Deshaun Watson spotted at Innisfree Tuscaloosa

dadleyblane5

All-SEC
Apr 19, 2011
1,644
0
0
DeFuniak Springs Fl.
That's not really true, at least in relation to what I said. Now, in B1G's defense, I'm not sure he intended to come off quite like he did, as I was arguing with what he said which might not be how he might actually feel. But what he said was along the lines of there's no issue with Watson going there because it's a free country, yet right after the he expressed the sentiment that there's something wrong with people who took exception to that. Both of those things though fall under freedom of expression!

Now, the truth is this entire topic is non-sports as it never had anything to do with actions on a football field. Having said that it is the offseason. To make things a bit more clear, freedoms are allowable to the point of infringement. In this case, Watson had a right to go into a bar even though he obviously knew this might cause an adverse reaction. On the other hand, every single patron in that bar has ever right to be incensed by his being there and to express their displeasure! The only point in which that might veer into infringement upon his rights or the rights of the proprietors would be at the point he was asked to leave. Even then, the manner in which it was done would dictate if it was an infringement. For instance if someone said "I'd really prefer you not be in here" how on earth is that anything other than their exercising their right to freedom of expression? It is only when and if they (assuming they are not the proprietor) took it upon themselves to deny him access or threaten him with harm that it becomes anything beyond that.

That's how freedom works, or at least how it should work. Freedom can't be applied in a one way manner, and it can't end at the point it effects others but rather at the point it infringes on others. Merely causing a negative reaction is not reason enough to deny me my rights. I take exception to fact that people often use their right to freedom of speech or what have you, to do things then claim their rights are violated when people respond to their actions. The right to do something is not the right to live free of consequences.
Krazy, I agree with you, and everyone is free to do as they wish, but nobody can tell me that Deshaun didn't know already that something like that could happen. To me, it's like teasing the bull. Could our guys handled it a little bit differently?...maybe...but we don't know what was said or how they said it to him. Gotta give him credit for having the kehonas to go into a Bama bar after beating us for the Natty. That's kinda like rubbing it in the face. Whether it was intentional or unintentional. We don't know what patrons were in that bar that recognized Watson and in their alcoholic state were offended that he came in there, especially after a lot of fans still sore about those pick plays. Maybe Ryan went up to him and just said " Hey man, there's some people in here that might start some crap, it might be a good idea if you leave". So, with that said, we don't know exactly what happened in there, and therefore I can't/won't judge another for their actions without knowing their intent.
 
Last edited:

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,517
23,899
187
That's not really true, at least in relation to what I said. Now, in B1G's defense, I'm not sure he intended to come off quite like he did, as I was arguing with what he said which might not be how he might actually feel. But what he said was along the lines of there's no issue with Watson going there because it's a free country, yet right after the he expressed the sentiment that there's something wrong with people who took exception to that. Both of those things though fall under freedom of expression!

Now, the truth is this entire topic is non-sports as it never had anything to do with actions on a football field. Having said that it is the offseason. To make things a bit more clear, freedoms are allowable to the point of infringement. In this case, Watson had a right to go into a bar even though he obviously knew this might cause an adverse reaction. On the other hand, every single patron in that bar has ever right to be incensed by his being there and to express their displeasure! The only point in which that might veer into infringement upon his rights or the rights of the proprietors would be at the point he was asked to leave. Even then, the manner in which it was done would dictate if it was an infringement. For instance if someone said "I'd really prefer you not be in here" how on earth is that anything other than their exercising their right to freedom of expression? It is only when and if they (assuming they are not the proprietor) took it upon themselves to deny him access or threaten him with harm that it becomes anything beyond that.

That's how freedom works, or at least how it should work. Freedom can't be applied in a one way manner, and it can't end at the point it effects others but rather at the point it infringes on others. Merely causing a negative reaction is not reason enough to deny me my rights. I take exception to fact that people often use their right to freedom of speech or what have you, to do things then claim their rights are violated when people respond to their actions. The right to do something is not the right to live free of consequences.
Your freedoms end where someone else's begin. He was free to eat there unaccosted. Others had the right to be upset in seeing him (juvenile though that may be), but that right does not extend to a right to accost him, physically or verbally. But, more importantly, what happened to him was wrong. Forget the law. Integrity matters. Those who accosted him have none.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,451
1,135
187
41
www.myspace.com
nobody can tell me that Deshaun didn't know already that something like that could happen.
Of course he knew, and anyone being honest would admit that. The question is not whether or not he knew he might provoke some people by going in there, most people just think that the Alabama fans should have been the better men so to speak. And I don't argue with that either really, the point I would argue is that sides both made a choice, and neither are especially villainous and neither are blameless. To portray one as doing no wrong and entirely blame the other is unfair in my opinion. There are plenty of bars in the world where certain people just stepping foot in one would be to instigate a fight. What happened here was neither shocking nor all that troubling.

Your freedoms end where someone else's begin. He was free to eat there unaccosted. Others had the right to be upset in seeing him (juvenile though that may be), but that right does not extend to a right to accost him, physically or verbally.
Putting aside whose side you take (I see responsibility on both sides), we can debate at what point harassment begins and the finer points of the law, but that wasn't my point. My point is that our right to freedom of expression does not end at the point it bothers other people, in fact that's the point in which it must be upheld (no one needs to have their popular and well received actions protected). I already said they (non-proprietors) had no right to ask him to leave, but to say they have no right to express their discontent with his being there? That only Watson was allowed to do something provocative (which is being there was)? The only people that should have the right to deny either of those things in that particular establishment would be the proprietors themselves. Now, accosting him, harassing him, I think we can debate what forms of expressing discontent cross the line and which ones don't, but let me be as clear as possible on this. My right to express my displeasure with someone, to their face, is one of my most basic rights and if someone chooses to enter a public space, they do so knowing full well other people can see them and interact with them. If they wish to avoid interacting with other people, it is incumbent upon them to avoid being around people. It is not incumbent upon me to bite my tongue.

To reiterate, our rights do not end when they become uncomfortable or unpopular, that is precisely the point in which they become so important. Lest we go in circles, I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,451
1,135
187
41
www.myspace.com
Actually, they do. This is why you get fired, sued and potentially face jail time for harassment of any kind.
To reiterate, I do not wish to go in circles, nor do I wish to defend all American laws, which sometimes trample upon our rights. Having said that, you seem to be failing to differentiate between harassment and freedom of expression which is one of our most basic rights:

"harassment
(either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.
"
"harassment
1 the offence in England of using threatening or abusive or insulting words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be harassed thereby: Public Order Act 1986.
"

Now, please read over what I said again and you will be able to clearly see that I did not defend harassment as a right, but I did defend the right to express displeasure. That's a basic right, we all have that right. The law does not see fit to allow that to the point of harassment and I'm not trying to argue that. But, if it is not systematic, abusing, or threatening, what grounds do you have to deny me my right to my freedom of expression?

It's an unfortunate fact that we now live in a world in which people have imagined that my rights end where someone else gets their feelings hurt. That my rights end where they infringe upon someone's imagined safe space. That's not how it works and it's not how it should work. Watson had every right to step into that bar, and the patrons had every right to express their displeasure at that. That's the simple fact, and it's disheartening to hear that some would defend one right and muzzle people before they use the other. If anyone really disagrees with that, you're not disagreeing with me so much as freedom of expression itself.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,517
23,899
187
But, if it is not systematic, abusing, or threatening, what grounds do you have to deny me my right to my freedom of expression?
When it infringes on my freedom, I have every right. Let me give you the best example - let's say that you are single and there is a beautiful, single woman at work. You are just a co-worker, so not in a position of authority. Now, let's say that you walk up to this woman and tell her that you think that she has beautiful breasts, or a great behind. You are just telling the truth. You aren't even trying to scare her or anything else. But you make her uncomfortable. You can and should be fired. In America, you could lose your entire career over this - for saying something which is true, without ill intent. You don't even have to do it twice - just once is enough if she can prove that you said it.

Now, only an idiot would do this because only an idiot would fail to see how this might make the girl feel uncomfortable. But this is not systemic at your company, it is not abusive, and it is not threatening - heck, you only did it once - but you still will not get away with it if she is made to feel uncomfortable by it.

You may feel that this is wrong, but it took this to end the culture of abuse. 30 years ago, before we changed the laws to protect women, these idiots were everywhere and women across America were subjected to this behavior on a daily basis. In America, we no longer look the other way when neanderthals say or do things. We are a better nation for it.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
9,451
1,135
187
41
www.myspace.com
You can and should be fired.
Ok, this is helplessly spiralling off-topic. But, you can't muddle things up so much! Really, a right, in terms of my rights as an American citizen, and the practices of an employer as two entirely different things. As a libertarian this whole discussion is incredibly frustrating because it need not take place if people differentiate some very basic things. One needs to know the difference though. The bar can't fire someone that doesn't work for them! Their right to fire someone is in and of itself an expression though. Some of your examples are all over the place and not relevant to the original discussion. I wasn't talking about harassment, and I certainly wasn't talking about things in the sense of what is a fireable offense (though your example didn't actually infringe upon anyone's freedom). I was talking about rights, and I might add you are the one who brought those up in the first place! I took offense and continue to take offense to mucking up the difference in these things. Just look it up, and I say that sincerely. People need to understand their rights, they need to understand the limits and the extent of those rights. It's a very important thing.

Edit: Perhaps the best way to put this to bed is to point out that as far as I know, no one was arrested and no one broke the law. Both parties acted as they saw fit, both might have run afoul doing what is moral or polite but as far as I'm aware neither did anything wrong in a criminal sense. And that is after all what we're discussing in terms of rights.
 
Last edited:

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
37,517
23,899
187
Ok, this is helplessly spiralling off-topic. But, you can't muddle things up so much! Really, a right, in terms of my rights as an American citizen, and the practices of an employer as two entirely different things. As a libertarian this whole discussion is incredibly frustrating because it need not take place if people differentiate some very basic things. One needs to know the difference though. The bar can't fire someone that doesn't work for them! Their right to fire someone is in and of itself an expression though. Some of your examples are all over the place and not relevant to the original discussion. I wasn't talking about harassment, and I certainly wasn't talking about things in the sense of what is a fireable offense (though your example didn't actually infringe upon anyone's freedom). I was talking about rights, and I might add you are the one who brought those up in the first place! I took offense and continue to take offense to mucking up the difference in these things. Just look it up, and I say that sincerely. People need to understand their rights, they need to understand the limits and the extent of those rights. It's a very important thing.
You want to pretend that because you cannot be arrested for an offense, that means that you still have the "right" to do it. That is incorrect, and it is why we created civil laws - to protect our civil rights - to produce a civil society.

I'll let you have the last word, because I really cannot provide more clarity here. You either get it or you do not.
 

CoastGhost

Hall of Fame
Sep 5, 2009
5,628
48
67
North Carolina
He doesn't have to explain why he was in Tuscaloosa. Free country. Anyone who has a problem with him being there needs to grow up.
You are the one who broached his motive for being in Tuscaloosa. You want to keep this conversation about what is right or wrong "according to Hoyle's" ... the obvious truths we all learned in kindergarten. The real world is not like that, not in Alabama and not in Ohio. Obviously someone in that situation needs to grow up and still, any sensible person could have predicted potential trouble in this situation. Watson will never be beloved by all in Tuscaloosa; that is just a fact, no moral judgement either way. And "growing up" is universal, not only for the least among us. Yes, Watson has every right to be anywhere and owes nobody an explanation. He can attend a klan rally if he chooses to do so. I am not defending anything or anyone; you are assigning motive to my posts and arguing with your imagination.

... and feel free to pick some 7 foot, 300# drunk Bubba, thump him on his 20 year old chest and tell him to "grow up"
 
Last edited:

GreatMarch

All-SEC
Dec 10, 2010
1,432
0
0
Birmingham, AL
I have not read this entire thread but from what I have read, everyone is missing the major point of this incident. You are the starting QB of a school that just won a national championship and you are dating a woman who, as I understand attends a different school; albeit the school that lost said national championship game.

Doesn't speak well of girls at Clemson!
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
15,045
4,169
187
I have not read this entire thread but from what I have read, everyone is missing the major point of this incident. You are the starting QB of a school that just won a national championship and you are dating a woman who, as I understand attends a different school; albeit the school that lost said national championship game.

Doesn't speak well of girls at Clemson!
Where did AJ's wife attend?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk