The Weird, Random, and Interesting things that Fit Nowhere Else Thread

[Malcador]

If this place teaches anything is that everyone is trying to be a **** until proven otherwise

[Gfted1]

Hehe, well I was riffing on your and Hurlshot's various defenses of people not understanding the meaning of a word and going ahead and getting offended anyway. Or the Sarah Silverman idiocy I linked. Like GD mentions, pick up a damn dictionary before you* spew your ignorance. (*"You" in the general sense. Not you Malc.)

[Malcador]

Hehe, well I was riffing on your and Hurlshot's various defenses of people not understanding the meaning of a word and going ahead and getting offended anyway. Or the Sarah Silverman idiocy I linked. Like GD mentions, pick up a damn dictionary before you* spew your ignorance. (*"You" in the general sense. Not you Malc.)

Well context matters. I have been around people using words in a weasely way so it pays to look at it case by case. The ESPN clown should not have said that and not try the weak dodge he did try after. As for him getting the sack, such is life in entertainment. Maybe he just handed some rope to managers waiting for it

[Amentep]

If he has no proof it was intentional, he has to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

 

Actually no one has to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Otherwise everyone can do anything they want so long as they say it wasn't intentional afterwards.

 

People have a right to be offended whether he wittingly or unwittingly made offense.  He has a right to say he was misunderstood and try to prove it.  ESPN has an obligation to do due diligence and accord sanctions according to their policy and relevant laws.  .

 

Now that there's a suit, ESPN has to prove he violated some terms of his working agreement since they took correct and legal action.  He has to prove that the firing was either (a) not following the organizations policies or applicable law, or (b) applied to him incorrectly as he used a homophone of a racial slur, not an actual racial slur.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

If he has no proof it was intentional, he has to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

 

Actually no one has to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Otherwise everyone can do anything they want so long as they say it wasn't intentional afterwards.

 

No, most actions are clearly intentional, others could be intentional or negligence. There's no evidence so far of either here.

People have a right to be offended whether he wittingly or unwittingly made offense.

Lol, if someone is offended, someone surely must pay.

 

He has a right to say he was misunderstood and try to prove it.  ESPN has an obligation to do due diligence and accord sanctions according to their policy and relevant laws.  .

 

Now that there's a suit, ESPN has to prove he violated some terms of his working agreement since they took correct and legal action.  He has to prove that the firing was either (a) not following the organizations policies or applicable law, or (b) applied to him incorrectly as he used a homophone of a racial slur, not an actual racial slur.

Don't know what the legal requirements are, but to have evidence of wrongdoing before imposing punishment is a basic precept of justice.

[Amentep]

No, most actions are clearly intentional, others could be intentional or negligence. There's no evidence so far of either here.

 

And in the case of the unknown, there's only a legal requirement that a person is innocent until proven guilty. There is no requirement that people can't rightly/wrongly believe in guilt before a legal (or even HR, as in this case) determination is made.

 

Lol, if someone is offended, someone surely must pay.

 

That doesn't follow from what I said. People had a right to be offended. If offended they had a right to complain about the offense. At that point it goes to ESPN's ball field for action/inaction.

 

Don't know what the legal requirements are, but to have evidence of wrongdoing before imposing punishment is a basic precept of justice.

 

I'm not an HR person, so I could only speculate on things.  I imagine that HR has to take a neutral stance when investigating for fairness, but I suspect that the burden of proof is closer to civil law (where the proof standard is, as I understand it, 'more likely than not' than 'beyond a reasonable doubt').  And whether he was treated fairly by ESPN per their HR policies, the terms of his contract and applicable law seems to be the root of the lawsuit.

[Hurlshort]

The way you react to something is also a big deal, and it sounds like this reporter reacted poorly when confronted with the racial overtone of his comment. Do you think if he was genuinely apologetic and chagrined, it would have worked out the same way?

 

That isn't a rhetorical question, I don't know enough about the specifics of the case.

 

edit: Although the way he was approached about the comment is important as well. Was his back immediately placed against the wall over the comments?

 

The Sarah Silverman situation is a good example here. The initial tweet seemed to be more of a joke by her, which given she is a comedian, that makes sense. But then she got defensive about it, which was a bad reaction and makes it look like she genuinely is seeing swastikas everywhere. But then you remember she is a Jewish female comic on social media, and she probably gets anti-semitic and sexist harassment on a regular basis, and it is somewhat easier to understand her reaction.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why would he be apologetic if he did nothing wrong? I'm not aware of anyone who called his reaction into question, just the use of that word in the first place. I don't think it has anything to do with his reaction, it has everything to do with cowards at ESPN projecting their own racism onto others.

[Hurlshort]

Referring to Serena Williams as a gorilla is not wrong?

 

It may not have been his intention, but that is the way it came across to people. As a married man, I can tell you that the apology is much easier and cheaper than trying to justify intent.

 

The smart play is always to apologize. People that think that makes a person weak are just stubborn at best, and typically lack a sense of empathy.

[Malcador]

Why would he be apologetic if he did nothing wrong? I'm not aware of anyone who called his reaction into question, just the use of that word in the first place. I don't think it has anything to do with his reaction, it has everything to do with cowards at ESPN projecting their own racism onto others.

Heh, who said he did nothing wrong ? Foot in mouth, isn't murder, but it's still something one should say "Ah nuts, sorry" for. And ta-da that'd suck the wind out of any fuss.

[Gromnir]

Ignorance sure seems to be a defense for the offended. Unfortunately for me it did not work the last time I got a speeding ticket..."Do you know how fast you were going?"...."Duuuuh, 55mph?"

not all crimes have an intent/mens rea requirement.  doesn't matter if you knew you were speeding.  doesn't matter if you genuine thought you could dump 10,000 gallons o' toxic sludge into ________ creek.  for other crimes, intent is the pivotal question.  examples o' specific intent crimes is assault, embezzlement and first degree (premeditated) murder. when you were shooting arrows at the oak in your backyard and sneezed, sending a shaft over the fence and into your neighbors gluteus maximus, chances are you didn't actual intend to harm bob and thus you won't be guilty o' criminal assault.  sure, you were likely negligent and will owe bob money, but you won't be criminally liable for your mistake.

 

in the past, there were a meaningful distinction 'tween mala in se and mala prohibita crimes, but that is a functional anachronim at this point.  no jurisdiction in the US actual relies on common law o' crime.  got statutory codes up the wazoo for all kinds o' ridiculous infractions.  even so, for many crimes, intent, however difficult it may seem to prove, is the most important question.  for other crimes, intent will only be relevant when you die and mighty anubis weighs your wizened heart on his golden scales.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Referring to Serena Williams as a gorilla is not wrong?

 

It may not have been his intention, but that is the way it came across to people. As a married man, I can tell you that the apology is much easier and cheaper than trying to justify intent.

 

The smart play is always to apologize. People that think that makes a person weak are just stubborn at best, and typically lack a sense of empathy.

He referred to her as a guerilla. He did apologize for using an unfortunate word, but it's not his fault the two words sound the same. If he had time to think it over, you could argue he did something wrong, but in live commentary he didn't have time. The point is it's ridiculous to destroy a man's career and reputation over one word.

[Hurlshort]

The point is it's ridiculous to destroy a man's career and reputation over one word.

 

 

Well first off, I agree, because it seems that he made a decent attempt at apologizing and explaining the word. It will be an interesting case, I expect there may be more to it behind the scenes that has not been reported yet.

[Malcador]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0217/Where-is-Zealandia-Geologists-say-they-have-discovered-eighth-continent

 

I prefer Tasmantis.

[Volourn]

"The smart play is always to apologize. People that think that makes a person weak are just stubborn at best, and typically lack a sense of empathy."

 

Apologizing for something you didn't do is not strength. It is weakness. The one who lacks empathy here is you since you don't empathise with someone who did nothing wrong but expect him to apologize and beg for mercy anyways.

 

Apogizing when you did something wrong is an admirable attribute but apologizing when you did nothing rong is pathetic, asanine, lazy, weak,, and cowardly.

[Hurlshort]

I am sorry you feel that way, Volo.  

[Guard Dog]

I am sorry you feel that way, Volo.  

I don't know, I find I'm agreeing with Volo on this one. An apology proffered without actually doing anything wrong just validates the wrongful accusations. I guess if he'd followed the word "guerilla" with "warfare" it would still make sense in the context and maybe would not have led to the mess. But since it's a white commentator talking about a black athlete everyone still would have assumed he was being racist. I guess in that situation the commentator already has one foot in the grave and the automatic assumption is anything that might be construed in more than one way will always be construed to be racist. Because the PC mindset is all white people are racists. Personally had it been me I'd release a statement to the effect of "I'm sorry the world is such an awful place that we are all lying in wait to ambush each other or wrongs real or perceived. And I'm sorry for the shocking ignorance of the public on the nuances of the English language. I suggest you all go invest in a dictionary and if you are not going to bother to read it then you can go f--k yourself with it"

 

But hey, that's just me.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

People are really buying that he meant 'guerilla' as if 'guerilla effect' is a commonly said phrase, followed by 'charging' ? Huh. Somehow I'm not too surprised.

[Hurlshort]

 

I am sorry you feel that way, Volo.  

I don't know, I find I'm agreeing with Volo on this one. An apology proffered without actually doing anything wrong just validates the wrongful accusations. I guess if he'd followed the word "guerilla" with "warfare" it would still make sense in the context and maybe would not have led to the mess. But since it's a white commentator talking about a black athlete everyone still would have assumed he was being racist. I guess in that situation the commentator already has one foot in the grave and the automatic assumption is anything that might be construed in more than one way will always be construed to be racist. Because the PC mindset is all white people are racists. Personally had it been me I'd release a statement to the effect of "I'm sorry the world is such an awful place that we are all lying in wait to ambush each other or wrongs real or perceived. And I'm sorry for the shocking ignorance of the public on the nuances of the English language. I suggest you all go invest in a dictionary and if you are not going to bother to read it then you can go f--k yourself with it"

 

But hey, that's just me.

 

 

I'm not sure if that statement is going to help you get hired at ESPN.  

[Wrath of Dagon]

People are really buying that he meant 'guerilla' as if 'guerilla effect' is a commonly said phrase, followed by 'charging' ? Huh. Somehow I'm not too surprised.

Is 'gorilla effect' a commonly used phrase? It doesn't even make sense, unless he was actually trying to show that he's a racist and should get fired. 'Guerrilla tactic' would have been better, as in rushing the net to set an ambush, as I said before. But he was probably just trying to be clever and stepped into it as a result. Nothing really wrong about saying 'sorry' in a situation like this either, you bump into someone you say 'sorry' even though it may be their fault, it's just polite.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if that statement is going to help you get hired at ESPN.  

 

 

No doubt it won't! Just as well. Look at Curt Schilling. If he hadn't been fired we wouldn't have Jessica Mendoza on the Sunday Night broadcast. And her and Schulman have been killing it.

[Gfted1]

Sink $2.3 Billion on a submarine yacht.

[ShadySands]

I'd buy it

[Gromnir]

"Austrian yacht building firm “MIGALOO” teamed up with a design firm that works on concept projects. The partnership is similar to Lockheed-Martin’s “Skunk Works”"

 

ok.  that bit were kinda funny. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]