OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

[Denny Crane]

I do. Amazingly enough, I'm not sure you do. While the history is fascinating, it's a bit much to distill into a couple lines. I'll recommend this, however. Read more. Save the spewing for someone you'll actually get a rise out of. There's a pretty large body of historical scholarship on 20th century military matters--I'd recommend reading some of the pure history (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Churchill's The Second World War; Biographies on Stalin, Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek, Churchill, Roosevelt are good starts to WWII) and then look back on some of the outcomes of our isolationist movements (Jones' "Crucible of Power" is decent, if not pretty long).

To answer a bit: Hitler was democratically "elected" and all of his powers were "voted for". Why the hell did those WWII clowns keep marching to invade Germany and take Berlin? They should've just stopped at the borders of Germany and not "invaded" a "democratically elected" fascist...even if he's corrupt/insane--is that right? And in Korea, we should've stopped at the 38th parallel in 1950 after the recapture of Seoul and said "Eff this...we can't invade a sovereign nation, even if their dictator is insane and going on orders from another "corrupt, insane" dictator. Do you have the same opinion of the invasion of Panama in 1989? That leader wasn't democratically elected, though he was a dictator who the US had paid off in the past.

If you try to divorce military might from moral right, you get the UN. Who passed no fewer than 60 resolutions against Iraq after their surrender in 1991 that they didn't heed. Each of which was a violation of their surrender (especially of sections 8 and 12) and the question you have to ask yourself is: why didn't the UN (who had the unquestioned right and willing backing of multiple countries) enforce the surrender treaty? (Much like, say, asking the question why France and Britain didn't enforce the Treaty of Versailles in 1934-39?).

FWIW, I favored taking out Saddam for humanitarian reasons. We shouldn't sit idle when 300,000 people die from some natural disaster, and we shouldn't sit idle when 300,000 people die at the hands of some despot. I was disappointed when we didn't send any help for the people mass murdered in Rwanda.

These things are crimes against humanity, and recognized as such by all but a few nations run by those depot types.

You didn't mention this book:

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

It's hardly the earliest treatise on the relationship between nations and their obligations to one another.

In fact, I seriously wonder about people who bash capitalism and describe it as 100% pure profit motive... I quote Adam Smith:

The man of system . . . is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it . . . He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

The point being that Morality is such a huge part of it all. Morality simply being "what is right, and what is wrong."

 

[maxiep]

What you label as political correctness sounds an awful lot like freedom of choice to me. Paul Shirley made his choice. ESPN made theirs.

BNM

They're two separate issues. Are you that slow? How many posts has it taken you to realize it?

 

[Boob-No-More]

They're two separate issues. Are you that slow? How many posts has it taken you to realize it?

What's with the personal insults? Feel free to attack my arguments. Feel free to disagree with everything I say. But there's no reason to attack me personally.

BNM

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

What's with the personal insults? Feel free to attack my arguments. Feel free to disagree with everything I say. But there's no reason to attack me personally.

BNM

<maxiep> Agree to disagree. </maxiep>

 

[ehizzy3]

<maxiep> Agree to disagree. </maxiep>

lmao

repped

 

[Boob-No-More]

<maxiep> Agree to disagree. </maxiep>

I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me. I'd just prefer they do it without name calling and personal insults.

BNM

 

[maxiep]

What's with the personal insults? Feel free to attack my arguments. Feel free to disagree with everything I say. But there's no reason to attack me personally.

BNM

I didn't disagree with your contention that Paul Shirley was free to say what he wanted nor that ESPN was free to fire him. My issue was with the oppression that is political correctness. It's the fact that ESPN chooses to buy into that kind of thought control.

 

[jlprk]

Thoughts:

"Agree to disagree" means that you're too lazy to spell out your reasoning.

My Post #87 came out too abstractly. What I meant was that Shirley got fired by a private company, the same consequence as if the government controlled everything (no, he wouldn't have been stoned), so it shows the myth often claimed that our system is better due to having separation of powers. Separation of powers (capitalism vs. socialism) is an illusion. The net results come out about the same.

300,000 Iraqis were about to die? Do you always believe wartime propaganda? How were they going to die? From the nuclear weapons of mass destruction that he was 5 years away from bombing us with (and quickly buried in the sand so we couldn't find them)? Even if the preposterous number of 300,000 had been true, our side killing a million of them in this war, after killing a half-million children under Clinton from medical holdbacks, greatly exceeds whatever evil Sadam did.

 

[maxiep]

Thoughts:

"Agree to disagree" means that you're too lazy to spell out your reasoning.

Nope. It means that our positions have been elucidated and there's no "zone of agreement" (in the language of negotiation theory). It's a timesaver.

 

[barfo]

I didn't disagree with your contention that Paul Shirley was free to say what he wanted nor that ESPN was free to fire him. My issue was with the oppression that is political correctness. It's the fact that ESPN chooses to buy into that kind of thought control.

I don't have any inside information about ESPN's decision making, but my guess is they based their decision on what they thought would be good for ESPN, not on some sort of political viewpoint.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I don't have any inside information about ESPN's decision making, but my guess is they based their decision on what they thought would be good for ESPN, not on some sort of political viewpoint.

barfo

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.

 

[barfo]

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.

Well, Shirley wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believed in, was he?

And why should ESPN have backed him? What do they gain from backing him, compared to what they lose by backing him?

Should they have backed him no matter how offensive his remarks were to their readership?

If for example he'd written about how moronic sports fans are, should ESPN be obligated to keep him? If he'd said all [certain type] people should be killed?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Well, Shirley wasn't afraid to stand up for what he believed in, was he?

And why should ESPN have backed him? What do they gain from backing him, compared to what they lose by backing him?

Should they have backed him no matter how offensive his remarks were to their readership?

If for example he'd written about how moronic sports fans are, should ESPN be obligated to keep him? If he'd said all [certain type] people should be killed?

barfo

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.

 

[barfo]

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.

I get what you are saying, but I don't see where intimidation played a role here. Corporations aren't obligated to employ jackasses. In some cases it makes business sense to employ jackasses (see, e.g., Rush Limbaugh), but it is not clear why ESPN would benefit from staff jackassery. ESPN paid him to write things that would attract readers to their site; when he stops doing that there is no reason to continue paying him.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

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.

 

[deception]

I didn't disagree with your contention that Paul Shirley was free to say what he wanted nor that ESPN was free to fire him. My issue was with the oppression that is political correctness. It's the fact that ESPN chooses to buy into that kind of thought control.

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.

 

[deception]

FWIW, I favored taking out Saddam for humanitarian reasons. We shouldn't sit idle when 300,000 people die from some natural disaster, and we shouldn't sit idle when 300,000 people die at the hands of some despot. I was disappointed when we didn't send any help for the people mass murdered in Rwanda.

These things are crimes against humanity, and recognized as such by all but a few nations run by those depot types.

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.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

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.

 

[maxiep]

I get what you are saying, but I don't see where intimidation played a role here. Corporations aren't obligated to employ jackasses. In some cases it makes business sense to employ jackasses (see, e.g., Rush Limbaugh), but it is not clear why ESPN would benefit from staff jackassery. ESPN paid him to write things that would attract readers to their site; when he stops doing that there is no reason to continue paying him.

barfo

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

 

[deception]

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.

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[deception]

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.

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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

 

[maxiep]

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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.

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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?

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

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 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.