NFL New Measures on Domestic Violence

[BrentMc11]

Here's my question: Why is there a lifetime ban for the second offense? How about 3 strikes & you're permanently out?

 

Go from 6 games with the 1st offense, 10 games with the 2nd offense, & 3rd offense = Gone from football forever. 

I liked your comment on three strikes buddy.  My idea on that however is that a man should NEVER hit a woman once, let alone twice and three times.

 

That goes back to my comment in the Ray Rice thread from way back.  

[GoColts8818]

What do you Goodell isn't deaf...

[lollygagger8]

Ray Rice should be be falling over himself thanking Roger Goodell for being a *. 

[OffensivelyPC]

The NFLPA signed off on that? Kind of surprised. This should make them think before striking their spouse

It would just redirect all the media and public outrage at the NFLPA if they didn't considering its' something that is really a no brainer.  I am not a fan of the lifetime ban portion especially because sometimes the other spouse may be a contrbutor to the violence.  So I think that in cases where, say for example, Rice could demonstrate that he did not instigate and then hit her in self-defense, the lifetime ban should not be on the table.  I don't know if that's included in the domestic abuse policy, but it should.  All that being said, it's awfully difficult to disagree with the policy, and if an unintended consequence is to ban guys where the domestic violence is attributable to both the player and his spouse, then it serves as legislation that puts the wives on notice to behave as well, or they lose their primary source of income (assuming they don't make as much as their husband anyway). 

[Superman]

that is a god awful idea Supe. I can't think of a single instance where I've seen a known abuser allowed to, A) know the location of the shelter, or B) be allowed to interact with the women there.

Doesn't happen.

 

I don't think the idea is a good one. I'm just saying I disagree with the response.

 

And I didn't think the suggestion was that the player goes to the same shelter as the person he was violent against. I don't even think he would begin any kind of community service right away, until after legal stuff is handled and maybe some treatment is completed. 

[Superman]

You do realize that the very location of women's shelters is a very closely guarded secret.  If a woman needs to go to one of these places they don't just show up asking for a place to stay.  They call a help line and a person picks them up, with help of police if necessary and takes them to the shelter.  

 

And that the women who live in these shelters would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable with an abuser volunteering there.

 

I actually used to work for an organization that among other things maintained some women's shelters for a while. (My job wasn't in the shelter, my job was to give presentations to kids about domestic violence and abuse.)  I guarantee they arn't going to be allowing someone who's hit his wife/girlfriend to be volunteering there.  http://www.thecaringplacenwi.org/

 

That's why I said "at some point in the future." 

 

Someone like Ray Rice in particular, who has had a very good reputation, being required to do community service at some point in the future, makes some sense.

 

However, you bring up some good points that I hadn't considered. 

[House]

I don't think the idea is a good one. I'm just saying I disagree with the response.

And I didn't think the suggestion was that the player goes to the same shelter as the person he was violent against. I don't even think he would begin any kind of community service right away, until after legal stuff is handled and maybe some treatment is completed.

He won't be going to any shelter period though. It's not that kind of environment.

[OffensivelyPC]

Here's my question: Why is there a lifetime ban for the second offense? How about 3 strikes & you're permanently out?

 

Go from 6 games with the 1st offense, 10 games with the 2nd offense, & 3rd offense = Gone from football forever. 

Well, to me, the rationale (which by the way, isn't disagreeable in my eyes) is that for guys who may try to spin the situation to come across as it was an accident or that he didn't mean to.  It happens all the time and what's worse, is women who allow themselves to be abused typically defend their spouse - the so called battered women's syndrome.  With something so serious as this, the NFL doesn't want to, nor should it, be seen as paying guys 6 and 7 digit salaries and turning a blind eye to abuse of women.  I think that's an exaggeration to the umpteenth degree, but that was the public response by and large to Goodell's 2 game suspension for Rice.  This way, the NFL's saying we'll give you the benefit of the doubt the first time, but a second "mistake" and you're out.  Because to me, if you're willing to do the same thing a second time, you're establishing a pattern once you do it a second time.  And this doesn't even take into account all the times that the an abusive spouse doesn't get caught. 

 

I'm all for giving guys second and third chances for mistakes, but there are some mistakes worse than others - and I think domestic abuse can appropriately be put into that category of mistakes that you only get once before you're excised.  I mean, part of the reason Rice was given such a light suspension was because his wife allegedly was contributing to the violence.  I don't think that was ever proven true publicly.  So if it happened a second time, I'd be less willing to buy his story in retrospect.  I do however, disagree with the lifetime ban if in fact a player hit his spouse out of self defense, but I don't know what the policy says on that topic, so I don't know if a player would be banned for life in that scenario.

[Superman]

He won't be going to any shelter period though. It's not that kind of environment.

 

Fair point.

[OffensivelyPC]

He won't be going to any shelter period though. It's not that kind of environment.

That's true, mostly because the last thing a woman who has been abused by their husband wants to see is another man who is going to take care of them.  I visited a couple for a criminal justice class I had in college, and I didn't visit one that had a single male volunteer - at least one that interacted with the women.  Men may volunteer behind the scenes, but they aren't going to be visiting and talking to battered women face to face unless it's in passing.

[DougDew]

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from at all.  I really hope I'm misunderstanding you.

 

Are you implying that setting an expectation for NFL players to not beat their families/significant others is the result of some "PC" agenda? Really?

 

Is creating a harsh penalty for players who beat their loved ones too intrusive for you?  

 

I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood.  If not, you really need to rethink some things (probably more than a few).

 

Well, on the planet that I wish existed, gawd and courts would be the judging entities, not me, you, or profit seeking companies.  So its the NFL's responsibility to make social statements, via punishment of its players or other ways, on the issues of domestic violence, bullying, gay tolerance, dog fighting, racism, etc....?

 

You need to rethink some things.  Social do-goodism is not my, your, or a company's responsibility or obligation.  Its something an individual does from their own heart and soul.

 

Brow beating a company into doing your social work for you because you don't have the time or money to do it yourself is a type of extortion, frankly.

 

And the NFL and other companies don't do these things out of social responsibility or obligation...if they did they would address the concussion and PED issue more vigorously...they do it out of fear of extortion if they don't.  The fear of groups taking action in ways that cost them money.

 

The overall acceptance of, and propagation of, the extortive attitude by the PC masses is much more frightening and concerning to me than whether or not the NFL punishes a player for hitting his girlfriend on his private time and property, for which he later apologized and the courts saw fit to acknowledge.  I don't know if gawd has...but apparently, Goodell hasn't now.

[southwest1]

I liked your comment on three strikes buddy.  My idea on that however is that a man should NEVER hit a woman once, let alone twice and three times.

 

That goes back to my comment in the Ray Rice thread from way back.  

I can't argue with that approach Brent. I don't endorse harming any woman physically either, but since our legal system works on a 3 strike punishment premise in terms of severity of enforcement, I'm a little surprised that Roger was so firm on the 2nd offense that's all. I agree completely that women needed to be treated with R-E-S-P-E-C-T like singer Aretha Franklin said & as Lionel Richie told his audience about in the song "Once Twice Three Times A Lady." 

 

When this new rule change makes the news circuit outside typical NFL outlets, you know this development is BIG. 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/newsnation/watch/nfl-issues-new-domestic-violence-policy-323182147905

 

Here's my other question though: If NFL bodies are slamming violently into one another for 16 weeks causing severe brain trauma, couldn't an argument be made that the sport itself in some cases can lead to domestic violence since with CTE flights of rage, irrational behavior, & suicides are quite common in former players like Jr. Seau? 

 

The other problem is this: How does the league unilaterally or universally apply this 2nd offense expulsion policy the same in every case? In other words, it's just like a false sexual assault allegation against an athlete that never committed a crime in the 1st place. You don't think a scorned ex girlfriend of a player might lie about abuse to make her former lover poor & threaten his income & livelihood? It could happen pretty easily. How's a guy defend himself against that if he is no longer getting paid by a team? What if the allegation of domestic violence is a complete fabrication & wrong? How can you mount a defense strategy with no money coming in to hire a lawyer exactly? 

[Valpo2004]

Well, on the planet that I wish existed, gawd and courts would be the judging entities, not me, you, or profit seeking companies.  So its the NFL's responsibility to make social statements, via punishment of its players or other ways, on the issues of domestic violence, bullying, gay tolerance, dog fighting, racism, etc....?

 

You need to rethink some things.  Social do-goodism is not my, your, or a company's responsibility or obligation.  Its something an individual does from their own heart and soul.

 

Brow beating a company into doing your social work for you because you don't have the time or money to do it yourself is a type of extortion, frankly.

 

And the NFL and other companies don't do these things out of social responsibility or obligation...if they did they would address the concussion and PED issue more vigorously...they do it out of fear of extortion if they don't.  The fear of groups taking action in ways that cost them money.

 

The overall acceptance of, and propagation of, the extortive attitude by the PC masses is much more frightening and concerning to me than whether or not the NFL punishes a player for hitting his girlfriend on his private time and property, for which he later apologized and the courts saw fit to acknowledge.  I don't know if gawd has...but apparently, Goodell hasn't now.

 

The thing is though is that the NFL is a very public organization and players are a public face of that organization.  So it has to punish and if necessary remove employees that have a bad public reputation.  

 

Now where I agree with you is that I find it fairly hypocritical that people got so upset about the Ray Rice suspension when the NFL CLEARLY punished Ray Rice more then the law chose to do so.  They are taking 3/16th of Ray Rice's yearly salary, that is $750,000!!

 

I mean we just watch the NFL, but in people living in the area where Ray Rice did this are voters.  They vote for the people who write the laws, they vote for the top administrators who enforce the law, they vote for the judge and they vote for the prosecutor.  

 

If there is any group of people who they should be asking questions of it's their own elected officials who let this guy off with just a free class.  

 

Quite frankly I think it's entirely logical that Goodell looked at how the law was letting him off with a slap on the wrist and made his decision based at least in part on that.  

[BrentMc11]

I can't argue with that approach Brent. I don't endorse harming any woman physically either, but since our legal system works on a 3 strike punishment premise in terms of severity of enforcement, I'm a little surprised that Roger was so firm on the 2nd offense that's all. I agree completely that women needed to be treated with R-E-S-P-E-C-T like singer Aretha Franklin said & as Lionel Richie told his audience about in the song "Once Twice Three Times A Lady." 

 

When this new rule change makes the news circuit outside typical NFL outlets, you know this development is BIG. 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/newsnation/watch/nfl-issues-new-domestic-violence-policy-323182147905

 

Here's my other question though: If NFL bodies are slamming violently into one another for 16 weeks causing severe brain trauma, couldn't an argument be made that the sport itself in some cases can lead to domestic violence since with CTE flights of rage, irrational behavior, & suicides are quite common in former players like Jr. Seau? 

I agree with you.  That is why I 'liked' your post.  Three strikes usually does mean you are out

 

Also, good point/question on the CTE issue.  OH know, not another helmet thread

[southwest1]

I can't argue with that approach Brent. I don't endorse harming any woman physically either, but since our legal system works on a 3 strike punishment premise in terms of severity of enforcement, I'm a little surprised that Roger was so firm on the 2nd offense that's all. I agree completely that women needed to be treated with R-E-S-P-E-C-T like singer Aretha Franklin said & as Lionel Richie told his audience about in the song "Once Twice Three Times A Lady." 

 

When this new rule change makes the news circuit outside typical NFL outlets, you know this development is BIG. 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/newsnation/watch/nfl-issues-new-domestic-violence-policy-323182147905

 

Here's my other question though: If NFL bodies are slamming violently into one another for 16 weeks causing severe brain trauma, couldn't an argument be made that the sport itself in some cases can lead to domestic violence since with CTE flights of rage, irrational behavior, & suicides are quite common in former players like Jr. Seau? 

 

The other problem is this: How does the league unilaterally or universally apply this 2nd offense expulsion policy the same in every case? In other words, it's just like a false sexual assault allegation against an athlete that never committed a crime in the 1st place. You don't think a scorned ex girlfriend of a player might lie about abuse to make her former lover poor & threaten his income & livelihood? It could happen pretty easily. How's a guy defend himself against that if he is no longer getting paid by a team? What if the allegation of domestic violence is a complete fabrication & wrong? How can you mount a defense strategy with no money coming in to hire a lawyer exactly? 

People may be pleased that the NFL Commissioner reversed his earlier decision on domestic violence which he is to be commended for, but I always think of pitfalls & sticky situations that can develop as a consequence of such absolute resolutions. They are dangerous for a person caught in the middle of a bad situation who never did anything wrong.  The idea behind the new policy sounds great, but what isn't so wonderful is being unlawfully trapped into a corner with no access to a legal exit strategy. 

 

Remember: We can't assume every NFL player accused of domestic violence is sitting on a pile of previously earned cash in his bank account. He might be a rookie earning the veteran minimum that's it & live in NYC when rent is extremely high to begin with if he plays for the Giants or the Jets. 

 

The other thing I wanna know is this: If a player is banished from the league for domestic violence & subject to have his case file reviewed every year for possible reinstatement by Goodell, how can the player know they are being a fair shake? In other words is it a reinstatement panel deciding your NFL fate or just Goodell alone? And if a panel is present like a parole board hearing, how do we know that these individuals weren't hand picked by Roger personally to automatically side with his POV & vote in lock step the same way he does?

 

I guess proof of taking anger management classes taken might help the tainted player & aid in their NFL reinstatement I suppose. 

[DougDew]

The thing is though is that the NFL is a very public organization and players are a public face of that organization.  So it has to punish and if necessary remove employees that have a bad public reputation.  

 

 

 

Quite frankly I think it's entirely logical that Goodell looked at how the law was letting him off with a slap on the wrist and made his decision based at least in part on that.  

 

It is my thesis that the NFL being a powerful, very public company is exactly why social groups target organizations like them, they stand a better chance of sending the "right" message....their message gets heard by more people and the groups have the best avenue for enacting the change they want.  For example, they don't target garbage collection companies for commenting on how they should handle their employees.

 

I think the logic Goodell used was exersized after somebody got to him, that the NFL perceived that adverse public opinion was being organized into a real problem.  I doubt seriously, that on an individual basis, any viewer would decide whether or not to subscribe to the NFL product based upon Rice's punishment being 2 games or 4.

[Bobbycovert]

Well, on the planet that I wish existed, gawd and courts would be the judging entities, not me, you, or profit seeking companies.  So its the NFL's responsibility to make social statements, via punishment of its players or other ways, on the issues of domestic violence, bullying, gay tolerance, dog fighting, racism, etc....?

 

You need to rethink some things.  Social do-goodism is not my, your, or a company's responsibility or obligation.  Its something an individual does from their own heart and soul.

 

Brow beating a company into doing your social work for you because you don't have the time or money to do it yourself is a type of extortion, frankly.

 

And the NFL and other companies don't do these things out of social responsibility or obligation...if they did they would address the concussion and PED issue more vigorously...they do it out of fear of extortion if they don't.  The fear of groups taking action in ways that cost them money.

 

The overall acceptance of, and propagation of, the extortive attitude by the PC masses is much more frightening and concerning to me than whether or not the NFL punishes a player for hitting his girlfriend on his private time and property, for which he later apologized and the courts saw fit to acknowledge.  I don't know if gawd has...but apparently, Goodell hasn't now.

 

On the planet where we do exist:

 

1) We all have some responsibility to one another, whether we admit it or not.

 

2) Requiring people to demonstrate the most basic traits of human decency (ie not engaging in violence against women, protecting children, treating animals with respect, kindness to those with less, etc)  is seen as "social do-goodism" by only the most paranoid and cynical.

 

3) People in a free society (all people ideally) have the right to speak out against policies and practices that they find unacceptable and can voice their displeasure through various methods that can include allocating their dollars toward businesses that reflect their ideals (you refer to this practice as extortion).

 

You can believe whatever you want.  You can wish for a world where the "PC agenda" doesn't exist.  Personally, I don't want to live in that world and am thankful that the world I live in has people who speak out when they see cruelty and unfairness.

[southwest1]

I agree with you.  That is why I 'liked' your post.  Three strikes usually does mean you are out

 

Also, good point/question on the CTE issue.  OH know, not another helmet thread

Thanks brother. I'm not trying to upset anyone & I do respect women, but I also believe that playing devils advocate is important not to excuse horrific behavior, but just to show that good intentions in a new NFL policy can lead to unpleasant realities if a player is getting railroaded through no fault of his own. Yes, I agree this circumstance might be rare, but not for the 1 guy getting unfairly squeezed. Nobody wants to be the statistic that defies the common rule. 

 

Regarding concussions & CTE, I am very passionate about this issue & people need to remember that the concussion settlement approved by Goodell, a judge, & the owners is essentially a no guilt clause settlement meaning the the NFL never admitted they did anything wrong, they never said there is a link between concussions & future conditions like dementia or memory loss, & that by accepting this money the matter is closed & no future concussion lawsuits can be filed by injured players anymore. 

 

It just burns me that the league once again acknowledges no wrong doing & all other litigation regarding concussions can & will no longer be heard. Infuriating when a person remembers that a player has to get legal representation to get the medical benefits from playing in the NFL that they should automatically be entitled to with no red tape whatsoever.

 

Thanks for letting me vent everybody. Fairness & equal treatment for all means everything to me & it's the bedrock of my personality. 

[OffensivelyPC]

On the planet where we do exist:

 

1) We all have some responsibility to one another, whether we admit it or not.

 

2) Requiring people to demonstrate the most basic traits of human decency (ie not engaging in violence against women, protecting children, treating animals with respect, kindness to those with less, etc)  is seen as "social do-goodism" by only the most paranoid and cynical.

 

3) People in a free society (all people ideally) have the right to speak out against policies and practices that they find unacceptable and can voice their displeasure through various methods that can include allocating their dollars toward businesses that reflect their ideals (you refer to this practice as extortion).

 

You can believe whatever you want.  You can wish for a world where the "PC agenda" doesn't exist.  Personally, I don't want to live in that world and am thankful that the world I live in has people who speak out when they see cruelty and unfairness.

I think where you two are disagreeing is that you're both arguing in black and white terms.  There's a spectrum human decency and somewhere in the middle is conduct that can be seen as offensive by one person and acceptable by another.  There are times where the "PC agenda" really should be pushed (for many of the items you stated in (2)).  There are other times where it really shouldn't.  The problem is, if you're blasted publicly in mediasphere, it can and does harm your reputation.  So many people have been publicly humiliated because a photo or video were taken wildly out of context or it's inflammatory but harmless and all it really does is demonstrate a lack of human decency by the public at large to individual freedoms.  And the media and public wont be held accountable - it never is.  It's "just reporting the news" and "speaking in the name of morality."  And to me, I find that to be a travesty where the media and public can push their views on others without repercussion over something simply because its' disagreeable to the point where the "offensive" person has to choose between doing something they don't feel is right or incurring the backlash.  In some instances, that's fine - obviously domestic violence is something that everyone can and should get behind.  In many other instances, it just serves to sanitizing our culture.

[DougDew]

On the planet where we do exist:

 

1) We all have some responsibility to one another, whether we admit it or not.

 

2) Requiring people to demonstrate the most basic traits of human decency (ie not engaging in violence against women, protecting children, treating animals with respect, kindness to those with less, etc)  is seen as "social do-goodism" by only the most paranoid and cynical.

 

3) People in a free society (all people ideally) have the right to speak out against policies and practices that they find unacceptable and can voice their displeasure through various methods that can include allocating their dollars toward businesses that reflect their ideals (you refer to this practice as extortion).

 

You can believe whatever you want.  You can wish for a world where the "PC agenda" doesn't exist.  Personally, I don't want to live in that world and am thankful that the world I live in has people who speak out when they see cruelty and unfairness.

 

I thank God that I live on a planet that has an imparcial judicial system that collects and weighs evidence and objectively sets punishment accordingly...rather than a herd minded social collective who's partisan, perhaps emotional, version of morality or politics persuades companies that simply want to sell t shirts to act like opinion pushers.

[House]

It is my thesis that the NFL being a powerful, very public company is exactly why social groups target organizations like them, they stand a better chance of sending the "right" message....their message gets heard by more people and the groups have the best avenue for enacting the change they want. For example, they don't target garbage collection companies for commenting on how they should handle their employees.

I think the logic Goodell used was exersized after somebody got to him, that the NFL perceived that adverse public opinion was being organized into a real problem. I doubt seriously, that on an individual basis, any viewer would decide whether or not to subscribe to the NFL product based upon Rice's punishment being 2 games or 4.

Lol you're projecting your own beef with "PC" onto the NFL.

It's a business see. And it's bad when businesses lose customers. Now when you're a high profile business with 24/7 news coverage, you have to hold your employees to a higher standard then a normal institution would. So when an employee, in a very public fashion, is shown to be abusing his wife, you want to discourage the idea you're in favor of such behavior, or remotely condone it. Or risk alienating a portion of your fanbase I.E Women.

You're fighting ghosts. It's not a PC, liberal, conservative, communist agenda. It's a business afraid of losing the all mighty dollar.

[Bobbycovert]

I thank God that I live on a planet that has an imparcial judicial system that collects and weighs evidence and objectively sets punishment accordingly...rather than a herd minded social collective who's imparcial, perhaps emotional, version of morality or politics persuades companies that simply want to sell t shirts to act like opinion pushers.

You are adorable!!  Impartial judicial system? Imperfect might be more fitting...but by all means, AVOID THE HIVE MIND!  They seek thoughtfulness, fairness, and equality. So sinister.

[DougDew]

- obviously domestic violence is something that everyone can and should get behind.  In many other instances, it just serves to sanitizing our culture.

People are naive...that's the problem.  Domestic violence is a political term.  The term "battery" is objective.

 

Embedded in the definition of domestic violence is the idea that America is an oppressive culture, that men keep woman "in line" by beating them.  That is a tired old line, thought up by tired old, and now wrinkled, feminists of the 70's.  The idea that when women stayed at home, did not work, it wasn't because of an intelligent practical decision, it was because of an oppressive culture.

 

Domestic violence was viewed as a tool for men to keep their place of power in society.

 

If Rice hit a man in a bar fight it would be battery.  If he hit a woman in a bar fight it would be battery.  If he hits someone he is in an ongoing relationship with, it becomes something else.

 

Apparently, a punch to the face of someone who you are intimate with is more of an issue than punching someone if the face you are not intimate with.  Not to mention someone whom relies upon your financial support of the lifestyle she enjoys.

 

If not for the feminism issue, the imbedded idea of male oppression, the decades long misguided message of the feminists and political left that has gotten imbedded into our vocabulary, what else is driving the difference between the terms "domestic violence" and "battery"?

[House]

People are naive...that's the problem. Domestic violence is a political term. The term "battery" is objective.

Embedded in the definition of domestic violence is the idea that America is an oppressive culture, that men keep woman "in line" by beating them. That is a tired old line, thought up by tired old, and now wrinkled, feminists of the 70's. The idea that when women stayed at home, did not work, it wasn't because of an intelligent practical decision, it was because of an oppressive culture.

Domestic violence was viewed as a tool for men to keep their place of power in society.

If Rice hit a man in a bar fight it would be battery. If he hit a woman in a bar fight it would be battery. If he hits someone he is in an ongoing relationship with, it becomes something else.

Apparently, a punch to the face of someone who you are intimate with is more of an issue than punching someone if the face you are not intimate with. Not to mention someone whom relies upon your financial support of the lifestyle she enjoys.

If not for the feminism issue, the imbedded idea of male oppression, the decades long misguided message of the feminists and political left that has gotten imbedded into our vocabulary, what else is driving the difference between the terms "domestic violence" and "battery"?

Dear lord.

[Bobbycovert]

I think where you two are disagreeing is that you're both arguing in black and white terms.  There's a spectrum human decency and somewhere in the middle is conduct that can be seen as offensive by one person and acceptable by another.  There are times where the "PC agenda" really should be pushed (for many of the items you stated in (2)).  There are other times where it really shouldn't.  The problem is, if you're blasted publicly in mediasphere, it can and does harm your reputation.  So many people have been publicly humiliated because a photo or video were taken wildly out of context or it's inflammatory but harmless and all it really does is demonstrate a lack of human decency by the public at large to individual freedoms.  And the media and public wont be held accountable - it never is.  It's "just reporting the news" and "speaking in the name of morality."  And to me, I find that to be a travesty where the media and public can push their views on others without repercussion over something simply because its' disagreeable to the point where the "offensive" person has to choose between doing something they don't feel is right or incurring the backlash.  In some instances, that's fine - obviously domestic violence is something that everyone can and should get behind.  In many other instances, it just serves to sanitizing our culture.

     First,  I appreciate your input and I think we probably agree on some points. 

 

    At its worst, the media is exploitative and irresponsible.  No arguments there.  The individual freedoms bit..I'm not sure what you mean.  I suppose misrepresentation by the media and public could affect individual freedoms but I'm not sure what misrepresentation has to do with this discussion.  There might be some great examples. Let me know.

 

     As far as the "PC" thing goes, anything (no matter how well-intended) can be taken to excessive lengths.  Also, the term "PC agenda" is often used by people to demean an idea or standard they find uncomfortable.  To be honest, what we are talking about is a shift in societal norms.  What was acceptable in 1950 would not be tolerated today (not trying to be captain obvious here, I just want you to know where I'm coming from).  Cultures shift and some closely held beliefs are abandoned.  Beliefs aren't facts after all.

 

As far as scenarios where people are forced to act against their beliefs in order to avoid backlash...It sounds horrible but I would really have to have more detail.  Some beliefs are worth fighting for and some beliefs deserve to be shouted down.  

[OffensivelyPC]

People are naive...that's the problem.  Domestic violence is a political term.  The term "battery" is objective.

 

Embedded in the definition of domestic violence is the idea that America is an oppressive culture, that men keep woman "in line" by beating them.  That is a tired old line, thought up by tired old, and now wrinkled, feminists of the 70's.  The idea that when women stayed at home, did not work, it wasn't because of an intelligent practical decision, it was because of an oppressive culture.

 

Domestic violence was viewed as a tool for men to keep their place of power in society.

 

If Rice hit a man in a bar fight it would be battery.  If he hit a woman in a bar fight it would be battery.  If he hits someone he is in an ongoing relationship with, it becomes something else.

 

Apparently, a punch to the face of someone who you are intimate with is more of an issue than punching someone if the face you are not intimate with.  Not to mention someone whom relies upon your financial support of the lifestyle she enjoys.

 

If not for the feminism issue, the imbedded idea of male oppression, the decades long misguided message of the feminists and political left that has gotten imbedded into our vocabulary, what else is driving the difference between the terms "domestic violence" and "battery"?

I don't care what you call it, but if it makes you happy, then fine - a man should not commit battery against his wife.  It's just a word, well 2 words that describe the range of abuse by one family member to another family member - including mental, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse.  Men shouldn't hit their wives, parents shouldn't neglect their children such that it causes harm.  However the word came into being is irrelevant.  Terms evolve over time and whether the word was born out of an oppressive culture that males superior to females, it includes all sorts of conduct.  But where I think you're really missing the forrest for the trees is that there has to be some ulterior motive other than articulation behind the differences in the words "battery" and "domestic violence."

[DougDew]

I don't care what you call it, but if it makes you happy, then fine - a man should not commit battery against his wife.  It's just a word, well 2 words that describe the range of abuse by one family member to another family member - including mental, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse.  Men shouldn't hit their wives, parents shouldn't neglect their children such that it causes harm.  However the word came into being is irrelevant.  Terms evolve over time and whether the word was born out of an oppressive culture that males superior to females, it includes all sorts of conduct.  But where I think you're really missing the forrest for the trees is that there has to be some ulterior motive other than articulation behind the differences in the words "battery" and "domestic violence."

 

Nobody should commit battery against another, so I agree with your first sentence. 

 

Yes, words change over time....that's the point.  People do not realize the political nature of the vocabulary, and how it has been intentionally changed over time.

 

There is a difference between domestic violence and battery.  DV is a specific form of it, born out of the concept of oppression.  Oppression is a subjective thing, and I guess some feel the power to define what that is.

 

I prefer others to inflict punishment on others based upon objective things, not subjective things. 

 

If you don't think this is PC...would anybody be discussing this if Rice got 2 games for battery?  Its the imbedded acceptance of our "oppressive" culture that gets acknowledged when we discuss this as DV instead of battery.  Yes..it is an agenda.

[Shane Bond]

Let's see how long this goes before another controversial beating of a woman.

 

NFL players are already treated like Gods enough by society, this has been evident for a while. The modern day equivalent of the old Gladiator fighters of Rome.

 

It took them this long to give Greg Hardy a punishment. I have to think, if there wasn't a big deal made over the Ray Rice incident (as there should have been) then would this have come at all? After all, I have to constantly hear misogynists defend him

 

I feel bad for all female fans of this league. They already get harassed enough as it is, though now the NFL wants to pretend they care about them, even though the only women in football are exhibit objectified mannequins off to the sideline for men to drool at.

 

Women deserve better than this.

 

This is just the league propping up another image that they supposedly care, we know well enough they really don't.

Are you suggesting women should be playing in the league ( like Danica Patrick in Nascar )?.

[OffensivelyPC]

     First,  I appreciate your input and I think we probably agree on some points. 

 

    At its worst, the media is exploitative and irresponsible.  No arguments there.  The individual freedoms bit..I'm not sure what you mean.  I suppose misrepresentation by the media and public could affect individual freedoms but I'm not sure what misrepresentation has to do with this discussion.  There might be some great examples. Let me know.

 

     As far as the "PC" thing goes, anything (no matter how well-intended) can be taken to excessive lengths.  Also, the term "PC agenda" is often used by people to demean an idea or standard they find uncomfortable.  To be honest, what we are talking about is a shift in societal norms.  What was acceptable in 1950 would not be tolerated today (not trying to be captain obvious here, I just want you to know where I'm coming from).  Cultures shift and some closely held beliefs are abandoned.  Beliefs aren't facts after all.

 

As far as scenarios where people are forced to act against their beliefs in order to avoid backlash...It sounds horrible but I would really have to have more detail.  Some beliefs are worth fighting for and some beliefs deserve to be shouted down.  

By the freedoms bit, you took the discussion with what I meant.  Your right to believe in something is one of those freedoms.  Sure, some deserve to eb shot down and it jsut always depends on the circumstances, and as you say, beliefs change.  Take the Redskins team name for example.  According to the Redskins, that name was chosen originally to honor the natives.  Over time that meaning has changed and has been labeled offensive.  Redskin was used by natives themselves to distinguish themselves from europeans, so how and when did it chagne? 

 

But what really confuses me is that one tribe, out of all of them, only one is complaining.  Senators have written to them saying that they would revoke the NFL's tax exempt status (which funny thing is, it probably really wouldn't do much).  But what would cost is having to outfit their team and stadium in the new team name and logo and pay legal fees and what not to do all the name changes legally.  And the thing is, we don't know how many of them find it offensive.  But the media has been the biggest proponent in pushing this name change selling it as racism and because of it, it has gained unprecedented support from the general public including the aformentioned senators and judges.  It's like, someone says racism and everyone comes with pitchforks and torches.  The only problem is, no one bothered to ask the natives.  Both sides have given their arguments, but some studies have shown numbers as high as 90% of natives do not find the word offensive, others closer to 40%, but they weren't really solid studies having methodical errors.  The problem I have with it is, the media and along with it the public have crucified Snyder. 

 

In a country where Americans are eager to be offended by anything, I don't see why Dan should have to change it, whether by public, political, or legal pressure based on the fact that the name is racist, when it may turn out that to the people who should be offended, 90% of them are cool with it.  Now of course, if it later turns out that the media was right and 40% of natives found it to be racist, that's different.  But why present the issue as one of racism when you can't sure that it's actually racist? 

[DougDew]

     First,  I appreciate your input and I think we probably agree on some points. 

 

    At its worst, the media is exploitative and irresponsible.  No arguments there.  The individual freedoms bit..I'm not sure what you mean.  I suppose misrepresentation by the media and public could affect individual freedoms but I'm not sure what misrepresentation has to do with this discussion.  There might be some great examples. Let me know.

 

     As far as the "PC" thing goes, anything (no matter how well-intended) can be taken to excessive lengths.  Also, the term "PC agenda" is often used by people to demean an idea or standard they find uncomfortable.  To be honest, what we are talking about is a shift in societal norms.  What was acceptable in 1950 would not be tolerated today (not trying to be captain obvious here, I just want you to know where I'm coming from).  Cultures shift and some closely held beliefs are abandoned.  Beliefs aren't facts after all.

 

As far as scenarios where people are forced to act against their beliefs in order to avoid backlash...It sounds horrible but I would really have to have more detail.  Some beliefs are worth fighting for and some beliefs deserve to be shouted down.  

 

If culture is free to shift, than it can shift back to whatever it was too.  If all it takes is a majority of opinion, then I guess that means culture is righteous.  Its those who want to shout, not reason, others down is usually the way culture shifts to the way they want it.

 

The entire problem I see it is that we are punishing Rice, and the NFL for failing to do so more harshly, over something that is subjective. This issue got transformed from objective battery into subjective DV

 

What if.....and we will never know this......the woman would never admit this if it were true....that she has come to say "You know, I'm willing to put up with getting smacked in the face once in a while, to have the other things I get with Ray Rice as my boyfriend"

 

Do you think that is possible...just possible..that that might be the case?  And is that possible that other DV situations have that dynamic going on? DV is about the victim not being able to escape, and maintain a reasonable standard of living, not about having to give up a lifestyle they can't bear to be without.

 

I assume, the court system sees all kinds of DV cases daily.  Perhaps they know the difference between real circumstances and not so real circumstances and accords punishment accordingly.   

 

And now, since the social media mafia got to work...the NFL is forced to issue some anti-oppression policy, as if the underlying event ever had anything to do with oppression in the first place. Nobody but the court knows.

 

As far as the media....I'm sure when the sports talk producers think of daily topics, the political hot buttons come to mind.  That's why this discussion has been transformed into a DV issue.  Maybe the call screener on the Cowherd show chooses to accept the dope that compares this "DV" issue to the "pot punishment" issue.  The screener just got a two-for-one deal on the political hot buttons. 

 

What about the time the media totally misrepresented Irsay's comments about Manning last year.  He gets interviewed after the Seattle game, before the St Louis game not the Denver game (two weeks away) and he talks about how they won with a blocked fieldgoal and going for the long field goal near the end of the game because they trusted the colts defense.  He simply said that was the way he wants to do it now instead of relying upon the QB to run out the clock like they did with Peyton.  Those comments were held for a week at ESPN, then released before the Denver game to cause controversy. 

 

What about the media criticizing Sterling for saying that he didn't want black people in his arena, yet months later, praising Richard Sherman for "escaping" Compton CA.  Do you think Sterling was talking about ALL black people, EVERYWHERE, when he made his comment, including the dockers wearing black dentists and cardiologists from Santa Barbara, or was he referring to the people Sherman didn't want to be around any more either?  For Sterling to be criticized and Sherman praised for thinking and doing nearly the exact same thing is a PC double standard necessary to promote the dogma of "oppression".

 

The media misrepresents things every day.  That's how thinking changes, vocabulary changes, and culture changes.  People now just react the way they have been trained and don't even realize it.  They'll boo Sterling, because he's white, and they'll cheer Sherman, because he's black, when both Sterling and Sherman feel pretty much the same way about the same people.  People don't even really know the reasons why they boo or cheer.  They just see the color in the situations, and react as trained.

 

Yes...that is an agenda.  Its the training of people of what to think in a way that suits your opinion, via misrepresentation of the underlying premise.  That's how a lot of things in culture changes. I'm done listening to it and will challenge it every chance I get.

[Bobbycovert]

By the freedoms bit, you took the discussion with what I meant.  Your right to believe in something is one of those freedoms.  Sure, some deserve to eb shot down and it jsut always depends on the circumstances, and as you say, beliefs change.  Take the Redskins team name for example.  According to the Redskins, that name was chosen originally to honor the natives.  Over time that meaning has changed and has been labeled offensive.  Redskin was used by natives themselves to distinguish themselves from europeans, so how and when did it chagne? 

 

 

 

     I think the Redskins saga is a really cool example to use when discussing media influence on norms. It does seem likely that the uproar has been manufactured to some degree.  I get the sense that the media has been bringing up this topic sporadically for years just waiting for it to stick.  This year it stuck and plenty of opportunists have weighed in to gain publicity.  I have no idea whether the name is truly racist or not.  I think the name is questionable and I do believe some people are sincerely bothered by it.  How many people need to be bothered by something before it becomes an issue?  I couldn't say.  I think its a really interesting argument and I like that you brought it up.  

 

     I don't necessarily agree that Americans are eager to be offended by anything and that there are many instances where a thoughtful approach to language creates a sanitized culture.  Sometimes people overreact but I think more often people are absolutely oblivious.  To some people, "r-word" (automatic forum edit) is an appropriate word to use to describe something that is broken or defective.  Other people see no harm in using "gay" as an insult or synonym for weak.  

 

     I don't think it is difficult or oppressive to be more cautious about our words and actions.  I definitely don't see it as a sign of weakness.  I don't understand why some people  see the disregard for the thoughts and feelings of others as tough or manly.  I absolutely despise the notion that people who are bothered should "toughen" up.  People who are the subject of jokes, insults, and slurs have likely had enough difficulties to earn the "tough" merit badge ten times over.  

 

     You seem like a reasonable person and I'm not suggesting that you use slurs, insults, etc.  I'm just trying to explain why the "anti-PC" thing gets under my skin.

[Bobbycovert]

If culture is free to shift, than it can shift back to whatever it was too.  If all it takes is a majority of opinion, then I guess that means culture is righteous.  Its those who want to shout, not reason, others down is usually the way culture shifts to the way they want it.

 

The entire problem I see it is that we are punishing Rice, and the NFL for failing to do so more harshly, over something that is subjective. This issue got transformed from objective battery into subjective DV

 

What if.....and we will never know this......the woman would never admit this if it were true....that she has come to say "You know, I'm willing to put up with getting smacked in the face once in a while, to have the other things I get with Ray Rice as my boyfriend"

 

Do you think that is possible...just possible..that that might be the case?  And is that possible that other DV situations have that dynamic going on? DV is about the victim not being able to escape, and maintain a reasonable standard of living, not about having to give up a lifestyle they can't bear to be without.

 

I assume, the court system sees all kinds of DV cases daily.  Perhaps they know the difference between real circumstances and not so real circumstances and accords punishment accordingly.   

 

And now, since the social media mafia got to work...the NFL is forced to issue some anti-oppression policy, as if the underlying event ever had anything to do with oppression in the first place. Nobody but the court knows.

 

As far as the media....I'm sure when the sports talk producers think of daily topics, the political hot buttons come to mind.  That's why this discussion has been transformed into a DV issue.  Maybe the call screener on the Cowherd show chooses to accept the dope that compares this "DV" issue to the "pot punishment" issue.  The screener just got a two-for-one deal on the political hot buttons. 

 

What about the time the media totally misrepresented Irsay's comments about Manning last year.  He gets interviewed after the Seattle game, before the St Louis game not the Denver game (two weeks away) and he talks about how they won with a blocked fieldgoal and going for the long field goal near the end of the game because they trusted the colts defense.  He simply said that was the way he wants to do it now instead of relying upon the QB to run out the clock like they did with Peyton.  Those comments were held for a week at ESPN, then released before the Denver game to cause controversy. 

 

What about the media criticizing Sterling for saying that he didn't want black people in his arena, yet months later, praising Richard Sherman for "escaping" Compton CA.  Do you think Sterling was talking about ALL black people, EVERYWHERE, when he made his comment, including the dockers wearing black dentists and cardiologists from Santa Barbara, or was he referring to the people Sherman didn't want to be around any more either?  For Sterling to be criticized and Sherman praised for thinking and doing nearly the exact same thing is a PC double standard necessary to promote the dogma of "oppression".

 

The media misrepresents things every day.  That's how thinking changes, vocabulary changes, and culture changes.  People now just react the way they have been trained and don't even realize it.  They'll boo Sterling, because he's white, and they'll cheer Sherman, because he's black, when both Sterling and Sherman feel pretty much the same way about the same people.  People don't even really know the reasons why they boo or cheer.  They just see the color in the situations, and react as trained.

 

Yes...that is an agenda.  Its the training of people of what to think in a way that suits your opinion, via misrepresentation of the underlying premise.  That's how a lot of things in culture changes. I'm done listening to it and will challenge it every chance I get.

 Man I don't even know where to begin...

 

   First off, are you for real? I mean literally... I need to know if you are really out there somewhere thinking this stuff up and typing it with absolute sincerity.  Please answer this because I am dying to know.

 

    I don't know where you got your ideas about domestic violence but I am shocked by them.  I think its important to tell you that I am not easily shocked.  To answer your question: Yes, I suppose it is possible that there are women out there who would subject themselves to beatings in order to obtain a luxurious lifestyle.  I'll never understand how this would make the abuser any less heinous or why this distinction is important to you.. I mean I don't even know what to say.  Also your suggestion that the courts can differentiate between the "real" cases of domestic violence and the "not so real" cases where a woman has signed up for abuse in order to drive a nice car (your theory not mine) is just mind boggling.  I think you are suggesting that the Ray Rice case would be the latter but I would feel uncomfortable assuming your thoughts on anything really.  I'll make this as direct as possible. I think it is unacceptable to hit women and I don't think that some liberal media agenda has brainwashed me into feeling that way. Blame my parents for that.

 

Do I think the media sometimes spins information to create a more salacious narrative? Yes 

   

Do I think the comments made by Richard Sherman are comparable to those made by Donald Sterling?  No, that would be either willfully ignorant or insane.

 

Do I think that shifts in societal norms could reverse course? Yea, some shifts are cyclical (music, fashion).  However, the important ones (equality for women, civil rights, gay rights) seem to have a more permanent quality that is the result of being a function of progress/education as opposed to trends/tastes. By the way, your description of the mechanisms by which cultures change is really incomplete and inaccurate.

[IcEWoLF]

[DougDew]

 Man I don't even know where to begin...

 

   First off, are you for real? I mean literally... I need to know if you are really out there somewhere thinking this stuff up and typing it with absolute sincerity.  Please answer this because I am dying to know.

 

    I don't know where you got your ideas about domestic violence but I am shocked by them.  I think its important to tell you that I am not easily shocked.  To answer your question: Yes, I suppose it is possible that there are women out there who would subject themselves to beatings in order to obtain a luxurious lifestyle.  I'll never understand how this would make the abuser any less heinous or why this distinction is important to you.. I mean I don't even know what to say.  Also your suggestion that the courts can differentiate between the "real" cases of domestic violence and the "not so real" cases where a woman has signed up for abuse in order to drive a nice car (your theory not mine) is just mind boggling.  I think you are suggesting that the Ray Rice case would be the latter but I would feel uncomfortable assuming your thoughts on anything really.  I'll make this as direct as possible. I think it is unacceptable to hit women and I don't think that some liberal media agenda has brainwashed me into feeling that way. Blame my parents for that.

 

Do I think the media sometimes spins information to create a more salacious narrative? Yes 

   

Do I think the comments made by Richard Sherman are comparable to those made by Donald Sterling?  No, that would be either willfully ignorant or insane.

 

Do I think that shifts in societal norms could reverse course? Yea, some shifts are cyclical (music, fashion).  However, the important ones (equality for women, civil rights, gay rights) seem to have a more permanent quality that is the result of being a function of progress/education as opposed to trends/tastes. By the way, your description of the mechanisms by which cultures change is really incomplete and inaccurate.

 

Let go of your preconceived ideas..open to mind to objectivity please....conversation flows better.

 

If the perpetrator of the beating is not in a position to oppress the victim, then it is not DV.  It is battery.  Facts about their relationship matters.  The court knows them...we don't. Only someone with a trained preconceived mind would think that when a man hits a woman in a relationship, its automatically born from the man oppressing the woman.  Do you not understand the premise that underpins the definition of domestic violence, as opposed to other forms of violence? 

 

I didn't compare Sherman's comments to Sterling's.  I commented uponm the social media mafia's reaction to them, which were made at roughly the same point in time, at roughly about the same situation.  Sterling was publically shunned for saying something negative about black people, when anybody who chose to use the half a brain they had would know he wasn't talking about ALL black people.  Only someone with a trained preconceived mind would assume that if an old white guy is saying something negative about blacks in a 10 word sentence in a private conversation where precise vocabulary is not a concern, then he is automatically a racist.  Unfortunately, about 95% of the 65 and younger generation have been trained to think this,which is why they reacted so severly and so quickly to his comments.   Sterling rents property in CA for years.  I'm sure his point of view is based upon people like the folks who live in places like Compton, not an affluent Santa Barbara, where he doesn't rent property, but where black people also live.  Sherman is from Comptom. About the same time, Sherman's dopey comments after the SB get defended for months and the storyline is that he should be praised for escaping the situation that the people of Compton created.  In other words, I'm suppose to think that the people of Compton suck when it helps to praise a responsible black guy, but I am then suppose to think the people of Compton don't suck if it helps to condemn an old crazy white guy is a racist. 

 

Facts matter.  But sometimes they get in the way of the preconceived ideas other people want you to have.   It spoils their agenda.

 

Yes, I know my descriptions of how culture changes are incomplete; however, it certainly doesn't sound like you know any more about it than me.  This is a sports forum and I'm desparately trying to keep it related to sports.  But the way in which politics are forced upon sports companies, it makes that difficult for everybody.

[DougDew]

 

 

However, the important ones (equality for women, civil rights, gay rights) seem to have a more permanent quality that is the result of being a function of progress/education as opposed to trends/tastes.

 

BTW, what do you mean about gay rights?  The right to have a job, a car, a house, fall in love, sleep with who they want,etc.  Or are you extrapolating the singlular issue of gay marriage, and using equality for women, civil rights, as a comparison.. into some sort of agenda based vocabulary shift into equating the issue of gay marriage with a universal lack of rights and oppression?

 

Yeah right, and I have no idea how culture shifts....but misusing the language is a good start.

[Bobbycovert]

BTW, what do you mean about gay rights?  The right to have a job, a car, a house, fall in love, sleep with who they want,etc.  Or are you extrapolating the singlular issue of gay marriage, and using equality for women, civil rights, as a comparison.. into some sort of agenda based vocabulary shift into equating the issue of gay marriage with a universal lack of rights and oppression?

 

Yeah right, and I have no idea how culture shifts....but misusing the language is a good start.

 

 

 

 Gay rights includes all of the liberties you listed above.  Though included, marriage is not the only component of the gay rights movement.  In this country, homosexuals have faced discrimination in employment, housing, and laws that made their relationships illegal.  So yeah, I feel fairly comfortable in drawing a comparison between gay rights, civil rights, and women's rights.  This is in no way a misrepresentation or misuse of the english language.

 

 

Let go of your preconceived ideas..open to mind to objectivity please....conversation flows better.

 

If the perpetrator of the beating is not in a position to oppress the victim, then it is not DV.  It is battery.  Facts about their relationship matters.  The court knows them...we don't. Only someone with a trained preconceived mind would think that when a man hits a woman in a relationship, its automatically born from the man oppressing the woman.  Do you not understand the premise that underpins the definition of domestic violence, as opposed to other forms of violence? 

 

I didn't compare Sherman's comments to Sterling's.  I commented uponm the social media mafia's reaction to them, which were made at roughly the same point in time, at roughly about the same situation.  Sterling was publically shunned for saying something negative about black people, when anybody who chose to use the half a brain they had would know he wasn't talking about ALL black people.  Only someone with a trained preconceived mind would assume that if an old white guy is saying something negative about blacks in a 10 word sentence in a private conversation where precise vocabulary is not a concern, then he is automatically a racist.  Unfortunately, about 95% of the 65 and younger generation have been trained to think this,which is why they reacted so severly and so quickly to his comments.   Sterling rents property in CA for years.  I'm sure his point of view is based upon people like the folks who live in places like Compton, not an affluent Santa Barbara, where he doesn't rent property, but where black people also live.  Sherman is from Comptom. About the same time, Sherman's dopey comments after the SB get defended for months and the storyline is that he should be praised for escaping the situation that the people of Compton created.  In other words, I'm suppose to think that the people of Compton suck when it helps to praise a responsible black guy, but I am then suppose to think the people of Compton don't suck if it helps to condemn an old crazy white guy is a racist. 

 

Facts matter.  But sometimes they get in the way of the preconceived ideas other people want you to have.   It spoils their agenda.

 

Yes, I know my descriptions of how culture changes are incomplete; however, it certainly doesn't sound like you know any more about it than me.  This is a sports forum and I'm desparately trying to keep it related to sports.  But the way in which politics are forced upon sports companies, it makes that difficult for everybody.

 

On the topic of domestic violence: 

The very last thing I want is to get into some internet slapfight over the semantics of legal definitions but here we are.

 

Domestic violence as defined by the department of justice: a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. It would be reasonable to think that the 'power and control'  pieces of the definition refer to the motive behind the actions of the abuser.  So a woman's reasons for staying in an abusive relationship would not likely change how the abuse is defined.  Also, why does this even matter?!  If Ray Rice committed battery against his fiance rather than an act of domestic violence is it somehow better in your mind?

 

With regard to your comparison of the Sherman and Sterling situations (better?):

 

Here is the difference between the two.  Richard Sherman is Richard Sherman and Donald Sterling is a former slum lord with a well a documented history of racist statements, discrimination, and harassment.  Let me break it down for you: when you have a  history of racism and discrimination,  saying " don't bring black people to my games" is gonna be widely acknowledged as a racist statement.

 

The rest of your post is paranoid babble that I won't address.  You can figure that stuff out on your own.

[OffensivelyPC]

     I think the Redskins saga is a really cool example to use when discussing media influence on norms. It does seem likely that the uproar has been manufactured to some degree.  I get the sense that the media has been bringing up this topic sporadically for years just waiting for it to stick.  This year it stuck and plenty of opportunists have weighed in to gain publicity.  I have no idea whether the name is truly racist or not.  I think the name is questionable and I do believe some people are sincerely bothered by it.  How many people need to be bothered by something before it becomes an issue?  I couldn't say.  I think its a really interesting argument and I like that you brought it up.  

 

     I don't necessarily agree that Americans are eager to be offended by anything and that there are many instances where a thoughtful approach to language creates a sanitized culture.  Sometimes people overreact but I think more often people are absolutely oblivious.  To some people, "r-word" (automatic forum edit) is an appropriate word to use to describe something that is broken or defective.  Other people see no harm in using "gay" as an insult or synonym for weak.  

 

     I don't think it is difficult or oppressive to be more cautious about our words and actions.  I definitely don't see it as a sign of weakness.  I don't understand why some people  see the disregard for the thoughts and feelings of others as tough or manly.  I absolutely despise the notion that people who are bothered should "toughen" up.  People who are the subject of jokes, insults, and slurs have likely had enough difficulties to earn the "tough" merit badge ten times over.  

 

     You seem like a reasonable person and I'm not suggesting that you use slurs, insults, etc.  I'm just trying to explain why the "anti-PC" thing gets under my skin.

I couldn't agree more.  It's always about context, and the notion that people should toughen up is just a guise for others to be oppressive.  That's not right by any stretch of imagination.  But on the other hand, some people with good intentions such as the redskins case try to force the hand of others without truly knowing if their argument is true or not.  I don't get either extreme, nor do I support it.  Like I said, it's all about context. 

 

To the bolded portion, I never got the impression that you were suggesting anything of the sort, just friendly debating. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Nobody should commit battery against another, so I agree with your first sentence. 

 

Yes, words change over time....that's the point.  People do not realize the political nature of the vocabulary, and how it has been intentionally changed over time.

 

There is a difference between domestic violence and battery.  DV is a specific form of it, born out of the concept of oppression.  Oppression is a subjective thing, and I guess some feel the power to define what that is.

 

I prefer others to inflict punishment on others based upon objective things, not subjective things. 

 

If you don't think this is PC...would anybody be discussing this if Rice got 2 games for battery?  Its the imbedded acceptance of our "oppressive" culture that gets acknowledged when we discuss this as DV instead of battery.  Yes..it is an agenda.

I understand your point a little better now.  And I guess I really just think that even if a particular political or cultural issue, such as Rice's situation really had an agenda behind it, then some agendas are agreeable and some are not.  It's pretty hard to disagree with the rationale in this particular case.

[DougDew]

Gay rights includes all of the liberties you listed above.  Though included, marriage is not the only component of the gay rights movement.  In this country, homosexuals have faced discrimination in employment, housing, and laws that made their relationships illegal.  So yeah, I feel fairly comfortable in drawing a comparison between gay rights, civil rights, and women's rights.  This is in no way a misrepresentation or misuse of the english language.

 

 

 

On the topic of domestic violence: 

The very last thing I want is to get into some internet slapfight over the semantics of legal definitions but here we are.

 

Domestic violence as defined by the department of justice: a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. It would be reasonable to think that the 'power and control'  pieces of the definition refer to the motive behind the actions of the abuser.  So a woman's reasons for staying in an abusive relationship would not likely change how the abuse is defined.  Also, why does this even matter?!  If Ray Rice committed battery against his fiance rather than an act of domestic violence is it somehow better in your mind?

 

With regard to your comparison of the Sherman and Sterling situations (better?):

 

Here is the difference between the two.  Richard Sherman is Richard Sherman and Donald Sterling is a former slum lord with a well a documented history of racist statements, discrimination, and harassment.  Let me break it down for you: when you have a  history of racism and discrimination,  saying " don't bring black people to my games" is gonna be widely acknowledged as a racist statement.

 

The rest of your post is paranoid babble that I won't address.  You can figure that stuff out on your own.

Yes, it is a misuse of the English language...the term is homosexual. "Gay" is the result of vocabulary drift in order to more easily equate it with "love" and not sex. The term gay helps to ignore the basic difference between the purpose driving * and hetero behavior...I'll leave it at that. Discriminatory behavior against homosexuals has never been encouraged by the government, unlike....ehem...almost 50 years ago with segregation being eliminated and...ehem ehem...100 years ago with woman suffrage. I prefer to use more timely data to determine if oppression still exists.

BTW, marriage isn't even a right..its a government action...failure to act isn't the same thing as limiting a right...but educating the masses on that concept would take too long here. Just suffice to say that "gay marriage" and "rights" aren't even close to being an appropriate use of the language.

Yes, I know the definition of DV. I've been saying it for about three posts now...it involves the element of oppression. Inescapability, either physically, emotionally, or financially. The question is not the actions of Rice, its the punishment by the NFL. If the NFL is going to punish..it needs to know what the actions were....were they DV...or battery? Facts matter....and nobody who criticized the 2 game punishment knew the facts...they simply blathered irrelevancy about "hitting a woman", not knowing what DV actually is before criticizing Goodell. PC nonsense.

The reaction against Sterling was immediate. In fact, most people didn't even know who the owner of the LA Clippers was. It was only a few days later that we heard about his statements about smell and vermin did we come to know who he was.....Who he turned out to be is not the issue. Its the emotional genuflecting trained reaction that took place the moment the TMZ 10 word sentence was released is the issue..as well as the purported solution. Nobody bothered to examine the statement for what it might have meant....but the idea of taking away his business made everybody feel righteous and good. Welcome to modern America.

The monetary element to the situation was caused by the PLAYERS emotional, overreactive, response to his statements. They weren't going to show up for work. THEIR actions cost people money...not Sterling's statements. Just like in Ferguson.. the reactions of THE PEOPLE WHO HEARD the shooting causes the problem..not the cop. The reactions of THE PEOPLE WHO HEARD Sterlings statements cause the monetary issue...not Sterling. Better reactions would beget less of a problem. Yet the blame for the problem always goes in the same direction.

[Sports Central1]

Let's see how long this goes before another controversial beating of a woman.

 

NFL players are already treated like Gods enough by society, this has been evident for a while. The modern day equivalent of the old Gladiator fighters of Rome.

 

It took them this long to give Greg Hardy a punishment. I have to think, if there wasn't a big deal made over the Ray Rice incident (as there should have been) then would this have come at all? After all, I have to constantly hear misogynists defend him

 

I feel bad for all female fans of this league. They already get harassed enough as it is, though now the NFL wants to pretend they care about them, even though the only women in football are exhibit objectified mannequins off to the sideline for men to drool at.

 

Women deserve better than this.

 

This is just the league propping up another image that they supposedly care, we know well enough they really don't.

 

Well, the wealthy and powerful in general tend to get special treatment.  They can afford better lawyers.

 

Aldon Smith being suspended 9 games and Bengals' WR Josh Gordon suspended for the entire season is a step in the right direction.