OK, it's taken a while to get caught up on this thread - lots of good content here - but I wanted to give some airtime to things that have seemed a little ridiculous or overdone.
Hagios said:
Even if they get rid of all rookie hazing - which I support - the culture of a pro sports locker room will never be like the culture of the IT department at my company. Moreover, the culture of most IT departments is going to be largely white (or asian), but the culture of the NFL is going to be black. So a lot of the alleged non-racists on this thread are really trying to impose white cultural norms on a majority black workforce.
What the hell is a "black" culture? Some sort of Tyler Perry stereotype-fest? With that statement you're suggesting that all of the ills or bad tendencies of NFL lockerrooms are somehow a "black" thing. We've had enough commentary from close observers or firsthand accounts to know (if we didn't already) that NFL locker rooms involve lots of people with broken psychologies, personality disorders of varying severity, rage problems, frequently insufficient parenting or upbringing, a glorification of gang / prison culture, and a general lack of self-awareness or taking responsibility for one's actions. Are these "black" things? Seriously, looking through a racial lens for these (it must be said) highly integrated and meritocratic environments is, well, misguided at best (and the less-charitable interpretations are obvious, I'm sure).
Statman said:
Couldn't we easily change this quote so it reads:
For certain white-collar management positions at least, I think Fortune 500 companies teams will be less likely to take a chance on poor and black quiet, introspective kids from underprivileged upper middle class backgrounds. I know that sounds ridiculous, but It is easier to hire employees who look and talk like you tear down and build back up kids who have grown up in suburban America nothing to go back to, who understand they need to fit into the company's team's (substitute the word White Majority gang if you want) culture, and who will bust their ass to earn the respect of their peers, adulation from fans, and of course, lots of money.
EvilEmpire said:
Statman said:
They certainly do so I don't see why it's acceptable for corporate America to look for individuals of a certain background and mindset for a position, but if a NFL team does it, then that is somehow considered to be promoting a "shitty culture."
And this is equally ridiculous in the opposite direction. Here is the CEO of my Fortune 50 employer, who as the son of a dental hygienist grew up without much in the way of privilege:
And here is the head of his 2nd-biggest business unit:
And here is the CEO's head of corporate development (i.e. M&A):
(I'm going for a "How Not to be Seen" vibe here, did that work?)
The idea that there aren't African-Americans in the top echelons of corporate america is simply ignorant. The ones who run my company kick serious ass.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
What I am curious about, though, is if Incognito is actually a perpetual bully. He is a chronic asshole, and that really can't be argued. That is also not anywhere near the "crime" that being a bully is. News outlets have sought out his pee-wee, high school, and college coaches. They've tried to wrangle up as many personal relationships that they can. I've yet to hear a former teammate - there is hundreds of them, and I don't want a current teammate because it presents serious conflict of interest - to say "Richie was a fucking bully to his teammates." We've heard that he was a punk in school. that he got into fights and did drugs (he was and is, again, an asshole). But I'm waiting for a former college teammate to say, "Yeah, he used to hound Joe Blow all the fucking time. It was fucked up."
I don't think this would be the end all be all in deciding if Richie was a bully to Martin. there's a first for everything. I do, however, think that a guy who has had hundreds or thousands of teammates over the past 15 years would have pulled this shit before.
If I really had to take a stab at this thing I'd say that Martin was on the fringe of the locker room, but not an outcast. He texted with teammates, showed up to occasional parties, etc. He was a goober and was probably the butt end of many jokes while sitting around the dinner table. He was fed up with it, got shunned again (players got up when he sat at the table), and snapped. He was clearly picked on, but I don't think this was a Gomer Pyle situation. He was sick of being disrespected and said "fuck this". I don't blame him.
I think this is a great post by KFP, and represents a point of view that other posters have gotten picked on in this thread for expressing (though usually less eloquently). As I read through, I saw an immediate rush to judgment that Incognito was both an asshole (inarguable) and a schoolyard-style bully (TBD). We immediately went into all sorts of stories about the nature of bullying and why bullying is bad, but every interpretation I've seen of recent facts or perspectives on the situation has reminded me of
the logic displayed here. Anything contrary (or even neutral) to the narrative that Incognito is a bully is given a spin such that it is explained only as behavior commonly seen within a bullying context and, though it may look innocuous, is just further proof of the bullying relationship that was clearly going on.
I started to wonder, as KFP asks, what exactly is the
evidence of bullying here? That we know about? And MMS granted my wish shortly thereafter:
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
What do we know with reasonable confidence actually occurred in the case of Jonathan Martin as far as treatment by his teammates? I haven't been following the story that closely the last few days but what I've got is this:
1. Famous "half-xxxxxx" voicemail sent from Incognito to Martin.
2. Comment from some other teammate at some point about running train on sister.
3. Incognito held offensive line meetings at a strip club.
4. Martin bailed on Vegas trip after agreeing to go and team made him still pay for his share.
5. Widespread acknowledgment that Incognito gave Martin a lot of verbal shit if he didn't practice hard enough or didn't play well enough.
6. Lunchroom pranks with getting from table, etc.
I may be missing some facts that have come out and am certainly eager to hear about some of the allegations that remain fairly hazy (such as the physical confrontation with a teammate) but having a lengthier list of facts seems like a necessary step toward an intelligent conversation about where one draws the line and what behaviors cross that line.
We also have the word of Martin's lawyer who assures us it was a long and drawn-out pattern of many instances. That may well be proven out. But for now:
- I see #1 as offensive if taken in a context-neutral setting, but within the context of teammates and/or friends could easily be innocuous. Unhinged, perhaps, but the idea that it's just banter is plausible. Including #2 may suggest the start of a pattern (which extends beyond Incognito), or it may reinforce that it was all banter. I'm not sure we've got enough data to lean strongly one way or the other.
- #3, while in poor taste and probably making some people uncomfortable, was assuredly not targeted just at Martin or designed to make him uncomfortable specifically, so I have a hard time thinking of it as bullying
- #4, if his former teammate's facts are correct, seems like a misunderstanding and/or welching on something previously agreed to. It might also be that he never agreed to it - I don't know - but if he did, I can't really see this in a bullying context. I'd imagine if Mike Pouncey had done the same thing he would have been treated similarly.
- #5 seems very focused on job performance rather than demeaning Martin the person. Probably different in tone but not all that different in content or humiliation factor than Belichick's well-known Monday tape-review sessions.
Basically, it seems many people here have accepted from day 1 that Martin's narrative of the overall situation is an incontrovertible fact, based partly on the fact that Incognito is clearly an asshole with a lot of problems. While there may be some useful meta-discussions we might have in the interim, I think a lot of people are reading a mountain of import into a molehill of facts here. When we had the Aaron Hernandez situation, most posters were adopted a nervous "wait-and-see" attitude, until the police submitted an extensive list of evidence at arraignment and the vibe turned to "well, fuck him, then." Not affording the Dolphins that same level of innocent-until-guilty-seems-strongly-supported suggests a double standard exists. And for what reason? That same perceived double standard has made some Dolphins fans cry laundry. We might want to back off on the rush to judgment, lest their accusation appear to have some merit.
