Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 Just now, DrDawkinstein said: Maybe that's the wrong term for it. Either way, they just need to move on. On the latter, again I agree. But evidently Garrett needs something else before he can do so. I hope he can find something that works for him and not drive himself nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 6 hours ago, whatdrought said: Right, but the burden of proof is on Garret, who claims it was said. And unless he can prove that it was said, he is 100% open to legal action. If he hadn’t come out and doubled down on it, it likely doesn’t matter one bit at this point. But here we are. ? suuuuuuure.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suorangefan4 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 (edited) On 2/14/2020 at 10:42 AM, stuvian said: Rudolph the Redneck Reindeer has a nice ring to it. Especially for late December games Serious question. Why is calling white people rednecks acceptable on here? Stereotypes / slurs are allowed only against one race it seems. I'll probably get in trouble for this post too like I always do. Go figure. Edited February 15, 2020 by suorangefan4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 16 minutes ago, NoSaint said: suuuuuuure.... Solid answer bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 20 minutes ago, suorangefan4 said: Serious question. Why is calling white people rednecks acceptable on here? Stereotypes / slurs are allowed only against one race it seems. I'll probably get in trouble for this post too like I always do. Go figure. The victimization is strong with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 39 minutes ago, suorangefan4 said: Serious question. Why is calling white people rednecks acceptable on here? Stereotypes / slurs are allowed only against one race it seems. I'll probably get in trouble for this post too like I always do. Go figure. No trouble, I'll answer it. But continued back-and-forth will probably hit the bit-bucket. The point of moderation is to try to keep the board reasonably civil and focused on football, not to throw everything that's not totally bland into the bit-bucket There are some things that are going to slide - for example someone posted "Smollets going to Smollet" analogizing Garrett to a man who staged a fake hate crime. That's a pretty inappropriate analogy and could be seen as implying that because one black guy was lying about racism, all claims of racism are lies - Big League Not Cool. But it's not explicit, it got appropriately addressed by another poster in response, so it slid. Using "redneck" in a joking play on Mason's name and a fictional reindeer also slides. Redneck is one of those terms that can be used as an insult, but here in the "Heartland" it is also claimed as a point of pride - the song "Redneck Woman" was a #1 hit written less than an hour from my doorstep. At least around here, calling someone a "redneck" doesn't even imply they're racist, just has an implication about their social class and preferences. If someone were directing it towards another poster in a way that made it clear it was intended as an insult, it likely wouldn't slide. One point of allowing some of the jokes that are being made about Rudolph (like the nickname Rudolph the Redneck Reindeer, or the .gif with the sheet saying "Rudolph behind the OL") is they make the point there is real damage to his reputation by the accusation of using a racial slur. I think it's important to see that there's potential harm on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I share the curiosity on the source of this information. In the locker room after games, there seem to usually be a lot of reporters pretty durn quick. Certainly a lot of reporters were asking questions of various players about the incident and interviewing Garrett. I kind of find it hard to believe that Garrett is mic'd up for the game, there are microphones all over the place, he's livid in the locker room after the game when there seem to be microphones and reporters all over, and yet this hasn't come out. The NSA, FBI, and other government entities should sent Lesson Teams to the Browns and the NFL if that's true. Within a week, and "in the locker room immediately after the incident" are not nearly the same thing. The heck with in the locker room after the game or a week later. If this were true, Garrett would have been protesting LOUDLY, CLEARLY, and IMMEDIATELY after the play, on the field, especially after learning he was ejected by the ref. NO other players on the field corroborated Garrett’s claim, either. He’s full of crap and his persistence here only serves to dilute legitimate claims by others who have been the target of racial slurs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: No trouble, I'll answer it. But continued back-and-forth will probably hit the bit-bucket. The point of moderation is to try to keep the board reasonably civil and focused on football, not to throw everything that's not totally colorless into the bit-bucket There are some things that are going to slide - for example someone posted "Smollets going to Smollet" analogizing Garrett to a man who staged a fake hate crime. That's a pretty inappropriate analogy and could be seen as implying that because one black guy was lying about racism, all claims of racism are lies - Not Cool. But it's not explicit, it got appropriately addressed by another poster in response, so it slid. Using "redneck" in a joking play on Mason's name and a famous fictional reindeer also slides. Redneck is one of those terms that could be used as an insult, but here in the "Heartland" it is also claimed as a point of pride by many - the song "Redneck Woman" was a #1 hit written less than an hour from my doorstep. At least around here, calling someone a "redneck" doesn't even imply they're racist, just means they're someone who works outdoors and their neck gets sunburnt, nothin' wrong with that. One point of allowing some of the jokes that are being made about Rudolph (like the nickname Rudolph the Redneck Reindeer, or the .gif with the sheet saying "Rudolph behind the OL") is they make the point there is real damage to his reputation by the accusation of using a racial slur. I think it's important to see that there's potential harm on both sides. The origin of the term “redneck” is also a source of pride. It came into being when miners in WV, in protest of the mine and company town owners, wore red bandanas around their necks as a sign of solidarity. It’s a shame that it’s been bastardized over the years to mean something else entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 This thread is going places... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 49 minutes ago, NoSaint said: suuuuuuure.... I'm unsuuuuure what this means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: This thread is going places... No place good, for sure. Not surprising, unfortunately..... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 7 minutes ago, K-9 said: The origin of the term “redneck” is also a source of pride. It came into being when miners in WV, in protest of the mine and company town owners, wore red bandanas around their necks as a sign of solidarity. It’s a shame that it’s been bastardized over the years to mean something else entirely. I did not know that. Around here the understanding of the origin was someone who has a strip of sunburn on his neck between his hat and his shirt, from working out-of-doors doing manual labor (the ladies worked too, but their bonnets and hair protected their necks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 41 minutes ago, K-9 said: The heck with in the locker room after the game or a week later. If this were true, Garrett would have been protesting LOUDLY, CLEARLY, and IMMEDIATELY after the play, on the field, especially after learning he was ejected by the ref. NO other players on the field corroborated Garrett’s claim, either. He’s full of crap and his persistence here only serves to dilute legitimate claims by others who have been the target of racial slurs. I dunno, K-9. I've read up on other "True Crime" type accounts where part of the investigation was driven by perception of how the individual SHOULD have behaved....sometimes that means something, but sometimes it doesn't. The bottom line, though, is it was already brought up by Garrett and denied by Rudolph and the Steelers players who were in the vicinity right after Garrett appealed the suspension and initially made his claim. Unless it's recorded somewhere, it's a he-said he-said thing and I don't know what can be done besides let it go and move on. Maybe @BarleyNY is correct in what (I think he) implied that it's actually recorded and the NFL is suppressing it but Man! they got some high-powered suppression game if so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, suorangefan4 said: Serious question. Why is calling white people rednecks acceptable on here? Stereotypes / slurs are allowed only against one race it seems. I'll probably get in trouble for this post too like I always do. Go figure. lmfao w this 19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I did not know that. Around here the understanding of the origin was someone who has a strip of sunburn on his neck between his hat and his shirt, from working out-of-doors doing manual labor (the ladies worked too, but their bonnets and hair protected their necks). This is what it means for 99% of the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted February 15, 2020 Share Posted February 15, 2020 15 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: This is what it means for 99% of the country Count me among the majority. That’s the only meaning I’ve ever been aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I'm unsuuuuure what this means? it means that Garrett won’t have to prove it and that realistically any legal action isn’t likely to go anywhere at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, NoSaint said: it means that Garrett won’t have to prove it and that realistically any legal action isn’t likely to go anywhere at all. OK. Both may be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 27 minutes ago, NoSaint said: it means that Garrett won’t have to prove it and that realistically any legal action isn’t likely to go anywhere at all. You may be right about the legal action, but If Rudolph’s lawyers were to pursue it, it would be Garret who would have to prove the positive- not Rudolph proving the negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 Credit to moderation. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, whatdrought said: You may be right about the legal action, but If Rudolph’s lawyers were to pursue it, it would be Garret who would have to prove the positive- not Rudolph proving the negative. no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. as the plaintiff the burden is on Rudolph in this hypothetical case. Edited February 16, 2020 by NoSaint 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts