Sports: NFL

[Raider30]

Saying an organization is ‘vile’ for signing someone sure appears to me like you feel a played should be shunned from holding a job in the nfl, ie. disqualified. That seems different from saying you don’t want to root for a guy.

Maybe I misunderstood you(general sense you) all because the definite impression I get when I read the comments about these players is that they should be kicked out of the league.

-Raider30

[Dad_Scaper]

Oh, definitely shunned. Yes, most definitely. But not "disqualified." I imagine such a person would, if he was licensed to practice law, find himself "shunned" by many legal employers, even he was technically licensed to practice. And thus not disqualified.

[MrNobody]

While I think football players can be fired for personal matters, I’m going to agree with Raider in that I think there’s very little practical difference between “I am disgusted this player has a job in the league” and “I think this player shouldn’t be allowed in the league.” Both positions mean that at the end of the day you won’t be happy as long as that player continues to have that position.

I think this is really part of a much larger debate about personal behavior of celebrities in general. When you sign up to be an entertainer, how much of your personal life becomes part of that? At what point should you face job-related consequences for your actions outside of it? And is it our moral duty, as fans of this entertainment, to take some sort of action against immoral behavior?

[Dad_Scaper]

It's actually not about celebrities at all. If some guy you never heard of was hired to work in the office next to mine, and I discovered he had Foster's personal history, I would think it was gross. And I would shun him, and I would wish my employer had done the same.

[Aldin]

Moral duty? Like being disgusted that someone hurts women and not wanting to see them on some sort of stage entertaining is some sort of decision? Entertainers receive money because they entertain us. I am not entertained by someone I believe has done reprehensible things, and I'm certainly not giving my money to them. As long as I believe people are more important than my pleasure I don't see how I could see this any other way.

~Aldin, recognizing that there's a lot of murkiness here but more than willing to stand firm on anything obvious to him

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It's actually not about celebrities at all. If some guy you never heard of was hired to work in the office next to mine, and I discovered he had Foster's personal history, I would think it was gross. And I would shun him, and I would wish my employer had done the same.

And then of course, the question is what we should do, as a society, with people who have done terrible things. Because people are prone to doing terrible things.

Is apology enough? Probably not.
Apology + restitution? Maybe.
Apology + restitution + rehabilitation? Maybe, but then you'd just have people fake their way through all these steps to get back into the real world.

What makes the NFL (and other sports) a special case here is that the teams stand to gain financially from not shunning a player. I bet Kareem Hunt will wind up somewhere in a year or two, with the team claiming they have a "support system" in place, and that he's undergone "relationship and sensitivity training". Does that make it okay? I don't think so, but how do you judge if somebody has really changed their behavior?

[Hahma]

This goes deeper than just entertainers. They just have their lives more scrutinized and personal stuff made public for millions of people to see and judge them by.

There are millions of people that do despicable things. Surely we aren't going to know of many of them because they aren't in the public eye. But, we do occasionally see people we have in our lives, either family, friends or people at work, that do or say inappropriate things. Be it racist, sexist, cheating, stealing, sexual assault, blackballing certain people from jobs or whatever.

They should equally be shunned, and if people don't speak up against wrongful behavior in their own circle, then it's kind of hypocritical to do so only with entertainers or politicians, just because they are "safe" to rip on because they are beyond our circle.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by superfrog

And then of course, the question is what we should do, as a society, with people who have done terrible things. Because people are prone to doing terrible things.

Is apology enough? Probably not.
Apology + restitution? Maybe.
Apology + restitution + rehabilitation? Maybe, but then you'd just have people fake their way through all these steps to get back into the real world.

What makes the NFL (and other sports) a special case here is that the teams stand to gain financially from not shunning a player. I bet Kareem Hunt will wind up somewhere in a year or two, with the team claiming they have a "support system" in place, and that he's undergone "relationship and sensitivity training". Does that make it okay? I don't think so, but how do you judge if somebody has really changed their behavior?

It's always a case-by-case basis.

I would not normally say these guys should never work again. Ray Rice, for instance, has quietly spent a few years doing good by educating young football players on how not to screw up the way he screwed up. He did a bad thing; he paid the price; he seems to be a decent guy, now. Good for him.

Guys like Hardy and Foster, though, are different. Their behavior strongly indicates serious domestic abuser and they've done nothing to acknowledge the wrongness of their behavior or demonstrate a will to improve. Hell with them, and hell with those who would hire them as entertainers. What does the future hold for them? I don't know, but for right now, they are the way they currently are.

What do we do, you ask? We treat each case on its own merits, and we try to be proportional in our anger and in our vengeance.

[superfrog]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It's always a case-by-case basis.

I would not normally say these guys should never work again. Ray Rice, for instance, has quietly spent a few years doing good by educating young football players on how not to screw up the way he screwed up. He did a bad thing; he paid the price; he seems to be a decent guy, now. Good for him.

Guys like Hardy and Foster, though, are different. Their behavior strongly indicates serious domestic abuser and they've done nothing to acknowledge the wrongness of their behavior or demonstrate a will to improve. Hell with them, and hell with those who would hire them as entertainers.

What do we do, you ask? We treat each case on its own merits, and we try to be proportional in our anger and in our vengeance.

I agree. Case by case is the way to do this. God gave us brains for a reason.

[MrNobody]

Yeah, I am no at all saying we should protect or support domestic abusers, hope I didn’t give off that vibe.

I think the difference between the average joe and a celeb, to me, is that the average joe can remain fairly anonymous. Sure you can look up criminal records and things like that, but for the most part you don’t know what happened in their past. With the spread of the internet, it is getting harder and harder for celebs to keep what happens in their private life private. If they’re involved in a scandal, that’ll follow them forever. Even if average joe gets fired, he has a fair chance of finding a new job eventually. But everyone will always tie that celeb to that scandal. So I guess I think we as a society need to decide, at least unofficially, what is an appropriate crime to shun someone for. When the person is something like an abuser or sex offender, I personally say they deserve everything they get. They don’t get a second chance. But it gets murkier to me when you have people losing their livelihoods over jokes on Twitter. Sorry, I know that’s slightly off-topic, but I don’t want anyone getting the wrong idea about where I stand.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Hahma

This goes deeper than just entertainers. They just have their lives more scrutinized and personal stuff made public for millions of people to see and judge them by.

There are millions of people that do despicable things. Surely we aren't going to know of many of them because they aren't in the public eye. But, we do occasionally see people we have in our lives, either family, friends or people at work, that do or say inappropriate things. Be it racist, sexist, cheating, stealing, sexual assault, blackballing certain people from jobs or whatever.

They should equally be shunned, and if people don't speak up against wrongful behavior in their own circle, then it's kind of hypocritical to do so only with entertainers or politicians, just because they are "safe" to rip on because they are beyond our circle.

Agreed.

And to superfrog's point, I would say it is in our personal circles that some sort of redemption can happen. If a guy was an idiot ten years ago and now he's gone to counseling, has wife has forgiven him and he hasn't continued being an idiot, then I think there is potential for people who know him to accept that he is no longer the idiot he used to be. I don't think he gets to ask that of anyone though. I think it has to be granted based on his actions. And I don't think anyone should have to grant it to him.

~Aldin, believing in redemption

[Dad_Scaper]

I think we can say that you are right, and that I am right as well, Mr. Nobody. The consequences are different for a celebrity because that person is in the public eye, but the job-losing and the shunning pieces are there for many, many professional people. Not just celebrities.