Rocky Landing Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 What we're talking about in the context of speech is that the media has exploited this reality to ban unpopular speech. The only reason it has this power is because enough useful idiots jump on board with it. If the public didn't dutifully take up the outrage as instructed when someone says something unpopular we wouldn't be dealing with this on such an obnoxious level. I think what MDH was pointing out was that just because you are taking the opposite, or "unpopular" stance, doesn't exclude you from fueling the very thing you are decrying. The media is certainly not "banning" unpopular speech. On the contrary, it relies on opposition to give what you refer to as "exploitation" its legs. The media needs useful idiots on both sides of the fence for there to be anything to exploit. And, thanks for participating. Well, they've done a pretty good job keeping it there with a promised investigation due to their terrible statements on the videos release. I disagree with this. Handing off the investigation to an outside entity, headed by a Mueller, no less, is a pretty good way of diffusing the situation as it is. Goodell doesn't have to answer another question for as long as the investigation takes. They have handed the ball off. And, by the time the investigation is through, which will likely be a long while, and assuming there aren't any particularly damaging revelations, there will likely be little interest in its findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I disagree with this. Handing off the investigation to an outside entity, headed by a Mueller, no less, is a pretty good way of diffusing the situation as it is. Goodell doesn't have to answer another question for as long as the investigation takes. They have handed the ball off. And, by the time the investigation is through, which will likely be a long while, and assuming there aren't any particularly damaging revelations, there will likely be little interest in its findings. The problem I have with the "independent" investigation by Mueller is that it is being overseen by two Goodell loyalists in the persons of Mara and Rooney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Who cares, Rice is banned and deleted from Madden. Roger listened to the wife's sob story, who can blame her for trying to protect her meal ticket, and when the video finally surfaced he did the right thing. No need for Congress to get involved, I would think they have better things to do but idk I agree This does not rise to the level of all the other crap they can't solve.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I think what MDH was pointing out was that just because you are taking the opposite, or "unpopular" stance, doesn't exclude you from fueling the very thing you are decrying. The media is certainly not "banning" unpopular speech. On the contrary, it relies on opposition to give what you refer to as "exploitation" its legs. The media needs useful idiots on both sides of the fence for there to be anything to exploit. And, thanks for participating. That's not what he said, nor is it what I'm doing. In regards to the story about the announcer, I'm not taking the unpopular stance. That would be to support the substance of his words. I'm simply pointing out how calling for the heads of everyone you disagree with is irresponsible and foolish. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. And you shouldn't take for granted that the mob will always be on your side. But perhaps you prefer a world where a segment of society has unwritten speech codes that you must not run afoul of lest you be destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 The problem I have with the "independent" investigation by Mueller is that it is being overseen by two Goodell loyalists in the persons of Mara and Rooney. I think another way of saying "loyalists," would be "businessmen who are happy with Goodell's job performance." I don't know, but I assume, that most owners want to keep Goodell around. At any rate, I would consider this investigation, regardless of its independence, or transparency, to be little more than a dog and pony show. If it deflects the focus away from his office, as I suspect it will, he will have done his job as far as the owners are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrod's Tailor Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 The problem I have with the "independent" investigation by Mueller is that it is being overseen by two Goodell loyalists in the persons of Mara and Rooney. The problem I have with it is that the Ravens president used to work at Mueller's firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 That's not what he said, nor is it what I'm doing. In regards to the story about the announcer, I'm not taking the unpopular stance. That would be to support the substance of his words. I'm simply pointing out how calling for the heads of everyone you disagree with is irresponsible and foolish. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. And you shouldn't take for granted that the mob will always be on your side. But perhaps you prefer a world where a segment of society has unwritten speech codes that you must not run afoul of lest you be destroyed. I'm not so interested in how my views stack up to those of "the mob" (whomever they may be). Usually, there is more than one mob. But I would submit that we have always lived in a world where your words may be held against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 The role of a cop and prosecutor is a role that he has resolutely carved out for himself as the commissioner. He relished that role--he certainly didn't hide from that responsibility. When he took over the reigns as the new commissioner he made it his signature mission to forcefully deal with the thug element in the league. He felt that the growing outlaw behavior of a faction of the players was jeopardizing the NFL brand. The NBA went through the same scenario when too many of their players were conducting themselves in a manner that the paying customers found offensive, leading to a sizeable loss of patronage. I don't care what the punishment precedent was that Goodell used in punishing Rice. Rice's situatoin was qualitatively and exponentially different. He could have killed her. (As you noted.) As far as the issue of whether Goodell saw the tape of inside the elevator I simply don't understand how it is so material or important. Everyone knew that Rice knocked her out with a punch because he admitted to it. What was most disturbing to me is not the punch although it could have been a killer punch. The callous manner in which he dragged this unconscious woman was revolting and demonstrated how depraved he was as a human being. There is no way that a person who acts like a savage in a public place hasn't also acted like a savage behind closed doors. I agree with you that Goodell should not be fired for his egregious misjudgment in this case. What should happen to him is that he should be suspended from his duties for half the season without pay, a similar punishment that would have been more appropriate in the Rice affair. That's exactly what I find most disturbing. It wasn't like Oh, man - look what I've done! It was business as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) I'm not so interested in how my views stack up to those of "the mob" (whomever they may be). Usually, there is more than one mob. But I would submit that we have always lived in a world where your words may be held against you. No, there's usually one mob. Mob mentality is a real thing and historically a primary concern for keeping domestic order was subduing mobs. One of the primary reasons why we have criminal trials with set procedures and protections was to avoid mob justice. Because the mob is not rational. You can scoff at it all you want, but just because you agree with or are part of the mob doesn't make it any less real. Now it's tweets, emails, and blogs rather than pitchforks and torches, but it's still a group of irrational people calling for someone's head. And you not worrying about it doesn't change the fact that one day it could be you or someone you care about in those crosshairs. And yes, people have always had their words held against them, but the situation as it exists today where everything is public, narcissism is at an all time high and growing, and political correctness has become de facto law (and a strict one at that) where saying something mildly controversial off hand, in public or private, can bring a media firestorm down upon he who dares question convention, that's relatively new in America. Galileo would probably chuckle at western society and say we've come full circle. Edited September 11, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) And the public is deciding now that it's more acceptable to knock a woman out if you're not filmed doing it? That's why the public shouldn't have direct input. That's why we have REPRESENTATIVES, to mitigate the mob mentality. go read the constitution, its obvious you haven't. Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 go read the constitution, its obvious you haven't. Which portion contradicts what he was saying? And you still haven't told me where you got your law degree from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Which portion contradicts what he was saying? And you still haven't told me where you got your law degree from. WM, the first three words genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 WM, the first three words genius So you're claiming to be a lawyer and you're citing the preamble as the primary authority to support the notion that the constitution calls for direct democracy rather than a republic? Did I get that right? And is WM William and Mary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) So you're claiming to be a lawyer and you're citing the preamble as the primary authority to support the notion that the constitution calls for direct democracy rather than a republic? Did I get that right? And is WM William and Mary? If you don't understand the significance of the preamble, then that is unfortunate. And no, you didn't get that right Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 If you don't understand the significance of the preamble, then that is unfortunate. And no, you didn't get that right The preamble isn't controlling law, but please explain your point. This should be amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 If you don't think the first three words are some of the most important, if not the most important as I would argue, then you are mistaken. And what do you want me to explain? This isn't a course on the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 go read the constitution, its obvious you haven't. I not only read it, I understood it. Clearly, you don't. Again, this is because I'm infinitely smarter than you. So the problem is clearly yours, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) I not only read it, I understood it. Clearly, you don't. Again, this is because I'm infinitely smarter than you. So the problem is clearly yours, not mine. Keep telling yourself that lol. And what have i said wrong about the constitution? Nothing? Got it Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 If you don't think the first three words are some of the most important, if not the most important as I would argue, then you are mistaken. And what do you want me to explain? This isn't a course on the constitution. You brought it up, but NOW that you're being called out on your stupidity, it's not a topic for discussion? Who is this? Someone this dense has to be a regular board member in disguise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Keep telling yourself that lol. And what have i said wrong about the constitution? Nothing? Got it Your capacity for embarrassment is impressive. You brought it up, but NOW that you're being called out on your stupidity, it's not a topic for discussion? Who is this? Someone this dense has to be a regular board member in disguise... Crayola. Could it be crayonz's 150th alias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts