US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cray said:
The police had nothing to do with it - she is a public face of that network, if the network feels that what she said might affect revenue or sponsors they have every right to fire her - I don't think they should but it is their right and she is still welcome to hold that position regardless of whether she has that job or not.
Click to expand...

So a public person cannot express an opinion which is unpopular, especially on a show dealing with current affairs?
 
cerebus said:
Really? Not afraid of your colleagues taking offense to the fact that you look like a minstrel show? I would expect to be at least cautioned, maybe even fired, for pulling that **** in the office.



It's 100% relevant and you know it.
Click to expand...
Theres the problem... what others choose to be offended by is subjective and not my problem...
 
Emjay said:
So a public person cannot express an opinion which is unpopular, especially on a show dealing with current affairs?
Click to expand...
Of course they can, but they must realise that if that opinion is considered unacceptable to sponsors then there may be consequences - if you think freedom of speech has no consequences try calling your boss an a***hole..
 
RaptorSA said:
I knew you were going to disseminate the word "consequences" to muddy the water when any sane person reading that sentence knows full-well what I meant....

so I pre-compiled this message so I could post it within seconds of your reply.

That's the thing about NPC's, their predictability...
Click to expand...
'Twas thou who used the word "consequences" originally.
I just fed you back your bullshit word, then.
 
RaptorSA said:
Perfect example of a NPC script running.
The whole f***ing point is that speech should not have any consequences... something that the lefties just don't get.
Click to expand...
Yeah tell that to the trove of lawyers who have become millionaires from libel suites.
 
Cray said:
The police had nothing to do with it - she is a public face of that network, if the network feels that what she said might affect revenue or sponsors they have every right to fire her - I don't think they should but it is their right and she is still welcome to hold that position regardless of whether she has that job or not.
Click to expand...
The official police doesn't need to be involved. Anybody(in authority)can police anything.


Edit: Anyway I agree the network has the right to or should have the right to fire her according to on their wim and according to the legal contracts between them. Hopefully the viewers now realise they are a buch of idiots and move somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Temujin said:
Theres the problem... what others choose to be offended by is subjective and not my problem...
Click to expand...

It's your problem when it comes to workplace etiquette, and the public face of the company. That's the stuff you signed off in your contract, and the more of a public persona you have, the more seriously the company needs to treat your behavior.
 
Cray said:
Of course they can, but they must realise that if that opinion is considered unacceptable to sponsors then there may be consequences - if you think freedom of speech has no consequences try calling your boss an a***hole..
Click to expand...

I don't think freedom of speech does not have consequences. We however should try be open to all opinions, and realise that they are just that, opinions, and not form mobs to try and hurt the person who makes us feel uncomfortable because they said something I do not like. She was not being racist. Her show is being cancelled because a few people take offense to something that is not there.
 
Cray said:
Of course they can, but they must realise that if that opinion is considered unacceptable to sponsors then there may be consequences - if you think freedom of speech has no consequences try calling your boss an a***hole..
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech in your example would be calling your boss an arsehole. (I have been called an arsehole plenty of times).

However, I have thick skin and tell them if they don't like it they can leave. So they are free to say what they want, doesn't mean it now has consequences... It's up to the other party I guess.
 
Cray said:
Without an ability to enforce it, said policing is toothless though...
Click to expand...
They have that ability. They enforced it.
They policed her opinion, told her what she is allowed to think and then enforced a punishment.
 
buka001 said:
Yeah tell that to the trove of lawyers who have become millionaires from libel suites.
Click to expand...

Good point. Defamation suits are bu***it.

"Defamation Law: The Basics
The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel."

Jesus, imagine if every prominent person on the right currently used that against the media.
 
cerebus said:
It's your problem when it comes to workplace etiquette, and the public face of the company. That's the stuff you signed off in your contract, and the more of a public persona you have, the more seriously the company needs to treat your behavior.
Click to expand...
I agree there is etiquette etc... problem is, how does, in this situation, having an opinion on a discussion panel fall into 'the more seriously the company needs to treat your behavior'? It doesn't. What is wrong with her behaviour? She gave a different opinion on it, the horror, totally unacceptable. Its like all the bs on the twittards. Companies firing people cos sm is 'offended'. How can there be any discussion or debate on a subject if people who don't share the collectives views are just going to be fired for it. You can't, it becomes pointless. They should have just given her a script that panders to the twittards or never had the discussion to begin with, cos clearly, a discussion isn't allowed, unless its an echo chamber of everyone agreeing with eachother, ie, there is no discussion. Its another example of the tolerant left being their tolerant selves, how dare anyone speak outside the collectives established view.
 
rietrot said:
They have that ability. They enforced it.
They policed her opinion, told her what she is allowed to think and then enforced a punishment.
Click to expand...
Nope, they told her what she is not allowed to say on their TV station when they are paying her salary. She is still free to defend black face to her hearts content on other platforms, maybe she should start a blog?
 
What's ironic is that these types of behaviour are promoting intolerance.

@cerebus - I remember you posting something about intent when we were debating Sarah Jeong. Have you now changed your mind?

cerebus said:
I'm not sure you can demand that we apply the 'same set of rules' to everyone. A German making a Jewish joke is qualitatively different from a Jew making a German joke. I think you need to evaluate each case very carefully for the context and intent. In this case, you also need to evaluate who is braying for equal justice blood, and what their intentions really are.
Click to expand...
 
Temujin said:
I agree there is etiquette etc... problem is, how does, in this situation, having an opinion on a discussion panel fall into 'the more seriously the company needs to treat your behavior'? It doesn't. What is wrong with her behaviour? She gave a different opinion on it, the horror, totally unacceptable. Its like all the bs on the twittards. Companies firing people cos sm is 'offended'. How can there be any discussion or debate on a subject if people who don't share the collectives views are just going to be fired for it. You can't, it becomes pointless. They should have just given her a script that panders to the twittards or never had the discussion to begin with, cos clearly, a discussion isn't allowed, unless its an echo chamber of everyone agreeing with eachother, ie, there is no discussion. Its another example of the tolerant left being their tolerant selves, how dare anyone speak outside the collectives established view.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't know why the execs at NBC didn't foresee it happening. They knew what kind of person she was, and they still offered her an $18m and her own show. She's a timebomb of racial insensitivity and race-baiting - it's basically what her whole career was built on - and now they're sitting with the mess they created. It's very similar to the Roseanne Barr story.
 
Emjay said:
I don't think freedom of speech does not have consequences. We however should try be open to all opinions, and realise that they are just that, opinions, and not form mobs to try and hurt the person who makes us feel uncomfortable because they said something I do not like. She was not being racist. Her show is being cancelled because a few people take offense to something that is not there.
Click to expand...
I do agree with your first part, but you simply saying that something isn't racist is just silly - you have to context and history into account. The fact is that black face is considered racist by a lot of people in the US.
 
cerebus said:
Honestly I don't know why the execs at NBC didn't foresee it happening. They knew what kind of person she was, and they still offered her an $18m and her own show. She's a timebomb of racial insensitivity and race-baiting - it's basically what her whole career was built on - and now they're sitting with the mess they created. It's very similar to the Roseanne Barr story.
Click to expand...
Yup...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...t-comments-white-supremacy-column/1760679002/

Megyn Kelly was making racist comments long before 'blackface.' NBC hired her anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X