OT: Paul Shirley is a dick

[MARIS61]

So wait, you're a total douchebag if you don't contribute time, money and energy to help people get on their feet from a natural disaster....but if you're helping people get out from under a corrupt regime, or from oppressive crime, or heaven forbid something like the Holocaust and takeover of Europe, then it's not our fucking job?

I guess we just have different priorities.

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

 

[maxiep]

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.

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.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

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?

 

[maxiep]

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.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

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.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

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.

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?

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 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?

 

[maxiep]

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.

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?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

 

[maxiep]

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?

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.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

 

[BrianFromWA]

A natural disaster is an objective problem. Everyone agrees that it's a problem. A government that criticizes the US, like Iraq was, is a subjective problem. It depends upon your point of view as to whether it's a problem. Most of the world interprets our invasions as forcing our power upon countries which won't accept subordination to the mighty imperial superpower. For domestic purposes, the story spread here is that the other country is oppressed. Yet the people there fight us for many years, showing that they think the oppressor is us, not their own government.

And I think it's terrible that Shirley was fired. I don't believe in firing people just because I disagree with them. That's like invading a country just because I disagree with their system. But the US government disagrees with Shirley's position, so in this case, the conservative gets the same treatment that leftists usually get. Beware of disagreeing with the foreign policy of the big bad US government.

Just saw this, sorry.

Shooting at airplanes enforcing the instrument of surrender (among many, many other things) is not "subjective". And if the rest of the world doesn't understand that when you surrender you're at the mercy of the "winners" (which they do--you're not giving them credit) then that's not our problem.

Let's not forget...we didn't send a single damn troop into the Middle East until Iraq invaded Kuwait and massed troops at the Saudi border. If Iraq didn't like the sanctions imposed based on their failure to comply with the instrument of surrender (to the UN and 34 countries!!) then boo-damn-hoo. Actions have consequences. Don't invade your neighbor next time. Especially if your neighbor has badder friends than you do.

 

[BrianFromWA]

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

I'll humbly submit that I'm probably more in tune with what we're militarily doing in the the Eastern Hemisphere than just about anyone in here. If you have specific questions, I'll answer what i can.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'll humbly submit that I'm probably more in tune with what we're militarily doing in the the Eastern Hemisphere than just about anyone in here. If you have specific questions, I'll answer what i can.

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

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[deception]

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.

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.

 

[deception]

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.

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).

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

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

 

[Boob-No-More]

it was espn not wanting to stand beside a liability (shirley).

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

 

[deception]

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

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

The 1st amendment guarantees the right of free speech in the public square. It doesn't guarantee you a megaphone or that ESPN has to pay for that megaphone.

[video=youtube;aF-buPwsovc]
That'd be the Rahm Emmanuel, White House Chief Advisor (top advisor to Obama)

 

[Boob-No-More]

The 1st amendment guarantees the right of free speech in the public square. It doesn't guarantee you a megaphone or that ESPN has to pay for that megaphone.

Well said. ESPN can't prevent Paul Shirley from voicing his opinions, but they also don't have to pay him for those opinions, or provide him the resources to help broadcast those opinions.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

What is being labeled as political correctness I see as a free market economy at work. It's simple supply and demand. Paul Shirley overestimated the market's demand for the writings of insensitive, marginally talented basketball players.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

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?

This is an interesting viewpoint, because it seems like you need to have an objective standard for when a writer may be legitimately fired, to prevent this from being "Writers should be able to write anything, free from fear, until I think it is too much."

Since I doubt you believe that hypothetical position, what is that objective standard? The only objective standard I can imagine is that writers should be able to write anything at all, without fear of being fired. Which would make writing positions lifetime appointments.

So, that's what I'm unclear on about your perspective: when can professional writers be fired, without being oppressed?

 

[jlprk]

Just saw this, sorry.

Shooting at airplanes enforcing the instrument of surrender (among many, many other things) is not "subjective". And if the rest of the world doesn't understand that when you surrender you're at the mercy of the "winners" (which they do--you're not giving them credit) then that's not our problem.

Let's not forget...we didn't send a single damn troop into the Middle East until Iraq invaded Kuwait and massed troops at the Saudi border. If Iraq didn't like the sanctions imposed based on their failure to comply with the instrument of surrender (to the UN and 34 countries!!) then boo-damn-hoo. Actions have consequences. Don't invade your neighbor next time. Especially if your neighbor has badder friends than you do.

The whole world knows that Kuwait, the most oil-rich province of Persia, was ripped apart from Iraq when the British drew up national borders and granted independence circa 1960. The purpose was to divide and conquer, to create a tiny state easily controllable by the West, containing a third the wealth of the Mideast. Iraq, even pre-Saddam, disputed the fake borders recognized by the West, and was always, even pre-Saddam, looking for an opportunity to reintegrate Kuwait. The Kuwaiti people are spoiled rich boys who bring in foreigners to do all the work. If their wealth were spread among the far larger population in Iraq, it would be for the good of all.

You don't bring up all the UN votes against Israel ignored by Israel. You only refer to the UN votes against Iraq ignored by Iraq. You are selective in your choice of when to follow the UN and when to oppose it. By the way, the UN votes all opposed the US in the 2003 Iraqi invasion. You forgot to mention that, too, when you tried to use the UN to your benefit.

So yes, when Iraq tracked harrassing American warplanes with radar beams after the planes soared through cities at 500 feet altitude, and the planes bombed the radar sites, and Iraq shot at them, that was subjective compared to an objective natural disaster like an earthquake. There is no comparison between the moral imperative to help in a natural disaster, and the immoral imperative to attack and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[jlprk]

Let's be honest about why Shirley was fired. It wasn't because he said something offensive, or something callous, or something conservative (coded as "politically incorrect" by some), or something that might garner criticism of his employer. You notice that torture advocates don't get censored by news sites.

It was because he said something contrary to American foreign policy. Same example--You notice that torture advocates don't get censored. Another example--If he had written an article saying that Saddam ran a far more humane government than the American-installed regime, he would have been fired. If I said that in a regular column on a leading mainstream website, I'd soon be writing on a little message board somewhere. Can't imagine which one.

So I don't think he should have been fired any more than any other pro-selfishness conservative. But in exchange, I'd like to see the opposite extreme in the media extolled just as often. It would be refreshing to read the alternative point of view, i.e. pushing an economic system full of powerful incentives toward unselfishness and humane love. I'm against censoring the right as long as the left doesn't get censored either. In this rare case of the Haitian earthquake, liberal sentiments dominate the media, so Shirley should have survived, to balance the media.

 

[maxiep]

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.

I don't know why you try to put me in the position of defending his comments. I'm defending his right to say them. One shouldn't have to fear for your job every time you say something unrelated to your employment. Should I fear to be a Blazer fan if I worked for Jerry Buss?

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'm fine with ESPN's rights to fire him. I think people should be able to be fired at any time. I just think it's sad that was their knee-jerk reaction. They're so fucking limp-wristed, they're so culled by political correctness, they'll bow to the unthinking mob because that's what they're expected to do. That's what bothers me.

 

[maxiep]

What is being labeled as political correctness I see as a free market economy at work. It's simple supply and demand. Paul Shirley overestimated the market's demand for the writings of insensitive, marginally talented basketball players.

BNM

Wow, have you misunderstood my point.

 

[maxiep]

This is an interesting viewpoint, because it seems like you need to have an objective standard for when a writer may be legitimately fired, to prevent this from being "Writers should be able to write anything, free from fear, until I think it is too much."

Since I doubt you believe that hypothetical position, what is that objective standard? The only objective standard I can imagine is that writers should be able to write anything at all, without fear of being fired. Which would make writing positions lifetime appointments.

So, that's what I'm unclear on about your perspective: when can professional writers be fired, without being oppressed?

I don't wish to put a standard on people, unlike the politically correct who demand blood everytime they perceive an offense. I just think we'd all be better off if companies weren't so hypersensitive, not to the market at large, but to those who use political correctness as a weapon.

 

[maxiep]

The 1st amendment guarantees the right of free speech in the public square. It doesn't guarantee you a megaphone or that ESPN has to pay for that megaphone.


That'd be the Rahm Emmanuel, White House Chief Advisor (top advisor to Obama)

That's absolutely right. I'm not debating that point. All I'm saying is it's too bad that companies live in fear of being perceived as being insensitive. I think when people self-edit, we're all poorer because those ideas never make it into the public sphere.

 

[jlprk]

Wow, have you misunderstood my point.

Maybe because of skimpy posts like that, in which you make no points?

Actually, I can sympathize that you get tired of posting, so you give answers like that sometimes. I think you spread yourself too thin.

You notice that I enter very few threads, so that I can write fully in those that I do enter. 90% of OT threads, I haven't even read the first post.