• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Micheal Irvin saga.

SteelBuckeye said:
Note: I didn't say he was innocent. I'm all for letting the legal system run its course.
Just noting that I knew exactly what he was referencing when I read the quote. I'm sure many Black men. if not a majority would have also. But, attempting to liken your situation to that of another doesn't make it so.
As far as race baiting goes, some folks will see it wherever and whenever it suits them. It's often times the same folks who are clamoring for the good old days when folks could say what they want without others getting their panties in a bunch. Ironic then that they are offended enough to complain when someone says something they don't like.
Click to expand...
There are two different things here, race on one side and sex harassment in the other. Irving is mixing them up to defend his case.

Would the victim accuse a white famous rich person that did the same thing? Sure she would, that's quick money
 
Lunar said:
Nope.. i hope you cleaned the passenger door handle.
Click to expand...

Coolie’s been in and out of the passenger side so many times, I’m sure it’s “wore” off.!!!



Salute the nation
 
Litos said:
There are two different things here, race on one side and sex harassment in the other. Irving is mixing them up to defend his case.

Would the victim accuse a white famous rich person that did the same thing? Sure she would, that's quick money
Click to expand...
Again, you are defining things from your perspective. What Irvin is saying is that his case is analogous to the Emmet Till case. A white woman crying wolf against a Black man. He's defining it from his perspective. While you and/or I may not agree with that perspective, he has every right to define it how he sees fit. America, First Amendment, etc.
All he has to do is be ready to deal with any backlash he may receive for his words. He's not required to censor himself to make others feel better.
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Again, you are defining things from your perspective. What Irvin is saying is that his case is analogous to the Emmet Till case. A white woman crying wolf against a Black man. He's defining it from his perspective. While you and/or I may not agree with that perspective, he has every right to define it how he sees fit. America, First Amendment, etc.
All he has to do is be ready to deal with any backlash he may receive for his words. He's not required to censor himself to make others feel better.
Click to expand...
Now censoring for employment is totally different. Someone in the limelight might want to choose their words wisely. I am speaking in general. Have no real opinion on Irvin outside of disliking the Cowboys.
 
slashsteel said:
Now censoring for employment is totally different. Someone in the limelight might want to choose their words wisely. I am speaking in general. Have no real opinion on Irvin outside of disliking the Cowboys.
Click to expand...
Agreed, That's one potential area of backlash that should be of concern.
 
Black & Gold Bleeder said:
So what is your perception of it Buckeye. ?
Click to expand...
Same as the accusations against Ben. I wasn't there. Let the case play out in the legal system.
Unlike Ben's situation though, I have no real interest in it. I'll probably forget about the whole thing as soon as this thread dies out.
 
slashsteel said:
Now censoring for employment is totally different. Someone in the limelight might want to choose their words wisely. I am speaking in general. Have no real opinion on Irvin outside of disliking the Cowboys.
Click to expand...
As do I.

His choice of words can open a can of worms. Just depending on how the individual interpreting his words perceive it.

I can see it as race baiting given today’s social context. But given potential upbringing I can see where he is defending himself based on what he knows.
 
MTC said:
As do I.

His choice of words can open a can of worms. Just depending on how the individual interpreting his words perceive it.

I can see it as race baiting given today’s social context. But given potential upbringing I can see where he is defending himself based on what he knows.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh, and there's a good point. Sometimes you have to "read the room" and find another way to get your point across. Because not everyone who hears you is coming from the same background/experiences/etc, that you are. And, what you "meant" may not be what they "hear".
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Ahhhhh, and there's a good point. Sometimes you have to "read the room" and find another way to get your point across. Because not everyone who hears you is coming from the same background/experiences/etc, that you are. And, what you "meant" may not be what they "hear".
Click to expand...
Yep. That said. My input here is done
 
Steelmann said:


This is what Irwin compares his situation to. It makes me sick. I hope the whole truth in this comes out very,very publicly. Innocent or guilty.
What a thing to say.

“back to a time where a white woman would accuse a black man of something, and they would take a bunch of guys that were above the law, run in a barn, put a rope around his foot and drag him through the mud and hang him by a tree."
Click to expand...
All I'm going to say about the topic is - do you think italicized statement is untrue???
 
SteelBuckeye said:
First let me say, I'm not a Michael Irvin fan.
That said, his reference was not a reference to how slaves were treated. It was an almost direct reference to the case of Emmet Till.
Folks define things based upon their experience. Your culture and race can have an impact on your experience. I'd venture to say that most Black men know about the lynching of Emmet Till for allegedly touching a White woman on the arm and/or wolf whistling at her.
So, in my mind, it's not "race baiting". It's describing his situation (in his mind) in a manner that he understands.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Litos said:
There are two different things here, race on one side and sex harassment in the other. Irving is mixing them up to defend his case.

Would the victim accuse a white famous rich person that did the same thing? Sure she would, that's quick money
Click to expand...
I don't think they're separate. As Buckeye stated, some of us (black men) fully understand 'why' Michael Irvin made the statement. I, too, am not saying he's innocent; but, I've been in his shoes personally.

I have heard stories from my relatives and old friends, who have witnessed this same type of activity back in the 50's and 60's.

There are plenty of books/movies that can provide more reference(s).
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Same as the accusations against Ben. I wasn't there. Let the case play out in the legal system.
Unlike Ben's situation though, I have no real interest in it. I'll probably forget about the whole thing as soon as this thread dies out.
Click to expand...
As Mr. Miagi once said. "same not same"

Ben didnt have a race card to play.
 
Black & Gold Bleeder said:
As Mr. Miagi once said. "same not same"

Ben didnt have a race card to play.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't agree that Irvin was "playing the race card".
Of course, I'm not sure that I know exactly what you mean by that term anyway. Are you saying that anytime a Black person says that race is a factor in their treatment, they are "playing the race card"? What if race IS a factor? Is that "playing the race card"?
Is it "playing the race card" only if it offends someone?
Can only White people say that someone is "playing the race card"? If so, wouldn't that be a form of "playing A race card"?
It's all so confusing (sigh)
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Again, I don't agree that Irvin was "playing the race card".
Of course, I'm not sure that I know exactly what you mean by that term anyway. Are you saying that anytime a Black person says that race is a factor in their treatment, they are "playing the race card"? What if race IS a factor? Is that "playing the race card"?
Is it "playing the race card" only if it offends someone?
Can only White people say that someone is "playing the race card"? If so, wouldn't that be a form of "playing A race card"?
It's all so confusing (sigh)
Click to expand...
It's all like 'driving while being black'...very confusing indeed.
 
Things like this always throw the board into a tizzy.

I wonder why that is
 
Im saying both were accused. Irvin bringing up race which has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure why he would do this. Very confusing indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top