Katie Nolan re: Greg Hardy

[indeedproceed]

I don't agree with Roy that Katie Nolan's previous stuff makes her less credible on calling out Greg Hardy. I think Nolan's "approach" isn't especially scandalous or even controversial for her medium, IE humorous, more mature oriented later hour sports talk show. Like I said earlier, the most obvious  sports talk comps to her are I think Simmons and Lebatard. EDIT: I also don't think Katie Nolan's take is especially poignant either. She's not saying anything that hasn't been expressed for almost a year now by many other people from all levels of sports journalism. The story has been under-covered, especially by ESPN, but other outlets have been quite frank about it. Deadspin at the forefront (like usual)

But in no way do I think m5's take there was an accurate representation of what Roy was saying. That was a few bridges too far in my estimation.

[Roy H.]

I don't agree with Roy that Katie Nolan's previous stuff makes her less credible on calling out Greg Hardy. I think Nolan's "approach" isn't especially scandalous or even controversial for her medium, IE humorous, more mature oriented later hour sports talk show. Like I said earlier, the most obvious  sports talk comps to her are I think Simmons and Lebatard.

But in no way do I think m5's take there was an accurate representation of what Roy was saying. That was a few bridges too far in my estimation.

1.  Thank you.

2.  The distinction is some of the racial / sexual humor.  I don't remember that with Simmons (I'm less familiar with LeBatard).  It's fratboy-esque.  I'm not knocking people who laugh at that stuff; good for Katie Nolan.

However, when you traffic in that type of humor -- racist / sexist -- I think it's hard to take it seriously that you're outraged when somebody says "guns blazing" or that he wants to see Giselle at the game.  Those things seem so incongruent; it's hypocritical to say "I can make jokes about Asians, because people are too hyper-sensitive", while then playing the hyper-sensitive card about "guns blazing".

I think it was an awkward stunt for PR, and good for her, I guess.  I just have a hard time accepting that Katie Nolan -- she of the racist / sexist / vulgar jokes -- is really that offended because Greg Hardy said "guns blazing".

Now, if she's offended because Greg Hardy is a disgusting human being who is making millions of dollars to play in America's premier sport, have at it.  That wasn't her rant, though.

[mmmmm]

She's a treat.  Jokes about p0rn, masturbation, Asians, sexual harassment, etc.  It's funny, in a fratboy-esque way, but it's decidedly misogynistic and at times racial.  Basically, her schtick is being a hot girl who wears revealing clothing who says politically incorrect things.  She's maybe not the right messenger to deliver this particular message.

Seriously?

So ... if a girl wears sexy clothes she's not entitled to object if someone fondles her?  Or to call it out if her fellow females are objectified and mistreated?   Is this really what you believe, Roy?

Wow.  I mean just wow.

Do not put words in my mouth.  It's disingenuous.   At worst, you're intentionally twisting my words in a dishonest way to make a personal attack.  At best, your inability to comprehend basic arguments has turned a civil discussion into a volatile one.

My advice:  if you do not have the capacity to discuss matters without twisting them into inaccurate caricatures, do not enter into such discussions.

Anybody who takes my argument -- i.e., Nolan has traded on her looks and stereotypical / sexist / racist / lewd jokes to advance her career, and now seems hypocritical for being morally outraged about Hardy's fairly innocuous statements -- and turns it into a "Nolan wears sexy clothing, so Greg Hardy should be able to fondle her without her defending herself" either has an agenda or has no ability to engage in adult conversation.  If you're trying to be a White Knight Of The Keyboard, you're doing it wrong.

Roy, you are a mod.  And you may ban me or whatever for this.  But you are full of it.

What you said DIRECTLY maps to what I posited.  There is nothing disingenuous about it.  That's exactly how your words read.

You are now trying to deflect (on me) in the worst way by name calling, and frankly, none of this makes you look good.

There is a million miles of difference between what Nolan does, which is to make fun of the mutual sexual foibles of both men and women as a tool for harmless entertainment and what Hardy did, which was to merge sex with violence.

Entertainers can make fun of and utilize lust in humor and drama and entertainment without disrespecting or abusing anyone.  You can lust for a member of the opposite sex and still show honest respect for them.  Billions of couples all over the world do that.   That is a vast distance away from what Hardy said, which was heavily laden with the context of violence.

If you cannot comprehend the void between the two, and if you cannot understand that how a woman's attire or appearance should have NOTHING to do with the credibility of her statements then I submit that it is you, Roy, who are incapable of having an "adult conversation".

Call me a "White Knight of the keyboard" if you want.  It's the childish thing to do.

That this comes from one of our more articulate members make me sad for our culture.  No wonder Donald Trump resonates with so many.

Anybody who reads what I wrote and interprets that to mean "if a girl wears sexy clothes she's not entitled to object if someone fondles her" is either a troll or an imbecile.  It's nothing short of an intentional misrepresentation, or in common parlance, a lie.

So, more name-calling.  Okay, Roy.  We've established the strength of your argument.