wow... no one has replied to nyquil82's reply on 11.17.03 @ 11:52 AM.. I thought that had the best argument.. I am very familar with that scenario.. it has happened to me many of times regardless of my age/position/education or that my family has been here for over 200 years.. I'll still be hispanic and get questions about where I'm from ... or my parents etc etc.... I'm not really offended by it.. I think it's rather funny.. but I can see it how it offends some... but I also think.. outside of a formal enviroment one should not be fired for these simple questions.. if so a significant percentage of people I've met who are extremely capable in their jobs/lives would have lost their positions/relationship with me.. while most meant no harm.. it's an issue that many people are extremely touchy with and most people don't realize that...
Of course, but is that a "firing" offense... to be stupid in that way... for a few moments... while perhaps under the influence? When you're representing a company that is very sensitive to public opinion, yes, being drunk and making a racial comment is a fireable offense.
In the first place, making one off-color remark does not make one a racist. You are judging and condemning a man based on one scant report about an event with mitigating circumstances. In the second place, yes even racists have to live and eat and some of them have families who are not racists that have the samed darned requirements.... some of them under age 7 even!
Carrying your idea to a logical extension, what must it say about a man or woman who chooses a theatrical profession that allows them to say these horrible things about people for minutes on end to free drinks, rounds of applause and, yikes, even a paycheck! What sort of sordid individual must that be?!
first- people get fired for a single mistake all the time (*cough* except for francis ). If you want to blame the woman for being offended and bringing it up fine, but the fact is he did it without realizing the ramifications that making a mistake and having it publicized would jeopardize his career. You may think that making a racially insensitive is not grounds for firing, but how about hurting the reputation of the company? How about for being unprofessional? his reasoning for getting fired is legitimate for both the consequentialist and moral arguments, and by moral arguments, I mean that these days you can be punished for making un-PC remarks, its a now common norm in the workplace. It is immoral to insult someone using ethnicity and it is punishable, please update your system. If you don't know that it hurts, then you haven't ever been on the recieving end of it and don't know the ramifications if one doesn't act. and as for your second point, it was Singer's responsibility to know the ramifications of his actions. The company isnt putting his family at risk, he put himself in his own predicament. Its action--->effect, you dont blame the arrow, you blame the action.
You are so incredibly disingenuous that it's disturbing. You railed in defense of Rush Limbaugh's racist statements over the course of 30 years by first asking them to be proven and then after they were shown you just dismissed them and said you knew about them the whole time, thus exposing you as a disingenuous fraud. Then you tried to pull the "entertainment" card out by declaring that since Limbaugh engages in comedy as part of his show at times that he has the same license as a real comedian on stage to do comedy which of course is freaking ridiculous because it would allow anyone in any medium to use racist, inapproriate language if they at any time use comedy as part of their job. Al Michaels by your logic is justified in telling Warren Sapp to get that bone out of his nose on Monday Night Football to make an observation about Warren Sapp. You are simply out of touch with the world and this whole thread is simply an exercise in you being a shrill, disingenuous waste of time. Spare everyone your inane questions and the stupid comparisons because you have no point, you know you have no point, and you're simply wasting everyone's time pretending you do. You've simply descended into being Trader Texx without the catch phrases. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65676&perpage=30&pagenumber=5
Whoa Timing, take it easy there pally. Sometimes these threads just need to end with an "agree to disagree" and forget about it because people's minds aren't gonna change.
This is the critical part of your observation. This was essentially a private conversation that got tattled on. Wasn't it in a bar? Isn't that essentially private time? It's not newsworthy except to those who want to make an example of someone. Let's save that for those people who really do ruin our world. This should have been left alone. Any major harm that comes out of this will come because it was made into a news event.
Originally posted by Timing You are so incredibly disingenuous that it's disturbing. <b>Here we go again. What is it with you and the insults?</b> You railed in defense of Rush Limbaugh's racist statements over the course of 30 years by first asking them to be proven and then after they were shown you just dismissed them and said you knew about them the whole time, thus exposing you as a disingenuous fraud. <b>There is a distinction here that must be going right over your head: just because you call them racist statements does not make them so. Sorry to ruin your illusion.</b> Then you tried to pull the "entertainment" card out by declaring that since Limbaugh engages in comedy as part of his show at times that he has the same license as a real comedian on stage to do comedy which of course is freaking ridiculous because it would allow anyone in any medium to use racist, inapproriate language if they at any time use comedy as part of their job. Al Michaels by your logic is justified in telling Warren Sapp to get that bone out of his nose on Monday Night Football to make an observation about Warren Sapp. <b>Ask AnotherBrother about this one. "Anyone in any medium" really? You are reckless. AB's "requirement" is that it be theatrical. Do they do "theatrical" on the radio?</b> You are simply out of touch with the world and this whole thread is simply an exercise in you being a shrill, disingenuous waste of time. Spare everyone your inane questions and the stupid comparisons because you have no point, you know you have no point, and you're simply wasting everyone's time pretending you do. You've simply descended into being Trader Texx without the catch phrases. <b>Oh my. Feel better? I've got to go make some ice and put some gasoline in my Edsel. We are motoring in the countryside this weekend!</b>
ok, so this is the main reason you have, i guess you find my other points valid? implicitly, you've been saying that the person at fault was the woman for being offended and then telling others. There are a few implications on this though for having this mindset. when someone does something wrong, you have to choose whether or not to report them. Lets say that she saw him stealing money from the company, just a few hundred. Now she can report him and he can get the punishment that he deserves, or she can be a nice and submissive and stay quiet. However, if he's done something wrong once and gotten away with it, hes likely done it a few times. he is of bad moral character, he doesnt follow the rules, why shouldnt he be punished? why not to prevent him from doing it to someone else? why wait for him to do it to his superior or an investor? of course you have no way of knowing how offended this woman was, you assume that if you were insulted racially, it is a non-punishable offense. its okay to not want to tattletale, but you have to understand in that environment, she had a right to and singer was stupid for not seeing that she could have reported him. Its like witnessing a hit and run on a rich persons car, you see someone in an old car hit a BMW and drive away, would you not report it because, even though its wrong, because it might hurt the offender too much? If you see a kid cheating on a test, you wouldnt report him because you dont want to see him expelled? or even smaller, if someone on clutch fans insults you racially or your sexual orientation, do you report his post to the moderator to get him kicked out? if you answer no, fine, your free to do nothing whenever you want, but you realize that if that attitude reciprocates, you silently support immoral activity by not putting a stop to it.
If she was offended, she should not keep it to herself. Welcome to the 21st century. In addition, this wasn't a private moment between two people. There were other baseball people around at the bar and Brian Cashman had to step in. It may not have been a major issue if this was some other woman, but the fact is that she happens to be the Dodger's asst GM is just his lousy luck. Wrong person, wrong time, and wrong place to work his mojo. All this on the first week of his new job. Even if he isn't completely guilty of being sexist and racist, he is still guilty of being a moronic jackass. I don't know why anyone with their full capacity would defend this dummy. Maybe he listens to Rush.
Originally posted by mleahy999 If she was offended, she should not keep it to herself. Welcome to the 21st century. <b>Wah-wah! The 21st Century: get offended and run to either a lawyer or a news outlet. That's just great...</b> In addition, this wasn't a private moment between two people. There were other baseball people around at the bar and Brian Cashman had to step in. <b>Of course there were other people in the bar. That's what a bar is-- a place where people gather to drink and to talk.</b> It may not have been a major issue if this was some other woman, but the fact is that she happens to be the Dodger's asst GM is just his lousy luck. <b>Her occupation should have nothing to do with it.</b> Wrong person, wrong time, and wrong place to work his mojo. All this on the first week of his new job. <b>You don't know if this was his mojo or an isolated event.</b> Even if he isn't completely guilty of being sexist and racist, he is still guilty of being a moronic jackass. <b>This appears to have been an isolated incident. If he had a pattern of this behavior, they probably wouldn't have hired him. Do you plan on never making a mistake in your life?</b> I don't know why anyone with their full capacity would defend this dummy. Maybe he listens to Rush. <b>I see that you've been studying for your PC Police exam.</b>
While I disagree with giddyup on the matter, I find Timing's style completely unacceptable. Timing should read the sticky and adhere to it, or stop posting. Timing accused TJ of being a troublemaker here, but the one I see throwing around insults and even trying to provoke specific posters with his signature is Timing.
I've not said that what he did was okay. I've only not sent him up the river as a racist hate-monger as many here have. I simply said that he didn't deserve to lose his job based on the report that we read in this post. I didn't say in was "non-punishable." I just said it shouldn't cost him his job. The woman was at no fault for what happened and I never said that she was. I don't have a problem with a Dodgers-Mets hobnob to soothe things over, but to threaten a man's career over this seems a bit much. Stealing money from the company for which you work is entirely a different matter apart from saying something regrettable after-hours (that's what I meant by private) in a bar. Why do all of you have such a harsh punishment mindset about this?
THANK YOU! I have repeatedly asked timing to back off or be more civil but he ignores me. I don't really care if people agree with me about this or any other matter. I can only speak from my heart and my life's experience. There is a tendency here (on everybody's part) to caricature opposing opinions. This format doesn't allow for a very realistic fleshing out of positions. I think everybody should keep this in mind and keep their emotions in check and their responses in proportion.
I assume you are referring to my posting this: "Carrying your idea to a logical extension, what must it say about a man or woman who chooses a theatrical profession that allows them to say these horrible things about people for minutes on end to free drinks, rounds of applause and, yikes, even a paycheck! What sort of sordid individual must that be?!" This also carried an EEK smilie which doesn't copy and paste. In the previous post to this, I had said that I thought your work was funny and nothing about it offended me. I'm not sure why you are mis-construing this so as to take it as an insult. I was just poking fun at your justification. Your justification is fine. Theatre is a reasonable justification that allows you to say sensational things that make people laugh. But it's not the only place of sanctuary for sensational talk. I only reminded Timing that Rush first and foremost identifies himself as an entertainer and I think he gets the same leeway that you do.
