and was totally rational and made sense. He actually mentioned how certain things are better fit TV. Him and skip do the same thing essentially.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I remember when the Tiger Woods controversy came out, SAS explained it all away with a smirk and a laugh and essentially said that guys don't care about cheating.

I sat at home watching like "WTF?"

Wat? You have a clip of that?

I don't believe Stephen's that insensitive.

 

[StoOgE]

Your name is ironic here because Stephan A is a stooge at times with his over the top shtick. He's totally different on radio though. He came on my local radio station once and was totally rational and made sense. He actually mentioned how certain things are better fit TV. Him and skip do the same thing essentially.

ESPN is basically the worst thing ever.

I remember after the Malice at the Palace when their entire crew wanted to go fight fans.

We basically have a bunch of idiots all running a network together and they are super super quick to jump to the athletes defense because of this weird journalistic issue where they are both the only journalists most people care to watch (SportsCenter) and the purveyor of the product they report on.

So we wind up with people like SAS because while he is an idiot he carries water for the product that ESPN is selling. So long as people only act crazy in defense of the athletes ESPN doesn't care.

And yeah, most of their on air talent is suddenly much smarter when they are no longer on ESPN. It tells me that their producers are begging for these sort of sound bites and not for even handed commentary.

It's like Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler, not actual journalism.

 

[diggler41]

ESPN is basically the worst thing ever.

I remember after the Malice at the Palace when their entire crew wanted to go fight fans.

We basically have a bunch of idiots all running a network together and they are super super quick to jump to the athletes defense because of this weird journalistic issue where they are both the only journalists most people care to watch (SportsCenter) and the purveyor of the product they report on.

So we wind up with people like SAS because while he is an idiot he carries water for the product that ESPN is selling. So long as people only act crazy in defense of the athletes ESPN doesn't care.

I forgot about this. I think it was Jon Barry and Greg Anthony. It was funny to see their macho response.

 

[remnant]

Stephen A tried to say "don't start none won't be none" but phrased it in a completely stupid way. Beadle rightfully called him out.

Wreckless, Beadle took issue with Stephen's phrasing because it could be taken as saying it's a woman's fault if she gets beaten, absolving the attacker of blame. Instead of saying that Ray Rice's wife shouldn't have attack Ray Rice in the first place, Stephen made a much broader statement that is inarguably victim blaming on its face.

Posters are responding to the broad statement whereas you are championing Stephen's poorly communicated point.

So either Beadle's an idiot or she wanted to drag him through the mud. I would believe either.

It's obvious what he is saying

 

[Fenderputty]

I only consume ESPN for local radio and to hear if I disagree with cowheard.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So either Beadle's an idiot or she wanted to drag him through the mud. I would believe either.

It's obvious what he is saying

And it's obviously shitty, and she rightly called him out on it.

 

[inm8num2]

ESPN is full of clowns and this situation is just another example.

 

[GameGuru59]

I have no problem with Steven's comments. If you don't want to fight, don't hit people. Pretty simple concept that many people don't seem to understand.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I have no problem with Steven's comments. If you don't want to fight, don't hit people. Pretty simple concept that many people don't seem to understand.

I'm under the impression Smith said all of these comments without knowing yet that she may have assaulted Rice first. He was calling out any sort of provoking at all (which can mean anything in the world) rather than putting either of the people involved to task for hitting another human being.

 

[GameGuru59]

I didn't know anything about this until about a couple of hours ago at work and I just assumed she hit him first. In my (limited) experience most domestic violence incedents start from a general buildup of physicality (provocation). I doubt he would just hit her out of the blue. When I get mad at people, I just walk away. No sense in arguing about shit if both parties are just going to be angry.

And I don't understand why people are harping on the term "provocation." Steven's a talking head, he wasn't writing a term paper on the issue. You try to talk every day without offending somebody.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I doubt he would just hit her out of the blue.

Why does he get this benefit of the doubt?

 

[nvrndr]

Skip Bayless > Stephen A Smith

At least Skip a is funny real life troll that makes players rage, Stephen is just always angry.

This so much.

 

[jchap]

The only time I enjoy ESPN is when the PC police get onto one of their boneheaded personalities.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

And I don't understand why people are harping on the term "provocation." Steven's a talking head, he wasn't writing a term paper on the issue. You try to talk every day without offending somebody.

Jesus. How many justifications do you have for every shitty person involved in this story? Even Smith's apologized and attempted to backtrack on all of this. Why double down on what he's not even trying to double down on anymore?

 

[GameGuru59]

Why does he get this benefit of the doubt?

Because if he just hit people for no reason he would be crazy.

Jesus. How many justifications do you have for every shitty person involved in this story?

Sure, there are reasons people do all sorts of things. Whether they are justified or not depends on your ethics.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Because if he just hit people for no reason he would be crazy.

So then what made her hit him?

 

[Doc Holliday]

I have a zero tolerance attitude against wife beaters, fuck them. These guys are usually the assholes that would kill their wife and then kill themselves because they are cowards.

That said, people calling for sas to be fired should chill. No one is perfect and we all say dumb shit all the time.