If any of you follow baseball, or even watch sports (especially US based) you probably heard about Curt Schilling being fired by ESPN for expressing his view on transgendered individuals and bathroom use.
Whether you agree with his position or not, I think that this article is worth a read.
ESPN is an inclusive company. Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated."
What ESPN is really saying is: "We're an inclusive company. Unless you disagree with us, in which case we're exclusive. And you're fired."
How amazing is it that in this age of diversity, that companies only want diversity of color, not diversity of opinion? Wouldn't it arguably strengthen Disney to have people working for it that advance every opinion under the sun, liberal and conservative, so that they can better reflect the country as a whole? There have be thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of Disney employees who agree with Schilling's opinion. Some of them may have even shared the same meme. How nervous are they? What they've been told is pretty clear, you're welcome to have opinions, but they better be the same as ours.
Hello, George Orwell's 1984.
Interestingly, an ESPN employee recently used network airwaves to make a liberal political statement -- Bomani Jones wore a Cleveland Caucasions shirt on "Mike and Mike" in a hamhanded stunt designed to draw attention to his belief that the Cleveland Indians nickname was racist. Now that's a liberal proposition -- not endorsed by the vast majority of sports fans -- and it's a direct work act that's being distributed by ESPN. That is, Jones's politics, liberal and fringe in nature, were okay to be distributed by ESPN, but Schilling's non-work, conservative Facebook post was deemed unacceptable to the company.
How can you reconcile this disparate treatment? One employee advocates a fringe liberal position on the air while he's working and the other employee advocates a potentially majority conservative opinion on his personal social media page while not working. If you were going to treat everyone equally, isn't Jones's position more of an issue for the company? Of course it is. Disney is making decisions not based on political speech itself, but based on whether it agrees with the content of that political speech.
That's the very definition of arbitrary and unequal treatment.
Yes, 'Transgender people are monsters' is definitely an opinion that needs to be protected....for diversity!
That article is absurd. Describing the passive opposition to potential racism as equivalent to ham fisted scare mongering. Which part of that article did you think was 'worth a read'.
It sounds like former Studio 38 employees got royally screwed over whne Shilling's game company tanked.
Yesterday, ESPN fired former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling for posting an anti-trans meme on Facebook. It was an inglorious end for Schilling’s broadcasting job, which by now must be a feeling he’s used to.
Although today he’s best known for sharing conservative and often bigoted memes on social media, Schilling was once chairman of a major video game company, one that employed hundreds of developers and worked on several big projects. His company, 38 Studios, was once seen as the savior of Rhode Island, a studio that would, if all went according to plan, form the core of the small state’s burgeoning tech industry. Rhode Island’s government gave him $75 million of taxpayers’ money to make it happen.
Then, in May of 2012, employees stopped getting paid. At the time most of them had no idea, but 38 Studios was in financial trouble, and not long after the release of their first and only game, the under-appreciated RPG Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, the company collapsed.
The best reporting on 38 Studios came from this Boston Magazine piece by Jason Schwartz, who talked to Schilling and quite a few of his former employees to capture the full story of the company’s demise. Schilling is portrayed as gregarious and optimistic, treating his staff kindly, but also as a poor chairman, whose excessive ambition and lack of industry knowledge ultimately destroyed the company and wasted millions in public funding.
It’s hard not to feel sorry for Schilling, who lost many millions in this endeavor and today resembles a sad cranky uncle. But his actions as chairman of 38 Studios hurt a lot of people, most of whom did not get to recover with lucrative contracts to be on ESPN. In fact, as Schwartz reports, the demise of 38 Studios left several employees to shoulder the responsibilities of their unpaid mortgages—mortgages that 38 Studios had agreed to take care of.
Writes Schwartz:
On May 24, the entire 38 Studios staff was laid off via e-mail. They hadn’t been paid since the end of the previous month, but their problems were just beginning. In short order, their healthcare disappeared and their 401(k)s were frozen. Then, MoveTrek Mobility — a company 38 Studios hired during the relocation to Providence to buy and resell employees’ Massachusetts homes — notified seven people that, because it had not yet sold their houses, they were potentially responsible for their old mortgages. And Atlas Van Lines alerted some individuals that they were on the hook for bills that management hadn’t paid.
Thom Ang is one of those people suddenly stuck with his old mortgage. With two young kids, no salary, rent due on his Rhode Island home, and now a mortgage in Massachusetts to pay, he’s afraid his credit is about to be ruined. “I wasn’t even aware that this could or would happen,” he says, “and then having it affect where I could possibly live and where I could possibly work?”
Even today, four years later, the 38 Studios story is far from over. Last month, the SEC filed charges against both the Rhode Island agency and the bank Wells Fargo for defrauding investors with the loan. “Investors weren’t fully informed when deciding to purchase the bonds that 38 Studios faced a funding shortfall even with the loan proceeds and could not develop the video game without additional sources of financing,” they wrote.
Correction: an original version of this story mistakenly referred to Schilling as “CEO” of 38 Studios. He was actually founder and chairman.
It sounds like former Studio 38 employees got royally screwed over whne Shilling's game company tanked.
Yesterday, ESPN fired former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling for posting an anti-trans meme on Facebook. It was an inglorious end for Schilling’s broadcasting job, which by now must be a feeling he’s used to.
Although today he’s best known for sharing conservative and often bigoted memes on social media, Schilling was once chairman of a major video game company, one that employed hundreds of developers and worked on several big projects. His company, 38 Studios, was once seen as the savior of Rhode Island, a studio that would, if all went according to plan, form the core of the small state’s burgeoning tech industry. Rhode Island’s government gave him $75 million of taxpayers’ money to make it happen.
Then, in May of 2012, employees stopped getting paid. At the time most of them had no idea, but 38 Studios was in financial trouble, and not long after the release of their first and only game, the under-appreciated RPG Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, the company collapsed.
The best reporting on 38 Studios came from this Boston Magazine piece by Jason Schwartz, who talked to Schilling and quite a few of his former employees to capture the full story of the company’s demise. Schilling is portrayed as gregarious and optimistic, treating his staff kindly, but also as a poor chairman, whose excessive ambition and lack of industry knowledge ultimately destroyed the company and wasted millions in public funding.
It’s hard not to feel sorry for Schilling, who lost many millions in this endeavor and today resembles a sad cranky uncle. But his actions as chairman of 38 Studios hurt a lot of people, most of whom did not get to recover with lucrative contracts to be on ESPN. In fact, as Schwartz reports, the demise of 38 Studios left several employees to shoulder the responsibilities of their unpaid mortgages—mortgages that 38 Studios had agreed to take care of.
Writes Schwartz:
On May 24, the entire 38 Studios staff was laid off via e-mail. They hadn’t been paid since the end of the previous month, but their problems were just beginning. In short order, their healthcare disappeared and their 401(k)s were frozen. Then, MoveTrek Mobility — a company 38 Studios hired during the relocation to Providence to buy and resell employees’ Massachusetts homes — notified seven people that, because it had not yet sold their houses, they were potentially responsible for their old mortgages. And Atlas Van Lines alerted some individuals that they were on the hook for bills that management hadn’t paid.
Thom Ang is one of those people suddenly stuck with his old mortgage. With two young kids, no salary, rent due on his Rhode Island home, and now a mortgage in Massachusetts to pay, he’s afraid his credit is about to be ruined. “I wasn’t even aware that this could or would happen,” he says, “and then having it affect where I could possibly live and where I could possibly work?”
Even today, four years later, the 38 Studios story is far from over. Last month, the SEC filed charges against both the Rhode Island agency and the bank Wells Fargo for defrauding investors with the loan. “Investors weren’t fully informed when deciding to purchase the bonds that 38 Studios faced a funding shortfall even with the loan proceeds and could not develop the video game without additional sources of financing,” they wrote.
Correction: an original version of this story mistakenly referred to Schilling as “CEO” of 38 Studios. He was actually founder and chairman.
A whole lot of that company was shady as hell, but to be fair, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning was fun as hell to play.
It sounds like former Studio 38 employees got royally screwed over whne Shilling's game company tanked.
Yesterday, ESPN fired former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling for posting an anti-trans meme on Facebook. It was an inglorious end for Schilling’s broadcasting job, which by now must be a feeling he’s used to.
Although today he’s best known for sharing conservative and often bigoted memes on social media, Schilling was once chairman of a major video game company, one that employed hundreds of developers and worked on several big projects. His company, 38 Studios, was once seen as the savior of Rhode Island, a studio that would, if all went according to plan, form the core of the small state’s burgeoning tech industry. Rhode Island’s government gave him $75 million of taxpayers’ money to make it happen.
Then, in May of 2012, employees stopped getting paid. At the time most of them had no idea, but 38 Studios was in financial trouble, and not long after the release of their first and only game, the under-appreciated RPG Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, the company collapsed.
The best reporting on 38 Studios came from this Boston Magazine piece by Jason Schwartz, who talked to Schilling and quite a few of his former employees to capture the full story of the company’s demise. Schilling is portrayed as gregarious and optimistic, treating his staff kindly, but also as a poor chairman, whose excessive ambition and lack of industry knowledge ultimately destroyed the company and wasted millions in public funding.
It’s hard not to feel sorry for Schilling, who lost many millions in this endeavor and today resembles a sad cranky uncle. But his actions as chairman of 38 Studios hurt a lot of people, most of whom did not get to recover with lucrative contracts to be on ESPN. In fact, as Schwartz reports, the demise of 38 Studios left several employees to shoulder the responsibilities of their unpaid mortgages—mortgages that 38 Studios had agreed to take care of.
Writes Schwartz:
On May 24, the entire 38 Studios staff was laid off via e-mail. They hadn’t been paid since the end of the previous month, but their problems were just beginning. In short order, their healthcare disappeared and their 401(k)s were frozen. Then, MoveTrek Mobility — a company 38 Studios hired during the relocation to Providence to buy and resell employees’ Massachusetts homes — notified seven people that, because it had not yet sold their houses, they were potentially responsible for their old mortgages. And Atlas Van Lines alerted some individuals that they were on the hook for bills that management hadn’t paid.
Thom Ang is one of those people suddenly stuck with his old mortgage. With two young kids, no salary, rent due on his Rhode Island home, and now a mortgage in Massachusetts to pay, he’s afraid his credit is about to be ruined. “I wasn’t even aware that this could or would happen,” he says, “and then having it affect where I could possibly live and where I could possibly work?”
Even today, four years later, the 38 Studios story is far from over. Last month, the SEC filed charges against both the Rhode Island agency and the bank Wells Fargo for defrauding investors with the loan. “Investors weren’t fully informed when deciding to purchase the bonds that 38 Studios faced a funding shortfall even with the loan proceeds and could not develop the video game without additional sources of financing,” they wrote.
Correction: an original version of this story mistakenly referred to Schilling as “CEO” of 38 Studios. He was actually founder and chairman.
Apparently this wasn't his first offence, I saw his previous meme about comparing Muslims to Nazi's. Nothing but a total donkeycave, so... when is he signing his Fox contract?
LordofHats wrote: Oh look. Another douche nozzle got caught being a douche nozzle and was fired. Life lesson: don't be a douche nozzle.
Whether you agree with is opinion or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that he was on his own free time, not expressing his opinion at work, and was fired because of something he did that had nothing to do with his job. His political opinion is related to his job how? Do a little research and you'll soon see how some ESPN Anchors said far worse things during broadcasts that had nothing to do with sports and not a peep was heard.
Would you be cool with that? If your job fired you because they disagreed with your position posted on Facebook?
We need to THINK as a society and be open to controversy and discussion. Especially when we disagree.
LordofHats wrote: Oh look. Another douche nozzle got caught being a douche nozzle and was fired. Life lesson: don't be a douche nozzle.
Whether you agree with is opinion or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that he was on his own free time, not expressing his opinion at work, and was fired because of something he did that had nothing to do with his job. His political opinion is related to his job how? Do a little research and you'll soon see how some ESPN Anchors said far worse things during broadcasts that had nothing to do with sports and not a peep was heard.
Really? Worse than Muslims=Nazis? I highly doubt that. But feel free to find something to change my mind.
Would you be cool with that? If your job fired you because they disagreed with your position posted on Facebook?
His job is not the same as mine. I have an expectation of anonymity. He is a public face of a communications company. His job has a much reduced expectation of that.
Don't be a sheeple.
For future reference, using that word unironically gives one an automatic -10 to your credibility check.
Guess this wasn't worth discussing since so many are missing the point.
You don't at all notice the irony of complaining about people "fishing for outrage" while fishing for outrage?
And it's not like we don't have one of these threads regularly and they always end the same way.
Mdlbuildr wrote: Would you be cool with that? If your job fired you because they disagreed with your position posted on Facebook?
I don't have Facebook/Twitter/Social Media whatever. That stuff is a cancer that eats at your soul I'm sure Mr. Schilling is quite perturbed, and I do feel for him cause you know that does suck, but exactly who isn't upset upon being fired regardless of reason? But then he didn't learn from the 5,000 other times this has already happened somehow, and at the end of the day freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. He's also just kind of douche nozzle so...
LordofHats wrote: Oh look. Another douche nozzle got caught being a douche nozzle and was fired. Life lesson: don't be a douche nozzle.
Whether you agree with is opinion or not is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that he was on his own free time, not expressing his opinion at work, and was fired because of something he did that had nothing to do with his job. His political opinion is related to his job how? Do a little research and you'll soon see how some ESPN Anchors said far worse things during broadcasts that had nothing to do with sports and not a peep was heard.
Would you be cool with that? If your job fired you because they disagreed with your position posted on Facebook?
We need to THINK as a society and be open to controversy and discussion. Especially when we disagree.
Don't be a sheeple.
Oh wow, bringing out the sheeple argument. He is a personality for a very large company. Of course they would want to distance themselves from somebody who is spewing out hatespeech on a very controversial issue. ESPN wants to include as many people as it can to get more viewers. Having a personality associated with them that is going to drive a certain demographic away and give the company a bad name is probably not a good idea.
Stop being sheeple and look at the whole issue here.
We seem to be well off the rails here. Let's drop a) trying to dismiss one side as sheeple and b) posting videos laughing at the side doing that. Why not just focus on the subject
Those aren't political views those are bigoted views. You see there is a difference between believing in a hands on or hands off economy (political views) and disparaging against transgender people
Would you be cool with that? If your job fired you because they disagreed with your position posted on Facebook?
His job is not the same as mine. I have an expectation of anonymity. He is a public face of a communications company. His job has a much reduced expectation of that.
This right here... He is a very public figure. Teachers get fired for much less than this, in many was related to being a "public" person.
Thing is, those who have mentioned anchors at ESPN mentioning "worse" things on air, and "not a peep" was heard... This is generally how things go at that circus:
-Anchor says something stupid
-Public and ESPN say, "you can't say that"
-Anchor says, "my bad. I'm sorry"
-ESPN says, "OK, just make sure you don't make a habit of it"
In the case of Schilling, not only did he "say" it, when he got called out about it, says, "Feth you! You're darn tootin' I said that! IF you don't respect mah Opinion, then you are being intolerant!"
@Mdlbuldr.... We wouldn't be hearing about this story if some low level accountant at ESPN posts some gak to their social media page. Imagine what would happen if Peter Jennings had heil hitler'd on air? Or Barbara Walters said, "I hate [insert whatever racial epithet you want], I think we should [do whatever action is commonly associated with previous racial group] and make America Great Again"... what would happen?
This isn't a 1st Amendment thing. Schilling is definitely exercising his rights, just as ESPN is by firing him. I have zero sympathy. He is, love him or hate him, a public figure and still quite prominent in the baseball world. Ergo, when a company potentially stands to lose money over a "private" comment/post on a rather public stage... you bet the company is going to protect itself.
Ustrello wrote: Those aren't political views those are bigoted views. You see there is a difference between believing in a hands on or hands off economy (political views) and disparaging against transgender people
Whoa. I'm a bigot because I want a Man to pee in a Men's bathroom?
There is nothing wrong with being a transgender, and we are back at the same argument that was brought up in another thread where I was made fun of so I'm going to stop there.
Ustrello wrote: Those aren't political views those are bigoted views. You see there is a difference between believing in a hands on or hands off economy (political views) and disparaging against transgender people
Whoa. I'm a bigot because I want a Man to pee in a Men's bathroom?
There is nothing wrong with being a transgender, and we are back at the same argument that was brought up in another thread where I was made fun of so I'm going to stop there.
Ustrello wrote: Those aren't political views those are bigoted views. You see there is a difference between believing in a hands on or hands off economy (political views) and disparaging against transgender people
They become political when the government passes laws/etc and people then "take sides".
A company also can promote good behavior by adding a “morals clause” to the executive’s employment agreement. A traditional “morals clause” is a contractual provision that gives an employer the unilateral right to terminate the employment agreement or take punitive action against the employee in the event that the employee engages in reprehensible behavior or conduct that may negatively impact the company. These clauses are often a part of the “termination for cause” provisions in the executive’s employment contract.
I put in bold the part that is relevant in this hypothetical.
Schilling spouting his (unpopular) opinions puts ESPN at risk of losing revenue. Simple as that.
Schilling has also pulled stunts like this before, and fairly recently, so it is difficult for me to feel sympathetic toward him when he likely knew that his past actions put him on thin ice with his employer and he chose to voice his opinions anyway.
Ustrello wrote: Those aren't political views those are bigoted views. You see there is a difference between believing in a hands on or hands off economy (political views) and disparaging against transgender people
They become political when the government passes laws/etc and people then "take sides".
Laws can be passed for bigoted reasons Ie) jim crow, the current rash of "protectin muh religion" laws etc.
Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made
Honestly dude, this isn't a thread about Transgender rights, so please give it up. You're trying to hijack the thread with your views on that topic and insulting me at the same time.
This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic. If you;re okay with that, watch out for that slippery slope. Eventually one day your view will be unpopular. Then what?
I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.
Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.
I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.
Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.
Eventually, one day, that might not be true. It will be a sad day.
Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made
Honestly dude, this isn't a thread about Transgender rights, so please give it up. You're trying to hijack the thread with your views on that topic and insulting me at the same time.
This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic. If you;re okay with that, watch out for that slippery slope. Eventually one day your view will be unpopular. Then what?
Defending a bigot who posts a meme about transgenders and laws (which effects their rights) and then claims it isn't about rights. Yeah okay
Being ignorant about the actual transgender population and their problems with almost every post that you've made
Honestly dude, this isn't a thread about Transgender rights, so please give it up. You're trying to hijack the thread with your views on that topic and insulting me at the same time.
This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic. If you;re okay with that, watch out for that slippery slope. Eventually one day your view will be unpopular. Then what?
I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.
Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.
Eventually, one day, that might not be true. It will be a sad day.
I dunno.
I am very, very concerned about the policing of language that is occurring in our culture but I don't think this incident is part of that problem.
Anyone who acts as a representative of a large, multi-national corporation needs to reign in their speech because if they alienate anyone they are costing their company money. In my opinion that isn't political correctness gone awry, it is just business.
I'm 100% certain there is a similar clause that we all sign when agreeing to work for anyone.
Probably, I don't recall the fine print of the employment agreements I've signed, but thankfully I am not on social media with thousands of followers either, so my salty opinions go unnoticed.
Eventually, one day, that might not be true. It will be a sad day.
I dunno.
I am very, very concerned about the policing of language that is occurring in our culture but I don't think this incident is part of that problem.
Anyone who acts as a representative of a large, multi-national corporation needs to reign in their speech because if they alienate anyone they are costing their company money. In my opinion that isn't political correctness gone awry, it is just business.
This is true.
Also, inspiration to be excellent in your chosen field. Don Cherry says stupid gak like this every day but gets away with it because he's a Canadian legend. Micheal Vick ran a fething dog fighting ring but got back to football because he's so good at it. If Curt was really good at his job, then he would still have it.
Funny thing is...they pay him for his opinion (and commentary).
On baseball.... The moment ESPN airs a show regarding actual politics, THEN there may be a different discussion going on.
As it is, ESPN is strictly about sports. They paid Schilling to talk about one thing, and one thing only. He could've discussed his politics on a private, personal page, but instead chose to do so under a "public figure" account. As I said, ESPN is about sports, not politics. And where those sports venture into the political realm, they only discuss insofar as they take place within a sporting sphere (ie, the Northwestern University football team unionizing/striking, just about anything to do with Title IX. That sort of thing)
As it is, ESPN is strictly about sports. They paid Schilling to talk about one thing, and one thing only. He could've discussed his politics on a private, personal page, but instead chose to do so under a "public figure" account. As I said, ESPN is about sports, not politics. And where those sports venture into the political realm, they only discuss insofar as they take place within a sporting sphere (ie, the Northwestern University football team unionizing/striking, just about anything to do with Title IX. That sort of thing)
Let us also bear in mind that ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh over his statement regarding McNabb, so there is precedent.
One of their other commentators recently wore a "Cleveland Caucasians" jersey making an obvious and none-to-subtle statement on racism regarding the "Cleveland Indians" name.
I take the same position as the writer of the article. I don't agree with Schilling's opinion on the issue. But in this country, he has the right to express views that some might find distasteful without retaliation. This isn't Western Europe where you can be arrested,fined, and possibly imprisoned for expressing unpopular opinions that might offend some people.
Schilling posted that on his own Facebook page on his own time. He did not (as far as I can tell) use company resources while expressing said views.
One of my favorite quotes is one often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In the drive to "tolerance", it's champions have become "intolerant". That makes many on the hard left, not just post-modernist, regressive leftists, just as bad as the worst "Bible thumper" who won't tolerate any views other than his/her own, and thinks they have to crusade to stamp out other views for the greater good, either through the barrel of a gun (government legislation) or through social pressure/shaming (a popular strategy by so-called "social justice warriors" on the internet).
I didn't put on a uniform in service to my country to support that kind of censorship and suppression.
On the other hand, I cannot fault ESPN. I'm a firm believer in private companies being able to conduct their business as they see fit, within the legal framework of society, and unhampered by toadyism, political pressure/influence, and the corruption that tends to come with unions. As a media company, they have to toe a fine line if they don't want to lose advertiser's dollars. In such a climate, even somebody who expresses unpopular views that offend a certain segment of society on their own time, is a poison pill and bad for business. It make be a dick move on their part, but I understand why they cut him loose, and their right as a privately owned entity to do so.
If Mr. Schilling thought that a man of his position could get away with making those statements in the current political climate on a very public venue then he is either brave or fool. Or a brave fool. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. After all, a private company has every right to fire him if his statements were ones either vehemently disagree with or felt would hurt their brand.
Do I disagree with being fired over personal opinions? No. Do I agree with people getting fired over broadcasting personal opinions particularly if the individual is known to be affiliated with that company? Yes. In general, social media is not the best place to voice political opinion particularly if they are considered socially unacceptable. It's no different than shouting these opinions at people on the street.
oldravenman3025 wrote: This isn't Western Europe where you can be arrested,fined, and possibly imprisoned for expressing unpopular opinions that might offend some people.
And none of those things happened.
Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And Voltaire dedicated years to trying to get Rousseau's works banned in France.
I've seen no one say he can't speak his mind. Just that care for his firing is limited, because freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Your rights to free speech are protected from infringement by the government, and the extension of such protections into the private sector is virtually nonexistent.
TheMeanDM wrote:I find it hypocritical that the company allows certain speech from some of their commentators, but exact consequences on others.
In case you missed it the first time:
Ustrello wrote:If you actually think what schilling said and what that guy wore are comparable you are grasping at the tiniest of straws
Also, it's important to remember that ESPN, like any company, can decided what they deem as acceptable conduct from their employees and there is nothing saying it's an 'all or nothing' proposition. So you can either accept and understand that or continue to cry into your beer about how the mean company fired the unapologetic bigot for his inflammatory bs.
TheMeanDM wrote: I find it hypocritical that the company allows certain speech from some of their commentators, but exact consequences on others.
It's not hypocrisy. Context and content matter. That's like saying I'm a hypocrite for thinking that the US should be able to bomb ISIL but not orphanages.
Also, it's important to remember that ESPN, like any company, can decided what they deem as acceptable conduct from their employees and there is nothing saying it's an 'all or nothing' proposition. So you can either accept and understand that or continue to cry into your beer about how the mean company fired the unapologetic bigot for his inflammatory bs.
Also, I do seem to recall that ESPN is on the "same" side as the dude's shirt.... They've been somewhat against the Indians, Redskins, and to a lesser extent, the Braves. As such, their response, which was to force him to cover up over commercial break was acceptable, just as firing an unapologetic bigot was acceptable.
oldravenman3025 wrote: But in this country, he has the right to express views that some might find distasteful without retaliation.
That isn't how freedom of speech works. Like, at all.
Please enlighten us on how Freedom of Speech works, then. Thanks.
Person A has the right to say what they will.
Person B has the right to react. The reaction is just as much an exercise of free speech as any previous statement.
In this case, "Person B" happens to be ESPN, and they reacted by firing a bigoted idiot.
Keep in mind, and I know it's been gone over ad nauseam in the US Politics thread (I can't exactly fault anyone for reading every page of that thread to see where), but the 1st amendment protects your individual right to say just about anything. It does not protect you from the consequences of things you say.
Mdlbuildr wrote: So everyone who thinks a Transgender Female should pee in a Men's bathroom is a Bigot? Is that what you're saying?
Yes or no question, buddy.
I think everyone who broaches that issue in the way Schilling broached it is bigoted.
LOL, nice try. How about you answer the question directly instead of how someone running for President would answer it. Yes or no? It's a simple question.
Mdlbuildr wrote: So everyone who thinks a Transgender Female should pee in a Men's bathroom is a Bigot? Is that what you're saying?
Yes or no question, buddy.
I think everyone who broaches that issue in the way Schilling broached it is bigoted.
LOL, nice try. How about you answer the question directly instead of how someone running for President would answer it. Yes or no? It's a simple question.
Tip #2: he has the freedom to answer your question anyway he wants.
My stance is stated. Whether you accept it or not is on you.
Your stance is that if someone thinks that the meme Schilling posted about Transgender women and that they should pee in the men's bathroom is the way it should be, that person who agrees with the meme is a bigot?
Is that about right?
I don't even know if I know what I just wrote, but if your answer to that question is yes, then you sir, are equally a bigot! If you are intolerant of others' views on the matter, you are certainly and indeed a bigot, since of course, that's what a bigot is.
plastictrees wrote: Yes, 'Transgender people are monsters' is definitely an opinion that needs to be protected....for diversity!
That article is absurd. Describing the passive opposition to potential racism as equivalent to ham fisted scare mongering. Which part of that article did you think was 'worth a read'.
Curt shilling is a fething d-bag. I posit that I listen and watch more baseball than 90% of you. The man comes off as a condiscending a-hole with no respect for others.
First, it's not a meme unless we classify "pics on the internet" as a meme which seems like a stretch.
Second the picture is blatantly insulting. There are ways to disagree with the current trend of allowing people to use the bathroom of preference (South Park has a marvelous episode on the subject). Posting a picture of Danny DeVito wearing... Whatever that is I don't watch Sunny, and acting like that's what transgender women look like while simultaneously implying transgender women are pedophiles after daughters is bigoted.
My stance is stated. Whether you accept it or not is on you.
Your stance is that if someone thinks that the meme Schilling posted about Transgender women and that they should pee in the men's bathroom is the way it should be, that person who agrees with the meme is a bigot?
Actually, the meme in question is bigoted for a few reason.
A) It does not even remotely show a transgender person. Again, that is Danny Devito. So they took the worst trashiest picture they could find of cross dressing and tried to pass it off as being trans gendered.
B) It does not take in to account gender as it is currently defined. It only uses the biblical(?) definition of Man and Woman.
C) It is a meme meant to inspire anger towards a specific group of people.
Actually, the meme in question is bigoted for a few reason.
A) It does not even remotely show a transgender person. Again, that is Danny Devito. So they took the worst trashiest picture they could find of cross dressing and tried to pass it off as being trans gendered.
B) It does not take in to account gender as it is currently defined. It only uses the biblical(?) definition of Man and Woman.
C) It is a meme meant to inspire anger towards a specific group of people.
But you know, whatever, keep ignoring facts.
OOOOORRRR maybe it was big fat freaking JOKE. Some found funny and other's didn't. Poor taste, maybe. Firing offense? Not so much, no.
kronk wrote: Curt shilling is a fething d-bag. I posit that I listen and watch more baseball than 90% of you. The man comes off as a condiscending a-hole with no respect for others.
Just my 2 cents
I would hypothesize that I watch/listen to maybe 10% less baseball than you
And yeah... I agree with you on the "persona" of Schilling. I even personally met him while I was in Iraq (he was on a USO tour). One of the lamest celebrity visits that I was ever a part of. Lance Armstrong, one of the douchiest athletes in the 20th century was a much better/cooler customer than Schilling was. (I could go on about how awesome Robin Williams and the WWE people who visited our bases were... but that's OT)
And I would posit that that is EXACTLY what ESPN is firing him for: I mean, you pretty much have to be a condescending a-hole to post such a picture in the first place.
OOOOORRRR maybe it was big fat freaking JOKE. Some found funny and other's didn't. Poor taste, maybe. Firing offense? Not so much, no.
Considering that when Schilling was called out on it, he didn't say that it was a joke... He turned around and berated "liberals" and called THEM discriminatory and intolerant.
oldravenman3025 wrote: This isn't Western Europe where you can be arrested,fined, and possibly imprisoned for expressing unpopular opinions that might offend some people.
U.K. Communications Act of 2003, Section 127 has been abused by authorities. From Wikipedia:
Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network. The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor. The section has controversially been used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.
On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.
Despite the revisions in 2012, this Section of the Act is still abused, and what constitutes speech that is "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" is still broad and nebulous.
Swedish Criminal Law or Brottsbalken has hate speech provisions known as "The Act on Agitation Against a National or Ethnic Group (Lagen om hets mot folkgrupp)". And they have been used to suppress free speech relating to opinions regarding homosexuality and Islam that doesn't toe the "accepted" line:
From Wikipedia:
Åke Green (Swedish: [ˈoːkɛ ɡreːn]), born 3 June 1941, is a Swedish Pentecostal Christian pastor who was prosecuted, but acquitted, under Sweden's law against hate speech because of critical opinions on homosexuality in his sermons. The district court found him guilty and sentenced him to one month in prison. The sentence was appealed to the court of appeals (hovrätt). On 11 February 2005 Göta hovrätt overturned the decision and acquitted Åke Green. On 9 March, the Prosecutor-General (Riksåklagaren) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on 29 November also acquitted.
The Supreme Court stated that Åke Green had violated Swedish law as it currently stands regarding agitation against groups, and that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion does not protect him. However, the Supreme Court also stated that the freedom of expression as well as freedom of religion provided by the European Convention on Human Rights, which is superior to Swedish law, gives him protection, since jurisprudence shows that a conviction would probably not be upheld by the European Court.
And what did he say during his sermon?
At his church in Borgholm, Green delivered a sermon in which he described "sexual perversions" (referencing homosexuality) as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He also said that a person cannot be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time.
Green had invited members of the media to attend the sermon, but none were present when he preached it in the presence of about fifty listeners. He wrote a summary of the sermon, including the above-mentioned quotes, which was printed in the local newspaper Ölandsbladet. A representative of nearby Kalmar's RFSL, an LGBT equal rights organization, reported the sermon to the police and the controversy began.
In 2002, Swedish neo-Nazi Fredrik Sandberg was tried in a district court on the island of Gotland for re-publishing and distributing a 1936 Nazi propaganda booklet titled "The Jewish Question". He got two years in prison and the Swedish neo-Nazi group responsible for distributing said material was told to cease and desist.
In 1997, Dan Rolf Mattias Berner, a Swedish neo-Nazi, was invited to give a lecture of his views on Islam and the holocaust at the Umeå University by his girlfriend Karolina Matti who was working on her doctorate in sociology. A journalist recorded the lecture, and both were tried and convicted (Matti got a suspended sentence). Berner got a two month sentence.
Bjorn Björkqvist, a member of the ultra-right wing Party of the Swedes, which has connections to the neo-Nazi NSF imprisoned on several occasions for violating Sweden's anti-hate speech laws.
While I despise neo-Nazis, it's troubling to me that Sweden, a pioneer in free speech rights, has went the other way when it comes to unpopular views. It's even worse now when it comes to Swedish media and government attitudes toward those critical of Sweden's immigration policies.
The German government has been putting pressure on Google, Facebook, and Twitter to "police" anti-immigrant rhetoric in the guise of fighting "hate speech" toward asylum seekers.
That's just a few examples. So, yeah, you contention that it's "never happened" doesn't hold water.
Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
And Voltaire dedicated years to trying to get Rousseau's works banned in France.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and doesn't diminish the truth of those words.
I've seen no one say he can't speak his mind. Just that care for his firing is limited, because freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Your rights to free speech are protected from infringement by the government, and the extension of such protections into the private sector is virtually nonexistent.
If you read my post above, I made the same statement concerning ESPN's rights as a private entity. So, there is no real disagreement there.
But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.
I think you misread that. He said that none of these things happened to Curt Schilling. The wonderful part of freedom of speech is the accompanying right of freedom of association. After hearing Schilling speak, ESPN decided that they didn't want to associate with him anymore. Funny how that works.
I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.
Free speech is does not entail that you can speak and never be replied to. That's the opposite of free speech. If you speak, you will get a response from those who disagree (unless no one disagrees but I find there's always someone no matter what). There's a whole society out there. No one is going to gag it to protect sports announcers or basketball team owners from getting called out on the stupid things they say and do. Given realities of economics, that means some CEO somewhere is going to ponder if the response is going to hurt business.
Perhaps I should lay out a bit of a personal anecdote...
Growing up in the household I did, when I joined the army, I was severely anti-gay. I was taught that it was an abomination, etc. etc. etc. Then, I met my wife's best friend. About as gay as gay can be, and cool as the other side of the pillow. Then, as my career in the army went on, I met more gay people in the towns and cities in the areas I lived. In probably the 20 or so acquaintances that I made, I only had issues with 1 person, everyone else were extremely nice, laid back people. They were a ton of fun to hang out with, even drink a bunch or whatever, the vast majority of them realized that I am straight and respected that.
Then I learned about transgenderism... Having had the experiences that I had with the Gay/Lesbian community that I had, I didn't negatively view this... but I thought it slightly odd. Then, I met some trans people (one I hung out with fairly regularly at my school), and guess what!? They are some genuinely cool people!
I lay out this story for one reason: The US is moving to include the LGBT community. You can either accept it, and move on, or you can remain bigoted and hateful towards something that in all actuality, you probably don't understand.
By Odin's beard, I don't fully understand some aspects of LGBT life, and the very real struggles of using restrooms in public, but feth... I'm gonna try, because at the end of the day... this is all there is.
But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.
I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....
It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).
There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.
I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.
Unfortunately, people who attempt to do that in modern movements are drowned out by the riff-raff, in your face types, the self-centered, and those who just want to pat themselves on the back.
LordofHats wrote:
I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.
Free speech is does not entail that you can speak and never be replied to. That's the opposite of free speech. If you speak, you will get a response from those who disagree (unless no one disagrees but I find there's always someone no matter what). There's a whole society out there. No one is going to gag it to protect sports announcers or basketball team owners from getting called out on the stupid things they say and do. Given realities of economics, that means some CEO somewhere is going to ponder if the response is going to hurt business.
I can see how you read it that way. Could have been clearer by stating Shilling specifically.
Free speech is indeed about it going both ways. That's why you have discussion. And I'm all for disagreement. It would be kinda boring if we all marched lock-step like robots.
As for the last, no big deal. My fingers needed the exercise.
I'm a weird mix of personally being a bigot when it comes to my personal views regarding myself and my religion, while also being very liberal and accepting when it comes to everybody else.
I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.
Unfortunately, people who attempt to do that in modern movements are drowned out by the riff-raff, in your face types, the self-centered, and those who just want to pat themselves on the back.
Wait... you think the 18th Amendment was passed through example, logical discourse and education????
In reality, the political climate that brought about the 18th Amendment was in many ways, even worse than what you ascribe to today's world.
d-usa wrote: I'm a weird mix of personally being a bigot when it comes to my personal views regarding myself and my religion, while also being very liberal and accepting when it comes to everybody else.
Nothing wrong with that. Everybody has some form of prejudice. It's human nature to find fault with the guy on the other side of the hill.
But you do make an effort to rise above it, which is cool.
I'm weird myself. I consider myself to be a paleo-conservative of the Burke school, with a weird mix of libertarianism and Old Left.
I frustrate everybody on the modern political and religious spectrum.
I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.
Unfortunately, people who attempt to do that in modern movements are drowned out by the riff-raff, in your face types, the self-centered, and those who just want to pat themselves on the back.
Wait... you think the 18th Amendment was passed through example, logical discourse and education????
In reality, the political climate that brought about the 18th Amendment was in many ways, even worse than what you ascribe to today's world.
The temperance movement had it waves going back to the 18th Century that laid the foundation of the 18th Amendment.
It had it's share of radicals (like Carrie Nation). But by the time the 18th Amendment rolled around, much of the push was done through legal and peaceful venues. It was also one of the few times that the Left and Right in America actually agreed with something, with everybody from the KKK to labor unions supporting it. It was considered a "progressive" amendment..
Unfortunately, it was also a demonstration of the old saying "The road to hell Is paved with good intentions".
There is a good argument to be made that we as a society are increasingly looking to shame and punish people for making the wrong kinds of comments. But trying to make Schilling a victim of that is way past the point of ridiculous.
The obvious first point of failure is that Schilling isn’t some random back office guy, he’s one of the public faces of a media company. Nor is it the first and only instance where he’s pushed the boundaries – the guy clearly wants to go on making lots of divisive statements. So it wouldn’t matter if those statements were about transgender people or about how unfairly the rich are treated by progressive tax… every company is going to act in favour of its own bottom line and cut the guy.
The second and probably bigger point is that there is a big difference between giving a political view and being an ass. If Schilling had simply said that he found self-identifying a problematic answer to public bathroom use, he wouldn’t be fired. But Schilling didn’t do that, instead he posted a meme from the ugliest part of the internet, that was intended to show transgender people in the worst possible light. If you can't make your point while showing respect, then you're being an ass and consequences should be expected.
There is a good case that the internet needs to back off from the ‘name and get fired’ campaigns. But Schilling is not the guy to build that case around, because while honest political thought should be protected and respected even if we don’t agree, there is simply no reason to pretend we need to stop companies from firing their public figures when they act like complete asses.
This is a post about someone getting fired for expressing an unpopular view about a hot button topic.
No, it isn't.
It's about someone, who was a public face for a company, getting fired for expressing an offensive view about a hot button topic.
Companies generally prefer to avoid deliberately offending people, because that's bad for business. And when public figures who are associated with a given company do things that cause offense, that reflects on the company, even when it's done off the clock.
But I disagree with the notion that free speech shouldn't be free on consequence, especially when comes to social pressure and government.
I agree with you on the government aspect... but social pressure is precisely how major laws are passed....
It was strong social movements and pressure that gave us the 18th Amendment (as well as the 21st).
There was a strong social movement, and associated pressure that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
It just so happens that LGBT issues are the 2015-2016 social movement. And clearly, some people are showing their true colors over it.
I have no problem with pushing for change if it involves constructive actions, change by example, logical discourse, and education.The 18th Amendment and Civil Rights Act came about by those means, not suppression of thought and speech, like you see today. And all that does is breed resentment and reactionary backlash from those who might otherwise be sympathetic.
I think we would all be alright with change being pushed by those things. But here is the deal, none of that applies to what Schilling did. He posted an intentionally inflammatory thing to the internet and people called him on it. It is like if one of my family members came to the family get together and started talking about how segregation was where it was at and how we need to go back to the way it used to be.
I am going to call him on it. That is what happened here. Curt Schilling came in saying terrible things and people called him out on it. Then ESPN said "Yup, we agree with them. Cya." Now he is gone. He has the free speech to continue saying whatever messed up thing he wants to say on the internet. In fact, he has even more freedom to do it now that he doesn't have to worry about losing his job.
Nobody is suppressing his thought and speech. If people were being suppressed, why do we have so many conflicts on issues?
There is a good case that the internet needs to back off from the ‘name and get fired’ campaigns. But Schilling is not the guy to build that case around, because while honest political thought should be protected and respected even if we don’t agree, there is simply no reason to pretend we need to stop companies from firing their public figures when they act like complete asses.
That is an excellent summation of my thoughts as well...and I would add that if he wasn't such an ass about what he posted, it might make his case a bit more sympathetic to some.
I worry though that at some point even civil discussion will result in your termination.
And I think that, for me, that is what my original snippit from the article touches on...that companies will become and encourage more "thought policing" and nobody will be able to even "gently" express their political or religious thoughts/beliefs withought fear of retaliation from their employer.
TheMeanDM wrote: I worry though that at some point even civil discussion will result in your termination.
And I think that, for me, that is what my original snippit from the article touches on...that companies will become and encourage more "thought policing" and nobody will be able to even "gently" express their political or religious thoughts/beliefs withought fear of retaliation from their employer.
I agree with you there, and I think there's an increasing awareness that this is a problem. But turning from growing awareness to something more substantial will take cases that are a lot more sympathetic than Schillings.
TheMeanDM wrote: I worry though that at some point even civil discussion will result in your termination.
And I think that, for me, that is what my original snippit from the article touches on...that companies will become and encourage more "thought policing" and nobody will be able to even "gently" express their political or religious thoughts/beliefs withought fear of retaliation from their employer.
I agree with you there, and I think there's an increasing awareness that this is a problem. But turning from growing awareness to something more substantial will take cases that are a lot more sympathetic than Schillings.
I ain't sympathtic towards Schillings...
'Da Kronk was right... Schillings is a D-bag.
But, I can't help to think that this is reminiscent of Brendan Eich getting fired from Mozilla.
It's almost not worth to engage in the Thunderdome for fear of reprisal. And that's a shame...
whembly wrote: But, I can't help to think that this is reminiscent of Brendan Eich getting fired from Mozilla.
I don't think it has anything to do with the Schilling case. Eich was much less of a public figure and the action that led to his firing was something he did quietly in private, years in the past. And there were never any accusations of inappropriate behavior at work. Schilling, on the other hand, did something incredibly offensive in a very public way, and it would have been very difficult to believe that his behavior wouldn't have any effect in a business context. It's the difference between firing someone because you dug into their private conversations and found them saying "customers suck" and firing someone because they just got into a screaming match with a customer about how much they suck.
Semi-relatedly, I think there's a legitimate argument that firing him was excessive, but I'm amused at how many of the critics of the decision to fire him seem to have the exact opposite opinion on "a corporation can have beliefs and act on them" when it comes to things like refusing service to gay customers.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The US is moving to include the LGBT community. You can either accept it, and move on, or you can remain bigoted and hateful towards something that in all actuality, you probably don't understand.
That is entirely not the point at all.
You can embrace it, but also disagree with some aspects of it that you find offensive. That does not make you a bigot. That means you have an opinion.
Every year in Philly there is a huge gay pride event, which I've been to several times and we've taken our kids to as well. I don't like seeing almost naked men wearing very skimpy thongs with an American Flag sticking out of their butt. I find that offensive and have gotten vocal about it. Am I bigot because of that? If they asked for legislation to ask to run around with a thong on and a Flag sticking out of their butt and I opposed it, does that mean I'm a bigot?
That's the problem right now. Special interest groups want all or nothing. You are either with them or against them. That's where they start pointing fingers if you disagree with one of their pushes.
This was probably covered, but eh 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government interfering with your speech. Private entities like a Corporation can do what they like around speech, as long as they are not violating other laws, for example around Union Organizing.
So basically, you have no 1st Amendment protections from your Employer..... period. If you violate their policies and they follow their termination guidelines than too bad for you. You should have known the guidelines since you sign off every year or so on them.
Special interest groups like gays and LGBT are only asking for equal rights. I don't see why that's a problem for some people, but apparently it is. That being so, I don't see why LGBT people should just shut up and accept attacks against them.
In any case, with Curt Schilling, it doesn't matter whether he's a bigot or not. The general public have got the impression from his antics that he's a bigot. As a public face of ESPN he's become a liability to the brand, so he's got to go, and he's gone.
Kilkrazy wrote: Special interest groups like gays and LGBT are only asking for equal rights. I don't see why that's a problem for some people, but apparently it is. That being so, I don't see why LGBT people should just shut up and accept attacks against them.
In certain instances they want special considerations. If I dressed in nothing but a skimpy thong and ran around the streets of Philly with an American Flag stuck in my butt, I would be arrested for indecency. Try to do that during a Gay Pride Parade and you'll see that when a policeman approaches everyone screams HATE!! I've seen it happen before my very eyes. Then it makes the evening news that "Police disrupt the Gay Pride Parade".
Please explain what equal rights they are looking for when an adult with a penis is trying to go to the bathroom in a women's bathroom.
So basically, you have no 1st Amendment protections from your Employer..... period. If you violate their policies and they follow their termination guidelines than too bad for you. You should have known the guidelines since you sign off every year or so on them.
Absolutely agree. However, if they are following strict policy, then they can't pick and chose who they fire and who they don't for the same offenses. That's a lawsuit in the making.
So basically, you have no 1st Amendment protections from your Employer..... period. If you violate their policies and they follow their termination guidelines than too bad for you. You should have known the guidelines since you sign off every year or so on them.
Absolutely agree. However, if they are following strict policy, then they can't pick and chose who they fire and who they don't for the same offenses. That's a lawsuit in the making.
Great, which there is a legal channel to be followed that Mr. Schilling has ample access to.
Kilkrazy wrote: Special interest groups like gays and LGBT are only asking for equal rights. I don't see why that's a problem for some people, but apparently it is. That being so, I don't see why LGBT people should just shut up and accept attacks against them.
In certain instances they want special considerations. If I dressed in nothing but a skimpy thong and ran around the streets of Philly with an American Flag stuck in my butt, I would be arrested for indecency. Try to do that during a Gay Pride Parade and you'll see that when a policeman approaches everyone screams HATE!! I've seen it happen before my very eyes. Then it makes the evening news that "Police disrupt the Gay Pride Parade".
If you're really interested in running around with a flag in your arse, you can go and do it at Gay Pride. If you're not interested, why are you complaining that you're not allowed to do it?
No-one's set up a Straight Pride festival involving running around with flags in people's arses, so we don't know if the police would attempt to shut it down, or what the reaction of the crowd might be.
Please explain what equal rights they are looking for when an adult with a penis is trying to go to the bathroom in a women's bathroom.
The right to go into a bathroom they mentally identify with. Women go into the lavatory called Ladies because they mentally identify with it. I've been into Ladies lavatories a couple of times, when I was desperate, and because I am a man it cost me some mental effort, but I was able to overcome my inhibition. No harm resulted.
This is getting a bit off the topis of Curt Schilling, though.
The right to go into a bathroom they mentally identify with. Women go into the lavatory called Ladies because they mentally identify with it. I've been into Ladies lavatories a couple of times, when I was desperate, and because I am a man it cost me some mental effort, but I was able to overcome my inhibition. No harm resulted.
No, sir. People use the bathroom based on their equipment. Women use the Ladies bathroom because they have a Vagina. Men use the Men's bathroom because they have a Penis.
Ask a male child why they go to the Men's bathroom. They won't say "because I feel like a man". They will say because they have a penis. I have a young son. I'll let you ask him.
What he is saying, Kilkrazy, is that laws are being suspended and not enforced when gay people are running around in thongs with ass flags in *public*....when that would normally be an indecent exposure violation.
And the reason that they are neing suspended, is because the fear that the police will be viewed as "anti gay" or "homophobic" as opposed to actually doing their job and applying the law equally.
Which is also what I was tryjng to discuss with my post...that ESPN is applying unequal treatment to Schilling because he is expressjng a view that is opposite their company view. He did it in a crappy way...but...if they are going to fire people over political views, made in their personal time and personal page...then they shouldn't be able to pick and choose when to discipline or fire someone who makes such statements on company time. But, they are.
The contract usually doesn't day "don't have opinions", they have a rule saying "don't do gak that makes the company look bad".
That gives companies a lot of leeway to decide what opinions make them look bad because they keep a person with that opinion on payroll as a public face of the company.
Sex is your genetic makeup. Your sex is male or female.
Your Gender is your mental identification.
Sorry, but you cannot change your SEX.
Change the appearance of your body all you want..change your mannerisms and behavior and mentality all you want...but your genetic makeup will not change.
Now...
IF someone has gone to the lengths of replacing their penis with a vagina, as well as other femanizing surgeries...then you know what...I am OK with them using the ladies room.
Or if a female surgically alters her body to become that of a male, displaying the male reproductive parts....I am OK with them using the men's room.
The simplest solution is to make individual, one-room "unisex" bathrooms.
Although it doesn't address the issue of community locker rooms.
Anyways...that part of the discussion is better discussed in a different thread.
The right to go into a bathroom they mentally identify with. Women go into the lavatory called Ladies because they mentally identify with it. I've been into Ladies lavatories a couple of times, when I was desperate, and because I am a man it cost me some mental effort, but I was able to overcome my inhibition. No harm resulted.
No, sir. People use the bathroom based on their equipment. Women use the Ladies bathroom because they have a Vagina. Men use the Men's bathroom because they have a Penis.
Ask a male child why they go to the Men's bathroom. They won't say "because I feel like a man". They will say because they have a penis. I have a young son. I'll let you ask him.
There's no difference between the equipment in a male and female lavatory, except the male one has got urinals as well as pans, which are a convenience but far from a necessity..
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I think a lot of the prostests over that kind of stuff in Gay Pride parades is much more about the behavior than the actual sexual orientation. I don't care if people are LGBT, you be you and live your life it'snot a problem to me. Trying to overtly put on display in an over the top manner is going to cause friction and is likely counterproductive. Having a parade float full of people in very revealing BDSM type outfits to show how LGBT they are is just as stupid as the people who open carry AR15s into grocery stores or starbucks to show just how pro2A they are. Antics that are done primarily for shock value and moving the Overton Window further along aren't necessary and when people feel those displays are being imposed upon them they're going to push back.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I think a lot of the prostests over that kind of stuff in Gay Pride parades is much more about the behavior than the actual sexual orientation. I don't care if people are LGBT, you be you and live your life it'snot a problem to me. Trying to overtly put on display in an over the top manner is going to cause friction and is likely counterproductive. Having a parade float full of people in very revealing BDSM type outfits to show how LGBT they are is just as stupid as the people who open carry AR15s into grocery stores or starbucks to show just how pro2A they are. Antics that are done primarily for shock value and moving the Overton Window further along aren't necessary and when people feel those displays are being imposed upon them they're going to push back.
There's no difference between the equipment in a male and female lavatory, except the male one has got urinals as well as pans, which are a convenience but far from a necessity..
I can't tell if you're making fun of me or if you seriously think I'm talking about the equipment IN the bathroom. I'm talking about the equipment ON the person. Penis or Vagina. Not urinal or stall actually IN the bathroom.
IF someone has gone to the lengths of replacing their penis with a vagina, as well as other femanizing surgeries...then you know what...I am OK with them using the ladies room.
Or if a female surgically alters her body to become that of a male, displaying the male reproductive parts....I am OK with them using the men's room.
100% agree with this. No arguments from me about this at all.
I know I'm guilty myself, but I guess we are done with the actual topic of "private company with morality clause fires employee with unpopular opinion"?
TheMeanDM wrote: What he is saying, Kilkrazy, is that laws are being suspended and not enforced when gay people are running around in thongs with ass flags in *public*....when that would normally be an indecent exposure violation.
And the reason that they are neing suspended, is because the fear that the police will be viewed as "anti gay" or "homophobic" as opposed to actually doing their job and applying the law equally.
Which is also what I was tryjng to discuss with my post...that ESPN is applying unequal treatment to Schilling because he is expressjng a view that is opposite their company view. He did it in a crappy way...but...if they are going to fire people over political views, made in their personal time and personal page...then they shouldn't be able to pick and choose when to discipline or fire someone who makes such statements on company time. But, they are.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
There's no difference between the equipment in a male and female lavatory, except the male one has got urinals as well as pans, which are a convenience but far from a necessity..
I can't tell if you're making fun of me or if you seriously think I'm talking about the equipment IN the bathroom. I'm talking about the equipment ON the person. Penis or Vagina. Not urinal or stall actually IN the bathroom.
Oh, okay.
Well, anyway, women can use the stalls in a gents. It's only a social convention for them to have a separate room.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Look up public lewdness laws. Doesn't require you to be nude to be offensive.
Well, this is it here in NY.
A person is guilty of public lewdness when he intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be so observed.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-245-00.html#sthash.FoVFSX05.dpuf
And, again, I don't think that's enough. Either that or I guess we should arrest 40% of college age males.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I think a lot of the prostests over that kind of stuff in Gay Pride parades is much more about the behavior than the actual sexual orientation. I don't care if people are LGBT, you be you and live your life it'snot a problem to me. Trying to overtly put on display in an over the top manner is going to cause friction and is likely counterproductive. Having a parade float full of people in very revealing BDSM type outfits to show how LGBT they are is just as stupid as the people who open carry AR15s into grocery stores or starbucks to show just how pro2A they are. Antics that are done primarily for shock value and moving the Overton Window further along aren't necessary and when people feel those displays are being imposed upon them they're going to push back.
Feel uncomfortable, perhaps. Illegal? feth no.
In regards to thongs it depends on whether or not butt cheeks qualify as private parts. It's a misdemeanor, it's not like people are getting multiyear prison sentences over it.
Here's the indecent exposure law in NC:
Spoiler:
§ 14-190.9. Indecent exposure.
(a) Unless the conduct is punishable under subsection (a1) of this section, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14-202.1.
(a2) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in the presence of anyone other than a consenting adult on the private premises of another or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(a4) Unless the conduct is punishable by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in a private residence of which they are not a resident and in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age who is a resident of that private residence shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(a5) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person located in a private place who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person with the knowing intent to be seen by a person in a public place shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman may breast feed in any public or private location where she is otherwise authorized to be, irrespective of whether the nipple of the mother's breast is uncovered during or incidental to the breast feeding.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government may regulate the location and operation of sexually oriented businesses. Such local regulation may restrict or prohibit nude, seminude, or topless dancing to the extent consistent with the constitutional protection afforded free speech. (1971, c. 591, s. 1; 1993, c. 301, s. 1; c. 539, s. 124; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1998-46, s. 3; 2005-226, s. 1; 2015-250, ss. 2, 2.1, 2.3.)
I'm not advocating for people to be arrested or even cited for their clothing or lack thereof in parades. Whatever the law says should be consistently enforced.
What I am advocating is that people think carefully before they decide on how they want to behave in public and how they portray themselves in the name of whatever cause or agenda they are advocating.
And, again, I don't think that's enough. Either that or I guess we should arrest 40% of college age males.
Someone has to complain. If they do at a frat party for example and there is cause to believe the complaint is legitimate, then yes, those chaps could be arrested.
So to go full circle.
I complain at a Frat Party, the police show up and arrest some people, nothing on the evening news.
I complain at a Gay Pride Parade, the cops show up, try to arrest someone, suddenly, the evening news shows up, and an uproar ensues because people HATE. Makes the evening news as "Police hate Gays. Try to break up the Gay Pride Parade. Homophobe bystander sparks riot". All because someone complains about a lewd public act, which is ILLEGAL. I've actually seen this happen.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Thank you so much for posting this.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
d-usa wrote: A lot of people are very uncomfortable seeing KKK rallies.
People do get upset by KKK rallies. We don't make it illegal to be a member of the KKK and we don't make it illegal for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces but we also don't try to publically shame people who object to KKK rallies to be silent and not voice their displeasure because their opinion is "wrong."
People should be able to discern the difference between objecting to how people conduct themselves at a public event and objecting to the actual people holding the public event. Perception affects reality and how you advocate for a cause is just as important as the cause itself when you're trying to affect public opinion.
d-usa wrote: A lot of people are very uncomfortable seeing KKK rallies.
People do get upset by KKK rallies. We don't make it illegal to be a member of the KKK and we don't make it illegal for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces but we also don't try to publically shame people who object to KKK rallies to be silent and not voice their displeasure because their opinion is "wrong."
People should be able to discern the difference between objecting to how people conduct themselves at a public event and objecting to the actual people holding the public event. Perception affects reality and how you advocate for a cause is just as important as the cause itself when you're trying to affect public opinion.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Thank you so much for posting this.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
She was fired because of that post.
I perceive this differently than the Schilling incident.
She was complaining about an incident actually at work and about her work place. I can see how that could cause problems.
Schilling was giving a personal opinion about nothing to do with his job, his job description or about his workplace at all.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Thank you so much for posting this.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a ricket scientist to know that this happened at work.
She was fired because of that post.
That's a tricky example since it involved an incident at work. Would she have gotten fired if instead of FB rant about that work incident she did a FB rant about how anthropomorphic climate change is a lie? Something totally unrelated to her job but could be upsetting to some people.
IF someone has gone to the lengths of replacing their penis with a vagina, as well as other femanizing surgeries...then you know what...I am OK with them using the ladies room.
Or if a female surgically alters her body to become that of a male, displaying the male reproductive parts....I am OK with them using the men's room.
100% agree with this. No arguments from me about this at all.
You do realise it takes a set, long time of hormone therapy before doctors consider allowing the surgery to correct the outward genitalia and that such surgery is very complex, such that it is very expensive and requires a specialist surgeon?
After the hormone therapy, it is (depending on when the therapy started) often impossible to identify a pre-op trans from a non-trans without looking down their underwear. So you are saying people who look like this:
Spoiler:
have to use the mens bathroom whilst people who look like this:
Spoiler:
have to use the womens.
Do you see how completely idiotic that is? Who do you think your daughters would rather see in the ladies bathroom? Who would you rather see walking out of the ladies bathroom whilst your daughters were inside?
Many trans people are more likely to be accused of being in the "wrong" bathroom by going into the one which they (currently) have the "correct" genitalia for. That is why the laws requiring them to do that are idiotic. And what is to prevent a non-trans man to go into the ladies after this law and claim that he has to be in there as he's a pre-op trans? Are you actually going to check peoples genitalia on entering the bathroom? If anything this law actually makes it easier for people to go into the bathroom which is for people of the opposite gender as people will, if the trans community actually follow the law, become much more accustomed to seeing apparently masculine people in the womens bathroom. So the law actually does the opposite of what it intends to.
d-usa wrote: A lot of people are very uncomfortable seeing KKK rallies.
People do get upset by KKK rallies. We don't make it illegal to be a member of the KKK and we don't make it illegal for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces but we also don't try to publically shame people who object to KKK rallies to be silent and not voice their displeasure because their opinion is "wrong."
People should be able to discern the difference between objecting to how people conduct themselves at a public event and objecting to the actual people holding the public event. Perception affects reality and how you advocate for a cause is just as important as the cause itself when you're trying to affect public opinion.
If I could, I would buy you a drink, sir.
I am glad we all agree now that the government shouldn't ban a public gathering just because you find it offensive or because it makes you uncomfortable.
For the rest of us: at some point we need to realize that if we all keep on responding to the same people who do nothing except repeat the same point over and over again regardless of how many times it has been countered, and regardless of how off-topic it is to the actual topic of the thread, we really only have ourselves to blame for these kind of threads.
You do realise it takes a set, long time of hormone therapy before doctors consider allowing the surgery to correct the outward genitalia and that such surgery is very complex, such that it is very expensive and requires a specialist surgeon?
Now wait a minute. Do they want to be the opposite sex or not?
This is where the argument falls apart.
If you have female parts and you want to be male, well, there are options to make sure that happens. Maybe rather than screaming and yelling about what bathroom they should use and getting legislation around that, they should focus more on getting legislation passed to make it easier to have gender reassignment.
You want to be a man? Get your parts changed. You want to be a woman? Get your parts changed.
So rather than changing what you can about you (gender reassignment) you expect everyone else to change to accommodate you. This isn't about accommodating a disability or special needs, either.
You do realise it takes a set, long time of hormone therapy before doctors consider allowing the surgery to correct the outward genitalia and that such surgery is very complex, such that it is very expensive and requires a specialist surgeon?
No wait a minute. Do they want to be the opposite sex or not?
This is where the argument falls apart.
If you have female parts and you want to be male, well, there are options to make sure that happens. Maybe rather than screaming and yelling about what bathroom they should use and getting legislation around that, they should focus more on getting legislation passed to make it easier to have gender reassignment.
You want to be a man? Get your parts changed. You want to be a woman? Get your parts changed.
I think the relative ease or complexity of gender reassignment surgeries is a matter best left to doctors and patients with as little legislative inference from the govt (state or local) as possible.
I don't see the problem with the way things worked before. We have "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. There's nothing stopping people from walking into whichever one they choose to enter. All the things that I wouldn't want another person in a public restroom with me to be doing (transgender or otherwise) are already illegal so all the legal protectionswe need have been in effect for a long time.
The thing about public restroom that creeps me out is the shockingly high number of people I see leaving the restroom without washing their hands. Their hygiene is a much more of a public concern than their genitalia.
I think that "if you don't cut of your dick, then you're not trans, so STFU and stop bothering everybody else" seems like the perfect place to lock a thread concerning the the thread about the firing of a man by a private company because he said many gakky things about many different topics covering many different groups of people.
I don't see the problem with the way things worked before. We have "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. There's nothing stopping people from walking into whichever one they choose to enter. All the things that I wouldn't want another person in a public restroom with me to be doing (transgender or otherwise) are already illegal so all the legal protectionswe need have been in effect for a long time.
The problem I have is that they are forcing legislative change. In some places they have been offered gender neutral bathrooms and have refused this saying that is unfairly segregating them. A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: I think the "get your parts changed" sums up beautifully how completely ignorant you are of the subject. I think we can close this thread now.
Give me a break. I know the issues, I just don't agree with them. Or am I not allowed? Thanks for insulting me though. Appreciate it.
And you've just demonstrated the mindset behind some people and why discussion is virtually impossible. "OH NO! Someone doesn't agree with me or my views. Shut it down, NOW. And btw, you're ignorant, too!"
Mdlbuildr wrote: A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me.
Seriously... Have you not looked at ANY of the photos being posted to this thread? Others have asked you point blank, based on those photos, would you want that person coming out of the restroom of their biological sex?? How much worse for people will things be if you see a "woman" leaving the mens restrom or see a "man" leaving the women's room?
If you have a daughter and see a dude coming out of the restroom that isn't a janitor or employee who was just cleaning the place, you're probably gonna say some gak to that person... And I can see that it would be a rather heated discussion.
I don't see the problem with the way things worked before. We have "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. There's nothing stopping people from walking into whichever one they choose to enter. All the things that I wouldn't want another person in a public restroom with me to be doing (transgender or otherwise) are already illegal so all the legal protectionswe need have been in effect for a long time.
The problem I have is that they are forcing legislative change. In some places they have been offered gender neutral bathrooms and have refused this saying that is unfairly segregating them. A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me.
If somebody identifies as a woman that strongly than I really don't anticipate that person doing anything inappropriate in the women's bathroom. I don't creating additional gender neutral bathrooms is always feasible and is therefore a dangerous precedent to set. Having "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms should qualify as a reasonable accomodation for everyone.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
Which happened in a High School in the USA, were a Transgender Female insisted on using the Female Locker Room to change. He was offered a gender neutral place to change and shower and refused. It caused a national uproar. Sorry, but no.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
My daughter's school has boys/girls and "gender neutral" restrooms. The gender neutral rooms are all labeled "staff only" but are generally for adults regardless of their status. If I were visiting the school during normal hours and had to use a restroom, I would have to ask to have one of the staff rooms unlocked.
I agree that it makes sense in schools because it largely removes some potential liabilities... That and adults should be able to go without having to first clean seats off (as younger kids have notoriously piss poor aim)
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
Which happened in a High School in the USA, were a Transgender Female insisted on using the Female Locker Room to change. He was offered a gender neutral place to change and shower and refused. It caused a national uproar. Sorry, but no.
That's an instance where courts need to make smart rulings consistent with the definition of reasonable accomodation and the expert advice of pediatricians and the medical community. Unfortunately courts don't always make the best rulings.
That's an instance where courts need to make smart rulings consistent with the definition of reasonable accomodation and the expert advice of pediatricians and the medical community. Unfortunately courts don't always make the best rulings.
Absolutely! The problem comes when the courts, pediatricians and the medical community come to conclusions that the special interest groups disagree with or don't follow their agendas. Then all hell breaks loose. Then everyone's a racist or a bigot.
That's an instance where courts need to make smart rulings consistent with the definition of reasonable accomodation and the expert advice of pediatricians and the medical community. Unfortunately courts don't always make the best rulings.
Absolutely! The problem comes when the courts, pediatricians and the medical community come to conclusions that the special interest groups disagree with or don't follow their agendas. Then all hell breaks loose. Then everyone's a racist or a bigot.
Special interest groups =/= socially liberal. Your statement is as opposed to your own point of view as it is for it.
Mdlbuildr wrote: You want to be a man? Get your parts changed. You want to be a woman? Get your parts changed.
So rather than changing what you can about you (gender reassignment) you expect everyone else to change to accommodate you. This isn't about accommodating a disability or special needs, either.
You're getting really butthurt about someone calling you ignorant, but you're espousing viewpoints that are - and I'm not saying this as a perjorative - ignorant. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
For one, sex reassignment surgery is very expensive. One of my friends is transitioning, and she is looking at $6,000 for minor surgeries that do not include a full sex reassignment. A full sex reassignment is minimum $12 grand, and probably more like $20,000 all in, not counting hormones and other medication costs. Almost none of this is ever covered by insurance, because it's considered cosmetic.
It is almost never enforced in big cities, though. Heck, I've seen plenty of people engaging in actual penetration at NYE parties in SF (aka the Straight Pride Untl I'm Tipsy Parade). Heterosexuals perform lascivious acts in public all the time, just about anywhere and rarely face legal consequences. There are times when such behavior is expected and law enforcement looks the other way, just as there are times when it is not tolerated. If a gay man wore a butt flag thong to a little league game, he'd be just as arrested as a straight man in a butt flag thong at a little league game.
You're getting really butthurt about someone calling you ignorant, but you're espousing viewpoints that are - and I'm not saying this as a perjorative - ignorant. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
For one, sex reassignment surgery is very expensive. One of my friends is transitioning, and she is looking at $6,000 for minor surgeries that do not include a full sex reassignment. A full sex reassignment is minimum $12 grand, and probably more like $20,000 all in, not counting hormones and other medication costs. Almost none of this is ever covered by insurance, because it's considered cosmetic.
I'm in the medical field. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Again, because people disagree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I *might* know more about it than most and just have an opinion based on my knowledge that *could* be more educated than most laymen. Maybe. That is unfathomable to some. That an educated opinion may actually be more factual than the one they read about on the internet.
Legislative change is also very expensive. Except everybody bears the brunt of that.
As you pointed out, the DSM does list it. Which means that with the right legislation and political backing the insurance companies may be forced to cover the surgery. Similar to Bariatric surgery which is now covered. I would line up to support this change at every opportunity. This would give those that need it, the freedom to initiate change that they need help with.
It is almost never enforced in big cities, though. Heck, I've seen plenty of people engaging in actual penetration at NYE parties in SF (aka the Straight Pride Untl I'm Tipsy Parade). Heterosexuals perform lascivious acts in public all the time, just about anywhere and rarely face legal consequences. There are times when such behavior is expected and law enforcement looks the other way, just as there are times when it is not tolerated. If a gay man wore a butt flag thong to a little league game, he'd be just as arrested as a straight man in a butt flag thong at a little league game.
There is a little event in New Orleans every year that is all about sex and straight people doing their thing.
Edit 1: Feth it.
Edit 2: I'm going to stop letting the same person who ignores post after post explaining why they are wrong while crying "why won't somebody explain this to me, I'm just a simple man who doesn't understand even though I'm totally smarter than everyone, look at my degree" drag thread after thread off-topic. I need to follow my own advice.
Leaving the whole transgender thing back in the other thread where it belongs, I believe this guy was rightly fired.
Sorry, but if you're employed by a company promptly figured in the public eye, don't go on Facebook or twitter and spout your opinions.
The same thing happened to a guy who worked on Evolve. He made a comment (which I agreed with) and Turtle Rock Studios said "Hey, we don't want you or that whole mess being associated with us, you're fired." Read about it here.
Nintendo has also done something similar. Again, private corporations have every right to fire employees who they feel don't represent their brand or might cause PR harm to them.
curran12 wrote: I think the "get your parts changed" sums up beautifully how completely ignorant you are of the subject. I think we can close this thread now.
Give me a break. I know the issues, I just don't agree with them. Or am I not allowed? Thanks for insulting me though. Appreciate it.
And you've just demonstrated the mindset behind some people and why discussion is virtually impossible. "OH NO! Someone doesn't agree with me or my views. Shut it down, NOW. And btw, you're ignorant, too!"
I think the problem here is that being trans is not an "issue" for you to agree with or not. The facts about gender vs sex are out there for anyone to peruse if they care to.
To clarify: this isn't an issue for debate like PC vs Console, where differing opinions are equally valid based on personal preference and experience.
This is a matter of fact, and the fact is genitals does not equal gender, in the same way that weather does not equal climate. That you seem to miss this point is why I would call you ignorant on this subject.
Ignorant isn't automatically an insult. I know nothing about hunting. I've never been hunting, don't really know any hunters, don't spend any time reading about it. I have an opinion on hunting, but I know it is an ignorant one.
I guess it comes down to whether the "men's" and "women's" signs are supposed to suggest sex or gender. We need footnotes on our signs. Frankly, the sex vs. gender issue is largely unimportant in the bigger scheme of what is wrong with public restrooms: hygiene. Where are the laws that forbid people to leave the room without washing? Or laws that state: if you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie and wipe the seatie? That needs codification.
I think the problem here is that being trans is not an "issue" for you to agree with or not.
That is not what we're discussing at all. Being Trans is not THE issue. It's whether a person with a penis should be allowed to use the Women's bathroom. Penises use the Men's bathroom. THAT'S the issue.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I guess it comes down to whether the "men's" and "women's" signs are supposed to suggest sex or gender. We need footnotes on our signs. Frankly, the sex vs. gender issue is largely unimportant in the bigger scheme of what is wrong with public restrooms: hygiene. Where are the laws that forbid people to leave the room without washing? Or laws that state: if you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie and wipe the seatie? That needs codification.
Hear, hear. I'm one step away from publicly berating the next stranger I see leaving the can without washing hands with soap and water.
Since separate washrooms is a social construct and gender is a social construct, I suggest the sign is to denote gender.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So the issue could be solved with a simple sign change: penises or vaginas. Why didn't those lawmakers think of this? Silly penises.
LMAO, I've said this a million times!! And it's shot down every time!!
I think the problem here is that being trans is not an "issue" for you to agree with or not.
That is not what we're discussing at all. Being Trans is not THE issue. It's whether a person with a penis should be allowed to use the Women's bathroom. Penises use the Men's bathroom. THAT'S the issue.
Ok, fair enough.
Why is that the issue for you?
I've been using the men's room my entire life, and I've never seen a penis other than my own.
I just don't understand. Why what is literally the only obvious indicator of sex (the genitals) has to be the "correct" one for you, when all the others (hair, attire, mannerisms) do not.
feeder wrote: Hear, hear. I'm one step away from publicly berating the next stranger I see leaving the can without washing hands with soap and water.
Since separate washrooms is a social construct and gender is a social construct, I suggest the sign is to denote gender.
I don't think you even have to go into that. Unless you're going to establish a "groin check point" at the entrance of every bathroom, there's really no way to know if someone is transgender or not unless we stoop to absolutely ridiculous levels of profiling that are bound to be wrong. "Use the bathroom of your identified gender" is simply the most pragmatic solution at the moment.
To repeat a joke I made in another thread on this;
Clearly what we need is a new government agency; BSA. The Bathroom Safety Administration. Before entering a bathroom, you will be required to walk through a full body scanner that will check your junk (and anything else you might have) to ensure that you're not a threat to others. This government body will be mandated to hire only unpleasant, bitter, and angry human beings who will revel in their new found power to feth with everyone desperately trying to get to the Restroom. When criticized, they will simply reply "you must want to transgenders to win!" and thus no one will do anything to fix their ineffective system which regularly fails inspections and random testing, all of which independently suggests that the BSA does very little to ensure bathroom security or stop transgenders from threatening our freedom.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
Which happened in a High School in the USA, were a Transgender Female insisted on using the Female Locker Room to change. He was offered a gender neutral place to change and shower and refused. It caused a national uproar. Sorry, but no.
Because the other girls *should* have a say, the best outcome is to provide trans students access to the gender-neutral single occupant bathrooms (in this case, the teacher's bathroom). Or better yet, request fundings to remodel/rebuild the locker/bath rooms so that they're all single stalls.
In Schilling's case... whether you like it or not, he was an ESPN employee. ESPN, as a business, has every right to NOT be associated to Schilling if he does something contrary to ESPN's belief. So, unless ESPN has some contractural obligation to Schillings, ESPN is free to terminate his contract.
Yay for Businesses expressing their beliefs w/o governmental reprisal!
Gordon Shumway wrote: I guess it comes down to whether the "men's" and "women's" signs are supposed to suggest sex or gender. We need footnotes on our signs. Frankly, the sex vs. gender issue is largely unimportant in the bigger scheme of what is wrong with public restrooms: hygiene. Where are the laws that forbid people to leave the room without washing? Or laws that state: if you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie and wipe the seatie? That needs codification.
Hear, hear. I'm one step away from publicly berating the next stranger I see leaving the can without washing hands with soap and water.
Since separate washrooms is a social construct and gender is a social construct, I suggest the sign is to denote gender.
It is, and has been since forever, but we can change it. Here at dakka we can change it. Let it denote sex. Problem solved. It would actually make more sense. When I go to the car fix it place, I don't park in the transmission fixing line when I need to get my oil changed. When I go to Walmart, I don't go to the returns line to buy my provalactics. On second thought, maybe we have it all wrong. Maybe we should have a bathroom for just standing up (only urinals-"put used Bud here") or sitting down (only stalls-"put used Taco Johns here"). That way the lines for most of my public excrement business will get much shorter. I am so smrt. <we need a dancing ork on these darned forums>
I've been using the men's room my entire life, and I've never seen a penis other than my own.
I just don't understand. Why what is literally the only obvious indicator of sex (the genitals) has to be the "correct" one for you, when all the others (hair, attire, mannerisms) do not.
To be fair, it's not just an issue for "me". It is an issue for probably the majority of the population or we would not be having this discussion.
I posted an article about a man pretending to be transgender to get into a women's shelter and was abusing the women at the shelter. As much as everyone doesn't want to see the potential for this, it is possible.
Let me say this. If ALL bathrooms were gender neutral, I would have zero problem with that. ZERO.
The problem I have is that a Transgender Female refuses to use the Men's Bathroom AND the Gender Neutral Bathroom. They insist on only using the Women's bathroom. Why? What's the big deal with using the "Family Bathroom" or designated Gender Neutral Bathroom?
I don't want my 12 year old daughter in the bathroom alone with an adult male in a mall. If you can't understand why, I'm very sorry. Can this happen with a Gender Neutral bathroom? Nope. I could go in there as well, and be a look out. Yes, I would do that to assure my child's safety.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
My counter arguments to that are yoga pants, volleyball shorts, biking shorts, rugby shorts, running shorts, mini skirts, kilts, Under Armour, Dri-FIT, American football pants, sliders, baseball pants...I can go on at length about how the American public is not only consistently exposed to titillating things, likes it, and won't admit it.
Because the other girls *should* have a say, the best outcome is to provide trans students access to the gender-neutral single occupant bathrooms (in this case, the teacher's bathroom).
Absolutely agree! However, this Transgender student refused that accommodation. Why?
Because the other girls *should* have a say, the best outcome is to provide trans students access to the gender-neutral single occupant bathrooms (in this case, the teacher's bathroom).
Absolutely agree! However, this Transgender student refused that accommodation. Why?
Same reason why African Americans rejected the accommodation of separate drinking fountains? Why take a child which it is no business of anyone else due to HIPAA protections and isolate them and single them out to placate people afraid of a fictional boogeyman with laws which make *NO ONE* safer?
I love how you think my friend from HS should be forced to use the female bathroom when he was genetically male and had PAIS simply because you invalidate his existence due to 'junk check'. He was genetically male and recognized by the government and his doctors as male and physically developed male and during his time in the womb he developed a mostly developed vagina instead of a penis. He is a male but you say he needs to use the women's bathroom because your medical degree says 'junk check' is all that matters.
I guess you don't mind adult men in the bathroom with your 12-year old daughter as long as they don't have a penis to rape her? How very 'medical field' of you.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
My counter arguments to that are yoga pants, volleyball shorts, biking shorts, rugby shorts, running shorts, mini skirts, kilts, Under Armour, Dri-FIT, American football pants, sliders, baseball pants...I can go on at length about how the American public is not only consistently exposed to titillating things, likes it, and won't admit it.
It is the irony of America. We want titilation and the freedom to feel guilt. We want individualism and homegenity. We want salads and burgers. We want a party to be economically conservative and socially liberal. We want the end to abortions because life matters and the death penalty because screw them (or vice versa). We want....wait a minute. You think baseball pants are attractive? What weird twisted universe do you live in that establishes baseball pants as attractive? You are sick. I like you. I'm an American.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
She was fired because of that post.
I perceive this differently than the Schilling incident.
She was complaining about an incident actually at work and about her work place. I can see how that could cause problems.
Schilling was giving a personal opinion about nothing to do with his job, his job description or about his workplace at all.
I've been using the men's room my entire life, and I've never seen a penis other than my own.
I just don't understand. Why what is literally the only obvious indicator of sex (the genitals) has to be the "correct" one for you, when all the others (hair, attire, mannerisms) do not.
To be fair, it's not just an issue for "me". It is an issue for probably the majority of the population or we would not be having this discussion.
I posted an article about a man pretending to be transgender to get into a women's shelter and was abusing the women at the shelter. As much as everyone doesn't want to see the potential for this, it is possible.
Let me say this. If ALL bathrooms were gender neutral, I would have zero problem with that. ZERO.
The problem I have is that a Transgender Female refuses to use the Men's Bathroom AND the Gender Neutral Bathroom. They insist on only using the Women's bathroom. Why? What's the big deal with using the "Family Bathroom" or designated Gender Neutral Bathroom?
I don't want my 12 year old daughter in the bathroom alone with an adult male in a mall. If you can't understand why, I'm very sorry. Can this happen with a Gender Neutral bathroom? Nope. I could go in there as well, and be a look out. Yes, I would do that to assure my child's safety.
I find it funny you keep singling out men in a women's restroom, but not women assaulting men in a men's restroom. How very forward thinking of you
Same reason why African Americans rejected the accommodation of separate drinking fountains? Why take a child which it is no business of anyone else due to HIPAA protections and isolate them and single them out to placate people afraid of a fictional boogeyman with laws which make *NO ONE* safer?
I love how you think my friend from HS should be forced to use the female bathroom when he was genetically male and had PAIS simply because you invalidate his existence due to 'junk check'. He was genetically male and recognized by the government and his doctors as male and physically developed male and during his time in the womb he developed a mostly developed vagina instead of a penis. He is a male but you say he needs to use the women's bathroom because your medical degree says 'junk check' is all that matters.
I guess you don't mind adult men in the bathroom with your 12-year old daughter as long as they don't have a penis to rape her? How very 'medical field' of you.
Whoa. Straw man much? You are seriously comparing segregation of drinking fountains between Blacks and Whites with Transgenders using bathrooms? Was there violence against whites or blacks at drinking fountains? I can't fathom the parallel you're trying to make.
There are exceptions to every rule. Again, Straw Man. Your argument about your "friend" isn't the one I'm making. Making the exception the rule is the problem.
Please dispense of the stabs at me personally. Rule #1. Thanks.
ESPN is a private company and should be able to hire and fire how they see fit. It is also known they are a bastion of liberal progressive ideology. Schilling can't be too surprised.
I think it's sad that the SJWs only seem to fight for one side. The dominate trend is for these 'tolerant and inclusive' businesses and organizations to only tolerate those that agree with them. Which is exactly the opposite of tolerance.
I guess you don't mind adult men in the bathroom with your 12-year old daughter as long as they don't have a penis to rape her? How very 'medical field' of you.
As a father, trying to figure out what I am supposed to be worried about here.
1. In a school they have rules against adults outside of staff being in the school to begin with.
2. Whats the difference between a T and your generic ugly grandmother? If this person is trying to peep there are laws against that and nothing keeping her from macing the SOB. If I understand correctly, T's are just like everyone else in the restroom, just hairier. Have you seen a Slavic grandmother? We're freaking bearded dwarves.
3. Spoke to the Genghis Connie about the subject. Her crew is completely unconcerned about this, but real "creepers." This is not an issue for them at all.
4. You owe me money as she confiscated a Tubman as a fee for the conversation.
Mdlbuildr wrote: No, sir. People use the bathroom based on their equipment. Women use the Ladies bathroom because they have a Vagina. Men use the Men's bathroom because they have a Penis.
Why?
Serious question.
Ask a male child why they go to the Men's bathroom. They won't say "because I feel like a man". They will say because they have a penis.
Because that's what they've been taught by their parents. The real reason that they go to the Men's bathroom is that their parents insist that they go to the Men's bathroom.
I've taken my daughter into a Men's room when we've been out without her mum and there's been no Parent's room available... And oddly enough, the world hasn't ended. She doesn't care which bathroom she goes into, so long as she gets to go with one of us. The 'need' to use the 'right' bathroom is a trained behaviour, not an immutable law of the universe.
I find it funny you keep singling out men in a women's restroom, but not women assaulting men in a men's restroom. How very forward thinking of you
Aren't the majority of sexual predators male? I think they are based on my readings. If you know differently, I'd love to hear it.
Oh and please dispense with the personal attacks. Rule #1, remember?
Finding accurate statistics was difficult, so YMMV, but it looks like at least 25% of all sexual assaults are by women, so enough to be a concern if you're going to be so concerned about trans people abusing the law.
Because that's what they've been taught by their parents. The real reason that they go to the Men's bathroom is that their parents insist that they go to the Men's bathroom.
I've taken my daughter into a Men's room when we've been out without her mum and there's been no Parent's room available... And oddly enough, the world hasn't ended. She doesn't care which bathroom she goes into, so long as she gets to go with one of us. The 'need' to use the 'right' bathroom is a trained behaviour, not an immutable law of the universe.
My kids learned to go to the bathroom at home where the bathrooms are gender neutral.
When my children were very young, I also took my daughters to the Men's bathroom and my wife has taken our son to the Women's bathroom.
At a certain age they told us they would rather go to the bathroom corresponding with their anatomy and on their own. This had nothing to do with my "teaching" them this. It was their request.
Eventually your daughter will care. Wait until she's about 6-8 years old.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts,
Privacy isn't really the issue when you're putting those personal opinions out into the world on a public platform.
If he had made these comments in a private venue to friends, there would likely have been no issue. Twitter and Facebook are not private venues.
If I made offensive comments on Facebook, and I was a publicly-known figure associated with my employer, than I would be completely unsurprised when my employer took exception to that action, because whether or not those comments were made in an 'official' capacity, if I'm associated with the company, my actions reflect on the company whether or not I'm 'at work' at the time.
Please dispense of the stabs at me personally. Rule #1. Thanks.
I wasn't aware that questioning the 'credentials' of someone in the 'medical field' who posts comments which are directly at odds with medical sicence is a personal attack...
Same with someone making poorly supported emotional arguments using his children as a shield being called out for hypocrisy and inconsistent positions.
Apparently disagreeing with you or presenting facts which invalidate your position is a personal attack on you?
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts,
Privacy isn't really the issue when you're putting those personal opinions out into the world on a public platform.
If he had made these comments in a private venue to friends, there would likely have been no issue. Twitter and Facebook are not private venues.
If I made offensive comments on Facebook, and I was a publicly-known figure associated with my employer, than I would be completely unsurprised when my employer took exception to that action, because whether or not those comments were made in an 'official' capacity, if I'm associated with the company, my actions reflect on the company whether or not I'm 'at work' at the time.
Thank you. This is the heart of the matter. ESPN doesn't care about his actual views, they care that he's associated with them and it makes them look bad.
Finding accurate statistics was difficult, so YMMV, but it looks like at least 25% of all sexual assaults are by women, so enough to be a concern if you're going to be so concerned about trans people abusing the law.
At a certain age they told us they would rather go to the bathroom corresponding with their anatomy and on their own. This had nothing to do with my "teaching" them this.
Yes, it did.
You may or may not have overtly told them 'You're a boy, so you go to the Men's room!'... but they still learn that behaviour from you, and from others around them. We've decided as a society that men and women should have private bathrooms because, I don't know, reasons... and kids pick up that learned behaviour and it becomes the norm.
The problem is that we're now slowly coming to understand that it's not actually as simple as 'has a penis, is a man/has a vagina, is a woman' and so bathroom assignment based solely on what you have in your drawers is no longer an adequate construct.
Because that's what they've been taught by their parents. The real reason that they go to the Men's bathroom is that their parents insist that they go to the Men's bathroom.
I've taken my daughter into a Men's room when we've been out without her mum and there's been no Parent's room available... And oddly enough, the world hasn't ended. She doesn't care which bathroom she goes into, so long as she gets to go with one of us. The 'need' to use the 'right' bathroom is a trained behaviour, not an immutable law of the universe.
My kids learned to go to the bathroom at home where the bathrooms are gender neutral.
When my children were very young, I also took my daughters to the Men's bathroom and my wife has taken our son to the Women's bathroom.
At a certain age they told us they would rather go to the bathroom corresponding with their anatomy and on their own. This had nothing to do with my "teaching" them this. It was their request.
Eventually your daughter will care. Wait until she's about 6-8 years old.
So your daughter uses the ladies bathroom because that is where she feels more comfortable. Also, unless you specifically asked her why she wanted to use the ladies and she said that it's because she has a vagina then you cannot say with certainty that she chose that bathroom because of her anatomy and not because of her gender, which are different things.
So why can't transgender people use the bathroom which they feel most comfortable in? They have just as much a right to be comfortable as your daughter.
Mdlbuildr wrote: . A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me
If they identify as a female, how is it any more 'fishy' than you insisting that you 'have' to use the men's room just because you identify yourself as a male?
I wasn't aware that questioning the 'credentials' of someone in the 'medical field' who posts comments which are directly at odds with medical sicence is a personal attack...
Same with someone making poorly supported emotional arguments using his children as a shield being called out for hypocrisy and inconsistent positions.
Apparently disagreeing with you or presenting facts which invalidate your position is a personal attack on you?
Question away! Just do it politely without sarcasm and I'd be glad to answer your questions. If you are being a smart-ass about it, then Rule #1 applies.
What medical science am I at odds with?
Please show me where I have been inconsistent in my stance on this topic. What facts have been presented to invalidate my position?
Again, disagree away, but when you do it with snide comments and a heavily sarcastic undertone, well then Rule #1.
I wasn't aware that questioning the 'credentials' of someone in the 'medical field' who posts comments which are directly at odds with medical sicence is a personal attack...
Same with someone making poorly supported emotional arguments using his children as a shield being called out for hypocrisy and inconsistent positions.
Apparently disagreeing with you or presenting facts which invalidate your position is a personal attack on you?
Question away! Just do it politely without sarcasm and I'd be glad to answer your questions. If you are being a smart-ass about it, then Rule #1 applies.
What medical science am I at odds with?
Please show me where I have been inconsistent in my stance on this topic. What facts have been presented to invalidate my position?
Again, disagree away, but when you do it with snide comments and a heavily sarcastic undertone, well then Rule #1.
So your daughter uses the ladies bathroom because that is where she feels more comfortable. Also, unless you specifically asked her why she wanted to use the ladies and she said that it's because she has a vagina...
Young kids say exactly what's on their mind. My daughters at a certain age said EXACTLY that.
"I want to use the Girls Room because I have a Vagina and that's where we go to the bathroom!"
I wasn't aware that questioning the 'credentials' of someone in the 'medical field' who posts comments which are directly at odds with medical sicence is a personal attack...
Same with someone making poorly supported emotional arguments using his children as a shield being called out for hypocrisy and inconsistent positions.
Apparently disagreeing with you or presenting facts which invalidate your position is a personal attack on you?
Question away! Just do it politely without sarcasm and I'd be glad to answer your questions. If you are being a smart-ass about it, then Rule #1 applies.
What medical science am I at odds with?
Please show me where I have been inconsistent in my stance on this topic. What facts have been presented to invalidate my position?
Again, disagree away, but when you do it with snide comments and a heavily sarcastic undertone, well then Rule #1.
You want CAIS and PIAS to use 'junk check' bathrooms because you and your 'medical field' knowledge seem to know that physical genitals are always binary and genitals matching genetics, when that is false.
You support 'junk check' out of fear of 'men' raping your children and want them out of the bathroom but are perfectly fine with 'men' in the women's bathroom if they don't have a fully or partially formed penis. So clearly, it isn't about making your daughter feel 'comfortable' in the bathroom because she will still see a fully recognized 'man' in her bathroom, it is about a fear of penis rape based upon a boogeyman which isn't supported by evidence. And due to that fear you want to oppress the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of people.
Or you basically want everyone in the men's room. Even Men with Vaginas and women with penises either by medical syndrome or self-identification. Let's expose transgender and people with medical syndromes to greater risk by forcing them into the men's bathroom since men are statistically higher chance or sexual assault?
So you may not actually have any experience or knowledge of the issues which you are trying to claim to have more knowledge on due to your profession, got it.
You want CAIS and PIAS to use 'junk check' bathrooms because you and your 'medical field' knowledge seem to know that physical genitals are always binary and genitals matching genetics, when that is false.
You support 'junk check' out of fear of 'men' raping your children and want them out of the bathroom but are perfectly fine with 'men' in the women's bathroom if they don't have a fully or partially formed penis. So clearly, it isn't about making your daughter feel 'comfortable' in the bathroom because she will still see a fully recognized 'man' in her bathroom, it is about a fear of penis rape based upon a boogeyman which isn't supported by evidence. And due to that fear you want to oppress the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of people.
Or you basically want everyone in the men's room. Even Men with Vaginas and women with penises either by medical syndrome or self-identification. Let's expose transgender and people with medical syndromes to greater risk by forcing them into the men's bathroom since men are statistically higher chance or sexual assault?
I also said that there are exceptions to every rule, but I'm not okay with making the exception the rule.
"Oppress the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of people"? Do you hear yourself?
So you may not actually have any experience or knowledge of the issues which you are trying to claim to have more knowledge on due to your profession, got it.
You found me out!!!! LMAO
You know one of the things I learned in Med School? To be a critical thinker and always read and evaluate what I read critically. Try it.
What's incredibly funny to me is that NO ONE on this site has any medical expertise at all (or do they), but they all seem to be experts on Sexual Reassignment surgery and the psychology of Transgenders, etc, so before pointing out your perception of my lack of knowledge, perhaps look at the expertise and knowledge (or lack there of) of the people posting in this thread about all this fancy medical stuff.
I met kids who say 'I don't play with those kids because n-words are dangerous.'
I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall.
Every time I answer a question with something rational, someone comes up with some ridiculous Straw Man argument that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts,
Privacy isn't really the issue when you're putting those personal opinions out into the world on a public platform.
If he had made these comments in a private venue to friends, there would likely have been no issue. Twitter and Facebook are not private venues.
If I made offensive comments on Facebook, and I was a publicly-known figure associated with my employer, than I would be completely unsurprised when my employer took exception to that action, because whether or not those comments were made in an 'official' capacity, if I'm associated with the company, my actions reflect on the company whether or not I'm 'at work' at the time.
Thank you. This is the heart of the matter. ESPN doesn't care about his actual views, they care that he's associated with them and it makes them look bad.
Mdlbuildr wrote: . A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me
If they identify as a female, how is it any more 'fishy' than you insisting that you 'have' to use the men's room just because you identify yourself as a male?
One issue that does arise is religion. At least one very large religion has the mixing a unrelated males and females to be strictly verbotten.
Every time I answer a question, someone comes up with some ridiculous Straw Man argument that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
So your kids say something which is based upon an out-dated, miss-informed social construct put there by you, their parent and somehow it makes it 'valid'...
But I point out examples where other kids say something which is based upon an out-dated, miss-informed social construct put there by their parents and that is clearly absurd?
And laws which don't provide for the rights of 'exceptions' violate due process and is why they get overturned. And laws which serve no legitimate purpose because they don't actually accomplish anything or make anyone safer serve no purpose.
And I suspect you lack going what civil rights are since it applies to all protected classes.
SickSix wrote: So why have gender specific bathrooms at all?
Saying "gender is a social norm" doesn't mean "gender is meaningless."
I'm not wild about my female coworkers walking in when I'm on a bombing run, myself. But anybody that calls himself a guy can listen to me rip ass all they want.
Finding accurate statistics was difficult, so YMMV, but it looks like at least 25% of all sexual assaults are by women, so enough to be a concern if you're going to be so concerned about trans people abusing the law.
Also, you keep repeating Rule #1, when I've seen maybe one or two personal attacks. The yellow triangle button exists for a reason.
Thank you for confirming what I wrote.
The members are equally responsible to keep the peace. Sometimes a simple reminder is better than an outright yellow triangle, no?
Confirming what you wrote? I gave you some rough statistics it took me 5 seconds to steal off the internet. I also confirmed your son (if you have one) is still a good percentage likely to be assaulted as your daughters. 25% is not insignificant.
Also, I find it funny you've not addressed people being sexually assaulted by their own gender. What if a trans man now has to use the Men's restroom and assaults a boy in there?
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts,
Privacy isn't really the issue when you're putting those personal opinions out into the world on a public platform.
If he had made these comments in a private venue to friends, there would likely have been no issue. Twitter and Facebook are not private venues.
If I made offensive comments on Facebook, and I was a publicly-known figure associated with my employer, than I would be completely unsurprised when my employer took exception to that action, because whether or not those comments were made in an 'official' capacity, if I'm associated with the company, my actions reflect on the company whether or not I'm 'at work' at the time.
Thank you. This is the heart of the matter. ESPN doesn't care about his actual views, they care that he's associated with them and it makes them look bad.
How does it make ESPN look bad? For employing somebody whose political or cultural opinion on a topic is controversial even though that opinion is completely unrelated to their job with ESPN and their ability to do that job for ESPN?
What you two are arguing is that once you're employed you're essentially "on company time" 100% of the time on social media. Even personal accounts used on personal time for personal opinions and business that has nothing to do with your employer can get you fired. It doesn't matter if you're good at your job, a good employee or well qualified it only matters if enough people see something you wrote or said somewhere else on your own time in your own space that they are willing to be outraged over and create enough backlash to get you fired. So if you have a job you shouldn't post anything on social media about any current events or political or social topics because if your opinion upsets a few people their outrage can push your employer to terminate you. Neither you nor your employer have control over the term of your employment, that power rests in the hands of the mob.
What you two are arguing is that once you're employed you're essentially "on company time" 100% of the time on social media..
When you're a public figure, yes, that's pretty much how it works.
It's a matter of association. If I start making offensive comments on twitter, my employer isn't going to care... because nobody outside my circle of friends and family is going to ever actually bother to read it.
If, however, I was employed as, say, a media spokesman for the company and was constantly in the public view making statements for the company, then anything I say on my own time in a public venue is also going to be associated with the company. Because my face is associated with the company.
Again, this isn't a privacy issue. The post that started this mess would have been a non-event if it had been posted by Curt from Accounts Payable. But he's a public figure, and so his public posts on social media reach a much wider audience and because of his position reflect on the company.
That's just how it works when you're in that sort of position.
Confirming what you wrote? I gave you some rough statistics it took me 5 seconds to steal off the internet. I also confirmed your son (if you have one) is still a good percentage likely to be assaulted as your daughters. 25% is not insignificant.
Also, I find it funny you've not addressed people being sexually assaulted by their own gender. What if a trans man now has to use the Men's restroom and assaults a boy in there?
Errrr last I checked 75% is a majority, which is what I wrote. A MAJORITY of sexual predators are male. You have confirmed this.
What you two are arguing is that once you're employed you're essentially "on company time" 100% of the time on social media..
When you're a public figure, yes, that's pretty much how it works.
It's a matter of association. If I start making offensive comments on twitter, my employer isn't going to care... because nobody outside my circle of friends and family is going to ever actually bother to read it.
If, however, I was employed as, say, a media spokesman for the company and was constantly in the public view making statements for the company, then anything I say on my own time in a public venue is also going to be associated with the company. Because my face is associated with the company.
Again, this isn't a privacy issue. The post that started this mess would have been a non-event if it had been posted by Curt from Accounts Payable. But he's a public figure, and so his public posts on social media reach a much wider audience and because of his position reflect on the company.
That's just how it works when you're in that sort of position.
I'd also Imagine that Schilling wasn't hired as a normal at-will employee and given an employee handbook. He no doubt was hired as on air "talent," which is strictly contract work. And virtually all of those contracts include morality clauses, which regulate the behavior a public figure can engage in, even in off time. It's one of the downsides to celebrity, but it's generally seen as a reasonable trade.
What you two are arguing is that once you're employed you're essentially "on company time" 100% of the time on social media..
When you're a public figure, yes, that's pretty much how it works.
It's a matter of association. If I start making offensive comments on twitter, my employer isn't going to care... because nobody outside my circle of friends and family is going to ever actually bother to read it.
If, however, I was employed as, say, a media spokesman for the company and was constantly in the public view making statements for the company, then anything I say on my own time in a public venue is also going to be associated with the company. Because my face is associated with the company.
Again, this isn't a privacy issue. The post that started this mess would have been a non-event if it had been posted by Curt from Accounts Payable. But he's a public figure, and so his public posts on social media reach a much wider audience and because of his position reflect on the company.
That's just how it works when you're in that sort of position.
Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
If I tweet out a link to a Donald Trump campaign speech on immigration, praising it and including a #BuildThatWall hashtag should that be a fireable offense because some people find Trump's immigration stance to be offensive and controversial? Where is the line drawn between people who can express a controversial opinion on their own time on their own social media platform without fear of losing their job and the people who can't? If you're on one end of the spectrum and Schilling is on the other where's the middle? When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
Confirming what you wrote? I gave you some rough statistics it took me 5 seconds to steal off the internet. I also confirmed your son (if you have one) is still a good percentage likely to be assaulted as your daughters. 25% is not insignificant.
Also, I find it funny you've not addressed people being sexually assaulted by their own gender. What if a trans man now has to use the Men's restroom and assaults a boy in there?
Errrr last I checked 75% is a majority, which is what I wrote. A MAJORITY of sexual predators are male. You have confirmed this.
Okay, what percentage of those target girls versus boys? What percentage target girls under/over 16? My point is sure, there are statistics, but your fear mongering fails under closer scrutiny. The amount of people who would abuse this ruling versus people who would use it for its intent is a MINORITY.
What you two are arguing is that once you're employed you're essentially "on company time" 100% of the time on social media..
When you're a public figure, yes, that's pretty much how it works.
It's a matter of association. If I start making offensive comments on twitter, my employer isn't going to care... because nobody outside my circle of friends and family is going to ever actually bother to read it.
If, however, I was employed as, say, a media spokesman for the company and was constantly in the public view making statements for the company, then anything I say on my own time in a public venue is also going to be associated with the company. Because my face is associated with the company.
Again, this isn't a privacy issue. The post that started this mess would have been a non-event if it had been posted by Curt from Accounts Payable. But he's a public figure, and so his public posts on social media reach a much wider audience and because of his position reflect on the company.
That's just how it works when you're in that sort of position.
Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
If I tweet out a link to a Donald Trump campaign speech on immigration, praising it and including a #BuildThatWall hashtag should that be a fireable offense because some people find Trump's immigration stance to be offensive and controversial? Where is the line drawn between people who can express a controversial opinion on their own time on their own social media platform without fear of losing their job and the people who can't? If you're on one end of the spectrum and Schilling is on the other where's the middle? When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
Jon, because like it or not you represent your employer in some fashion.
While you have the right to express yourself and associate to what/whomever you'd like, your EMPLOYER also has that right. (see? Corporations are people too! )
So, outside of any laws or contractual obligations that manages your employment status, your employer doesn't have to keep you.
Prestor Jon wrote: Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
He's really more of a public figure. He's a famous ballplayer, which is why he's now a not very famous baseball analyst. He didn't get the job because he's an expert on baseball (although he might be, for example Cris Collinsworth is probably one of the best football analysts in the business and he played pro ball). He got the job because he's Curt "bloody sock" Schilling. He's a more dignified version of Paris Hilton being paid to attend a party.
His public image is actually a huge part of his value to his company.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
d-usa wrote: Do you have a clause in your contract saying "don't do stuff that makes the company look bad by association" or any other type of morality clause?
If you have such a clause, and you get fired for violating it, then there is no story.
Does ESPN disapprove of his opinions or does ESPN not want to deal with the backlash on social media? ESPN should set a standard and stick to it and not let outrage on the internet dictate whether or not they object to the opinion of the employee. You can't control other people's reactions to your opinions and you can't control how your opinions might be misconstrued or misunderstood. If ESPN takes the position of tweet/post whatever you want, if enough people object to it we'll fire you, then that's not a consistent standard and is really them telling employees not to tweet/post at all because who knows what might cause offense and go viral? If you want to have a morality clause you should have defined morals so you know if what you want to put on social media breaks those morals.
d-usa wrote: Do you have a clause in your contract saying "don't do stuff that makes the company look bad by association" or any other type of morality clause?
If you have such a clause, and you get fired for violating it, then there is no story.
Does ESPN disapprove of his opinions or does ESPN not want to deal with the backlash on social media? ESPN should set a standard and stick to it and not let outrage on the internet dictate whether or not they object to the opinion of the employee. You can't control other people's reactions to your opinions and you can't control how your opinions might be misconstrued or misunderstood. If ESPN takes the position of tweet/post whatever you want, if enough people object to it we'll fire you, then that's not a consistent standard and is really them telling employees not to tweet/post at all because who knows what might cause offense and go viral? If you want to have a morality clause you should have defined morals so you know if what you want to put on social media breaks those morals.
If the clause is "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" then ESPN's position on any issue is completely irrelevant. If you do stuff that people don't like, and if you do it in a way that gets enough people to complain to ESPN about it, then ESPN will react to it and let you go because you made them look bad enough as evidenced by all this angry mail they are getting.
If you are not smart enough to know what kind of tweets and opinions might get an angry reaction, then maybe you shouldn't sign contracts saying you won't do stuff that will get an angry reaction.
If you have a clause saying "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" and you do stuff that makes them look bad, then maybe doubling down on that stuff is also not a wise option and you should take that opportunity to try to help your company save face by issuing an apology instead.
d-usa wrote: Do you have a clause in your contract saying "don't do stuff that makes the company look bad by association" or any other type of morality clause?
If you have such a clause, and you get fired for violating it, then there is no story.
Does ESPN disapprove of his opinions or does ESPN not want to deal with the backlash on social media? ESPN should set a standard and stick to it and not let outrage on the internet dictate whether or not they object to the opinion of the employee. You can't control other people's reactions to your opinions and you can't control how your opinions might be misconstrued or misunderstood. If ESPN takes the position of tweet/post whatever you want, if enough people object to it we'll fire you, then that's not a consistent standard and is really them telling employees not to tweet/post at all because who knows what might cause offense and go viral? If you want to have a morality clause you should have defined morals so you know if what you want to put on social media breaks those morals.
If the clause is "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" then ESPN's position on any issue is completely irrelevant. If you do stuff that people don't like, and if you do it in a way that gets enough people to complain to ESPN about it, then ESPN will react to it and let you go because you made them look bad enough as evidenced by all this angry mail they are getting.
If you are not smart enough to know what kind of tweets and opinions might get an angry reaction, then maybe you shouldn't sign contracts saying you won't do stuff that will get an angry reaction.
If you have a clause saying "don't do stuff that makes us look bad" and you do stuff that makes them look bad, then maybe doubling down on that stuff is also not a wise option and you should take that opportunity to try to help your company save face by issuing an apology instead.
This. Clause or not, most companies are gonna go "X isn't worth it", fire you, then release a "Company doesn't share or condone the opinions shared by X". It's the same warning they put on DVD commentary. Don't make a company choose between you and losing money. They'll choose money every time.
Prestor Jon wrote: Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
He's really more of a public figure. He's a famous ballplayer, which is why he's now a not very famous baseball analyst. He didn't get the job because he's an expert on baseball (although he might be, for example Cris Collinsworth is probably one of the best football analysts in the business and he played pro ball). He got the job because he's Curt "bloody sock" Schilling. He's a more dignified version of Paris Hilton being paid to attend a party.
His public image is actually a huge part of his value to his company.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
True and that's the problem. The contract clauses aren't there to actually enforce a particular code of ethic or morality or limit opinions they're just there as a CYA measure so employers can fire employees if they generate negative PR over something that has nothing to do with their actual job performance. There's no consistency or standard. It's not really an understanding between the employer and employee about what's acceptable and what's not because a third party, the public, is deciding that issue. If you violate the terms of your employment then you can/should be fired but it shouldnt be determined simply by public outcry. 10 years ago, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of social media available to us today and it went from being nonexistent to being able to get somebody fired from their job. I'm not defending bad online behavior but that kind of subjective job insecurity isn't a good thing.
It's actually rather ironic that this happened to Schilling because he made a big deal about getting people fired from their job for making vulgar tweets in response to Schilling's tweets about his daughter. Schilling was fully aware that offensive or controversial tweets can get people fired.
Prestor Jon wrote: Curt Schilling wasn't a media spokesperson for ESPN. He was a baseball analyst. He appears on baseball shows and discussed baseball. Sometimes he'd be on SportsCenter and talk about baseball. He was never employed by ESPN to do anything other than talk about baseball. His ability to talk about baseball in an informative and/or entertaining manner has nothing to do with his personal opinions regarding Muslim fundamentalism and transgender bathroom selection/usage posted on his personal social media platforms on his own time. Schilling didn't say these things on air on ESPN, he didn't post them on ESPN's website, he didn't post on ESPN's social media platforms.
You're using the term "public figure" in a rather nebulous way. Curt Schilling may be considered a public figure in regards to libel, slander or defamation but neither he nor ESPN are contesting that either party defamed the other. There is no magic number of twitter followers that lets your employer fire you if you send out a personal tweet they don't approve of.
He's really more of a public figure. He's a famous ballplayer, which is why he's now a not very famous baseball analyst. He didn't get the job because he's an expert on baseball (although he might be, for example Cris Collinsworth is probably one of the best football analysts in the business and he played pro ball). He got the job because he's Curt "bloody sock" Schilling. He's a more dignified version of Paris Hilton being paid to attend a party.
His public image is actually a huge part of his value to his company.
Why should an employer be responsible for every personal opinion held by their employees? That doesn't make any sense. Personal opinions are personal they are assigned to the individual who holds those beliefs. Just because you're popular or famous doesn't mean that your employer has to approve of every personal opinion you express on social media.
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
True and that's the problem. The contract clauses aren't there to actually enforce a particular code of ethic or morality or limit opinions they're just there as a CYA measure so employers can fire employees if they generate negative PR over something that has nothing to do with their actual job performance. There's no consistency or standard. It's not really an understanding between the employer and employee about what's acceptable and what's not because a third party, the public, is deciding that issue. If you violate the terms of your employment then you can/should be fired but it shouldnt be determined simply by public outcry. 10 years ago, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of social media available to us today and it went from being nonexistent to being able to get somebody fired from their job. I'm not defending bad online behavior but that kind of subjective job insecurity isn't a good thing.
It's actually rather ironic that this happened to Schilling because he made a big deal about getting people fired from their job for making vulgar tweets in response to Schilling's tweets about his daughter. Schilling was fully aware that offensive or controversial tweets can get people fired.
Co'tor Shas wrote: How is wearing a thong any worse than, say, wearing a bikini? I certainly don't think it's actually indecent exposure.
It's more about where you wear it than it being significantly different than other clothing like bathing suits. If somebody is wearing a thong on a public beach its different than wearing one in a parade down mainstreet. If you go to the beach you expect to see bathing suits and less clothing, if you're working or shopping downtown you don't expect to see it and have a more difficult time avoiding it or justifying it.
I would like to step in and completely disagree with this. I don't even live near a beach nor was I raised near one. I live in Southern Illinois in deep red territory where nearly everybody is a conservative.
It is almost spring in my home town and there is one thing I will be guaranteed to see, girls in bikinis downtown. Really just girls in bikinis everywhere. Selling food at food stands on the weekends, working/partaking in fair activity, in restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else. Nobody cares that they are walking around in the equivalent of underwear. It is hot out and you do what you gotta do to be comfortable.
True and that's the problem. The contract clauses aren't there to actually enforce a particular code of ethic or morality or limit opinions they're just there as a CYA measure so employers can fire employees if they generate negative PR over something that has nothing to do with their actual job performance. There's no consistency or standard. It's not really an understanding between the employer and employee about what's acceptable and what's not because a third party, the public, is deciding that issue. If you violate the terms of your employment then you can/should be fired but it shouldnt be determined simply by public outcry. 10 years ago, 20 years ago we didn't have nearly the amount of social media available to us today and it went from being nonexistent to being able to get somebody fired from their job. I'm not defending bad online behavior but that kind of subjective job insecurity isn't a good thing.
Well, except there is one area in which a third party matters, which is if people are offended. Schilling didn't just express an opinion, he did so in a way that was meant to mock and offend transwomen. (at the very least, it was completely uncaring if they were offended). The tweet wasn't about his opinions on trans rights, but on basically his opinion on a matter that's contrary to 1) medical science, and 2) the people affected. When you are a public figure, you have to be aware that you cannot offend people needlessly.
Prestor Jon wrote: When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
I mean get rid of urinals and just put stalls in every bathroom. Whats the problem with that?
Nothing to me. It would cost more and many building codes would have to be altered, but I'm good with it.
Sorry, but what? Let me get this straight:
The prospect of men going in the same bathroom as women when it has a "women" sign on the door is something to be terrified of, think of the children, etc.
The prospect of men going in the same bathroom as women when it has a "people" sign on the door is just fine.
If you're ok with gender-neutral bathrooms then I really don't see how you can argue that a more limited degree of mixed-gender bathroom use is something to be worried about.
Also soething to consider is FB or especially Twitter isn't private at all like a conversation in your living room with your friends is private. It's very much public speech.
Just a heads up before I start this, I don't believe you. You are suggesting things that are legally impossible to enforce and you should know that as a doctor just from you having to know how HIPPA and various other privacy laws work. There is no way we can enforce a "Penis" and "Vagina" rule for the bathrooms. It would take a court order to get that kind of information out of a person.
You also do not have a firm understanding of transitioning between a male and a female. There are a lot of social hurdles they have to leap through. There are those still transitioning that physically look like a woman, but still have male parts. You are wanting that person to be forced to go in to a "penis" bathroom after a genital search because they still have a penis. Not only will the men in there probably be confused, somebody will say something to them. That causes them mental anguish. This is a person that is already emotionally distressed from being forced to go in to a bathroom they do not believe they should be in, they also just had to be searched to ensure they should be in that bathroom, and on top of that they are a group that has a high probability of suicide because of how society treats them and how they feel about themselves. When you have somebody that is that prone to risk, you want to avoid any sort of external anguish the person could be getting to ensure they do not harm themselves. They are in a very vulnerable place, even more so while transitioning and on hormone treatments. You would understand that if you were a doctor and you would be able to critically think and weigh that risk against your silly sensibilities of how society should work in regards to the bathroom.
I imagine that it must be tough when you can't use your degree to help you win arguments on the internet...
Having a degree or being in a profession doesn't automatically make one right. We have witnessed this by watching a former baseball player and sports annalist get fired for his tweets, and we have witnessed this by watching posters in this thread.
The truthfulness or lack thereof behind a user's professional claims aren't the topic here. As long as they aren't brought up again by either side why don't we drop this
motyak wrote: The truthfulness or lack thereof behind a user's professional claims aren't the topic here.
Then it probably shouldn't be used as an attempt to appeal to authority. Honestly I am surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has considering the lunacy involved in it and how far it has moved off topic. It started bad and just got worse from there.
Hence the second part of my post, As long as they aren't brought up again by either side. I'm aware of how it was first used, that's why I didn't tell just one side to knock it off.
And the third part, and this is really it. If you have further questions about my post feel free to PM me instead of discussing it here...
No, and I'll think you'll find that throughout history valuable talent has been allowed to be far more controversial, while middling talent gets flushed at the first hint of upset.
I am looking at the wikipedia page for ESPN's current baseball analyst lineup... and it is quite impressive. It really does make Schilling look like "middling talent" I mean, Rick Sutcliffe was a middling talent pitcher, but he definitely is better than the other guy in analysis. Plus, there's Aaron Boone (who was a player, yes) and Dallas Braden, who I would imagine is a "younger guy for a younger crowd"
I would also hazard a guess that they thought they were getting killed by Pedro Martinez over at MLB network, that dude's pitching analysis is fething amazing.
Prestor Jon wrote: When is it ok for a company to fire somebody over a facebook post or a tweet? Seems like there's a really subjective and vague distinction for something as important as a person's livelihood.
Yup. That's because it's a subjective issue.
It seems like a non story to me. ESPN has a stand they want associated with their brand that Curt went contrary to. Free speech doesn't enter into it since they are a private entity that felt their brand and hence their profitability was injured by his remarks on public media. Part of their product is opinion, in much the same way as other companies produce cars, electronics, food, etc., and he seems to have been turning out bad product.
Curt Schilling on D&C addresses ESPN firing, where might he land next 04.28.16 at 10:11 am ET
By WEEI
Former ESPN baseball analyst Curt Schilling joined Dennis & Callahan Thursday to discuss his firing from ESPN and where he will might land next. To hear the interview, go to the Dennis & Callahan audio on demand page.
Schilling believes he wouldn’t have been fired if he had made liberal comments.
“I’ve actually spoken with and communicated with quite a few people there since it happened and to a person, everyone said the same thing,” Schilling said. “One of the things that I said was, if I had come out and said transgenders are the greatest people in the world and if you disagree you’re a MF’er, they would say please don’t use that language in public. It’s well-known. I think people knew when I was there, I talked to people about it. Like I said, we move on.”
The former MLB pitcher also said there are people at ESPN who say some racist things, but don’t get into trouble.
“I think there are a lot of people at ESPN that play the race card often,” he said. “I back that up by saying I don’t have a problem with it in the sense that I think there a lot of those conversations that need to happen. For some reason, a lot of people believe that you need to just talk sports and not talk about the social issues that go on. I think those two things are actually intertwined in a very intimate way. It’s one of the many conversations that should be happening.”
Added Schilling: “Nothing behind the scenes. One of the comments I will never forget is listening to Stephen A. Smith talk about the fact that Robert Griffin wasn’t playing quarterback for the Redskins because he was black. It was because he sucked and he wasn’t playing. It was obvious. Things like that. Those were the comments that as this went along — everybody talks about [I] was warned multiple times. Everybody got the same memo. It was sports people stick to sports, not politics and other stuff. It felt like I was the only one that was held to the rule. I think a lot of what happened was very discriminatory. Like I said, if I had made a liberal point of view, I don’t think this would have ever happened.”
Schilling said he has “a couple” of national offers and expects to have something finalized in the next week or two.
“I’ve talked to different people over the last couple of days,” Schilling said. “I think that my next place in life is going to be — I want to talk sports, I want to talk baseball and hockey and football. I also want to talk about stuff that moves the needle and I think I am going to be allowed to do that in a place and a forum that I’ll be comfortable with.”
Dreadwinter wrote: To be honest, I am okay with the man doing whatever as long as he is never again allowed to run a company, more specifically, a video game developer.
I was going to ask if you were in the wrong thread, then I looked at his wiki page.
Dreadwinter wrote: To be honest, I am okay with the man doing whatever as long as he is never again allowed to run a company, more specifically, a video game developer.
I was going to ask if you were in the wrong thread, then I looked at his wiki page.
I did not know that about him.
He's still a dick.
Knowing what he did to those people, I would argue that he should be upgraded from dick to a word that begins with a c that I am not allowed to say on here.
He's got 3 World Series rings, 3000 strikeouts (15th all time), the best post-season winning percentage in history, 6 time all star, and did not get selected in 4 Hall of Fame ballots since becoming eligible.
kronk wrote: He's got 3 World Series rings, 3000 strikeouts (15th all time), the best post-season winning percentage in history, 6 time all star, and did not get selected in 4 Hall of Fame ballots since becoming eligible.
Maybe no one else likes him, either.
He's trending in the right direction - or he was before this incident.
I still say he'll get in, and I think he deserves to be.
The sad part about all this is that this is the same guy who helped bring Kingdoms of Amalur into existence, and helped save Advanced Squad Leader from the dumpster when Hasbro gobbled up Avalon Hill. Sad to see gamers go bad.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The sad part about all this is that this is the same guy who helped bring Kingdoms of Amalur into existence, and helped save Advanced Squad Leader from the dumpster when Hasbro gobbled up Avalon Hill. Sad to see gamers go bad.
To be fair, his game producing career has a pretty different standing here in RI....
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps I should lay out a bit of a personal anecdote...
Growing up in the household I did, when I joined the army, I was severely anti-gay. I was taught that it was an abomination, etc. etc. etc. Then, I met my wife's best friend. About as gay as gay can be, and cool as the other side of the pillow. Then, as my career in the army went on, I met more gay people in the towns and cities in the areas I lived. In probably the 20 or so acquaintances that I made, I only had issues with 1 person, everyone else were extremely nice, laid back people. They were a ton of fun to hang out with, even drink a bunch or whatever, the vast majority of them realized that I am straight and respected that.
Then I learned about transgenderism... Having had the experiences that I had with the Gay/Lesbian community that I had, I didn't negatively view this... but I thought it slightly odd. Then, I met some trans people (one I hung out with fairly regularly at my school), and guess what!? They are some genuinely cool people!
I lay out this story for one reason: The US is moving to include the LGBT community. You can either accept it, and move on, or you can remain bigoted and hateful towards something that in all actuality, you probably don't understand.
By Odin's beard, I don't fully understand some aspects of LGBT life, and the very real struggles of using restrooms in public, but feth... I'm gonna try, because at the end of the day... this is all there is.
This is several pages late, but I just wanted to say thanks for sharing in this post- I grew up in a very passively liberal area where I got the passive tolerance (rather than actual acceptance or really trying to understand anything) approach taught, and went through a similar needing to know people situation before I understood things, too. Yeah, a lot of it's confusing or difficult to approach, but I think you've got a really good attitude about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mike Ditka, an ESPN NFL Sunday Countdown analyst, former coach, and football star, was stripped of his role on the show days after he called Barack Obama the “worst president ever.” Not long ago, Ditka made the following remarks about Obama and the 2016 presidential election during an appearance on the Bernie and Sid Morning Show:
People try to politicize these firing but it's so much simpler than that. Strong opinions divide people and could lead to reduced viewership, thus losing ESPN money. Money talks, so if any of their broadcasters start making statements that could have significant impact on their demographic then you jettison that dead weight. Their move is the same whether they are liberal or apolitical.
So they are supposed to keep their personal opinions to themselves because they are "famous"...and anonymous folks like you and I can say whatever we desire. Gotcha.
TheMeanDM wrote: So they are supposed to keep their personal opinions to themselves because they are "famous"...and anonymous folks like you and I can say whatever we desire. Gotcha.
Dear TheMeanDM,
No one cares what you had for lunch today.
Sincerely,
Your Facebook family.
Also, nice strawman. That is not at all what I said. Play nice or don't play at all.
TheMeanDM wrote: So they are supposed to keep their personal opinions to themselves because they are "famous"...and anonymous folks like you and I can say whatever we desire. Gotcha.
Pretty much. That's the price of fame, is that the scrutiny of the public eye is a constant threat. Plenty of celebrities get gak for posting their opinions.
Most people keep personal opinions to themselves all the time. At work, for example. Virtually anybody that has a public reputation is pretty scrupulous about what they post in social media.
I'm very careful about what I post, and I'm a relatively low level supervisor in the government. I share things in closed loops, like email chains or facebook chats, but not on twitter or publically on Facebook.
TheMeanDM wrote: So they are supposed to keep their personal opinions to themselves because they are "famous"...and anonymous folks like you and I can say whatever we desire. Gotcha.
Yep. Celebrities and spokespeople are brands. Those brands have value, and those values tank when the brand (aka, the person who is selling their celebrity or fame) alienates potential customers. Those customers could be ESPN viewers, Nike shoe purchasers or McDonnalds patrons, but the details don't really matter. What matters is the corporations paying these brands to represent them do not like it when the brands go rogue and start spouting off about controversial topics that will piss off high percentages of their customer base. That is bad for business.
Which is all this is. Business.
I think its hard for us regular schmucks to understand this since we typically have "on the clock" and "off the clock" hours were our opinions are regulated or free according to what time of day it is. For celebrity spokespeople that isn't the case. They are always "on" so their speech *should* always be regulated. When it isn't you get situations like Schilling's or Ditka's. I'd weep for them, but they should have known what they were getting into when becoming a part of the public eye.
I've known several transgender individuals...most from a stint in residential treatment center for BPD. One was on hormones MTF, one was a woman living as a man, one was gender fluid, and one decided to transition from being a man to a woman. I don't know if the last was on hormones yet. I've encountered a few on dating sites/apps and they've all been MTF. Interestingly the ones on the apps seem to go the full glamour route and are very keen on dressing up, makeup, and all that.
I've heard that the brains in people that are transgender fire differently than those that are cis in that transgender individuals, say a woman in a man's body, has brain patterns? more similar to that of a cis woman. The differences between men and woman are really superficial and can be chalked up heavily to some differences in skeletal structure, but primarily to hormonal differences. Heck, there's a reason why female bodybuilders on a heavy dosage of various PEDs end up with masculine voices and faces. Just as a guy on estrogen or whatever else they take develops breasts.
The only concern I have concerning the transgender population is that some of them appear in my experience to have severe mental or emotional issues. Whether or not this is caused by them being forced by society to live as a gender they don't identify as is yet to be determined. I just worry some people seek to change their gender out of the hope it will somehow fix them, even though that may not be the answer at all, or at the very best is only part of the solution.
It's definitely something not to be made light of and I wouldn't say people that are transgender or have gender identity issues should be pitied. They should completely be respected and treated as human being's FFS.
Oldmike wrote: No they can say left wing opinions all they wish just don't say anything conservative
They can espose beliefs that show they care about people no problem. Espousing beliefs about how horrible certain types of people are will get you in trouble.
Defending helpless or weak people is fine. Being a bully will get you in trouble.
These people are famous for *their* hard work/success, etc...not because they are commentators.
Unless you are a Joe Buck type of person...you were hired because of your success and personality.
I just do not agree with the idea and/or practice of companies policing every aspect of their employees' lives when they are not behind the desk.
Ditka's political views have *zero* to do with his ability to analyze or comment on football.
I'd put $$ on the bet that there was no, and never will be any, measurable drop in ESPN subscriptions that can be directly attributed to his comment--on his personal time--regarding Obama.
Now if an employee is purposely bad mouthing their employer and it can be shown to have been harmful....fire them. I am fine with that.
Now if an employee is purposely bad mouthing their employer and it can be shown to have been harmful....fire them. I am fine with that.
You don't understand how an ESPN commentator bad mouthing the sitting president might be harmful when viewers start turning the channel and/or complaining to the channel and it's advertisers?
TheMeanDM wrote: Ditka's political views have *zero* to do with his ability to analyze or comment on football.
I'd put $$ on the bet that there was no, and never will be any, measurable drop in ESPN subscriptions that can be directly attributed to his comment--on his personal time--regarding Obama.
I suspect there was something else going on in this situation. Merely saying "Obama is the worst" is well below the level of the usual things that get people fired. So I'd guess either there's more to the incident than was seen in public, or ESPN was already thinking of getting rid of him for other reasons and this just gave them a convenient excuse.
Ditka *wasn't* on ESPN. He was in a syndicated radio talk show (which sounded like something on Sirius, etc).
If he were behind the ESPN desk and on ESPN cameras and on ESPN time and started blathering his political nonsense....yeah...then people will change the channel and he should have consequences.
trexmeyer wrote: I've known several transgender individuals...most from a stint in residential treatment center for BPD. One was on hormones MTF, one was a woman living as a man, one was gender fluid, and one decided to transition from being a man to a woman. I don't know if the last was on hormones yet. I've encountered a few on dating sites/apps and they've all been MTF. Interestingly the ones on the apps seem to go the full glamour route and are very keen on dressing up, makeup, and all that.
I've heard that the brains in people that are transgender fire differently than those that are cis in that transgender individuals, say a woman in a man's body, has brain patterns? more similar to that of a cis woman. The differences between men and woman are really superficial and can be chalked up heavily to some differences in skeletal structure, but primarily to hormonal differences. Heck, there's a reason why female bodybuilders on a heavy dosage of various PEDs end up with masculine voices and faces. Just as a guy on estrogen or whatever else they take develops breasts.
The only concern I have concerning the transgender population is that some of them appear in my experience to have severe mental or emotional issues. Whether or not this is caused by them being forced by society to live as a gender they don't identify as is yet to be determined. I just worry some people seek to change their gender out of the hope it will somehow fix them, even though that may not be the answer at all, or at the very best is only part of the solution.
It's definitely something not to be made light of and I wouldn't say people that are transgender or have gender identity issues should be pitied. They should completely be respected and treated as human being's FFS.
One of my closest friends is transexual, she is MtF transitioning. I agree with some of the things you say for sure. For one, she's significantly more stereotypically girly than my wife in most ways. I don't know if this is intentional or ingrained overcompensation, or just the way she "normally" is.
Additionally, as you mentioned, she is deeply, deeply depressed, not quite suicidally depressed but certainly a lot closer to that line than I would like. Would she been nearly suicidally depressed if her brain and body matched in gender? No clue. It's sure not helping though. I'm not even really sure the surgeries are going to help, since there are so very many of them and limited funds and what appears to be something that maybe can't be satisfied in her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I suspect there was something else going on in this situation. Merely saying "Obama is the worst" is well below the level of the usual things that get people fired. So I'd guess either there's more to the incident than was seen in public, or ESPN was already thinking of getting rid of him for other reasons and this just gave them a convenient excuse.
I think it has nothing to do with the "Obama is the worst" comments - I think as you say it was just a convenient hook upon which to hang it. He's apparently been giving a lot of pro-Trump coverage, even after ESPN sent out a memo in January asking their talent not refrain from that sort of coverage. They seem to be worried about the equal time rule, maybe more than they should be - but that's my take.
Ditka *wasn't* on ESPN. He was in a syndicated radio talk show (which sounded like something on Sirius, etc).
If he were behind the ESPN desk and on ESPN cameras and on ESPN time and started blathering his political nonsense....yeah...then people will change the channel and he should have consequences.
That is NOT what he was doing.
I know at this point it has been explained a few times, and it seems like you either just disagree or you don't want to understand it, but I'll just repeat it one more time:
1) ESPN has a clause in their contract saying "don't be an donkey-cave"
2) Person does something that makes them look like an donkey-cave, regardless of where such display of being an donkey-cave occurs
3) ESPN decides to no longer employ the donkey-cave because they don't want to look like a company that keeps donkey-caves on payroll.
trexmeyer wrote: The only concern I have concerning the transgender population is that some of them appear in my experience to have severe mental or emotional issues. Whether or not this is caused by them being forced by society to live as a gender they don't identify as is yet to be determined. I just worry some people seek to change their gender out of the hope it will somehow fix them, even though that may not be the answer at all, or at the very best is only part of the solution.
It's definitely something not to be made light of and I wouldn't say people that are transgender or have gender identity issues should be pitied. They should completely be respected and treated as human being's FFS.
I can only speak from knowledge of the UK's health services, but if a patient here requests medical help in transitioning, one of the first (and admittedly out of date) steps for their GP is to get them a local mental health assessment to ensure that their condition is not related to an underlying cause. More correctly these days, a gender clinic (the only places where hormones and counselling are given) would require this if they suspected any issues.
Say OCD or anxiety may cause a person to ruminate on something long enough to convince them of it, or other more severe mental disorders. It is extremely unlikely (I'd say impossible, but nothing is foolproof) that someone suffering extreme mental issues would receive medical aid in transitioning without addressing those issues first.
However, I understand that in some countries, "informed consent" allows for patients to access drugs and treatments they are prepared to pay for, but I suspect these are the minority of cases, compared to the standard.
Honestly, a mental health assessment prior to any major medical process probably isn't a bad idea.
But I'm not one to shy away from mental health care. I can see why people want to avoid the stigma. Me? I proudly told the world that I'm actually fully sane!
I'm sure Mr. Schilling is quite perturbed, and I do feel for him cause you know that does suck, but exactly who isn't upset upon being fired regardless of reason? But then he didn't learn from the 5,000 other times this has already happened somehow, and at the end of the day freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. He's also just kind of douche nozzle so...
