OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

That's right. But my point is that political correctness has captured this country to a point where people are afraid to stand up for what they believe and their companies are afraid to back them. Just because Paul Shirley says something doesn't mean ESPN is saying it.

 

Many outlets are able to separate the opinions of their writers from their organizations. However, so many corporations have had the fear of God put into them by the watchdogs of the politically correct, they'll knuckle under at the first sign of controversy. I understand why, I just think it's sad. I'll fight to defend anyone's speech, even if I disagree with it. Too often, the forces of political correctness simply use intimidation.

 

When conservatives don't like being coerced into agreement, it's political correctness. When liberals don't like it, they are either unpatriotic or just playing politics.

The term conspiracy theory is similarly used only by one side. Conservative explanations are never conspiracy theories, such as Saddam secretly gathering weapons of mass destruction. Only liberal explanations are, such as Bush lying about yellowcake.

 

espn could careless about thought control, in fact, the only moral obligation they have is to keep disney profitable. why would they sacrifice a penny on paul shirley's dumbarse? imagine this- paul shirley's blog sponsored by? who the fuck would want to attach themselves to a man who believes we should allow the ppl of haiti to starve and fend for themselves. espn saw the writing on the wall and acted prudently to protect their shareholders from blowback.

 

slippery slope. if u want to have an interventionist foreign policy on those grounds- america would be sending young american servicemen to a different failed regime every month. are u prepared to take those losses in life and money? probably not.

 

I agree.

Shirley has every right to free speech. However, that speech has it's appropriate set of ramifications. In this case, ESPN is a 'brand' that is inconsistent with a saddistic and blithering idiot like Shirley. So they canned him. He deserved it.

 

While I think we largely agree, I must present three words of evidence to the contrary: Stephen. A. Smith.

 

he's no longer an employee of espn.

 

I'm aware of SAS's current employment situation, but ESPN feasted for years on him being outrageous. That was my point.

The larger point remains unanswered; what was so dispicable about what Paul Shirley said? The gist of his letter was that if Haitians hadn't worked to improve their lives before the quake, what is the evidence that any money he sent would help them now? What is so offensive about that point of view? I don't agree with it, but it's hardly Jimmy The Greek territory.

In that thread he compares it to a homeless person, who he also doesn't give money to on the street. Didn't we just have a thread where several people on this very board forcefully stated their point that giving money to homeless people was counterproductive?

I would invite you to re-read that blog post. However, a closer reading is unnecessary in today's world. We simply take the worst parts of the post out of context and demonize him for daring to take an unpopular position. THAT's the politically correct bullshit I'm talking about.

 

why give to a homeless person? human compassion for your fellow man who's fallen on tough times. in the replies to shirley's post- someone asked, "wouldnt u help up a fallen child?" of course u would because thats the human thing to do. u wouldnt watch idly by and scold the child for being a clumsy fuck as someone who subscribes to shirley's world view might suggest.

lets take shirley's haiti-homeless dude parallel- maybe u wouldnt give a few dollars to the homeless guy because u might think he would squander that on booze but u could always buy him some coffee and a bagel. similarly, maybe as crane as suggested in this thread-u could carefully select the charity, so that your funds can be most efficiently utilized. i personally have given to the red cross but havent given to ppl who i see randomly on the street who claim to be collecting for relief efforts because i dont know where that money is going, whereas the red cross have a proven track record.

 

It's funny when you make assumptions. Go find the post regarding the yelling at a homeless person and read my posts on the issue.

BTW, do you know the Red Cross isn't distributing all the money to Haiti? They're holding back around 50% of the donations for future crises.

 

Those selfish fucking bastards. How dare they be prepared to help people in a time of crisis.

You know each and every one of Shirley's "arguments" about NOT helping the people in Haiti could be applied to not helping the people of New Orleans after Katrina. Should we have turned our backs on them as well?

Helping people, especially children, who are suffering is called compassion. Shirely's blog demonstrated a cold, heartless lack of compassion for those who are are dead, dying and suffering. It's certainly his right to be a cold, heartless bastard and not help those who are less fortunate. But, I still fail to see why ESPN has ANY obligation to employ cold, heartless bastards.

BNM

 

deception stated that he knew where his money was going. My point was, did he really know? People are assuming their money is going 100% to Haiti; it's not true.

The argument isn't analogous. Katrina was the fault of the lazy and corrupt authorities who didn't ensure the dykes would be able to hold back the water, one entity being the Army Corps of Engineers--a federal agency. The people the government put in charge of the safety of the people of New Orleans decided that it was more important to spend money on a statue celebrating their efforts than shoring up the canal walls they knew were insufficient.

New Orleans was a shining city on a hill compared to Port au Prince. New Orleans was also US territory. Those people paid taxes to the local, state and federal governments with the expectation they would receive goods and services in exchange for those monies paid.

And I think Shirley's argument is that sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is to force someone to stand on their own two feet. Mind you, I disagree with his sentiments, but I will support his right to say it free from fear. So, what happens to the next person who has an unpopular opinion? Should they be afraid to write it because they're worried about being fired? What about the editor? Someone reviewed it on ESPN before it was posted. Should they be fired too? It's the idea of self-censorship I find dangerous.

 

Maxiep, could you elaborate on "the forces of political correctness" a little? I'm having trouble visualizing exactly what or who was "intimidating" ESPN into firing Shirley.

 

The fear that ESPN will offend anyone. Just like Rush Limbaugh's comment on the press regarding Donovan McNabb. Note I didn't say his comment on Donovan McNabb, but his comment on the press. If you read his comments, and now how they were interpreted by an overly sensitive press, you'll see what he was saying. Limbaugh is an idiot, but he was villanized for a point he didn't even make.

I get tired of the debate that ends with the negation of someone's opinion because they're "racist" or a "homophobe". Political correctness is thought control. And it's everywhere, from schools, to the workplace to entertainment.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I'm still confused. Is it the press?

If it's "everywhere," doesn't that mean it's just part of the American culture?

 

Yeah, I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it. It started at the fringes and is now part and parcel of American culture. One of the freedoms I take most seriously is my right to offend and to be offended by others. A perfect example here in the Mile High is the Colorado National Socialists are sponsoring a highway cleanup program. They have a sign on the highway, and it's pissing people off. Who is defending their right to do so? The Colorado Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Alliance. Clearly the latter is incompatible with the former, but the latter defends free speech and non-discrimination, no matter the form.

 

I don't see like that. I don't care if Shirley is a racist, a homophobe or a laker fan.The thoughts he wrote down disgust me. Probably disgust a lot of people and probably disgust alot of top brass at ESPN. Those thoughts, not who he is as a person or what he has been labeled, is what lost him his job.

I can see this being called political correctness . . . but I'm with BMN, I see it as freedom. I'm glad ESPN can fire him on those thoughts without facing some kind of lawsuit. Each side had the freedom to do what they thought was best.