Jemele Hill suspended by ESPN

HomerThompson said:
The facts make your position even less tenable. She made a statement outside of work. He made a statement in work, and disrupted the work environment to some degree(Note: I don't think they should have fired him).
Click to expand...
you didn't ask me if I thought they should've fired him, you asked if I thought he should be fired

perhaps that's on me, but those are two different questions. What i do think is they were in their right to do so, regardless whether I agree w/ it or not.

I was more referring to both their actions, and their literal jobs. Her job is as a television personality, so personal statements and her tone on camera clearly effect the company's bottom line (ratings are down to prove this). His memo literally effected nobody, it simply pointed out things that were disingenuous to Google's hiring policies concerning the reality of the IT and STEM fields in general.

Either way if they are perceived as being disadvantageous to the company the company should be able to fire them for their words/actions.
 
ShadowRun said:
Thanks so his first warning was a month suspension second was a firing. Her second a 2 week suspension seems fair
Click to expand...
I mean, you asked and I supplied. Not sure why you need exactly equal punishment for actions that are not exactly equal.

But I guess that's not your point? You just wanna be cross about it?
 
I don't think a sports journalist on a sports network should call the POTUS a white supremacist.

Or keep her job after dong so.
 
Mark Hunts FIST said:
Nevermind. You have answered that before. (Below) So Jemele Hill would fall under the PR aspect, you spoke of?

Below you say liberals stood up for Damore/ free speech
But at that time (above) you said it was gray and only LEANED towards keeping him. That's far from supporting him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have me making the same point in both of these threads. Here's me again in this thread:

"It depends. Strictly speaking, what LI talked about (and, for example, the Damore incident) is a worker-rights issues more than political free speech issues, but they tie together. I'd advocate almost all speech being free of political sanctions and agree that freedom from employer sanctions is necessarily less expansive, but I do support making it as expansive as it can reasonably be. @LogicalInsanity should have been fired for making a political observation that he disagrees with is something I strongly disagree with."

Can we all agree that right-wingers have been advocating for free speech in bad faith? As I pointed out to Petey, while the need for free speech follows naturally from liberalism, it doesn't follow from any common strain of right-wing thought.
 
Peteyandjia said:
Dude, 2017 has seen such sights as Tucker Carlson quoting Noam Chomsky on Fox News, to defend free speech from left-wing campuses. We are officially in the bizarro world.
Click to expand...

Sure. I agree that Tucker Carlson wants right-wingers to be able to speak on campuses and left-wing crazies don't. Is Carlson *generally* in favor of free speech, though? No sign of that at all. Hence my point about good faith.

Peteyandjia said:
Free speech is one of those things that reasonable right & left should just admit they agree on. There is so much defense of it on both sides. It really is a fundamental building block of what it is to be American, regardless of political sides.
Click to expand...

America was founded on liberalism, though, breaking from monarchy. A principled defense of the right to free speech (as opposed to a self-serving one) is an inherently liberal idea. And the right in America has become increasingly illiberal.

Peteyandjia said:
I appreciate a good conversation though, even if it's an argument. My advice is to not take any criticisms I have in a political argument with you so personally. I am not trying to insult you. We just disagree on shit. It's okay.
Click to expand...

I like to disagree on stuff and hash it out. I'm not as entertained by the approach of substituting personal attacks for arguments.

Peteyandjia said:
Mir / Machida 2020
Click to expand...

Still never got the Mir thing--not just you but how he had a bunch of hardcore fans despite such a mediocre career. Machida was my favorite fighter--I used to actually feel nervous for him before his fights. But I still ran afoul of his most fanatical fans.


Peteyandjia said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Why would you even make that accusation? I've made it toward people like TCK and ODB for their habit of changing positions whenever the GOP does, but you'll never see anything like that from me. I certainly lean left in terms of values and have liberal principles, but that's not what "partisan" means.
 
http://nypost.com/2017/02/14/espn-fired-me-for-guerrilla-comment-on-venus-williams-suit/

ESPN fires this tennis analyst for saying "guerilla tactics" yet Jemele Hill can basically say whatever she wants with just a suspension.

ESPN is as racist and sexist as any other person out there yet they push their liberal agenda in your face all day.

Oh and their channel sucks ass too. Anyone watch Sportscenter these days? They barely even show highlights anymore. It's just like this jumbled mess of shit and then they cut to a woman or a non white person to tell you how you should feel about sports and the politics going on around them.
 
MoparOrNoCar said:
http://nypost.com/2017/02/14/espn-fired-me-for-guerrilla-comment-on-venus-williams-suit/

ESPN fires this tennis analyst for saying "guerilla tactics" yet Jemele Hill can basically say whatever she wants with just a suspension.

ESPN is as racist and sexist as any other person out there yet they push their liberal agenda in your face all day.

Oh and their channel sucks ass too. Anyone watch Sportscenter these days? They barely even show highlights anymore. It's just like this jumbled mess of shit and then they cut to a woman or a non white person to tell you how you should feel about sports and the politics going on around them.
Click to expand...

You can voice your opinion on the matter while remaining honest about the differences in the situation. You can disagree with ESPN's handling of these situations, but you can't support it without distinguishing between the two incidents.

One event occurred on live television, one was sent out in a Tweet. One was a term considered by many to be a racist attack, while the other was accusing someone else of being a racist.

Your rant about ESPN constantly cutting to "women and non-white people" telling you what to think is obvious a ridiculous exaggeration. If you have a good argument, you shouldn't have to lie.

This is the type of post you find a lot on Sherdog though.
 
Last edited:
Jack V Savage said:
Yeah, you have me making the same point in both of these threads. Here's me again in this thread:

"It depends. Strictly speaking, what LI talked about (and, for example, the Damore incident) is a worker-rights issues more than political free speech issues, but they tie together. I'd advocate almost all speech being free of political sanctions and agree that freedom from employer sanctions is necessarily less expansive, but I do support making it as expansive as it can reasonably be. @LogicalInsanity should have been fired for making a political observation that he disagrees with is something I strongly disagree with."

Can we all agree that right-wingers have been advocating for free speech in bad faith? As I pointed out to Petey, while the need for free speech follows naturally from liberalism, it doesn't follow from any common strain of right-wing thought.
Click to expand...


No, we can't agree on that at all.

Do some right wingers selectively advocate free speech? Yes...

I don't see how you arrived at this sweeping generalization..

I(
 
LogicalInsanity said:
No, we can't agree on that at all.

Do some right wingers selectively advocate free speech? Yes...

I don't see how you arrived at this sweeping generalization..

I(
Click to expand...

Your post helped in terms of providing an example. And, as I pointed out, there's no prominent strain of right-wing thought that makes a principled argument for free speech. If you're saying that not all right-wingers are as phony on the issue as you are, you'll have to show some evidence.
 
HomerThompson said:
The facts make your position even less tenable. She made a statement outside of work. He made a statement in work, and disrupted the work environment to some degree(Note: I don't think they should have fired him).
Click to expand...

That doesnt' really work here. A person like her in her position is going to have a contract basically saying watch wtf you say on social media.
 
nac386 said:
You can voice your opinion on the matter while remaining honest about the differences in the situation. You can disagree with ESPN's handling of these situations, but you can't support it without distinguishing between the two incidents.

One event occurred on live television, one was sent out in a Tweet. One was a term considered by many to be a racist attack, while the other was accusing someone else of being a racist.

Your rant about ESPN constantly cutting to "women and non-white people" telling you what to think is obvious a ridiculous exaggeration. If you have a good argument, you shouldn't have to lie.

This is the type of post you find a lot on Sherdog though.
Click to expand...

Yeah well the one term wasn't a racist attack at all. In English there are words that phonetically sound the same but have two completely different meanings. Anyone with any sort of education knows the difference in guerilla and gorilla. The guy on live television said it off the top of his head with absolutely no racist intentions behind it at all. Jemele had time to sit and construct her tweet. One person is completely innocent and the other is a hack who only has a job because she's a black female.

How is what I said a lie? Have you watched ESPN lately? It's a hot bed for liberals that like to talk sports. I used to love the channel growing up but I started to slowly notice that everything they said had a liberal agenda. The anchors used to be charismatic and made the highlights exciting. Linda Cohn was one of the only women on there because she was one of the few who could keep up with the men.

Now the channel is flooded with good looking women who don't do nearly as good a job as the men before them did. It's also flooded with dumbass talking head SJW's like Jemele who are so far detached from reality, it's not even funny. No one cares about their opinions on social issues and no one cares to watch them fake argue with each other constantly. Half the time they aren't even talking about something they believe in because they just ham up the fake arguments for TV. The only time they agree is when a social issue is brought up and at that point they all agree with the liberal side of it.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Yeah, you have me making the same point in both of these threads. Here's me again in this thread:

"It depends. Strictly speaking, what LI talked about (and, for example, the Damore incident) is a worker-rights issues more than political free speech issues, but they tie together. I'd advocate almost all speech being free of political sanctions and agree that freedom from employer sanctions is necessarily less expansive, but I do support making it as expansive as it can reasonably be. @LogicalInsanity should have been fired for making a political observation that he disagrees with is something I strongly disagree with."

Can we all agree that right-wingers have been advocating for free speech in bad faith? As I pointed out to Petey, while the need for free speech follows naturally from liberalism, it doesn't follow from any common strain of right-wing thought.
Click to expand...


I think you were consistent between damore and Jemele Hill and I can appreciate that. (Workers rights)

but the reality is you were lukewarm on him. I don't think you were as supportive of him as you remember.

Have a good one Jack.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Sure. I agree that Tucker Carlson wants right-wingers to be able to speak on campuses and left-wing crazies don't. Is Carlson *generally* in favor of free speech, though? No sign of that at all. Hence my point about good faith.



America was founded on liberalism, though, breaking from monarchy. A principled defense of the right to free speech (as opposed to a self-serving one) is an inherently liberal idea. And the right in America has become increasingly illiberal.



I like to disagree on stuff and hash it out. I'm not as entertained by the approach of substituting personal attacks for arguments.



Still never got the Mir thing--not just you but how he had a bunch of hardcore fans despite such a mediocre career. Machida was my favorite fighter--I used to actually feel nervous for him before his fights. But I still ran afoul of his most fanatical fans.




Why would you even make that accusation? I've made it toward people like TCK and ODB for their habit of changing positions whenever the GOP does, but you'll never see anything like that from me. I certainly lean left in terms of values and have liberal principles, but that's not what "partisan" means.
Click to expand...

<Lmaoo><45>

Keep on trollin, Hacky boy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,046
Messages
58,337,338
Members
176,003
Latest member
HeneryH

Share this page

Back
Top