Well, you should apply to ESPN and let them know of all these smart, clever, relateable web/social media presences that can help them drive profits
Sam Ponder & barstool?
- Thread starter ReliableOstrich
- Start date
Well, you should apply to ESPN and let them know of all these smart, clever, relateable web/social media presences that can help them drive profits
Portnoy (and many of his fans) harass people who criticize them all the damn time. It is like the sports version of Gamer gate. Portnoy is a 40+ year old dude who still thinks he is a frat boy. I get why maybe younger people find them entertaining, but the online harassment and stuff they do takes it too far for me. The way he goes after Ponder is flat out indefensible. Clay Travis is the same way to a lesser degree, but the grown man frat boy stuff to me is insufferable.
Approaching things from a different perspective is fine. And there is no question they have a successful busines model. And from that regard I agree with you. People can take it or leave it, and thats up to them. But, the harassment angle isnt just a different perspective. Not only is harassment wrong period, but they dont know all their fans and it can get to a point where it is dangerous. All it takes it one unstable stoolie to take the harassment too far. IT would be bad enough if it was just Portnoy and crew harassing people and having twitter "wars", but its the % of their fans that have no problem doing it for them. Like I said in my previous post, it is similar to gamergate and Milo Yianolopous type stuff.
http://awfulannouncing.com/barstool...rstool-for-defamation-breach-of-contract.html
Michael Rapaport vs. Barstool. This is like when Miami plays Florida and all you want is for both of them to lose.
Michael Rapaport vs. Barstool. This is like when Miami plays Florida and all you want is for both of them to lose.
Add me to the "barstool is trash" team.
They're allowed to exist, but kudos to Ponder for making some noise about that deal, and ESPN for dumping it.
Given their value, I've got to think they dump Portney soon. They're either:
A) An enterprise with a ton of talent and real value, with "in your face" branding and a small minority of their users are garbage people and take it seriously and taint the whole enterprise. In which case they shed those folks as fans and move on based on their legit talent.
B) A $100M enterprise based primarily around the same alt-right, incel BS of appealing to and encouraging the lowest base instincts of rotten people. In which case jettisoning Portney will severely damage the brand and the whole thing will burn.
I'm going to optimistically think it's A. I don't buy the act that there's no in-between either being 100% "woke" all the time, and harassment and the most repugnant statements and positions.
They're allowed to exist, but kudos to Ponder for making some noise about that deal, and ESPN for dumping it.
Given their value, I've got to think they dump Portney soon. They're either:
A) An enterprise with a ton of talent and real value, with "in your face" branding and a small minority of their users are garbage people and take it seriously and taint the whole enterprise. In which case they shed those folks as fans and move on based on their legit talent.
B) A $100M enterprise based primarily around the same alt-right, incel BS of appealing to and encouraging the lowest base instincts of rotten people. In which case jettisoning Portney will severely damage the brand and the whole thing will burn.
I'm going to optimistically think it's A. I don't buy the act that there's no in-between either being 100% "woke" all the time, and harassment and the most repugnant statements and positions.
Read this story earlier this morning too. I think he cleans their clock in this suit.
Below is a blog from the CEO. She does a good enough job explaining who they are and what they are trying to accomplish. It’s a little bit of a long read, but she brings it home nicely in the last few paragraphs by directly addressing the nay sayers.
You can read it and choose to think she is being genuine, or you can read and believe to think Dave put a gun to her head and made her put her name on a blog she really doesn’t believe to be true deep down.
If you choose to believe the latter, then there is nothing that I nor anyone else could ever say or do to make you see them differently.
https://bars.tl/5mJZzANuyQ
You can read it and choose to think she is being genuine, or you can read and believe to think Dave put a gun to her head and made her put her name on a blog she really doesn’t believe to be true deep down.
If you choose to believe the latter, then there is nothing that I nor anyone else could ever say or do to make you see them differently.
https://bars.tl/5mJZzANuyQ
She definitely makes some good points...
"Barstool is an allegory for a lot of things right now that have nothing to do with Barstool Sports, and we live in a time where an agenda is applied to everything, whether there is one or not."
"We are offensive and people will be offended. If you believe there is malicious intent and an agenda behind it, we will never convince you otherwise."
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), we live in a time where anyone can offend anyone else at any given time. Once one person is offended then the topic becomes taboo and there are typically cries to change it or make it right.
The bottom line though is people have a choice. If you don't like what they are saying, don't watch, read, listen, or read what they are putting out there. However, they isn't how the world works right now. Instead people make a big stink because they are offended and they want everything the way they like it...everyone else be damned.
ESPN initially thought bringing them on would be an asset to their network. Then when the uproar started they caved and decided it wasn't worth it. Personally I was surprised ESPN even considered working with them, mainly because of the controversy they should have known would come up. Once they decided to work with Barstool, I was even more surprised they cut ties so quickly. It was almost as if they were caught off guard and didn't know that controversy would eventually surface.
That's just my .02 cents. I don't follow ESPN or Barstool very much and I really don't care if they partner together or not. IMO they both provide entertainment and if someone doesn't like it they should just go elsewhere for entertainment.
"Barstool is an allegory for a lot of things right now that have nothing to do with Barstool Sports, and we live in a time where an agenda is applied to everything, whether there is one or not."
"We are offensive and people will be offended. If you believe there is malicious intent and an agenda behind it, we will never convince you otherwise."
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), we live in a time where anyone can offend anyone else at any given time. Once one person is offended then the topic becomes taboo and there are typically cries to change it or make it right.
The bottom line though is people have a choice. If you don't like what they are saying, don't watch, read, listen, or read what they are putting out there. However, they isn't how the world works right now. Instead people make a big stink because they are offended and they want everything the way they like it...everyone else be damned.
ESPN initially thought bringing them on would be an asset to their network. Then when the uproar started they caved and decided it wasn't worth it. Personally I was surprised ESPN even considered working with them, mainly because of the controversy they should have known would come up. Once they decided to work with Barstool, I was even more surprised they cut ties so quickly. It was almost as if they were caught off guard and didn't know that controversy would eventually surface.
That's just my .02 cents. I don't follow ESPN or Barstool very much and I really don't care if they partner together or not. IMO they both provide entertainment and if someone doesn't like it they should just go elsewhere for entertainment.
I haven't read the links and I don't know anything about Barstool. Can somebody explain the difference between their brand of humor and say, Howard Stern from back in the day? Or South Park? I admittedly love both, although it's been years since I followed Stern. I loved him since the late '80s/early '90s with his radio and WWOR tv show, and later on E!. His show was about as crass and sexist as it gets--not to mention racial, ethnic, and other taboo subjects that were ridiculed on a daily basis. He viciously attacked celebrities and politicians he didn't like or who he felt were hypocrites. Is Barstool like that, or something different? Stern certainly faced criticism and was controversial, but was generally excused as satirical. I would hate to see us at a point where you can't make jokes about anything or anyone without fear of being shut down. Is there another side to this I'm missing?
You’re kidding, right?
- Their fans absolutely do harass people (or at least did in their respective heydays).
- Barstool doesn’t “send their fans” to harass anyone. Some nuts certainly do it on their own, but I’ve never seen a directive from Barstool to attack someone.
Yeah, that was a big part of Howard's schtick. He definitely encouraged his fans to do all sorts of things. I was never one of those fanboy types, but I enjoyed the whole show and the brand of humor. And I'm honest when I ask about Barstool, because I have never read/watched/listened to anything from them. I'm not really at a point where I would devote much time to finding out either, but it sounded eerily similar to what I remember of Stern.
There are definitely some strong similarities to Stern, who I was never a big fan of anyways. But it's not quite the same.
First, the lack of social media significantly diminished how much Stern could weaponize his fans. For one thing, he wasn't national when he was at his most transgressive, but without social media it was very limiting how much hell they could bring down on any one individual.
Second, when Stern was at his "worst", it was 25-30 years ago. He doesn't behave the same way or say the same things he did back then. He used the N-word all the time among many other things he would not do today, and wouldn't be able to do today and get the guests he does.
First, the lack of social media significantly diminished how much Stern could weaponize his fans. For one thing, he wasn't national when he was at his most transgressive, but without social media it was very limiting how much hell they could bring down on any one individual.
Second, when Stern was at his "worst", it was 25-30 years ago. He doesn't behave the same way or say the same things he did back then. He used the N-word all the time among many other things he would not do today, and wouldn't be able to do today and get the guests he does.
Hey, don't get in the way of a good point. It's all about the feels these days.
"What? Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!..."
Stern is a different beast. He'll have his minions do prank celebrity interviews, but, to my knowledge, has never instructed his millions of devoted fans to outright attack someone on social media.
Can you show an instance where Barstool or one of its employees have encouraged their fans to attack someone on social media? If it exists, I'm not aware of it.
Man, you're white-knighting barstool hard. I'm having flashbacks to MadCow.
Honest question. I've been reading Barstool for years, and I don't recall ever having seen that call to action.
You cannot be serious. Just do a Twitter search for my daughter-in-law.
Bring the mountain to Mohammed. Where did anyone at Barstool say “go attack Samantha Ponder”?
I’m not even saying it didn’t happen, just that I haven’t seen it. Where is it?
Portnay just last week posted the personal number of the writer who wrote the last article on twitter. Are you going to say that because he didn't specifically say "go harass this person at their personal number that appears in this tweet" that he wasn't encouraging that? Because if you're going to be that disingenuous about it, it's not worth discussing. He absolutely knows what will happen posting the contact info of someone he's feuding with and that's why he does it, and to claim otherwise is absurd.
Portnoy among others have dogwhistled stoolies on a number of occasions to harass Sam Ponder (among others). To be honest, "dogwhistled" is likely too generous of a word.
To even imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
They are keenly aware of how social media works and how active their fan base is online - they can cowardishly hide behind some kind of plausible deniability or Urkelesque "did I do that" facade but they knew exactly what their fans would do to Sam Ponder when given the slightest bit of encouragement.
I wasn't aware of that -- which is why I'm asking the question. And I'll accept what you're saying as truth, because when I google "Dave Portnoy journalist phone number" I get nothing back.
They're not stupid; of course they know how that a portion of their users will "join the fight" when they're locking horns with someone, but that's still a different thing than them saying "We don't like Samantha Ponder for these reasons -- and we want you all to attack her."
If you find that mindset to be disingenuous or intellectually dishonest, so be it.
I trust you're not naive enough to believe that the only way to weaponize your followers is through such clear and well-articulated pronouncements.
This article contains a very small segment of the harassment. It’s even worse than what’s captured here. https://deadspin.com/sociopathic-barstool-founder-dave-portnoy-giddy-about-1829033370
You can joke about rape, just like everything else, but that didn't read like a joke. It read like a guy just trying to be shocking for the sake of being shocking. Bill Burr, on his podcast, mentions a restaurant that had a sign up inside that read, "We like our beer like we like our violence. Domestic." That's funny, and it's clear that nobody is saying that domestic violence is okay. It's just a joke. However, saying that someone should be raped, and then adding "I'm just joking," that doesn't sound like a joke to me. It just seems like you said something stupid and now you're trying to cover it up.
Stern isn’t for everyone and I haven’t watched/listens to him in years but his shtick seems less mean-spirited and more self-deprecating than these guys. Robin certainly gives him some cover to get away with what he does. Stern is a fantastic interviewer, as well.
That is a heck of a reference Reliable, didnt expect anyone to mention
during this debate
Similar threads
