Skip to main content

Why is violence always the answer to some?

Until the NFL completes its investigation on the Miami Dolphins and offensive linemen Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, I won't be commenting on the case directly. However, in light of the stories coming out about the Dolphins, I have found some of the public's commentary regarding it to be quite disturbing and thought I'd comment on that.

While I don't feel it's wise for me to fully conclude on the matter yet, the story has caught my attention; I've read several articles about it and have also read people's comments below the articles. Many of the comments read as follows:

- "Be a man! Stand up for yourself!"

- "Crying home to mommy again, I see..."

- "Punch him in the face!"

- "Fight!"

- "You're, what, 300 lbs.? Get into the guy's face and take care of it!"

- "This is football! Be a real man!"

- "Pansy!"

- "Deal with him and he won't be bothering you anymore; trust me!"

- "Wimp!"

Yes, it seems that to a decent percentage of the population, the only way to deal with problems is through violence, and if one doesn't resort to it, they're obviously not macho enough to be called a man. This bothers me. Should Martin have stood up for himself? Until the full story comes out, it's hard for me to say. However, I don't think it's right to insinuate that a person is weak for the simple fact he or she doesn't care to fight. Now, if someone close to an individual gets harassed or threatened, I think it should just be instinct to stick up for them. However, when in a work environment, the mature and professional thing to do is take the matter up with the proper authorities. That move may be seen as weak to some, but just because something feels good doesn't make it so. In the end, hopefully this matter can be sorted out by the league, the people responsible for the unprofessional behavior get punished, Jonathan Martin, Richie Incognito, and others, receive the help they need, and are all able to move forward both as professionals and human beings in the future.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more