Aaron Hernandez

wundergrape said:
Great column.
Click to expand...

Why? It reminded me of the media after the Columbine shootings trying to put the blame on Marilyn Manson. Really think TV shows or video games make people do this?

I would think the death of Hernandez' dad on the operating table when he was going in for a very routine procedure in his late 40's would have more of an impact on the path Hernandez went down than some fake TV show or movie.

Im not sure how close this is to P/C content so I will probably just leave the thread alone after this comment.
 
Those post Columbine columns, while painfully and fatally myopic, were the start of realizing that the symptoms of ethical decay in this country are pervasive. Marylin Manson isn't the problem, because if kids imitate Marylin Manson, they headbang for a few years and then end up in Art School. Marylin Manson didn't advocate ethical relativism - he pushed the boundaries of morality. There's a huge difference.

Criminal worship in this country is about ethics. Jay-Z, Tony Soprano, etc., advocate abandoning ethics for the sake of personal gain by advocating rackateering, which strips people of there personal liberty for the sake of another's personal gain. Heavy Metal and Marilyn Manson, if anything, rallied against such behavior. These are completely different issues you're addressing.

I work with at-risk teenagers every single day. Criminal worship is very, very real and it has an incredible effect on my kids' behavior. I can't speak for every kid out there, but I have seen far more kids get into trouble by emulating "kingpin" movie characters, drug dealers and criminals - openly - than by listening to, dressing like, and worshiping artists openly.
 
Section136 said:
Why? It reminded me of the media after the Columbine shootings trying to put the blame on Marilyn Manson. Really think TV shows or video games make people do this?

I would think the death of Hernandez' dad on the operating table when he was going in for a very routine procedure in his late 40's would have more of an impact on the path Hernandez went down than some fake TV show or movie.

Im not sure how close this is to P/C content so I will probably just leave the thread alone after this comment.
Click to expand...


I didn't take it as him blaming it on an individual as much as him saying the Hernandez situation is a by product of the kind of society we live in today. With the Columbine situation, Marilyn Manson was a scape goat because the two gunmen were big fans of his. I don't look at the two situations the same way.

Whitlock is simply saying that when we live in a society that glamorizes gangsters, rappers, and drug dealers then we shouldn't be surprised a situation like this has happened with a professional athlete. Some sports stars today feel the need to put up a front like they are "gangsters" because that's what's cool. Twenty years ago it was enough just to be a sports star. Hernandez went from pretending like he was "gangster" to actually being a gangster. I think Whitlock is just saying it shouldn't be surprising that an athlete crossed that line.

It's just creepy to think about. While Hernandez was at Florida he posted a picture of himself online wearing a gucci shirt and holding up a Glock. Now tell me... why would a coach not address that or even look into it? Hernandez is also being charged for 5 different weapons violations including not being licensed to carry. After posting that picture online how hard would it have been for a member of the coaching staff at Florida to figure out that not only was he carrying a firearm, but he was doing so illegally? How hard would it have been to address the situation accordingly? That's the part that is so disappointing to me. It seems everyone just turned a blind eye to his behavior because of what he could do on the football field. Does that surprise me? No. Certainly not considering Urban Meyer was his head coach, but it is a bit more surprising he seemed to kind of fly under the radar in New England as well.

Now would it have changed anything had people tried to help him? Probably not, but now we'll never know. This is a big reason why I remain a Kirk Ferentz supporter. He's the kind of person I want to be in charge of the team that I root for most. Of course wins are important, but ultimately they aren't as important as the development of young men. You can't tell me if Kirk was made aware of a situation where a player is glamorizing a picture of himself with handguns that he wouldn't address it. You can't tell me he wouldn't at least try. In fact, I've always wondered if the Iowa staff backed away from their recruitment of Rodney Coe while he was at Iowa Western because of some of his behavior issues. He also posted pictures online of himself holding a gun(s). Seemed like it was about the same time he made it clear to the media that Iowa was no longer talking to him. It isn't all about winning games. That's the difference between a KF and coaches like Urban Meyer, Chip Kelly, Brian Kelly, Mark Dantonio, and Nick Saban. All they care about is winning. They'll do whatever it takes. Kirk knows there are more important things than that, and I appreciate it.
 
Was anyone else alive in the 1970's? As I recall, the most beloved film heroes of that era were morally ambiguous anti-heroes for whom their personal needs superseded the rule of law, not unlike the "kingpin" being maligned in this article. There was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969, The Godfather in 1972, Taxi Driver in 1976, and Mad Max in 1979; This is just a small sample of glorified violence in a previous era, but nobody was blaming Robert DeNiro for David Berkowitz.
 
OLWPAORWWM said:
Was anyone else alive in the 1970's? As I recall, the most beloved film heroes of that era were morally ambiguous anti-heroes for whom their personal needs superseded the rule of law, not unlike the "kingpin" being maligned in this article. There was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969, The Godfather in 1972, Taxi Driver in 1976, and Mad Max in 1979; This is just a small sample of glorified violence in a previous era, but nobody was blaming Robert DeNiro for David Berkowitz.
Click to expand...

in this case, many minorities have no father figure. so many of those children look to something else for leadership. if you don't think that there is influence there to the negative, then i think that is short sighted. the difference from a one-off movie from the 70s to the ever present mainstreaming of a lot of today's garbage is immense. Not only that, but our overall culture has changed from the time period you reference as well.
 
imported_ankle23 said:
in this case, many minorities have no father figure. so many of those children look to something else for leadership. if you don't think that there is influence there to the negative, then i think that is short sighted. the difference from a one-off movie from the 70s to the ever present mainstreaming of a lot of today's garbage is immense. Not only that, but our overall culture has changed from the time period you reference as well.
Click to expand...
That's certainly debatable, and I wouldn't call those movies I listed "Once Off", since they're generally considered culturally significant touchstones and influential in many forms of art over the past 30+ years.

I have to assume that you were not around, or old enough to remember, what the 70's were like. Urban poverty and crime was much, much higher back in those days. Sure, we did not have ubiquitous global media showing those horrors to us on a daily basis like now, but that era was much more violent and dangerous than it is today. A kid growing up without a father in 1973 was MUCH more likely to look up to a real drug dealer who lives next door, as opposed to the 2013 kid, who instead looks up to the actor who plays a drug dealer and follows him on Twitter.
 
OLWPAORWWM said:
Was anyone else alive in the 1970's? As I recall, the most beloved film heroes of that era were morally ambiguous anti-heroes for whom their personal needs superseded the rule of law, not unlike the "kingpin" being maligned in this article. There was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969, The Godfather in 1972, Taxi Driver in 1976, and Mad Max in 1979; This is just a small sample of glorified violence in a previous era, but nobody was blaming Robert DeNiro for David Berkowitz.
Click to expand...

Nobody's blaming James Gandolfini, either, but people most certainly blamed Martin Scorcese for the actions of John Hinckely, Jr.

At any rate, the films you cited were sophisticated works that were heavy in dramatic imagery and marketed to the cultural highbrow. Also, the character of Michael in the Godfather grapples with the issues of ethics. The character of Travis Buddle is presented as being clearly psychotic. Viewers pick up on these subtleties. Much of the kingpin culture today is marketed to casual cultural masses. There's little discernment going on.

Media today is hyper-realistic, presented without adornment and metaphor. That's dangerous if you're not presenting these issues in complex ways, like Breaking Bad does. Not to mention the fact that I never made an attack on film/print media otherwise...just "kingpin worship" in general; I'm not sure who's to blame.

Finally, don't use the term "morally ambiguous" with me. I was very specific when I said that ethical ambiguity is to blame. Morality and its oppressive nature owns some of the culpability in this issue.
 
Another thought: even if you were the type of person to whom the lifestyle of Sonny Corleone appealled in 1972, you still went home, ate dinner, and turned on Laugh-In just like everybody else. Maybe, if you were really into it, you could get back to the theatre 2 or 3 more times until it closed.

Today, a kid can decides he likes it, download it immediately and watch it a hundred times in a row if he wants to. He can make Sonny his avatar online. He can pretend to be guys like Sonny in video games. He can program Sonny's voice as his ringtone. He can literally have The Godfather be a part of his life morning, noon and night.
 
wundergrape said:
Nobody's blaming James Gandolfini, either, but people most certainly blamed Martin Scorcese for the actions of John Hinckely, Jr.

At any rate, the films you cited were sophisticated works that were heavy in dramatic imagery and marketed to the cultural highbrow. Also, the character of Michael in the Godfather grapples with the issues of ethics. The character of Travis Buddle is presented as being clearly psychotic. Viewers pick up on these subtleties. Much of the kingpin culture today is marketed to casual cultural masses. There's little discernment going on.

Media today is hyper-realistic, presented without adornment and metaphor. That's dangerous if you're not presenting these issues in complex ways, like Breaking Bad does. Not to mention the fact that I never made an attack on film/print media otherwise...just "kingpin worship" in general; I'm not sure who's to blame.

Finally, don't use the term "morally ambiguous" with me. I was very specific when I said that ethical ambiguity is to blame. Morality and its oppressive nature owns some of the culpability in this issue.
Click to expand...
I stopped following orders when I left the Navy, so I will use any term I please, and I never addressed you directly, so take your oppositional attitude and direct it towards someone willing to tolerate it.

My main point, and something no one has addressed yet, is that while media may be more violent than in the 1970, society was much more violent then that it is now. We have replaced the real violence with simulated violence. While the correlation does not, in fact, suggest causation, American society has become less violent as the media has become more violent.

Therefore, you cannot be so myopic as to blame Aaron Hernandez' behavior on the culture around him. There are 1,700 wealthy, young men playing in the NFL, and only one of them is executing associates. I guess he's the only football player who listens to Jay-Z.
 
While the article addresses violence specifically, I have not. My argument pertains to unethical behavior, with which this culture seems rife, regardless of whether or not it is on the rise (which, to my way of thinking, is entirely irrelevant).

People's exposure to culture affects their behavior. It affects their desires and the ways they go about achieving them. Multiple studies have shown this to be the case. Something tells me your experiences have shaped your behavior, would you not agree?
 
OLWPAORWWM said:
I stopped following orders when I left the Navy, so I will use any term I please, and I never addressed you directly, so take your oppositional attitude and direct it towards someone willing to tolerate it.

My main point, and something no one has addressed yet, is that while media may be more violent than in the 1970, society was much more violent then that it is now. We have replaced the real violence with simulated violence. While the correlation does not, in fact, suggest causation, American society has become less violent as the media has become more violent.

Therefore, you cannot be so myopic as to blame Aaron Hernandez' behavior on the culture around him. There are 1,700 wealthy, young men playing in the NFL, and only one of them is executing associates. I guess he's the only football player who listens to Jay-Z.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is closer to 3,000 men on NFL rosters (32 teams with 90 man rosters).

I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a widespread problem, nor is anyone specifically blaming the culture around Hernandez. He is responsible for his actions. The culture around him is not, but to suggest it didn't influence him would be pretty naive in my opinion. I think the author was basically trying to say that in today's society it was only a matter of time until an athlete of his caliber crossed the line.
 
DP5555 said:
Actually, there is closer to 3,000 men on NFL rosters (32 teams with 90 man rosters).

I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a widespread problem, nor is anyone specifically blaming the culture around Hernandez. He is responsible for his actions. The culture around him is not, but to suggest it didn't influence him would be pretty naive in my opinion. I think the author was basically trying to say that in today's society it was only a matter of time until an athlete of his caliber crossed the line.
Click to expand...
Obviously I am not implying that anyone is excusing Hernandez for his behavior, however, that conclusion is terribly flawed. "Only a Matter of Time" in today's society? That is a ridiculous ascertation. This terrible crime was not the apex of some horrible machine. It is the action of a clearly sociopathic human being who was influenced only by a lack of empathy.

It is not naive to say that the culture did not influence him. As I said before, society is less violent as the culture has become more violent. Shooting someone in the back of the head is not something you do because it sounds cool on a hip-hop album. It's something you do when you're a psycho.
 
Lots of people shoot others and aren't psychos or sociopaths. Lots of psychos and sociopaths don't shoot people.

Just sayin'.
 
...also, why do you keep mentioning violence, OLWPAORWWM? The article was about corruption, and most of the discussion in this thread has been about ethics/corruption as well.

You've confused the issue.
 
OLWPAORWWM said:
Obviously I am not implying that anyone is excusing Hernandez for his behavior, however, that conclusion is terribly flawed. "Only a Matter of Time" in today's society? That is a ridiculous ascertation. This terrible crime was not the apex of some horrible machine. It is the action of a clearly sociopathic human being who was influenced only by a lack of empathy.

It is not naive to say that the culture did not influence him. As I said before, society is less violent as the culture has become more violent. Shooting someone in the back of the head is not something you do because it sounds cool on a hip-hop album. It's something you do when you're a psycho.
Click to expand...

Too tired from work to really absorb your post, but I wanted to give you props for inventing a very believable sounding word, "ascertation".

You could invent other forms of it, like
"as I already ascertated in a previous post..."
"go back and re-read my posts, not once did I ascertate that..."
etc

Well done!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top