If you missed the big news about Deshaun Watson, here it is.
I feel like this happens twice a year or so. Some athlete or celebrity gets the weakest punishment for horrific offenses against women (or non-men) and we're left with a handful of us men (I can only speak for myself) railing against the decision and pointing out how unfair it is. We're left pointing out how hypocritical it is. We're left with the task of pointing out these things.
Then we're left with dealing with the preposterous responses from people who think they have a monopoly on "logical thinking" and have a slavish dedication to "due process" while having a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that 1) a person can be culpable of something and not be convicted, and 2) an athlete's job is not a court of law. If you're reading this and thinking you're lost—congratulations. You have probably not spent time on social media after an athlete gets away with terrible offenses with little consequence. Otherwise, yeah, I am talking to you.
Let's point out all the things I didn't want to. Just because I am frustrated and want to give up does not mean I should. You need to read this, anyway.
Calvin Ridley: 17 games for betting
Vontaze Burfict: 12 games for targeting
DeAndre Hopkins: 6 games for PEDs
Martavis Bryant: Indefinitely for marijuana
Josh Gordon: 25+ games for marijuana
Darren Waller: 16 games for substance abuse
Deshaun Watson: 6 games for 25 (30 settled by the Browns) SV accusations
Do you think I'm cherry-picking particular cases to point out how weak Watson's suspension is? I am. The bigger question is, what makes you feel the need to defend Watson's suspension instead of being concerned about athletes and their lack of consequences for committing terrible things against women? Think about that.
To wrap this up for you, that's 23 claims settled by Watson, 30 settled by the Texans, a "pattern of egregious behavior" was found in the investigation, and Judge Sue L. Robinson’s decision also requires no massages other than directed by club personnel and no adverse involvement with no law enforcement. Is this what you're defending? Look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're comfortable defending these behaviors and ask yourself why.
Who Are You?
I am going to paste a comment directly from Twitter. I don't want to give this person a platform, but if you want to verify it is real, you can reach me on Twitter.
"If he really violated them then why would they settle? don’t make sense. R kelly ended up going to jail and he didn’t. that tell me one thing and i don’t care how many people don’t like it."
Pay no attention to the idiotic lack of syllogism of his argument. If you are, we can easily say that the inverse of the argument is more accurate—if he did not commit (seriously 30) acts of assault, why was Watson so quick and eager to settle them all? It was so that he would not go to jail. Now that we've dispensed with that moronic opinion, I ask you again—why are you finding the need to defend this man instead of condemning his actions? Forget the "do you have a wife, daughter, or mother" question. Empathy should not require a man to have this connection. Instead, ask yourself if you would be okay with your wife or daughter reading your argument defending a man found guilty of "egregious behavior." He sexually assaulted these women. Go soak your head and beg for forgiveness.
I broke some unwritten fourth wall with this because I am tired of preaching to the choir. If I have any hope that I am preaching to the choir, sometimes that is how you get them to sing.
Watson does not need a single defender. The man is getting away with sexual assault by missing six football games. Watson is still going to get paid millions. Watson is still going to be an NFL quarterback, and he will get the glory he seeks. This I promise you. I am sure I will be writing about this topic again, unfortunately. Until then, don't go defending these actions. Be better.