Dumb Political Correctness

Mr. Deez said:
I don't feel sorry for this lady. First, n-bombs are offensive. The people who are offended by them have good reason to be. Second, though you have a right to drop n-bombs, you don't have a right to be free of the consequences of dropping them. Finally, the news channel has a reputation to protect. If it becomes public knowledge that one of their on-air personalities drops n-bombs, they have a right not to be associated with that person.

Location makes a big difference. I heard a guy doing play by play during a Temple High School football game use the word "jigaboo" on the air. Nobody cared. Do the same thing or worse in Detroit where the viewing audience is largely black and urban, and people will care.
Click to expand...

What a cracker! Off with her head. Well, at least she didn't drop the "p" word, which is really bad but only detectable by someone who is black and had just crapped in his own hat-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-comment-irks-lebron-james-business-partner/

I think Tupac said it best:

I see no changes all I see is racist faces
Misplaced hate makes disgrace to races
We under I wonder what it takes to make this
One better place, let's erase the wasted

And although it seems heaven sent
We ain't ready, to see a black President
It ain't a secret don't conceal the fact
The penitentiary's packed, and it's filled with blacks
 
Joe Fan said:
Probably was not the right thread for that, but there wasn't another I saw that might work
And didnt want to start another one
Nonetheless, it does display double-standard

I think she also once accidentally dropped an F-bomb on the air
Click to expand...

Certainly there is a double standard, but the station is a business and has to do what's best for its owners and investors. If some black dude with the station called somebody a cracker, he probably wouldn't get fired, because very few would care. However, if they had kept this woman on the air when everybody knew she dropped n-bombs, the protests would be endless, and eventually they'd lose sponsors.
 
Joe Fan said:
Update -- Campus police refused to let him speak, and forced him off campus
Tell me again who are the fascists in America?
Click to expand...


One of the Chicago papers actually spoke out against the school censorship, if you can believe it
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ech-schapiro-edit-1118-md-20161117-story.html

"..... Back on campus, the hand-wringing persists. DePaul, as a private university, controls campus access and can approve or refuse guests as it sees fit. This isn't a First Amendment right to assembly issue; it's an issue of academic exploration. Universities can give in to the demands of students and others who won't tolerate disagreeable ideas, or they can uphold the standards of academic freedom and free expression Holtschneider espoused.

In this case, DePaul had a few days' notice and could have allowed Shapiro to appear with adequate security on hand. That would have served the interests of students and made a powerful statement about a university as a marketplace of ideas. Students would have heard Shapiro, engaged him and reached their own conclusions about the values and merits of the conservatism in the era of Trump.

True, there is a lot of confusion today about the country's political direction. There is polarization, there are hard feelings. That's part of life in a democracy. Learning how to confront political differences in a civilized manner is a tough lesson to embrace. Unfortunately, DePaul missed another chance to play the role of enlightened teacher."
 
Mr. Deez said:
Certainly there is a double standard, but the station is a business and has to do what's best for its owners and investors. If some black dude with the station called somebody a cracker, he probably wouldn't get fired, because very few would care. However, if they had kept this woman on the air when everybody knew she dropped n-bombs, the protests would be endless, and eventually they'd lose sponsors.
Click to expand...


She posted something pro-Trump after the election was over (on FB)
920x920.jpg


1024x1024.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
She posted something pro-Trump after the election was over (on FB)
920x920.jpg


1024x1024.jpg
Click to expand...

Unless the Texas Supreme Court recognizes or the Texas Legislature authorizes a cause of action for wrongful termination for stating one's political beliefs (no chance in hell), this sort of thing is going to happen.

She'll be OK though. She's hot, so Fox News will hire her.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Unless the Texas Supreme Court recognizes or the Texas Legislature authorizes a cause of action for wrongful termination for stating one's political beliefs (no chance in hell), this sort of thing is going to happen....
Click to expand...

Apparently the policy is clear.
What might be unclear is its' application.
For ex, what happened in 2008 and 2012?
 
Joe Fan said:
Apparently the policy is clear.
What might be unclear is its' application.
For ex, what happened in 2008 and 2012?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they did nothing to employees who were pro-Obama. But without a cause of action, none of that matters.
 
Joe Fan said:
I dont know the answer to that
Other employees there say corporate policy regarding this topic is clear, but it dont know what was in her contract.
Click to expand...

If it was in the contract (and we have no reason to believe that it was) then she could have a breach of contract action. However, she wouldn't have a wrongful termination action.
 
Mr. Deez said:
If it was in the contract (and we have no reason to believe that it was) then she could have a breach of contract action. However, she wouldn't have a wrongful termination action.
Click to expand...

Again. That was never the point and, unless something has changed, she is not suing.
 
Joe Fan said:
Again. That was never the point and, unless something has changed, she is not suing.
Click to expand...

I get that. I brought up the legal angle, because allowing people like her to sue is the only way you'd be able to stop this sort of thing.

And perhaps she's not suing because she can't find someone willing to take her case on a contingent fee.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm sure they did nothing to employees who were pro-Obama. But without a cause of action, none of that matters.
Click to expand...

All of this assumes she was actually fired for espousing her beliefs on Facebook. At this point we only have her word to go on. I've worked in HR at some very liberal companies (it is Seattle after all) and never have I seen anyone fired for statements strictly made outside of work. The station won't and can't comment thus she has the soapbox to herself to shape the dialogue of why she was fired. The real reason is likely different that what she is claiming. If she wasn't offered some sort of severance agreement then she ****** up bigly at work.
 
Mr. Deez said:
...And perhaps she's not suing because she can't find someone willing to take her case on a contingent fee.
Click to expand...

Could be.
But that's not the impression I got. Which was she is fine, will be fine, let it pass.
But, we, the audience, lost something. Can we sue?
 
Seattle Husker said:
I've worked in HR at some very liberal companies (it is Seattle after all) and never have I seen anyone fired for statements strictly made outside of work.
Click to expand...

The difference is you weren't in the HR dept when the liberals lost their mind because Trump got elected President. Of course I'm assuming you aren't working HR now.
 
I35 said:
The difference is you weren't in the HR dept when the liberals lost their mind because Trump got elected President. Of course I'm assuming you aren't working HR now.
Click to expand...

I'm in HR Technology, so yes I still have ties to HR but I'd say that HR doesn't react that quick. What HR departments that anyone has dealt with would call them agile? ;)
 
Seattle Husker said:
All of this assumes she was actually fired for espousing her beliefs on Facebook. At this point we only have her word to go on. I've worked in HR at some very liberal companies (it is Seattle after all) and never have I seen anyone fired for statements strictly made outside of work. The station won't and can't comment thus she has the soapbox to herself to shape the dialogue of why she was fired. The real reason is likely different that what she is claiming. If she wasn't offered some sort of severance agreement then she ****** up bigly at work.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I am analyzing the issue under the assumption that her version of the facts is entirely accurate, because I don't have any controverting facts. Presumably the network will have a different side of the story.

Having said that, I think the willingness of a company to fire someone for their out-of-work statements has less to do with ideology and more to do with the visibility of the employee and how critical public relations are for that company (which will depend in part on what kind of company it is). For example, if someone found out that the janitor at a GM plant "pulled a Donald Sterling" outside of work, I doubt they'd fire him if he was a decent janitor. (Of course, most janitors don't have enough money to have hot, skanky mistresses running around with basketball players (white or black), but that's beside the point.) However, when Donald Sterling "pulled a Donald Sterling," it cost him his franchise.

The difference is that the janitor isn't prominent enough in the company to reflect on the company. Sterling was the face of the LA Clippers and a very important figure within the NBA, so his presence and his racial comments reflected on the franchise and the league. That made his stupid comments a lot more damaging. LA fans (especially black ones) aren't going to pay their hard-earned money to make some rich racist guy richer, and it wouldn't take long for that to hurt the league's bottom line pretty hard.

I think the news chick's position is more like Sterling's. She's not an owner, but since she's part of the on-air talent, she definitely reflects on the network.
 
Joe Fan said:
Could be.
But that's not the impression I got. Which was she is fine, will be fine, let it pass.
But, we, the audience, lost something. Can we sue?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the audience could sue if they replace her with someone who's less attractive. :cool:
 
Mr. Deez said:
You are correct. I am analyzing the issue under the assumption that her version of the facts is entirely accurate, because I don't have any controverting facts. Presumably the network will have a different side of the story.

Having said that, I think the willingness of a company to fire someone for their out-of-work statements has less to do with ideology and more to do with the visibility of the employee and how critical public relations are for that company (which will depend in part on what kind of company it is). For example, if someone found out that the janitor at a GM plant "pulled a Donald Sterling" outside of work, I doubt they'd fire him if he was a decent janitor. (Of course, most janitors don't have enough money to have hot, skanky mistresses running around with basketball players (white or black), but that's beside the point.) However, when Donald Sterling "pulled a Donald Sterling," it cost him his franchise.

The difference is that the janitor isn't prominent enough in the company to reflect on the company. Sterling was the face of the LA Clippers and a very important figure within the NBA, so his presence and his racial comments reflected on the franchise and the league. That made his stupid comments a lot more damaging. LA fans (especially black ones) aren't going to pay their hard-earned money to make some rich racist guy richer, and it wouldn't take long for that to hurt the league's bottom line pretty hard.

I think the news chick's position is more like Sterling's. She's not an owner, but since she's part of the on-air talent, she definitely reflects on the network.
Click to expand...

That's certainly plausible. I'd suspect that is spelled out in her employment agreement if that is the case similar to most media organizations forbid their on-air talent from contributing to campaigns.
 
Joe Fan said:
Again. That was never the point and, unless something has changed, she is not suing.
Click to expand...
Too soon to say that she WON'T sue...many employment cases don't get filed until some time after the termination event. And, even if she doesn't want to sue right now, that could change if she finds herself blackballed as a result of having an opinion outside of the workplace that hurt someone's delicate fee-fees...
 
mb227 said:
Too soon to say that she WON'T sue...many employment cases don't get filed until some time after the termination event. And, even if she doesn't want to sue right now, that could change if she finds herself blackballed as a result of having an opinion outside of the workplace that hurt someone's delicate fee-fees...
Click to expand...

If she intends to sue, do these public statements help or hurt?
 
Seattle Husker said:
If she intends to sue, do these public statements help or hurt?
Click to expand...

depends on the competence of counsel AND how future employment shakes out...certainly the ideal client is one that hasn't painted themselves into any corner, but nothing that has been uttered would likely be a death knell to the prospect of litigating the issues.
 
This story is too damn funny
‘Feminist’ Snow-Plowing System Brings Stockholm to a Standstill
http://heatst.com/world/feminist-snow-plowing-system-brings-stockholm-to-a-standstill/

".... The “gender equal” strategy came in last year after politicians in the Swedish Green Party argued that the old way of clearing major roads in central areas favours men, who are more likely to work in the city, and get there by car.

Instead, the plows were sent to clear out sidewalks and cycle paths – on the basis that women walk and bike often. They also focused on areas like kindergartens, which children and parents visit in the morning.

Unfortunately, the theory did little to save Stockholm when a bumper snowfall hit at the end of last week.

Indeed, almost a week later buses are still struggling to run, and some 1,700 public transport passengers are planning to sue.

Progressive politicians have gone on the defensive, with the MP who suggested it claiming that the snow plows hadn’t executed the “gender-equal” plan properly.

Despite efforts to defend it, the plan has become a laughing stock....."

 
Last edited:
The UK Govt put a gay man, Milo Yiannopoulos, on an "extremist" list and he is now banned from speaking at his own school

The school itself wanted the speech
A total of 220 sixth formers had signed up for the event with the consent of their parents. But on Friday the Department for Education’s counter-extremism task force contacted the school after receiving a complaint from a member of the public.
* * *
Professor Solderholm said: “The staff and students of the school were overwhelmingly in favour.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ar-right-trump-cheerleader-milo-yiannopoulos/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-GATORS *
Sat, Nov 9 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top