scoobdog

Fuck you.

I mean, by definition, joking about snipers on the day in history when JFK was taken out by a sniper isn't going to be all that funny. It could be in the right circumstances, but it's a difficult thing to pull off well.

Let's just say sniper jokes on November 22 are a really bad look.

Oh shit... I'm censoring that.

Give me your wings and we got a deal. I'll even thrown in the bluecheese.

It's for the carrot sticks and celery that no one ever eats.

GTFO

More like smell you.

You all know you're not supposed to dip your wings in the blue cheese / ranch, right?

Well, there is definitely something wrong now. Your antisocial tendencies arr stopping you from functioning. Whether you are suffering from a condition or just psychosis, you need some kind of help resolving your issues

... fair ... gentleman? You mean fine gentleman?

Well, not a whole lot of people thought you would need to make more than $35k a year to make a living.

It's a good thing.... Well that didn't last long.

Shut up, dumbass.

It sounds like he hasn't been diagnosed with anything, or, more accurately, has been avoiding any attempt to be diagnosed.

Targeting has always been illegal (used to be called spearing). Studies have shown that even normally legal tackles, particularly those that are at speed can still cause brain injury. Really, we can go at this forever: the point isn't to specifically demonize the sport as it is - I'm just pointing out that aggressive football players that exhibit problematic behavior is part of the "acceptable" risk that comes with the sport as its currently formed.

That is not true. You need to socialize to survive. At some point, you will have to learn how to deal with other people in a cooperative manner even if it's something as simple as going to the grocery store.

You're missing something. In particular "Playing your heart out" includes tackling, does it not?

An obvious lie.

But what is sportsmanship when it comes to a violent sport? Setting aside the obvious issues surrounding things like domestic violence and abuse, those things that have global social ramifications, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable aggression?

Perhaps what we should be discussing is why Myles Garrett was as aggressive as he was. There are limits to rationality that can be applied, especially when it comes to a sport where it has proven that most, it not all, of its players endure some form of traumatic brain injury.

Not really, no. Like you said, using a helmet as a cudgel is disproportional regardless of what Rudolph said so what he said has no bearing.

There were some subtle clues that there was more than just him tugging on his helmet.

I seem to recall Garrett being vague when offering his apology immediately after the incident. He wasn't accusing Rudolph or anyone else of anything, per se, but it really seemed odd that he would lose his cool like that especially after its clear that there is jawing just before he starts swinging. So, it doesn't seem unlikely that Garrett at least sincerely thought Rudolph used the epithet before he started swinging. Regardless of whether or not it was acceptable, an indefinite ban is not in line. It amounts to Goodell being like a parent that tell his kids that he'll "reconsider" an indefinite grounding as soon as he thinks the've learned their lesson. There are a lot of problems with this approach, and it does nothing to address the larger issue of aggression American football.

Yes, that's got to be what it is. GOD DAMN IT. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK