No, Hope Solo Is Not "Like" Ray Rice

[CarltonJunior]

My issue is with Nike fronting like they carry core principles in punishing AD while displaying its selective nature in giving Solo a pass.

Does it somehow exclude men for years having their foots on the necks of women? No. But let's call out Nike for who they are....a company that's allowed itself to be steered in the direction of whats on the public's radar, not a company that carries a just honor code that reverberates throughout the company.

They cut Jon Jones off too

 

[mastermind]

Yes he did
"Ray Rice did not so much "brawl with his family" as he pummeled his fiancé into unconsciousness."

Different states, laws, judges, ect. But both were charged with domestic abuse. Ray rice was only given a diversion program so obviously the legal system saw it as a mistake with a reasonable chance for rehabilitation. Which is the same way the nfl should treat it, but they aren't do to Internet outrage.

So why doesn't the author or you support a narrative that "yeah ray rice should be suspended dropped but..........."

That's an easy cop out. That's like saying "yeah darren wilson should get charged with murder, but with the history of violence with black teens I can understand why he isn't"

That's bullshyt domestic violence is domestic violence. If we are holding public figures to certain standards then those standards shouldn't change with sex.

apologies, i was looking for that word and missed it. He did say he pummeled his fiance, and that was some grandstanding shyt. He should have said he knocked her unconscious, while Hope Solo did not.

ITs not different state/laws, they were charged with two separate incidents. Simple Assault isnt the same as Aggravated assault... thats not germane to this conversation tho.

I dont disagree with you in that Hope Solo should be punished, but I dont think Coates disagrees either.

 

[FTBS]

he clearly didnt



a lot of you are reading what you want to see instead of actually reading the article.

How is this not a comparison breh?

In our society we recognize different kinds of violence. We understand, for instance, that lynching enjoys a particular place in American history. We generally grant that Emmett Till was not merely murdered, but that he was murdered in a fashion that places his death in a specifically heinous tradition in our history. And thus we understand that what happened to Till, or what James Byrd, or what happened to Sam Hose is not the same thing as what happened to Tupac Shakur or Sam Cooke. This does not mean that what happened to Shakur or Cooke was good. It means that it wasn't a lynching.

In the history of humanity, spouse-beating is a particularly odious tradition—one often employed by men looking to exert power over women. Just as lynching in America is not a phenomenon wholly confined to black people, spouse-beatings are not wholly confined to women. But in our actual history, women have largely been on the receiving end of spouse-beating. We have generally recognized this in our saner moments. There is a reason why we call it the "Violence Against Women Act" and not the "Brawling With Families Act." That is because we recognize that violence against women is an insidious, and sometimes lethal, tradition that deserves a special place in our customs and laws.

Like I said, I get the point it's just a horrible example.

 

[mastermind]

How is this not a comparison breh?

In our society we recognize different kinds of violence. We understand, for instance, that lynching enjoys a particular place in American history. We generally grant that Emmett Till was not merely murdered, but that he was murdered in a fashion that places his death in a specifically heinous tradition in our history. And thus we understand that what happened to Till, or what James Byrd, or what happened to Sam Hose is not the same thing as what happened to Tupac Shakur or Sam Cooke. This does not mean that what happened to Shakur or Cooke was good. It means that it wasn't a lynching.

In the history of humanity, spouse-beating is a particularly odious tradition—one often employed by men looking to exert power over women. Just as lynching in America is not a phenomenon wholly confined to black people, spouse-beatings are not wholly confined to women. But in our actual history, women have largely been on the receiving end of spouse-beating. We have generally recognized this in our saner moments. There is a reason why we call it the "Violence Against Women Act" and not the "Brawling With Families Act." That is because we recognize that violence against women is an insidious, and sometimes lethal, tradition that deserves a special place in our customs and laws.

Like I said, I get the point it's just a horrible example.

He didnt compare DV to lynching. He clearly compared the murders of Tupac and Sam Cooke to lynching, and stated that there were tiers to this.

If I stole a pack of gum from a store, and you walked in and robbed the store with a handgun, one is more serious than the other. THat is what he is saying. He is comparing the severity of what Ray Rice did to the severity of what Hope Solo did. I dont see how you can say he is comparing DV to lynching.

 

[FTBS]

He didnt compare DV to lynching. He clearly compared the murders of Tupac and Sam Cooke to lynching, and stated that there were tiers to this.

If I stole a pack of gum from a store, and you walked in and robbed the store with a handgun, one is more serious than the other. THat is what he is saying. He is comparing the severity of what Ray Rice did to the severity of what Hope Solo did. I dont see how you can say he is comparing DV to lynching.

Because he did. He breaks down how murders by lynching are somehow different and more palatable than murder by any other means () and then immediately follows that up with how DV by a man is different and less palatable than other means of violence and this isn't a comparison?

He is comparing the history and added meaning as a result not the severity. Well he's actually saying what Ray did was more severe due to the history. Point is lynching has no place in this discussion. It's a poorly executed analogy.

 

[mastermind]

Because he did. He breaks down how murders by lynching are somehow different and more palatable than murder by any other means () and then immediately follows that up with how DV by a man is different and less palatable than other means of violence and this isn't a comparison?

He is comparing the history and added meaning as a result not the severity. Well he's actually saying what Ray did was more severe due to the history. Point is lynching has no place in this discussion. It's a poorly executed analogy.

i think it was fair to the convo. I dont think he was comparing the two at all.

 

[the next guy]

Who even brought the issue up? What Ta-Nehisi's problem these days. This issue was almost dead. I have honestly have not seen anyone say this in public conversation. This was for hits and

 

[FTBS]

i think it was fair to the convo. I dont think he was comparing the two at all.

Agree to disagree. I personally don't think lynching or any other comparable atrocities have a fair place in most convos but that's just me.

 

[the next guy]

The real argument is Hope Solo vs AP and the severity of each act . Notice All Day did not provoke as much outrage as Ray did. The problem is why is it okay the beat the crap out of minors, whether they be 4 or 17 in some quarters of society??? The society should love and cherish our children.

 

[No1]

Oh jesus fukking christ.

I was expecting a white woman, or some black feminist. Especially with those comparisons to black people and racism. This nikka sweats vaginal fluid.

This is the same dude who just wrote "The Case for Reparations." The entire angle you're using against him is ridiculous. You're not even coming close to making any sort of sense. His response is NOTHING like other groups trying to compare their plights to that of African-Americans directly. If anything he was doing the exact opposite. It's stuff like this that makes it impossible to have a legitimate discussion with 99% of the coli. You make up your minds off of thread titles, preconceived notions and the interpretations of other posters who did not even read the article. How the fukk is him saying that obviously we view the death of Emmitt Till different than we view the death of 2Pac given the backdrop of what Emmit Till's death represented offensive oer equivalent to people referring to black on black crime

He is making the simple point that context matters.

the thread is more focused on public responses and perception, at least that's what the poll question is asking. i totally agree that sports leagues and corporate sponsors will attempt to hide things before dealing with them. i am focusing on the mostly white disapproval that is intimidating them into action against certain people.

also, hope solo is accused of making her nephew's ear bleed. since she allegedly drew blood and attacked two people, it can be argued that she is more severe than AP who was actually just disciplining his child in a traditional, albeit now passe fashion while HS was simply assaulting her own people out of rage.

rice is more severe, but if we are not going to go strictly by a philosophical punishment of violence, and instead are going to start taking history and disproportionate outcomes into account, black men would indeed need their unique circumstances taken into account when they get on white america's radar.

This is a fair point, but it still doesn't make his point wrong. You're simply stating something else that should be considered as opposed to saying the public responses are unjustified. Factoring in race does not negate to any substantial degree the historic and PRESENT violence against women that Ray Rice's action are emblematic of. Now if you want to say that it's easier to make him and black men the villain and sell it then you're right...but they are also much more high profile than Hope Solo as well.

Regardless, the poll numbers are disturbing. Essentially you guys are saying you're all cool the next time a black cop kills a white person and a white person turns around and says, "see black cops kill white people too, why isn't the media talking about this" It's just being purposefully obtuse.

Edit: Also, as far as I know, images have been provided of the damage Hope Solo did and it's this same "biased" media that began to bring up how her case was being downplayed. The very women who first brought it up and talked about how Nike and USO should be punishing Hope Solo is now saying she regrets her article--not for the substance which was accurate--but because of the lazy comparisons between the weight of Rice vs. Solo. You seem to have a bigger beef with those bodies, I'm talking about the public.

 

[Roadie pipeher]

trying clown coates

 

[kevm3]

So domestic violence is ok as long as the violence isn't too bad right? If Ray Rice would have backhanded his girl twice, he would only have gotten a light penalty? We here all this talk about how women are equal. If domestic violence is bad, then they are EQUALLY culpable for situations where they do not control their emotions and bring violence into the equation.

 

[christinasade]

hope from the hood....i bet she beat the dog shyt outta her family

the hood? where she from?

 

[OneManGang]

This is considered comedy in the islands or in Africa. In the states...y'all niqqas would make a case that this shyt is real.

This shyt got me dead as fukk.

 

[the next guy]

trying clown coates

This is such a reach. If he mentioned Adrian would he have got hits on this piece?