Antonio Brown called Mike Mayock a “cracker” during Wednesday’s altercation

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

But did he use Mayock's preferred gender pronoun?  

Let's just assume he didn't

 

It's a much better story that way

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Thousands have been killed and millions of fights have been started because of using the n-word. No one has ever broken a sweat after being called a cracker. But they are exactly the same.

 

I think, when we expand to thousands and millions and counter claim "no one broken a sweat", we are probably going beyond the football relevant aspects of a fraught discussion that is so far, reasonably civilized.  At least, I can not figure out a way to counter this, except I don't believe you are correct in the second claim.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Indeed

 

 

WELP then

 

He's doing enough so they can't void his contract. This isn't over by a long shot.

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Thousands have been killed and millions of fights have been started because of using the n-word. No one has ever broken a sweat after being called a cracker. But they are exactly the same.

 

You're being inconsistant... Either the word has multiple meanings and we have to look at the context, or it's racist at it's core because of the history and every invocation of the word demands condemnation.

 

Also, that second comment is just ridiculous, wrong, and ignorant. 

[Rocket94]

57 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

He's stopped pretending.

Whether he knows it or not, he is crying out for help.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Rocket94

[HappyDays]

 

Can we please ban ICB tweets from this forum?

 

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think, when we expand to thousands and millions and counter claim "no one broken a sweat", we are probably going beyond the football relevant aspects of a fraught discussion that is so far, reasonably civilized.  At least, I can not figure out a way to counter this, except I don't believe you are correct in the second claim.

It's a gross exaggeration to prove a point and show how stupid it is.

Besides, look it up.

[LeGOATski]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

The Raiders are a bad team in a brutal division. They can miss the playoffs with or without him. Don’t get the gymnastics to keep a guy this divisive, who’s best ball is likely behind him anyway. 

Yeah, I agree they should cut their losses on this one.

 

If they want to try to find the silver lining...it can be considered a blessing that this happened during their rebuild and not in, say, the 4th year when they would theoretically want to be making a run at a championship.

 

In that case, it's like "oh no, this could ruin everything we've been working towards."

 

In this case, it's like "meh... let's cut bait and press forward."

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

Can we please ban ICB tweets from this forum?

 

 

But that's a "Freezing Cold Takes" retweet.  You want to ban them too?  They're sometimes very funny.

[whatdrought]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You may be making a distinction between the word itself and the history of the word that's a bit too sophistical for many of us. 

It's not just the context and intent of the word - the word can not be divorced from its historical meaning.

 

Neither can the term "cracker" of course, IMO

 

 

I think the historical context of the word is constantly there- no debate there. The issue at hand is that words specifically, cannot be racist. The are inanimate. Racism is an emotional, intellectual, philosophical issue. It's not inanimate. So we look at the context of the expression of those emotions (including the historical context of the words used) and judge whether or not the intent, or the emotion behind the word, is racist. 

 

That's why I am arguing that Cracker, with racist intent, is just as racist as N-word... The words themselves do not increase the racism of the person speaking them. 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

You're being inconsistant... Either the word has multiple meanings and we have to look at the context, or it's racist at it's core because of the history and every invocation of the word demands condemnation.

 

Also, that second comment is just ridiculous, wrong, and ignorant. 

It's both. I agree with you that most racist comments are only bad based on intent. But there is not an equivalency of all things racist. In any way. It's like saying all adjectives are the same because they're all adjectives, but they're not. 

 

Punk is never a word of affection in any of its literal contexts. But you can call your little brother a punk and be affectionate, and yet if anyone calls him a punk you may get in a fight.

[StHustle]

All you people thinking only "black people call each other N" are entirely ignorant of a large population of white people who call each other the N word as well. It's mostly found in poverish areas or amongst those who do it to be "cool". I would add video here but dont wanna get suspended.

 

Eminem used to always  use the word but had to stop once his name grew but im sure still will amongst his black friends. Many white folks who grew up with mostly black people get a pass cause the intention is known that its not being used in the racial slur context.

Edited September 6, 2019 by StHustle

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, ddaryl said:

I use to think "cracker" meant white folks were white like Saltine Crackers. It wasn't till recently I found out it has to do with the cracking of a whip.

 

Still going to dress up like a Saltine for Halloween

 

 

That's one guess about the origin, but there are others.

 

There's one use of "cracker" from Shakespeare.  "What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?"

 

 

I found your post interesting and researched it, and it just isn't clear how it developed. Here's a quote from a CBS article on it's use in the Trayvon Martin case:

 

 "The origin of cracker is murky. Some sources suggest it came from overseers who commanded slaves. Others say it derives from a Scottish word for boasting.  At The Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina, Bill Ferris says it emerged in the 1700s as a descriptive term for drovers who used small whips to move their livestock through the pine barrens along the Gulf of Mexico. 'They were basically poor people. White people. A class of people who were landless.' Initially, cracker was not a pejorative term, but Ferris says it has become one, the equivalent of redneck. Its meaning and intensity as an insult depends on who is saying it and who is listening. For example, a white who might not object to being called a cracker by another white might consider Martin's use of the phrase offensive and evidence of ill intent."

 

 

Here's another, from NPR:  "Cracker," the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia. It is suspected that it was a shortened version of "whip-cracker," since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.) Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.)"

 

 

It's interesting that both say that if "whip-cracker" is indeed the basis of it, that it refers to cracking the whips referred to doing it when driving animals (a career for poor people), that it's not a slavery reference at all. Instead it's a reference to manual labor. And that's if whip-cracking is indeed the origin, which is not clear.

 

 

 

 

As for Antonio Brown, the Steelers say that early in his career he was a terrific guy, very team-oriented and selfless. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if the way his behavior has become so very erratic is a result of too many blows to the head. Whether or not that is a factor, it's a sad sad story about a guy losing his way.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for Antonio Brown, the Steelers say that early in his career he was a terrific guy, very team-oriented and selfless. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if the way his behavior has become so very erratic is a result of too many blows to the head. Whether or not that is a factor, it's a sad sad story about a guy losing his way.

 

And on this, I hope we can all agree.

 

Albeit, it's a story about a guy potentially getting paid $14.625M guaranteed while losing his way.

[MJS]

10 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Thousands have been killed and millions of fights have been started because of using the n-word. No one has ever broken a sweat after being called a cracker. But they are exactly the same.

I'm sure the term "cracker" has been used countless times before violence on white people.

 

Me personally? I believe the N word is far, far worse than using the term cracker. History can't be ignored when looking at these terms.

 

But using the term cracker is still a racist, derogatory term. If a black person uses that term (while being restrained, threatening violence, and using all manner of explitives, no less) and expects all white people to not use racist, derogatory terms against him (even if those terms are worse), that's a clear double standard.

 

And really I don't care that much. If someone called me that I really wouldn't care. I don't feel strongly about this at all. I just recognize a double standard when I see it. And if we want racial divides to disappear, BOTH sides need to make changes to how they view and treat the other side. Double standards need to disappear.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

 

I think the historical context of the word is constantly there- no debate there. The issue at hand is that words specifically, cannot be racist. The are inanimate. Racism is an emotional, intellectual, philosophical issue. It's not inanimate. So we look at the context of the expression of those emotions (including the historical context of the words used) and judge whether or not the intent, or the emotion behind the word, is racist. 

 

That's why I am arguing that Cracker, with racist intent, is just as racist as N-word... The words themselves do not increase the racism of the person speaking them. 

Things don't have to have intention to be offensive I mean if there was some natural rock formation that looks like a swastika and people could find that offensive as it brings up a terrible event in there history. Yes intention is important when judging peoples action as racist or not but it doesn't mean what they did wasn't offensive to people.

 

As to Cracker being as offensive as the N word...come on really. The worst thing I've seen that Cracker means was this.

2 hours ago, ddaryl said:

I use to think "cracker" meant white folks were white like Saltine Crackers. It wasn't till recently I found out it has to do with the cracking of a whip.

 

Still going to dress up like a Saltine for Halloween

And sure I'd find that offensive just like being called a Nazi or a clansmen but I don't think it's in the same ballpark as the N word. I mean seriously this was a word people used when they were justifying their enslavement because they just weren't up there mentally to take care of themselves. This was a word used when they ripped families apart and beat people to death.

 

On a different note I think I'm going to go with Graham cracker

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-antonio-brown-issued-emotional-apology-at-team-meeting/ar-AAGUylk

 

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-antonio-brown-issued-emotional-apology-at-team-meeting/ar-AAGUylk

 

 

 

It is apparently not known whether or not Mayock was present during the "emotional apology"

[Say When...]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for Antonio Brown, the Steelers say that early in his career he was a terrific guy, very team-oriented and selfless. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if the way his behavior has become so very erratic is a result of too many blows to the head. Whether or not that is a factor, it's a sad sad story about a guy losing his way.

 

Fame & Fortune

 

it affects different people in different ways and augments the good along with the bad

[Gugny]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27552977/gruden-plan-brown-play-monday-night

 

"Antonio is back today," Gruden said. "We're really excited about that. Ready to move on. He's had a lot of, obviously, time to think about things. We're happy to have him back and I know Raider Nation is excited about that, too."

[MJS]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for Antonio Brown, the Steelers say that early in his career he was a terrific guy, very team-oriented and selfless. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering if the way his behavior has become so very erratic is a result of too many blows to the head. Whether or not that is a factor, it's a sad sad story about a guy losing his way.

Teammates have come out and said that he was always a me first guy and cared about himself and nobody else. They said if he got money he'd turn into a monster. Right after he got paid he freaked out on teammates who would even touch him in practice and scream that he was the franchise and to not tough him.

 

So no, I believe Brown has always been a complete tool.

[Thurman#1]

10 minutes ago, MJS said:

I'm sure the term "cracker" has been used countless times before violence on white people.

 

Me personally? I believe the N word is far, far worse than using the term cracker. History can't be ignored when looking at these terms.

 

But using the term cracker is still a racist, derogatory term. If a black person uses that term (while being restrained, threatening violence, and using all manner of explitives, no less) and expects all white people to not use racist, derogatory terms against him (even if those terms are worse), that's a clear double standard.

 

And really I don't care that much. If someone called me that I really wouldn't care. I don't feel strongly about this at all. I just recognize a double standard when I see it. And if we want racial divides to disappear, BOTH sides need to make changes to how they view and treat the other side. Double standards need to disappear.

 

 

That's a good point.

 

One of the things I noticed from the research (it ain't like I made a career of it, I only spent half an hour. The word "research" here is probably overselling what I did, but it was actually really interesting.) was that several sites noted that the word can really sting in the South but that in the North it has no real effect or power. I would suspect most Buffalo fans (me too) are looking at the use of this word as an insult from the outside.

[Say When...]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-antonio-brown-issued-emotional-apology-at-team-meeting/ar-AAGUylk

 

 

 

 

$29mm on the line?  i'd get emotional also, i'd turn into a blubbering emotional pile of ooze...

Edited September 6, 2019 by Say When...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Gugny said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27552977/gruden-plan-brown-play-monday-night

 

"Antonio is back today," Gruden said. "We're really excited about that. Ready to move on. He's had a lot of, obviously, time to think about things. We're happy to have him back and I know Raider Nation is excited about that, too."

 

Mayock is excited about that too, after consulting with employment law attorneys and determining that, given Brown's previous documented absences from required team functions and his documented outburst that was captured on team video, they still have plenty of grounds to void his guarantees even if he is on the roster for Week 1. 

In fact it might actually strengthen their case if he acts out again, showing that they did not act in haste but tried all other remedies to preserve his employment.

[Thurman#1]

11 minutes ago, MJS said:

Teammates have come out and said that he was always a me first guy and cared about himself and nobody else. They said if he got money he'd turn into a monster. Right after he got paid he freaked out on teammates who would even touch him in practice and scream that he was the franchise and to not tough him.

 

So no, I believe Brown has always been a complete tool.

  

 

Yeah? I don't think that's correct.

 

Some Steelers did indeed say that, but I've never seen even one example of that referring to his early years. They were talking about his last couple of years in the black-and-gold. Many have said that he has changed a great deal.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Mayock is excited about that too, after consulting with employment law attorneys and determining that, given Brown's previous documented absences from required team functions and his documented outburst that was captured on team video, they still have plenty of grounds to void his guarantees even if he is on the roster for Week 1.

I mean this might be ideal for the Raiders if this whole incident and the threat of losing his money can reign him in.

[Gugny]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Mayock is excited about that too, after consulting with employment law attorneys and determining that, given Brown's previous documented absences from required team functions and his documented outburst that was captured on team video, they still have plenty of grounds to void his guarantees even if he is on the roster for Week 1.

 

Now that the season is upon us, I'd much rather this go away.

 

If Antonio Brown and his issues are going to be the top story every day, it's gonna get pretty old, pretty quickly.

 

I don't know if he's suffering from mental illness, suffering from CTE, or if he's just an a-hole who let money and fame get the better of him.

 

I'm going to safely (in my opinion) assume that he's just an a-hole.  He needs to be learnt that he's not bigger than the game.

[1st&ten]

 

Make Richie & him spend 3 hours a week together on sensitivity training.

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

  

 

Yeah? I don't think that's correct.

 

Some Steelers did indeed say that, but I've never seen even one example of that referring to his early years. They were talking about his last couple of years in the black-and-gold. Many have said that he has changed a great deal.

They specifically said that about his early years before getting paid. When Wallace left. There was an article posted about it on the other Brown thread.

[whatdrought]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Mayock is excited about that too, after consulting with employment law attorneys and determining that, given Brown's previous documented absences from required team functions and his documented outburst that was captured on team video, they still have plenty of grounds to void his guarantees even if he is on the roster for Week 1. 

In fact it might actually strengthen their case if he acts out again, showing that they did not act in haste but tried all other remedies to preserve his employment.

 

Hey- if that's how it works, that might be the best case for them. Best case scenario, he balls out and all is well. Worst case, they ditch him and get the money back 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, MJS said:

They specifically said that about his early years before getting paid. When Wallace left. There was an article posted about it on the other Brown thread.

 

The article in question was talking about 2012 or 2013 I believe.  So it might be true that his first couple years, he was a good guy.  But it wasn't just his last couple years, though maybe it escalated.  It was after making the pro bowl as a kick returner and his first >1000 yd season.  The season Pitt tried to resign Mike Wallace, and when they couldn't, they paid Brown.  Before 2013?

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

If someone of any race called me a cracker I would find it hilarious. It carries no weight whatsoever. Well, maybe a cracker's worth 

I have been called a lot worse and would tend to not care, but it was absolutely meant as a racial slur. Imo this is the issue, not how much it would bother me being called a name.

 

If it can be proven (witnesses, etc.) that he did use a racial slur and threaten violence, my guess is that this has happened before in the NFL, and I can think of no reason why AB should be punished more or less than other offenders.

 

I'm not sure how anybody could feel any different.

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, Say When... said:

 

$29mm on the line?  i'd get emotional also, i'd turn into a blubbering emotional pile of ooze...

And you’d be 100% sincere, just like AB was.

[MJS]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The article in question was talking about 2012 or 2013 I believe.  So it might be true that his first couple years, he was a good guy.  But it wasn't just his last couple years, though maybe it escalated.  It was after making the pro bowl as a kick returner and his first >1000 yd season.  The season Pitt tried to resign Mike Wallace, and when they couldn't, they paid Brown.  Before 2013?

Yeah. Brown isn't an idiot. I'm sure he knew that he couldn't come in and act like he owned the place before making his mark. He was a 6th round draft pick. I wonder what he was like in college.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Hey- if that's how it works, that might be the best case for them. Best case scenario, he balls out and all is well. Worst case, they ditch him and get the money back 

 

From reading the article in PFT, they were saying Brown had already done enough to vacate his guarantees by missing practices and walk throughs.  I didn't follow it all, but the gist I got was that the NFLPA would be "on guard" against setting a precedent that teams could contract with players and then easily void the guarantees. 

 

They didn't say this explicitly, but to my mind the clear implication was that trying to work stuff out with the player and using lesser means of discipline first such as fines etc, would only strengthen and not weaken the case on appeal, in the view of the NFLPA.

[Wsam4031]

2 hours ago, Bandito said:

If a white player called a black coach or player a racial slur it would be all over national news, that player would be cut from said team and then banned from the league. He needs to be gone.

Agreed but there is a huge racial doublestandard in this world these days. Its all in how he used the term and since it was derogatory he should be held as the same standard as a white man using the n word to a black man.  Not even gonna elaborate on this anymore because everyone is so racially sensitive these days.

[Say When...]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

And you’d be 100% sincere, just like AB was.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I have been called a lot worse and would tend to not care, but it was absolutely meant as a racial slur. Imo this is the issue, not how much it would bother me being called a name.

 

If it can be proven (witnesses, etc.) that he did use a racial slur and threaten violence, my guess is that this has happened before in the NFL, and I can think of no reason why AB should be punished more or less than other offenders.

 

I'm not sure how anybody could feel any different.

 

It comes to one of those things where the Oakland FO has to decide what's more important to them, team culture or trying to win football games?

 

Historically, they've voted for "Just Win, Baby"

 

 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Say When... said:

 

Pay the man!

[whatdrought]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

From reading the article in PFT, they were saying Brown had already done enough to vacate his guarantees by missing practices and walk throughs.  I didn't follow it all, but the gist I got was that the NFLPA would be "on guard" against setting a precedent that teams could contract with players and then easily void the guarantees. 

 

They didn't say this explicitly, but to my mind the clear implication was that trying to work stuff out with the player and using lesser means of discipline first such as fines etc, would only strengthen and not weaken the case on appeal, in the view of the NFLPA.

 

I was under the impression (and I think I made this up in my mind anyways) that their timeline to get out of the guarantees would have been before week one... But I guess it makes sense that if he acts up again they can show the pattern of behavior and then take the money back...

[John from Riverside]

This train wreck is the gift that keeps on giving