It was two separate issues, like in all things - intent matters for severity but not for right or wrong. We’re talking manslaughter vs Murder 1, but there’s still a body.
Goodbye Gruden and ongoing Snyder investigation discussion
- Thread starter PC Drunken Friar
- Start date
Of course, but the response is in proportion to the intent. The family of the victim - generally, I imagine - feels less anger toward the person who accidentally killed their loved one in a car wreck vs. a person who stalked and planned out their loved one's murder. They feel like shit in either scenario but the degrees are important when it comes to sentencing and forgiveness.
But here, Gruden intentionally said something racist and it’s not clear that doing so privately is the lesser evil. From conversations I’ve heard, it seems there are many minorities who prefer racism/homophobia etc at least be out in the open rather than have to fear that the friend/employee/coach you trust is saying all that mess behind your back. Seems that is even more pernicious in a way.
Right - I'm not defending Gruden in any way. I think he's an asshole, I wasn't surprised at all when this came out, and I'm happy that his near 20 year grift is coming to an end. My comments are strictly in regard to the broad statement RW made, which I see often repeated in these conversations as a general statement of fact and I think it's important to be precise because intent is probably the only thing that matters in these scenarios.
Intent and context both matter.
the issue is, the question of intent doesn’t apply in this instance.
Note: I’m not defending Gruden, at all.
For arguments sake imagine someone from (that place where they do this) coming to the US and calling someone a ‘cunt’ in an email. He could legitimately not know that he can’t use the word, that it’s hurtful. Other language barrier things could happen. Obviously that’s not the case here with gruden. But that case could exist.
The fact that he said it in ‘private’ but doesn’t say stuff like that in public indicates that he knows how bad it is, and that he was intentionally using a hurtful phrase in order to denigrate someone. So the variations on intent don’t help him here. But variations do exist.
the issue is, the question of intent doesn’t apply in this instance.
Note: I’m not defending Gruden, at all.
For arguments sake imagine someone from (that place where they do this) coming to the US and calling someone a ‘cunt’ in an email. He could legitimately not know that he can’t use the word, that it’s hurtful. Other language barrier things could happen. Obviously that’s not the case here with gruden. But that case could exist.
The fact that he said it in ‘private’ but doesn’t say stuff like that in public indicates that he knows how bad it is, and that he was intentionally using a hurtful phrase in order to denigrate someone. So the variations on intent don’t help him here. But variations do exist.
I would argue that intent matters mostly in marginal cases. This isn’t one of those cases — if Gruden didn’t know in 2011 that making fun of the size of Black people’s lips was racist, that’s on him. It’s not like we’re going to start applying that same standard to hold people accountable for using the word “grandfathered,” and I don’t think @Ralphwiggum was suggesting any such thing, even though that does offend people.
Not sure if anyone else saw Dungy and Tirico talk about this story during last night’s extended halftime show. Tirico was obviously uncomfortable stepping out of an objective, journalistic role but said he echoed Tim Brown’s comments. Dungy was interesting; he thinks everyone needs to move on, and he said so, but he offered a very tepid “I have to take him at his word” in reference to Gruden’s assertion that he is not racist.
And I would argue that many of these kinds of interactions in everyday life are marginal cases, which is why "intent doesn't matter" is a meme that does damage because most everyone believes that intent matters when they're pressed on it. In your hypothetical, there's a major difference if I know that "grandfathered" hurts someone's feelings before I say it rather than after I say it. It says two different things about me as a person and the extent to which I'll change my behavior.
PS I'm not totally out of the loop, but I don't really understand why "grandfathered" would be offensive (is it a gender issue thing? Should we say grandpersoned? I'm not being flip, I'm genuinely curious).
You're right that this is a pretty clear cut case and I would argue that we know Gruden's intentions pretty well (and why, again, intention matters here vs. other accidental scenarios).
Goodell is not done with Gruden yet....
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1447684688710144000
But, assuming the new info is just a bunch of motherfucking Goodell and everyone else under the sun... the minimum Davis does is fine him 7 figures, right?
If the NFL somehow gets out of this with only the Gruden emails being released it will be an achievement on the level of burning the SpyGate tapes with minimal pushback.
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1447684688710144000
If there is anything else remotely racist, he's obviously gone.
But, assuming the new info is just a bunch of motherfucking Goodell and everyone else under the sun... the minimum Davis does is fine him 7 figures, right?
If the NFL somehow gets out of this with only the Gruden emails being released it will be an achievement on the level of burning the SpyGate tapes with minimal pushback.
Goodell seems to be boiling him like a frog - turning up the heat without him realizing he’s cooking to death.
After reading that, I’m unconcerned whether he’s fired (right now) or not. He’s as good as dead.
After reading that, I’m unconcerned whether he’s fired (right now) or not. He’s as good as dead.
‘Grandfathered’ can be traced to late 1800s voting rights in the US. To vote, one either had to be literate (which was meant to exclude certain groups), or prove that your Grandfather had once had the right to vote (which allowed the illiterate, but of a ‘desired’, group to vote).
Except it's use has changed greatly over the years to indicate something else entirely. Much like the "OK" symbol, only about 1% of the population has any knowledge of its use being offensive.
Imagine that! A signifier with a racist origin so embedded in our ways of communication that people aren’t even aware of it.
This is exactly why people say it’s not the intent, it’s the impact, or intent doesn’t matter. In these conversations marginalized people have always had the burden of proving why something is offensive, or are met with defensiveness “I didn’t mean it that way” or denial “it doesn’t mean that, the usage has changed”. It’s nothing more than an attempt cut off this kind of response and instead shift the burden to the person who said the offensive thing to figure out what they did wrong.
What @Burn Out said. The term originated with Jim Crow voting laws (specifically, laws that exempted people whose ancestors could vote prior to the Civil War from literacy tests and the like). I’m a lawyer and didn’t know about the provenance of the term “grandfathered” a year ago, so I thought it was a good example of a term that could inadvertently cause offense.
I think it’s self-evident that we wouldn’t be having this discussion if Gruden had used the word “grandfathered” rather than making a snide remark about the size of a Black person’s lips. So I do think intent matters. And I think @Ralphwiggum agrees. It’s just not entirely exculpatory — you’re supposed to learn from people’s offense and do better next time, rather than using your lack of intent to offend as a defense to demands that you do better.
Last edited:
That’s what you took away from what I wrote? You asked why the term was potentially offensive. Someone gave an answer and immediately someone else had to swoop in and defend usage of the term.
I personally have used the term a million times, but if a co-worker asked me not to, and I asked why, and they told me, and I decided you know what, fuck you, I just must keep using that term, then I am quite clearly an asshole. Should I be fired for it? No but it makes me a shitty co-worker.
EDIT: again, I am not talking about holding someone accountable for using the term innocently. I am talking about the conversation that should be happening about these labels and terms. They should be analyzed through the lens of the impact they have on marginalized people, the intent of the person who said it is irrelevant in that setting. Nobody is talking about cancelling anyone over usage of a term like that. The immediate jump to “it doesnt mean that” instead of “wow, I never considered that” is where people are looking for change.
Last edited:
Yes, obviously I’m struggling to make this point or what I am writing is being used as a jumping off point to rail against a point I’m not making, but for the hundredth time I’m not talking about accountability. I’m talking about how to make incidents like this less likely to happen.
There’s only one conclusion I can draw. But I’ll wait until we get an answer before saying more.
Yes, he needs to clarify. I took it as a clumsily worded, too bad Gruden is white, which still comes with extra privileges in 2021, and he will probably skate on this. But I’d also like clarification from AZ.
@Ralphwiggum yes, that's what I took away from what you wrote because that's what you wrote. Apologizing and saying "I didn't mean it that way" because you had no clue - as I did until a half-hour ago - that the term is offensive isn't an example of being defensive, it's an example of... apologizing for being ignorant. A lot of people have to do that often because we are not omniscient beings, we are not all of equal intelligence, we don't all have equivalent means, we don't have equivalent education, and we don't have equivalent time. And you're right, if I proceed to use that term around someone who shared why it made them uncomfortable, I'm probably not a good person. Conversely, if I used that term unwittingly - because I had no idea of its origins until a half hour ago - and then someone started yelling at me and calling me a piece of shit racist without any context, I think that I would be pretty confused.
All of which points to why "intent doesn't matter" is a total nonsense term. It's a meme that people don't really mean - as you yourself just noted - which is a pretty ineffective and hollow way to pass along ideas.
All of which points to why "intent doesn't matter" is a total nonsense term. It's a meme that people don't really mean - as you yourself just noted - which is a pretty ineffective and hollow way to pass along ideas.
It seems like the point you're making because you keep saying the term but then defining it in such a way that it's the exact opposite of its actual meaning. You can say what you're trying to say without distorting the foundation of interpersonal relationships. It seems like you want people to be more empathetic toward marginalized people and understand that certain terms that seem inoffensive can be hurtful - that's great and I agree with you. The rest of the language games are unnecessary.
If this is the case, feels like he is done.
View: https://twitter.com/nytsports/status/1447714077720055812?s=21
View: https://twitter.com/nytsports/status/1447714077720055812?s=21
I eagerly await his attempt to bullshit his way out of this, particularly with Nassib on the team. What a Neanderthal shit brain.
I agree with most of what you’ve written here. I’m not talking about roasting people for making innocent mistakes. I’m talking about how we make is safer to have the right conversations. Maybe it should be called something else, but I’m talking about being introspective, curious and inquisitive instead of defensive. “I didn’t mean it” is a shitty thing to say to someone, even if true. “I apologize, I honestly did not know, can you tell me more” goes a lot further.
Saying the shit he said is terrible…putting it in an email, while you’re making $10M as a tv announcer just shows incredibly poor judgment. He should be gone by tomorrow.
It’s still there. NYT
A trove of emails reviewed by The New York Times show Raiders Coach Jon Gruden went beyond previously disclosed racist comments to issue broad tirades against gays people, women and concussion safety in the NFL.
View: https://twitter.com/NYTSports/status/1447717956465659904?s=20
A trove of emails reviewed by The New York Times show Raiders Coach Jon Gruden went beyond previously disclosed racist comments to issue broad tirades against gay people, women and concussion safety in the NFL.
I was fine with him being fired over the first racist shit.
If he has a job at this time tomorrow, the Raiders should be boycotted by any fan who isnt a piece of shit.
Also - it's sad, but is there any doubt these emails never see the light of day had Gruden not gone after Goodell?
If he has a job at this time tomorrow, the Raiders should be boycotted by any fan who isnt a piece of shit.
Also - it's sad, but is there any doubt these emails never see the light of day had Gruden not gone after Goodell?
What's your point?
Every single person here agreed Grudens intent was malicious. They were "discussing" peripheral aspects on a "discussion" board.
Why does that bother you?
I couldn't get to it from the link ITT either, but just search NY Times Twitter and it's still there.
I don’t take any pleasure in seeing Gruden get sacked, but if he’s not fired tomorrow something is wrong. In addition to the remarks being obviously hateful and bigoted, he was emailing Bruce Allen’s WFT work account? Just beyond stupid.