Rethinking Barstool?
- Thread starter allstonite
- Start date
I suppose token CEO isn’t the correct term. She’s a fine CEO and she’s taken Barstool further, faster than Portnoy did.
They do, however, like to trot out the fact that they have a female CEO whenever Dave gets himself into hot water. Just because they have a female CEO doesn’t mean that Dave isn’t a POS.
Token CEO maybe isn’t correct. Misogyny shield?
She’s the Beard to borrow a term.
“No no no. We aren’t toxic masculinity. We have a woman at the head of our company!!!”
Yes, and also it just seems like the “good” Barstool employees like PFT or Chaps have to trot out and try to cover for Portnoy every few months.
Is anyone REALLY surprised that Portnoy is facing these allegations? What about his personal behavior over the last, say 15 years, has indicated he's not entirely capable of such things? Was it siccing his lapdogs on the cycling company because the owner was dating his ex-GF? Or his constant unrelenting harassment of Laura Wagner of Deadspin?
Never mind the larger company. Portnoy is a piece of shit. He's always been a piece of shit, he always will be a piece of shit. Even if we separate out the product from the person, it's not a stretch to believe these extremely troubling allegations about him.
Never mind the larger company. Portnoy is a piece of shit. He's always been a piece of shit, he always will be a piece of shit. Even if we separate out the product from the person, it's not a stretch to believe these extremely troubling allegations about him.
I know you asked these questions in a (mostly) rhetorical manner, but I just want to say that for me a. the answer is no and b. I agree with your take 100%. Thanks for putting it in such blunt terms.
That still implies she's only there because she's a woman. You're doing a shitty job toeing the "Barstool sucks and I'm not misogynistic" line.
I, for one, do not believe she's only there because she's a woman. That said, can't both things be true? As in she's there on merit but is also part of the misogynistic shield...
Yes. The what and the how are distinct. I just don't think he's doing that in a particularly eloquent way, especially given his starting point was "she's a token CEO and fucked her squash coach".
I understand this sentiment, but be careful - it's adjacent to victim blaming.
I found myself saying the same thing when Ryan Adams was accused of grooming young fans and being an abusive partner - "Well yeah - he's an asshole." I'm guessing it wouldn't have been fun for any of the women who were abused by him to hear that sort of thing.
What’s wrong with fucking a squash coach, unless you’re implying there’s some power imbalance, this is a bit of an odd take, especially when juxtaposed with Portnoy’s behavior.
Oh dear. Blaming the victims is just about the furthest thing I was attempting to say. Portnoy apparently preyed on very young women (19 or 20); his victims would likely not have known the extent of his previous behaviors. But that doesn't matter. Inflicting painful, rough sex on anyone without consent is not and never will be OK no matter the familiarity of the survivor of Portnoy's personality.
Let me be perfectly clear: the blame for Portnoy's actions falls 100% on Portnoy. It is never OK to say "well the women should have expected that from him, so it's their fault." My post seemingly implied that so I apologize unreservedly.
And as someone who agreed with your original post, I'm also going to agree with this one because victim blaming didn't cross my mind whatsoever.
And just so I'm clear, I didn't think either of you were engaging in victim blaming. At all. I've just tried trying to think about these sorts of things from a victim's point of view since the aforementioned allegations against Ryan Adams.
Y'all are good people. Sorry for making it sound like I was coming down on you.
The squash coach thing was mostly a joke because it seems funny that they champion Nardini as the beacon of light in a swamp.
Two consenting adults can do whatever they want on their own time, but if that’s your champion when people are looking at your morally objectionable business and founder, maybe you just have an organization of morally objectionable people.
There's a service box and hot ball joke here that I just cant quite make work.
SJH: Portnoy is a piece of shit. He's always been a piece of shit. Hearing this story and knowing he's a piece of shit, I can believe it. Because he's an irredeemable piece of shit.
Someone else: Hey, stop blaming the victims.
edit - just to be clear, Portnoy is the worst of humanity. Everything about him is bad. He's got a lot of similarities to the cheeto. I only wish bad things upon him because he is a bad man. It's not an act.
You know you can address me directly, right? I feel like you're willfully misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say "stop blaming the victims" anywhere. Look - we all agree that Portnoy is a piece of shit. The potential problem comes when someone says something along the lines of "It's not a surprise he did this" or "I'm not shocked by this."
I can think of at least one person who was likely surprised or shocked by his actions - the person he abused.
Isn't that implied?
I mean, how granular and pedantic do you really want to get with this?
Considering I've had female friends of mine specifically point out that they have a serious problem hearing things like that? That language like that makes them feel like fucking idiots for having been raped by men who other people called assholes or douchebags?
I dunno. Maybe you should ask them. While you're at it, try reading my response to SJH and jezza in which I stated that I didn't think they were victim blaming at all.
For the record, as someone who didn’t write the original post but fully agreed with it, I took no issue with what @Bozo Texino said. A victim of Portnoy’s (or any victim of sexual assault) sees the OP and could very easily read it as “so you’re saying I should’ve known?” And as @Smiling Joe Hesketh said, some scrutiny isn’t always a bad thing.
I like that the only way he thinks he can beat cancel culture or keep advertisements doesn’t involve any apology or growth or reflection. Just shilling Walmart pizza.
They aren't "good", they are people you like. They have spent years embracing and profiting from the absolute cesspool of Barstool, they just have been smart enough not to say stupid shit publicly so people like you give them a pass. PFT isn't a good guy, Big Cat isn't a good guy, you can't spend years working with absolute trash people, making content aggressively targeting trash people and be a "good" person. You can't embrace being a member of an awful group for profit, then argue that you're ok because you're only in it for the money. Those guys could have gone elsewhere, they had many opportunities... they chose not to.
I'm sure the company you work for has literally zero bad people. I'm sure, in your life, there is not a single bad person you associate with in any way. I am also pretty sure you have never, in fact, conversed with one single bad person in your entire life.
It must be nice and comfy sitting on a throne of judgement, spraying your knowledge and clarity with the focus of Tom Brady audibling out of a blitz.
I don't think the point is that there's a bad person in the company so much as the company's entire brand is toxic behavior (in large part driven by that one guy). It's like if you're a teatotaling prohibitionist, you're not going to work for Anhyzer Busch without being branded at the very least as a hypocrite. Anyone drawing a paycheck from the company can't pretend they're above it or separate from it. Might be overkill to say they're bad people, but one would hope that if they're truly against what the brand is, they'd do more to change it or get away from it.
I hear ya. But it's not that simple and to avow that it is as simple as some of the employees just leaving their careers because Dave Portnoy is a piece of shit is an impossible standard. If everyone was held to that standard, approximately 50% of employees would have to quit their jobs because there is something unseemly or bad about their company, or the people in it.
Dave Portnoy is an absolutely vile human being and I want to be clear on that. I truly wish karma pays him back. But if you listen to PMT, you don't have to guess on where they stand. In word, deed, and action they are nothing like Portnoy. So banding them as complicit is just too much. Again, it's not that simple.
Everyone on this board who is a lawyer is despicable because there are bad lawyers who file stupid lawsuits and embezzle money. Everyone person who works in finance is a criminal, because the banks almost bankrupted the economy in 2008. Obviously if you work for Boeing or Raytheon, you're basically a war criminal. And if you work in the oil industry, you're a part of a business that is genuinely destroying the earth and barreling all of us towards extinction. And, yet, millions work for all of those companies and they probably aren't the scum of the earth.
The purity test aspect of this is what I take issue with. We all make trade offs and sacrifices. And everyone around us isn't absolutely perfect. I guess I think people are flawed and complex. So saying things like, "You can't work with trash people and be a good person," I think that's fucked up and obnoxious.
I imagine, in all seriousness, someone like Big Cat has a strange relationship with Portnoy now. They seem very much like two dudes that met in college, had some fun times, and are now on widely divergent paths in life.
BC is a father, Dave Portnoy is having rape fantasy sex with 19 year olds. Not saying that absolves any wrong doing from Big Cat and makes him a saint, but the two guys are not that similar any more.
That is not at all what I implied. Those guys aren't random employees, and the issue isn't that some other people in the company are bad. The company's entire brand is appealing to lowest common demoninator with a high focus on misogyny and strong undercurrents of racism. The founder who stil is actively involved is a racist, sexist clown, who goes out of his way to confirm at every turn what he and Barstool stand for.
These not some random employees, they are high level creatives who turned down big money offers from other brands, and at least 1 of whom supposedly has a not insignificant ownership stake.
I don't think the entry level social media people at Barstool are bad people because they associate with it. I recognize that sometimes you take a job with a shitty company to survive and have little control, and your quitting will make no impact.
I do think that if you are a major force within a company, with power, and influence, and many options to make possibly millions elsewhere, and you choose to embrace the face of the company, a company and a fanbase that is actively shitty... yes you are a bad person. Dan Katz could have gone anywhere he wanted and made tons of money in the last few years, he could have pushed for change at Barstool by pressuring the majority owners... instead he did nothing, but trot out to do damage control, and pretend that he doesn't know that a huge part of his fanbase are aggressively misogynistic (often in his "defense" on twitter).
Edit- To be more clear, I'm not making a broad generalization of all Barstool employees, or all finance bros, or all lawyers (I am one), I'm saying that if you are one of the faces and most powerful people in a company that is known for being arguably THE most toxic trashheap in it's industry, run by a guy who is a really really shitty person, and you choose to embrace that when you have many other options that will pay you tons of money... yes you are a bad person. Those guys don't need to stay at Barstool, they face little loss if they went to any of the other places that courted them. It also matters that they are used as the "Barstool isn't racist/sexist, look at these guys", they're "good guys". Katz knows that he's the guy who gets trotted out to do PR cleanup for Barstool, and he's accepted that because chance he'd have a drop in audience is more concerning to him than propping up a racist sexist cesspool. It's a case where any damage to him is incredibly minimal, but he still chooses to actively participate in endorsing terrible behavior rather than face a hypothetical minor inconvenience. That's not the type of tradeoffs most people have to make.
Last edited:
He's a pretty big dickhead and an asshole for sure, but have you seen what Pol Pot did? Hoo-ie, it's something.
Yes, and?
Aren’t you a DJ? I guess that means you’re pro date rape, sexual assault, overdose deaths, smashed ear drums, drunk driving, and alcohol addiction?
Or would you view that as too reductive about everything that makes you you?
Fortunately, 99% of the population realizes that 99% of the population has to work to survive, and that means sometimes working for companies that have less than stellar reputations. CD did make his point that if you are in a leadership position in a small firm like Barstool, you do have a chance to influence its direction some, and as a result some of the firm's reputation, rightly or wrongly, will follow you. But, yes, the idea that working for Raytheon makes one a war criminal is so ludicrous it does not really deserve the benefit of a serious rebuttal.
I was gonna ask the last time you played Michael Jackson or R. Kelly
interesting argument.
Oh, it's been a very long time.I was gonna ask the last time you played Michael Jackson or R. Kelly
Somewhere earlier in the thread, probably not *that* long ago, I argued that Portnoy's just playing a character, and I went along with it because LOL funny. But as time has gone on, especially as he became super duper rich off the Penn deal, he's shown himself to be an asshole one too many times for me to fall behind the whole he's just being a funny internet character anymore. He's an asshole. Sorry, but that's where I'm at. I also lost a lot of respect for Erika, who has been completely silent this time, but is always quick to trot out the GIRL BOSS nonsense like a meme when its to her advantage. Anyway, there's both content and people I do like at Barstool, especially as its grown (and grown and grown), but I really think it's a matter of time until Penn gently tells Dave he has to go. There's far too much longterm risk for Penn here if this stuff continues and I don't think he's Teflon Dave if this stuff cuts into Penn's business.
Isn’t the issue that these are important people at barstool who are often asked to advocate for Dave during times like these?
I mean these aren’t lower level employees who have no access to Portnoy and just need a paycheck no matter who it comes from. They have options and choices
I had a longer post written out, but you’re better than this slippery slope silliness.
Let me first make clear that I am posting here as a member and not a mod.
With that said, I don’t come to this thread often. When I do, I’m predisposed to believe/enjoy news relating to Portnoy’s latest outrage. (I’m on record agreeing that the man is a menace and I don’t understand his devotees.) Which explains how/why I found myself eagerly devouring the last couple of pages of the thread this morning.
I had no idea what the bolded referred to - I assumed it was some sort of player-coach thing from years ago. And then I discovered that, despite my assumption of an implied power imbalance, this was about an alleged affair between two consenting adults. Which leaves me unable to defend you against charges of misogyny.
I get that Portnoy is a shithead. But we really shouldn’t mimic his tactics when discussing his conduct or his company.
As time passes and Portnoy continues to Portnoy and Barstool does nothing to either distance or to remove him from the company, to me it seems increasingly clear that for Barstool, Portnoy's personality and behavior are a feature, not a bug, and something they see as a positive to their bottom line.
The man has fans. Shitty, misogynistic, revolting fans, but fans nonetheless. And those fans consume Barstool content. If Nardini, BC and others see that as a positive for their wallets, and Portnoy continues to be very much the outward face of Barstool, then it's difficult to say that Barstool is more than just Portnoy.
I can easily buy into the argument that Big Cat feels profoundly uncomfortable with Portnoy, but until action is taken, Big Cat's decision to continue on with Portnoy's company is a pretty clear indication of where his priorities lie. I get it, it's a sticky situation, BC has equity, etc. It's not simple. At the same time....in some ways it is.
Papa John's booted their founder and namesake because Papa John is a repulsive human being who made repulsive statements. Maybe that hurt their bottom line in the short run, now they seem to be doing much better with Shaq as their public face. Barstool has yet to do the same with their own founder, presumably because Portnoy puts money in their pockets.
The man has fans. Shitty, misogynistic, revolting fans, but fans nonetheless. And those fans consume Barstool content. If Nardini, BC and others see that as a positive for their wallets, and Portnoy continues to be very much the outward face of Barstool, then it's difficult to say that Barstool is more than just Portnoy.
I can easily buy into the argument that Big Cat feels profoundly uncomfortable with Portnoy, but until action is taken, Big Cat's decision to continue on with Portnoy's company is a pretty clear indication of where his priorities lie. I get it, it's a sticky situation, BC has equity, etc. It's not simple. At the same time....in some ways it is.
Papa John's booted their founder and namesake because Papa John is a repulsive human being who made repulsive statements. Maybe that hurt their bottom line in the short run, now they seem to be doing much better with Shaq as their public face. Barstool has yet to do the same with their own founder, presumably because Portnoy puts money in their pockets.
Listening to two comedians discussing Portnoy, a little bit of chatter about Business Insider story then tangentially: Hey did you see the time he went at Michael Rappaport’s lawyer?
Oh yeah, he’s a Boston guy he doesn’t give a fuck...
I laughed because, 1. what a great reputation to have, but 2. the “don’t give a fuck” Masshole is such a dying breed I think it is on the endangered species list.
Oh yeah, he’s a Boston guy he doesn’t give a fuck...
I laughed because, 1. what a great reputation to have, but 2. the “don’t give a fuck” Masshole is such a dying breed I think it is on the endangered species list.
I think Dan doesn't have a choice if he wants that sweet sweet Penn money. If I remember correctly, it's Dan, Erika, and Dave that are stuck in a 5-year lock-up as key players in the deal. It's unfortunate, cause I really think Dan could go someplace else and be very successful on his own (with or without PFT), much like a McAfee type thing.
And that's fine as far as his personal decision goes to stay. But it does mean he's choosing to continue working with and being closely associated with a total shitbag because it's bringing him a great deal of money.
And hey, everyone loves money. But that should kill off any of these "Big Cat is a nice guy and doesn't like what Portnoy does" arguments. Big Cat has chosen to get paid handsomely by associating with Portnoy. By doing that he's enabling Portnoy to continue acting like a shitbag.
I also believe that Barstool and Portnoy's shitbag fans are so toxic that if Big Cat left Barstool and started his own PMT-style show, he would get immense harassment and blowback from Portnoy's fans.