OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

I guess you are mis-informed as to what we did/are doing in the Mid-East.

 

And where I disagree is that someone who posts something that offends should be fired for voicing that opinion. I like to be presented with different points of view; it makes me question my own belief system. And there isn't a thought worth a damn than can't survive the crucible of debate.

Again, I'm waiting for someone to tell me what message was so offensive.

 

I don't personally know anyone afraid to stand up for what they believe, and why on earth would your employer's view influence that? Maybe the people you know have no spine?

 

Nice try, but a swing and a miss.

 

Yes, they should.

Look, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of the repercussions of harmful, inappropriate or down right stupidity- all of which Shirley is guilty of.

If a dental assistant starts trashing her boss on a blog, she may have that right to write the words, but not the right to harm her employer. There are consequences to such speech. If one wants to abuse freedom of speech, one lives with those consequences. Period.

Why do you think we have laws regarding slander & libel? Why do you think people can go to jail for shouting "fire" in a crowded public room?

It's becasue freedoms of speech are not absolute from the consequences thereof.

 

Okay. So in an effort to make the specter of political correctness and its ills upon our freedoms more salient to me, you gave me an example of Nazis and an LGBT group working together to protect freedom of expression? Huh?

I went back and looked at the article again in an effort to find something that I would consider offensive in a way that would warrant censorship if it, say, appeared on a local news station. No, there's no "keep fucking that chicken" moments in there. I think the closest thing is the remark that Haitians should consider using condoms. That's the closest I could come up with.

I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence with the ESPN firing. I think you should be able to write your opinions down without fear of your employer firing you because they disagree. So, score one for Shirley. At the same time, I imagine being the head of ESPN, reading his article and thinking to myself, "My God. I don't want to give one more cent to that douchebag."

I think that if he wasn't such a good writer, there would be no outcry about his dismissal. If, for example, Shirley had merely posted a series of Tweets that read like this, he would still be fired:

- don't donate 2 haiti. wtf why were they living in those shanty towns anyway?

- still not gonna donate cos then they will just rebuild the slums. maybe if they stopped breeding. we should send them condoms instead.

- dear haitians: next time try not to be so poor. and don't live in haiti. don't you think it's time to move?

 

I get that argument, but I'm more concerned about the implications of people self-policing. What happens when someone wants to call Vince Young "stupid", but is afraid to do so because he's black? I think we're all big enough to read things with which we may disagree.

And again, I have yet to see what was so offensive about what Paul Shirley posted. You can disagree with his conclusion, but what was the offense?

 

IMHO, his offense was against basic humanity. It's one thig to kick someone, another to kick them when they're down, and still another to kick them when they're dying- which is what Shirley did. I was certainly offended. And ESPN reserves the right to not have such sick bastards as representatives of their business.

 

It was an example of someone you wouldn't expect protecting free speech, not an example of political correctness. I told you I wasn't doing a good job of stating my case.

I just think political correctness is a cancer that has slowly seeped into our consciousness.

 

Maxiep, there is certainly no disrespect intended here towards you, but I see no evidence of "political correctness" here at all. To me, it's simple. Paul Shirley, a well known sports personality, made some grossly disparaging remarks about people who were decimated by an earthquake and his employer felt they were irresponsible to the point he had compromised himself as a respected world-wide media person and they let him go.

Maybe I missed something by not reading all the posts- and if so, I apologize, but it seems very straight forward.

 

Yeah? Well, just why the hell are we there?

 

When someone has two broken legs, forcing to stand on their own two feet isn't the most compassionate thing to do.

I've read Shirley' blog post four times now - desparately trying to find anything compassinate or even reasonable about it. and no matter how hard I try, the more I read it, the more he ends up looking like an ignorant, cold hearted, jerk.

I understand the desire to not throw good money after bad on the rebuiling effort, but if that was Shirley's message, the timing and the way he said it were flat out awful. His blog was posted on January 26 - at a time when victims were still being pulled from the rubble. The immediate needs for the victims of the earthquake, were search and rescue, medical attention, food and drinking water - not rebuilding. If Paul Shirely's blog convinced people NOT to donate at that time, he could have very well cost people their lives. I don't see anything compassionate about that. He's free to not donate, but using his influence to encourage others not to donate, at a time when people were dying and suffering, seems very irresponsible to me.

Blaming the victims for their living conditions smacks of someone who has lived a very privileged life and thinks the victims CHOSE their circumstances. Is Haiti poor? Yes. Were many of the vicims living in shantys? Yes. Given the choice, I'm sure the people killed or injured in the earthquake would have preferred to be weathing and living in better built 3000 sq, ft. McMansions. For people born into that squalor, that simply is not an option. It's like Shirely has no clue that people in an improverished 3rd world country do not have the resources to simply pack up and move to a better location. He blames both the people of Haiti and the tsunamai victims for choosing to live in a location that was struck by natural disaster. I'm sure most of those victims didn't even know the risks, and if they did, didn't have the resources to do anything about it. To blame the victims, while they are dead and dying, seems exceptionally cold and callus.

Concerning rebuilding... that discussion whould happen only AFTER the immediate needs of the survivors are taken care of. If Shirely would have waited a month or two and made a statement that any new structures built with relief funds should be required to meet certain minimum building code standards to help prevent future deaths, I think his message would have been much better received - and might actually save lives in the future. But, that's not what he said. Instead, this is his message to the dead and dying:

"As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?"

Of course, since Paul Shirley has vowed NOT to assist, he really has no right to even ask such a question in the first place.

The blog was not posted on the ESPN web site. It was posted on a site called flipcollective.com. So, no editor at ESPN had the chance to review, or approve of Shirley's comments before they were posted.

You seem very gung ho to protect Shirley's rights. What about ESPN's rights. Do they not have the right to chose who they do and don't employ? Do they not have the right to protect the value of their brand name? Do they not have an obligation to their shareholders to protect their investment in the company? Why are you so concerned about Paul Shirely's rights, but so quick to ignore or dismiss ESPN's rights?

Paul Shirley was hired by ESPN to blog about his experiences as a marginal basketball player bouncing around from team to team and league to league. I doubt if there was anything in his job description that included being as total dickhead to the dead and dying. Of course he's entiteld to his opinion, and can continue to express it and post it on his own site, or on flipcollective or any other site that wants to pay him for his contributions. But ESPN has absolutely no moral, ethical, contractual or legal obligation to keep him on the payroll when his comments damage the value of their brand. ESPN has rights, too.

BNM

 

i no clue what u're trying to get at with your first sentence. as for red cross stashing away reserve funds- i knew about it and completely understand. here's why: the red cross has been providing emergency relief to every war zone and disaster spot for generations now. in addition, the red cross is recognized by almost all govts, separatist groups and vigilantes as "neutral" and as such- granted unfettered access to almost any spot in the world. journalists, the UN and the even your US govt arent granted such a privilege. to put it succinctly- i trust their judgment.

 

political correctness exists to protect ppl that can fend for themselves in the public sphere of ideas because their voices arent often heard for the most part. is it a double standard? of course but history is uneven and there are clear "winners" and "losers". political correctness is a mechanism to ameliorate the disparities that exist between different ppl and its also an observation of basic decency (respect) towards your fellow man. nevertheless, what shirley said wasnt about contravening political correctness, no, it was espn not wanting to stand beside a liability (shirley).

 

Well said. That's why I chose to support the American Red Cross both financially and through regular blood donations. They do good stuff and help people who need it. Hard to find fault with that.

BNM

 

Bingo! I said it earlier in this thread - as long as an employee is an asset (makes the company money), he will continue to have a job. Once he becomes a liability (costs the company money), he won't.

In ESPN's view, Shirley went from asset to liability. Bye, bye.

BNM

 

im kinda puzzled by how maxiep can find fault with a non-profit but he somehow finds it in him to dispense compassion to billion dollar corporations. i guess we will agree to disagree about that.