Antonio Brown: the thread that never ends

[Mojouw]

LOL. Okay. What "stuff" am I posting that deviates from logic? Do not say the word misogynist and brush it off with "I'm pretty sure you're not". That's nonsense and a backhanded accusation which isn't cool. Here's the definition of a misogynist:



I have a mother, sister, wife and daughter that I would take a bullet for and love. I respect PEOPLE based on who they are not what is between their legs. I was raised to respect women by a strong mother but she also taught me to use logic when dealing with situations...


Yes women usually know their abuser that's a well known fact in most abuse cases, but the circumstances of this story are way too sketchy to be ignored. How many assault victims were asking for $1.6 million from their abuser before the abuse started? And yes I do find it odd that after getting away from someone that you would see them a whole year later then go "clubbing" with him and need to use his bathroom after driving him and his friends home. Does that make me a misogynist because I question that logic? The fact that society is blindly saying "she needs to be believed" in today's world without the burden of proof is scary. I also have a son so I'm looking at it from both sides. I pray neither of my kids EVER have to deal with anything like this.

Again, we can only comment on WHAT we are being told.

If you can not think through what you are being told on this forum and literally anywhere else that address these types of issues and see how some of what you are posting could be taken as targeted against women (or at least a specific woman in this case); then there isn't much more I or anyone else can do to explain it to you. I was by no means assuming you held any particular views. Just trying to let you know that if you continue to talk about this case and similar in the way you are posting here, people are going to assume you hold certain views. Views that you do not hold and do not wish to be assumed to hold.

Using "logic" and framing it as "No one would do this or that unless they are lying or some other less than ideal purpose because I strongly believe that Path A is the appropriate course of action and not Path B" is a wildly inappropriate way to approach things when you are dealing with toxic interpersonal relationships and potentially significant trauma.

Honestly, don't take my word for it. Take literally anyone else's -- its all over the internet.

[EzraTank]

It's cool I respect your opinion, but "it's all over the internet" doesn't mean it's right.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point. I think EVERY person who thinks they are a victim should definitely be heard. But based on what evidence (and there's very little) presented here, it appears she is not telling the truth. THAT IS JUST MY OPINION on this matter.

[steelreserve]

I think it has gotten out of hand that you are basically not allowed to say "that story sounds fishy," at the risk of being labeled some kind of terrible hatemonger.

I mean, yes, some people will go way overboard in attacking the victim / accuser / whatever in these cases, which is not cool at all ... but the opposite reaction, that no one is permitted to question the facts of the case in any way, or form their own opinion using their own judgment, is also going to rub a lot of people the wrong way, and it's easy to see why they resent it. Both are extreme stances and very ugly.

However, it does seem the latter is the one increasingly being rammed down our throats with a vicious mob mentality. It is good that there is pushback against that. People need to be allowed to think for themselves, full stop.

In this particular case - who the hell knows. Are there things about the woman's story that sound kind of odd? Yeah. Does it seem plausible that Tony Brown is a total douche who just might be involved in shit like that. Sure. Bottom line, I don't know what the answer is because I wasn't there and don't know any of these people!

But the fact that this, in itself, is an increasingly dangerous opinion to hold, is not ok. Or, by extension, the fact that it is unacceptable to some to hold the opinion, "I think it is more likely that this one guy, based on clearly crazy recent public behavior, would be more likely to bust a load on the back of some random female than a Supreme Court justice would be." The rabid toxicity over every iota of these kinds of discussions has just gotten way out of hand.

[EzraTank]

Thank You Steelreserve. This is why I brought up the Kavanaugh thing (as an example). There were people in the Senate blatantly ignoring the complete lack of evidence blindly saying, "I believe her, no matter what". We had a sitting Senator from Hawaii tell men they need to sit down, shut up, because their opinion didn't count, and anything they said would make them bigots, and misogynists.

That kind of shaming of thought is very scary as you pointed out. It's happening all over the world right now and it needs to stop. Labeling someone something usually means you've already lost the debate.

[tom444]

That kind of shaming of thought is very scary as you pointed out.

Here's a thought, see if you shame it?: The Patriots never cheated in their franchise's history. The NFL has just been playing victim.

[steelreserve]

Saying a plaintiff is "a POS" does not seem to be the same as saying "that story sounds fishy" but that of course is just my personal opinion

Yeah, that kind of stuff is pretty uncalled for IMO unless there's a real clear reason, but I do think the "how dare you" outrage mob also goes far beyond that kind of behavior. There are those people - and no small number of them, I might add - who will attempt to shout you down, denounce you as a terrible bigot, and worse, if you do not simply take the accusation as fact. No "he said, she said," just "she said." No critical thinking allowed.

That's the kind of thing that goes beyond merely "disagreeing on the facts" or "disagreeing about sexual assault," and gets into a lot more serious, and frankly dangerous, area of prohibiting speech, prohibiting thought, and of angry mob justice and public shaming as a substitute for justice.

I think Tony Brown is a huge piece of shit, but am not willing to jump on the trial-by-media and unilateral NFL suspension bandwagon. (Still don't think the NFL should be in the business of operating its own extrajudicial investigation and punishment system at all, but that's a different tangent). The worse thing is that they do not go after the very real violations of their own rules, and this is the straw at which people are left grasping.

Thank You Steelreserve. This is why I brought up the Kavanaugh thing (as an example). There were people in the Senate blatantly ignoring the complete lack of evidence blindly saying, "I believe her, no matter what". We had a sitting Senator from Hawaii tell men they need to sit down, shut up, because their opinion didn't count, and anything they said would make them bigots, and misogynists.

That kind of shaming of thought is very scary as you pointed out. It's happening all over the world right now and it needs to stop. Labeling someone something usually means you've already lost the debate.

The Kavanaugh situation was scary to me because it was basically a litmus test for "Just how far can we push this before people have had enough." That they could use accusations as a weapon, and can do the same to anyone if they don't like them, and all you can do is shut up and fall in line, and Kamala Harris will tell you what to think and you'll goddamn like it. Politics aside (I am neither a huge fan of him nor a detractors in any case), I am glad that effort failed, because it did show that there is some limit to how much people will put up with. That is pretty much the whole reason for Trump and his movement in a bigger sense, but now this really does risk veering off course into Soapbox material, so that's where I'll stop.

[Fire Goodell]

As much as I dislike AB right now, I think something is fishy about the timing and the fact the accuser asked for a huge sum of money in the first place.

Best case scenario this gets dragged out and causes all kinds of drama to the point the Patriots decide it's not worth it and cut him, but probably won't happen. Pats will win #7 and AB will likely be the MVP

[steelreserve]

As much as I dislike AB right now, I think something is fishy about the timing and the fact the accuser asked for a huge sum of money in the first place.

Best case scenario this gets dragged out and causes all kinds of drama to the point the Patriots decide it's not worth it and cut him, but probably won't happen. Pats will win #7 and AB will likely be the MVP

I've heard a lot of people talk about the timing, but I don't get it. He's got LESS money now and less to lose than he did a few weeks or months ago.

The behavior and sequence of events seems a bit odd, but as Mojouw said, who the hell knows what people are liable to do in these situations. It's a wack state of affairs when Tony Brown's involved.

[Craic]

Ben got 6 games from the league.....reduced to 4. We won 3 of those games going through all of our back up quarterbacks.

No, he didn't. Not on his first allegation. The league did nothing concerning his first allegation. Unless I missed something, this is Brown's first allegation. So, going by precedent based on actions concerning Ben R., the league would not have to act.

- - - Updated - - -

The Kavanaugh situation was scary to me because it was basically a litmus test for "Just how far can we push this before people have had enough." That they could use accusations as a weapon, and can do the same to anyone if they don't like them, and all you can do is shut up and fall in line, and Kamala Harris will tell you what to think and you'll goddamn like it. Politics aside (I am neither a huge fan of him nor a detractors in any case), I am glad that effort failed, because it did show that there is some limit to how much people will put up with. That is pretty much the whole reason for Trump and his movement in a bigger sense, but now this really does risk veering off course into Soapbox material, so that's where I'll stop.

Wait, you think the Kavanaugh situation was a litmus test for seeing how far something could be pushed before people had enough? IMO you're almost thirty years too late. That litmus test was the Clarence Thomas fiasco.

[AtlantaDan]

No, he didn't. Not on his first allegation. The league did nothing concerning his first allegation. Unless I missed something, this is Brown's first allegation. So, going by precedent based on actions concerning Ben R., the league would not have to act.

Lots of change inside the league (Ray Rice) and the outside world (#MeToo) since the Lake Tahoe allegations against Ben. Whether that is good or bad, fair or unfair, it is the world in which the NFL exists as it tries to protect the image of The Shield and keep those TV ratings up

Goodell makes up his disciplinary standards as he goes along but if the same first wave Lake Tahoe allegations were raised against Ben today, along with Ben sending the sort of charming texts AB sent to the plaintiff, IMO the league would not be taking the same boys will be boys attitude it did with Ben in 2009 and just wave it away

[steelreserve]

Wait, you think the Kavanaugh situation was a litmus test for seeing how far something could be pushed before people had enough? IMO you're almost thirty years too late. That litmus test was the Clarence Thomas fiasco.

Well, same idea, but IMO orders of magnitude more brazen this time. And also very different because of the way both mainstream and social media have changed things (very much for the worse IMO).

Like, I don't completely know how to explain it, except that the Clarence Thomas thing seemed like a political game being played by politicians against other politicians. Whereas the Kavanaugh thing was also a direct test on the public to see how far we would bend. It was much more sinister.

"Here is a story that is clearly very suspect, and riddled with glaring omissions and problems, and stinking to high heaven of manipulation for political gain - but that's the official story! Do you buy it and not rock the boat? Or do you question it and risk being unpopular?" And you can be sure they were watching closely for things like, how risky WAS it to question the story? and, how much peer pressure is needed to make how many people go with the flow?

In essence, it was the Democratic Party of the United States asking, "How many fingers, Winston?"

As I said, the changed role of the media in that cannot be overstated. As some famous asshole said, "It used to be that the news reported what happened, and it was up to you to figure out what you thought about it. Now the news tells you what you thought about it, and it's up to you to figure out whether anything happened." A big, big problem - much bigger than a lot of people realize.

It's four fingers, by the way. FOUR.

[GoSlash27]

^ Pretty much everything steelreserve said.
It's ridiculous that people aren't allowed to question a narrative without being judged (or even attacked). The irony is that the judgmental zealots are the self- described "tolerant and inclusive" crowd.

[43Hitman]

I almost got into a physical altercation with a guy at work over the Kavenaugh thing. Simply because I was questioning her motives and dissecting the ridiculous narrative the media was pushing down our throats. The dude at work totally lost his shit and started calling me all kinds of names. I just laughed at him and told him that he was showing how intolerant his side really is. That's when he tried to come at me, I just side stepped him and let his fat ass belly take him to the ground. By the way, he was fired and nothing happened to me, thank God for an honest witnesses.

[tom444]

This isn't brain surgery. The point is this. Just because a person appears to remain in, or continues to return to, an abusive relationship it doesn't mean the relationship, and the abuse didn't occur.

[86WARD]

This isn't brain surgery. The point is this. Just because a person appears to remain in, or continues to return to, an abusive relationship it doesn't mean the relationship, and the abuse didn't occur.

Pretty much sums it up.

[Mojouw]

This isn't brain surgery. The point is this. Just because a person appears to remain in, or continues to return to, an abusive relationship it doesn't mean the relationship, and the abuse didn't occur.

Well said.

[AtlantaDan]

So after reviewing the posts in this thread at this point all we know for certain is if Roger Goodell was Chief Justice then Brett Kavanaugh would potentially have been suspended from up to six cases during the past Supreme Court term?

For everyone who had a discussion of what Antonio Brown and a Supreme Court Justice have in common as a potential thread subject this season props to you.

[AtlantaDan]

If true, nice cover story for the Pats and Raiders having to explain why they apparently missed doing full due diligence on asking Rosenhaus about any potential red flags in AB's background

Representatives for New England Patriots receiver Antonio Brown and Britney Taylor were in discussions over the past few months, but agreed their communication would remain confidential until the filing of Taylor's civil sexual assault lawsuit, sources told ESPN on Thursday.

This, the sources say, is why the Patriots and the Oakland Raiders, who released Brown last weekend, would not have known about the matter unless there was a breach in the confidentiality of those discussions.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...d-civil-matter

[steelreserve]

So after reviewing the posts in this thread at this point all we know for certain is if Roger Goodell was Chief Justice then Brett Kavanaugh would potentially have been suspended from up to six cases during the past Supreme Court term?

For everyone who had a discussion of what Antonio Brown and a Supreme Court Justice have in common as a potential thread subject this season props to you.

If Goodell was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he would be liable to overturn Roe v. Wade, because it's your own business how you get across a river.

Then Tony Brown would run in and nut all over his back.

[NCSteeler]

What if the player took the action before he signed the contract rather than takes the action after he signs the contract?

Yup, a half assed lawyer beats that

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[NCSteeler]

"he exposed himself to me so I came back a second time in which he cam on my back so naturally I went to his house after a night out drinking in Miami for food and a squat"

sounds legit to me

You'd be surprised what a woman trying to start a business with millionaire athletes would be willing to over look

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[NCSteeler]

From what I have read, and lawyerese is like a foreign language to me (Dan, I could use some help here)...

She skipped the part where AB could have settled out of court. (AB had no option to quietly make this go away.) She wants a trial.

Now, I know someone will pick apart the semantics and/or certain words, but again, I’m not a lawyer.

Didn't pick up on that. A gold digger would for sure offer a quiet settlement

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[teegre]

Didn't pick up on that. A gold digger would for sure offer a quiet settlement

Yep. That is my point. That is what stuck out to me through the many different “takes” on the subject.

If this were indeed a “cash grab” (as some have suggested), then her lawyer would have had that moment where a settlement discussion occurred. As the article stated (paraphrasing): “She skipped that part.” Why? Because, she wants a trial.

It reminds me of Fred Goldman. Fred didn’t care about the money. He wanted everyone to know exactly what OJ had done. Likewise, this woman is not about the money; she wants everyone to know, read about, hear about what a sick person AB truly is.

[AtlantaDan]

Too bad for AB insanity is not available as a potential defense to liability in civil lawsuits for monetary damages - his lawyers must be dreading him potentially going on social media to discuss plaintiff

[NCSteeler]

Yep. That is my point. That is what stuck out to me through the many different “takes” on the subject.

If this were indeed a “cash grab” (as some have suggested), then her lawyer would have had that moment where a settlement discussion occurred. As the article stated (paraphrasing): “She skipped that part.” Why? Because, she wants a trial.

It reminds me of Fred Goldman. Fred didn’t care about the money. He wanted everyone to know exactly what OJ had done. Likewise, this woman is not about the money; she wants everyone to know, read about, hear about what a sick person AB truly is.

Although, o could easily see crazy Brown and his I'm bigger than everyone craziness staying screw you I didn't do anything wrong.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[EzraTank]

This isn't brain surgery. The point is this. Just because a person appears to remain in, or continues to return to, an abusive relationship it doesn't mean the relationship, and the abuse didn't occur.

And just because she asked for $1.6 million and was turned down doesn't mean she wouldn't make up a story, apply a CIVIL law suit for "damages" to get the money.


[see it works both ways]

For everyone who had a discussion of what Antonio Brown and a Supreme Court Justice have in common as a potential thread subject this season props to you.

Come on Dan, you know what I meant by using the comparison. Of course these two have nothing in common, but the comparison was being applied to the fact that people were saying we're not even allowed to question her story without being labeled something. That comparison is 100% accurate.

If this were indeed a “cash grab” (as some have suggested), then her lawyer would have had that moment where a settlement discussion occurred. As the article stated (paraphrasing): “She skipped that part.” Why? Because, she wants a trial.

You're assuming she wants a trial, but we do not know all the facts. AB might have told his lawyers to tell her to go pound sand she's not getting a dime. If that was the case then she would have no other option but either drop the case or push for a trial.

Believe me if any of this happened I hope AB goes to jail and she takes every last dime of his but good luck proving it. I'm not a lawyer but the only thing she has going for her would be to push this in front of a jury and hope they read (if that's even possible) AB's texts/emails and feels it warrants some $$$. But for the millionth time NONE of us know all the facts.

[NCSteeler]

TB12 better think about their brand association. Surely if he's as dumb as we think he'll blown so crap up on social media one night soon

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[JnK]

Whether or not he raped her there's evidence he jacked off on her back from the texts he wrote. That right there should get him kicked out of the league. It's a really good look for the so-called Shield of the NFL. He's a pig and a poor excuse of a human being. Oh... but wait.... he can catch the shit out of a football.

[tom444]

And just because she asked for $1.6 million and was turned down doesn't mean she wouldn't make up a story, apply a CIVIL law suit for "damages" to get the money.


[see it works both ways]

You just can't get it, can you? No one said she couldn't have made shit up.

[AtlantaDan]

Loooong article on AB in USA Today that I assume was in the works before the lawsuit was announced. Main quoted source on AB’s alleged history of abusing women is stepfather Larry Moss, who has his own issues and no doubt has his own ax to grind

But if this is true it is another stunning example of AB being all and only about AB

Talking about Brown, Moss grew angry while noting Brown's mother said she is starting to look for a second job.


“There’s no way in the world his mother should be looking for no second job with the kind of money he has and what she did for him,’’ Moss said.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...es/2298810001/