56 replies to this topic

[Mark]

Rioting and making an offensive remark, how incredibly similar.

making a ridiculing movie/cartoon/book to the public
and making a ridiculing comment to the public.

the difference: the minority offended and the volume of words. (also possibly pictures)

[Fëanen]

Rioting and making an offensive remark, how incredibly similar.

making a ridiculing movie/cartoon/book to the public
and making a ridiculing comment to the public.

the difference: the minority offended and the volume of words. (also possibly pictures)

The other difference is whose time and dime the offending statements were on. The works in various mediums that are currently infuriating Muslims are published by people who are willing to distribute them. The chap who wrote something offensive on his face did so while "at work," if you will. His employer viewed it as being in conflict with company policy and took action in a way they saw as fitting.

[Oberon Storm]

False equivocation. One is manufactured political outrage. The other is disciplinary action taken against an employee behaving in such a way the employer found inappropriate and directly or indirectly effected said employer.

[Mark]

So, the works which are infuriating muslims were created by people willing to publish them, just as the fellow who wrote the comment on his face was willing to 'publish' it.

coincidently the responces to the two different 'works' were different. on one hand the 'employer intervened' to repremand the creator; because it happened 'at work' the employer had grounds to do so - namely to act according to the public values.
And the creatior of the other 'work' was not repremanded (in accordance with public values) but his work was greeted with riots.

Ok. firstly I am not equivocating.
What I am trying to say is that, these 'works' are similar. and hopefully that once we see behind the labelling (eg. is a thesis vs. isnt a thesis, is a "manufactured political outrage" vs isnt a "manufactured political outrage") we will realise that there is a continuum.
that and that on this continuum there is the acceptable and the unacceptable. further that the deeming of unacceptable acts are generally swayed to minorities (I suspect because they are seen to be vulnerable).

Edited by Mark, 26 September 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[Selena]

I see the logic you're trying to work with, but the argument isn't a good one.


First, nobody's rioting / burning flags / tearing stuff apart / calling for anyone to die. That's a key difference. South Park publishes stuff far more offensive than the cartoons that riled up Muslims. Shows like that have insulted just about every group under the sun. Nobody really bats an eyelash. And if they were offended, then the worst people would do is sign some halfhearted online petition. We don't lose our heads like certain people in the middle east do. They are, simply, nuts.

Second, I don't know if this baseball slur had much public anger involved at all. I only heard about it here in Contro. Not a single mention of it in local news or even on a google headline. So minorities aren't really rioting in order to get this guy punished.

It's a simple case of an employer banning certain types of speech while someone's on the job. Especially when you've got a diverse fanbase viewing the games. Just about all major employers ban that sort of thing. Free speech stops when you're on the clock. If this guy were an artist making a cartoon/satire/whatever? Different. But he's not an artist. So it's not the same. If he wants to do that sort of thing on his own time or under self-employment, he's free to do so. But not when he's contracted to a major league.


As a sidenote, the "pity the majority" approach to an argument also never ends well.

Some people are definitely too politically correct, but not always.

[Elvenlord]

I feel this has become relevant.

[Selena]

Yes, but better suited to the middle east thread.

[Elvenlord]

I don't know, I thought it was relevant to discussion at hand, namely Muslims not all rioting at every turn. Especially in light of the attack on the embassy being a planned attack.

[Selena]

Well, sort of. But I'd prefer that the thread didn't get entirely off-topic. Especially since that's precisely what Egann's Middle East thread is about.

Also wasn't what I was entirely implying, btw. Never said all. I'm just trying to quickly smack down the Muslim-baseball comparison. My real views can be summed up in the other thread.

[Stew]

It's easy enough. You represent the Blue Jays if you are wearing a Blue Jay uniform and are under Blue Jay employ. If I put on my uniform and had "You are a faggot" written in marker on my arm, would I be punished?


Yes. Yes I would.

It has negative repercussions for the team. They could have had sponsors and fans drop their support over such a thing. Which could be millions of dollars lost. He's not worth the damage that could have been caused, so you can him. Being suspended is getting off with a slap on the wrist.

[Mark]

lol.

so Selena, I am not sure why you think that the actual effects matter? isnt it the case that we are discussing what if any repremand should have been made on the baseball player for the action that he took.
surely his action didnt result in a riot, or have too much propensity to result in a riot. and?
free speech stops when you are 'on the clock', fair enough baseball players are paid to represent the values of the team. but 'sensitivity training' as a responce?

for Stew.
I agree. in real world terms his actions could have caused a lot of harm. but should it be so is the question.

[Nevermind]

so you can him.

You can all of him.

[Selena]

surely his action didnt result in a riot, or have too much propensity to result in a riot. and?

You were comparing an extreme reaction to a not-especially-offensive act (Muslim hostility to certain media) to a relatively small reprimand for an action that could easily be seen as genuine hate-speech during a live game. It's not a fair comparison at all. I understand the argument you're trying to make, but that comparison is probably more of a hindrance to your point than anything else.


Now, to the actual meat of your argument, should something like this even be a cause for alarm or punishment?

Your initial argument was that it was unfair that minorities get special treatment while the majority is forced to just endure insults.

There are certain double-standards in society. I agree. They are silly. For example, comedians who are part of a minority generally have freedom to insult white people. The reverse is not true. There are obvious historical reasons for that, but the majority of well-meaning white people have no connection with the sins of their forefathers. And it can get irritating as all hell to hear people go on and on about how modern caucasians are so cruel, which (ironically) lumps all of them into a single stereotype. Or be blamed for something we had no personal part in. There are certain individuals who get completely offended at the slightest comment or casual joke and claim that it's outright racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever. No, bro. Relax. It was just a joke.

I'm of the belief that if you're comfortable with yourself and your heritage, you should be able to laugh about it. I think Swede jokes are hilarious and, unless something has a hostile undertone, I'm also okay with gay jokes. Everyone could stand to just lighten up.



But this? No context to it. No way to tell if it was an insult or a joke. During a live, televised game with a diverse audience watching. He's on the job. He's in uniform. He's representing his team. Yes, he deserves to be reprimanded. "Faggot" is a slur, and, without any context to it, it will be seen as such. It does not matter which group he offended. He wasn't being professional.

"Sensitivity training" is a term that obviously induces eye-rolls. But when you're representing pretty much an entire country, you really do need to know when to keep your jokes to yourself. For however much I think people need to be able to laugh at themselves, there's still a time and a place for inappropriate humor. A major sporting event is not one of them.

[J-Roc]

This is going to come off stupid, but I must say: why does everything have to follow an agenda? Why can it not just be a matter of right or wrong?

[Mark]

surely his action didnt result in a riot, or have too much propensity to result in a riot. and?

You were comparing an extreme reaction to a not-especially-offensive act (Muslim hostility to certain media) to a relatively small reprimand for an action that could easily be seen as genuine hate-speech during a live game. It's not a fair comparison at all.

right. I see how I have come across.
my aim was not to compare the reactions, but the acts .. appologies.

anyway, your post is very agreeable. and I dont disagree with it at all.

In times past I have been devout, and I know exactly what Egann is talking about. There are forms of expressions far more pungent than single phrases.
There exists a blurred line between deriding something which a person/people strongly identifies with, and deriding the person/people themself.
surely it was unprofessional however in the scheme of things I just dont rate something like that as being particularly big.

[Khallos]

This is going to come off stupid, but I must say: why does everything have to follow an agenda? Why can it not just be a matter of right or wrong?

Agendas aside a lot of the world does not judge things absolutely. There is right and wrong but some wrongs are more wrong than others and therefore deserve lesser judgement.

An ignorant man acting unprofessionally is not the same as some fool making a shitty film which was kindly spread by Islamic propaganda machines across the Middle East. Neither action is the same as killing an American diplomat because his country didn't censor a film. You don't ruin a man's career because he acted stupidly once, if anything that man will probably develop his dislike of homosexuality if you did, far better you penalise him publically and send him to sensitivity training.

I also disagree with the double standards of modern society, we do have a system where some minorities have louder voices than others and it's more acceptable to piss off some social groups than others; however if he had cracker written on his shirt he probably would have still been suspended as it is still unprofessional.

[Nevermind]

This is going to come off stupid, but I must say: why does everything have to follow an agenda? Why can it not just be a matter of right or wrong?

If anything were ever just a matter of right and wrong, there would sure as hell be a lot less lawyers around.

[canas is back]

Also not everybody views the same things as being right or wrong, a lot of it is social standards.

[J-Roc]

This is going to come off stupid, but I must say: why does everything have to follow an agenda? Why can it not just be a matter of right or wrong?

If anything were ever just a matter of right and wrong, there would sure as hell be a lot less lawyers around.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[Nevermind]

But not everyone agrees it would be a good thing and therein lies the problem of plain right vs plain wrong, as Khallos and Canas have said.

[Egann]

OK, I've thought about the issue a bit more, and I realized some interesting things.


First, let's define this word "offensive." When I think offensive, I don't think of a crass joke; I think "the opposite of constructive." Something is offensive if it is intended to belittle, to emotionally cut someone else down, to sadistically and maliciously wheedle away at someone else's identity because you don't like them.

I've lost count of how many times I've gone through this while others expected to sit down and shut up.


So how do the things in this thread thusfar stack up?

Well, obviously the recent youtube video parody of Mohammed qualifies. It was intended to sting muslims, so yes; it was indeed offensive. Was it actually the cause for the riots in Lybia and Egypt? Coincidentally falling on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11? Let's not be stupid; Al Qaeda wanted an excuse to rock and roll, so they found one. They're probably tickled crazy they got the guy who made the video thrown in jail and plan on throwing this shit again soon.

Escobar? Let's recap. He had something scribbled on his face directed at nobody in particular. It was in poor taste, and it kinda was intended to slight homosexuals, but it was basically an infantile giggle. Again, as this does reflect poorly on MLB and MLB is a business, they should feel free to punish him however they want, but is firing him really appropriate? I don't think so.

[J-Roc]

OK, I've thought about the issue a bit more, and I realized some interesting things.


First, let's define this word "offensive." When I think offensive, I don't think of a crass joke; I think "the opposite of constructive." Something is offensive if it is intended to belittle, to emotionally cut someone else down, to sadistically and maliciously wheedle away at someone else's identity because you don't like them.

I've lost count of how many times I've gone through this while others expected to sit down and shut up.


So how do the things in this thread thusfar stack up?

Well, obviously the recent youtube video parody of Mohammed qualifies. It was intended to sting muslims, so yes; it was indeed offensive. Was it actually the cause for the riots in Lybia and Egypt? Coincidentally falling on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11? Let's not be stupid; Al Qaeda wanted an excuse to rock and roll, so they found one. They're probably tickled crazy they got the guy who made the video thrown in jail and plan on throwing this shit again soon.

Escobar? Let's recap. He had something scribbled on his face directed at nobody in particular. It was in poor taste, and it kinda was intended to slight homosexuals, but it was basically an infantile giggle. Again, as this does reflect poorly on MLB and MLB is a business, they should feel free to punish him however they want, but is firing him really appropriate? I don't think so.

So because Escobar spouted off some bullshit excuse, he's coo. K, whatevs.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Egann, I think only one person has said that he deserves to be fired, maybe two. Most everyone in the thread has said his punishment was reasonable, and firing him would be a bit far for a first offense. Also, by your definition, what he did was offensive since it belittled a group of people. Because it was intended to be some immature joke, it was okay for him write a slur on his face? Of course not, and we all know it. Just because his action weren't as extreme or as offensive as the actions of others, does not mean it is still not offensive. So I kindly ask you and others to stop comparing it to irrelevant examples.

[Selena]

So because Escobar spouted off some bullshit excuse, he's coo. K, whatevs.

Frankly, his reasoning could outright be "I hate gay people," and I still wouldn't call for him to be fired. You don't get to fire someone just because their personal views offend you. Even in a profession this public. He's free to think whatever he wants. We'd probably all be fired if there was a politically correct examination of our personal beliefs. I'd be axed for hating religion, for example.

His fault would not be homophobia -- it would simply be misusing eye-black to express something like that while on the field. Although I'm still fairly certain he meant it more in a "lol maricon" 14-year-old boy way, rather than genuine hate speech.

Though, oddly enough, you can say all sorts of Spanish swear words on TV and the censors don't ever bleep them. Might be part of the reason why nobody's making too big a stink about it. There probably would have been more controversy if it was "faggot."

[Khallos]

http://www.nohomophobes.com is mildly depressing. Not for the shear amount of homophobic language used (it's hardly a surprise) but the odd mix of casual "you're gay" jokes and the undercurrent of some pretty nasty comments appearing in the live feed.

[J-Roc]

http://www.nohomophobes.com is mildly depressing. Not for the shear amount of homophobic language used (it's hardly a surprise) but the odd mix of casual "you're gay" jokes and the undercurrent of some pretty nasty comments appearing in the live feed.

This is what I'm getting at. This is why Escobar is a mega-douche.

Also, a few posts back Khallos you mentioned that firing Escobar would further develop a hatred towards homosexuals. My response to that? Who cares!? Fuck this guy, firing him isn't supposed to change his views its supposed to set a precedent. Even if you disagree with me for everything I've said so far you must admit this: the MLB response had 0 impact on all the douchebags of the world.

[J-Roc]

Clearly the Blue Jays didn't think the punishment was enough, either, and traded Escobar yesterday to Miami in a blockbuster deal.