Goodbye Gruden and ongoing Snyder investigation discussion

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
50,293
I've specifically noted this is unrelated to Gruden. RW dropped as a matter-of-fact in the middle of his post that "intent doesn't matter," which is something I see being repeated everywhere that doesn't make any sense in a society of 330 million people. It matters because obviously intent is important when it comes to how we treat statements and "penalize" people socially, in the workplace, etc.

And RW clarified his statement is more focused on one's personal feelings, which is fine, but it sounds like intent does actually matter in the broader scope of how we approach these incidents as a society.

I'm not defending Gruden. The opposite, actually. We shouldn't flatten situations like this so that people who intend to say and do bad things, like Gruden, suffer greater consequences than those who don't.
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.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
500
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.
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.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
50,293
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.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
500
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.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,835
Richmond, VA
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.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
54,187
San Andreas Fault
Was it a ridiculously stupid / insensitive email? Yes. Will he be fired? No. We live in a world where Tyreke Hill is a hero despite breaking his kid’s arm. An email from 10 years ago isn’t going to get him fired. I won’t opine on whether or not it should. But it won’t.
Unfortunately (nowadays) for Gruden, he (Jon) is white.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I've specifically noted this is unrelated to Gruden. RW dropped as a matter-of-fact in the middle of his post that "intent doesn't matter," which is something I see being repeated everywhere that doesn't make any sense in a society of 330 million people. It matters because obviously intent is important when it comes to how we treat statements and "penalize" people socially, in the workplace, etc.

And RW clarified his statement is more focused on one's personal feelings, which is fine, but it sounds like intent does actually matter in the broader scope of how we approach these incidents as a society.

I'm not defending Gruden. The opposite, actually. We shouldn't flatten situations like this so that people who intend to say and do bad things, like Gruden, suffer greater consequences than those who don't.
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.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
500
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.
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).
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Staff member
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,272
KPWT
Goodell is not done with Gruden yet....

View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1447684688710144000


The NFL sent the Raiders additional Jon Gruden emails to review on top of the negative one that surfaced last week and, per sources around the league, the NFL is actively monitoring the situation and waiting to see how the team will handle the matter.
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.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
32,590
Southwestern CT
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.
 

Burn Out

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
200
Probably in Traffic
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).
‘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).
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
13,507
‘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.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
10,600
guam
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.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
7,832
Needham, MA
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.
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.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
500
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.
@mauf so it seems like RW is suggesting that we apply the same standard to your hypothetical.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
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).

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:

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
7,832
Needham, MA
@mauf so it seems like RW is suggesting that we apply the same standard to your hypothetical.
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:

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
7,832
Needham, MA
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.
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.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
500
@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.

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.
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.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,408
Wow. What a scumbag. Imagine how Carl Nassib must feel reading that homophobic crap coming from your head coach. Fuck Gruden and the rest of the NFL old school “boys club” fuckfaces.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
7,832
Needham, MA
@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.



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.

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.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
2,168
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.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,164
CT
Yikes. I was of the opinion that he shouldn’t be canned over a remark a decade old. But this is pretty ugly.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,235
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?
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,235
Let’s debate ”intent doesn’t matter” some more. See ya, Chucky.
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?
 

CouchsideSteve

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2013
338
New York, NY
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.
 
Feb 19, 2015
4,291
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?
I agree 100 percent with the bolded.