Social Kevin Hart steps down as Oscar Host

[JonesBones]

This is a bullshit. This is a lie. This is a disingenuous refuge for radical cultural Marxists that needs to die.

They backed the ousting of Donald Sterling from the Clippers when the franchise was soaring at all-time high profits. They negged the NFL for banishing Colin Kaepernick when he was unquestionably tanking revenues and viewership. They orchestrated the bizarre jettison of Brandon Eich from temporary executive stewardship of his own company (that he only undertook as a matter of duty) without a hint of threat to revenues.

It's not about the money. Stop believing people are stupid enough to buy that nonsense, anymore.

It is about power, which is even worse than them having money. I mean, I am sure people like Rose McGowan need money but she is power hungry. She wants power. Kathy Griffin wants power. This is all about power. Rose McGowan is more dangerous with power than with money. I am more afraid of power accumulation than wealth accumulation.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I cant believe this is still a thing..... he done nothing wrong and has apologised multiple times now to appease the retards. Now the retards need to get off his fucking back

 

[unimackpass]

You are reducing what Kevin Hart said here to a simple, "I would prefer to have grandchildren one day," and that is not the situation. That is a fine opinion for him to hold, and he could much more easily defend that statement without controversy.

But what he actually said was that he'd smash his kid on the head for acting gay. That indicates more disgust than disappointment to most people. He did not give the impression he simply wanted grandchildren, he gave the impression he'd be so appalled by the gayness that he'd smash his kid on the head.

It's a very relatable thing for people who have racist parents who say similar things about dating outside of their race. The feeling you get from those statements is the same, since the impression they are sending is that they will reject you for your nature.

This is what I was referring to in the other thread about people trying to sound moderate and sophisticated while defending outlandish bullshit. It's bizarre that people are actually trying to defend people being triggered by his comments.

 

[nac386]

You just asserted mutually exclusive things. First, you assert that they have asked him back, then you say they didn't want boycotts and protest to ruin their reputation (indicating they don't really want him back).

If the Academy wants him back they need to issue a public statement begging him back. They haven't. Don't waste my time with rumors via Ellen.

They should do whatever they want. Who are you to say the Oscars should beg him for anything? You're going way over any lines of rationality. They said he could still host from the very start, they just wanted him to address his comments, and he refused. That's all fine, everybody had their choice.

You can agree on disagree with either party's choice. But they both have the right to make their choice, and they both did.

No, the bottom line isn't getting effected by "boycotts and protests". You know what is ruining their reputation? You know what is affecting the bottom line by destroying ratings for the ceremony? The fact they continue to kowtow to imbecilic defenses of cultural marxism rooted in fabricated, erroneous arguments such as those you have worked so hard to forward in this thread; the fact their celebrities are openly waxing political when they get up on stage to give their speeches, or in their host monologues, alienating half the country.

But you don't care about what a godawful business strategy that is, obviously, because you agree with their politics. Pull your nose out of fart-filled wine glass. That's what is affecting the bottom line.

Of course I don't care how good or bad their business strategy is. Why should I? I don't work for them, they have nothing to do with me.

You're just making stuff up. I agree with their politics? I don't even know what their politics are. I just agree with their right to hire who they want, and Kevin Hart's right to say what he wants.

Yet they didn't boycott that game, did they? The fans didn't either. Courtside ticket prices were higher than ever, and sold out. Viewership was higher than ever. Sales of Clippers apparel and swag on the NBA store was soaring. The same was true for the entire NBA. This was well after the scandal emerged. The fans had plenty of time to vote with their wallets, and they certainly did.

They didn't care.

Your "it's a business" rationale is bullshit, and I'm calling you on it.

Wrong. They lost many sponsors immediately, and more issues would have followed if the league did not act.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4...rling-clippers-losing-sponsors-state-farm-kia

 

[nac386]

This is what I was referring to in the other thread about people trying to sound moderate and sophisticated while defending outlandish bullshit. It's bizarre that people are actually trying to defend people being triggered by his comments.

It's outlandish to say that Kevin Hart can say whatever he wants and the Oscars can hire whoever they want?

Explain that one.

 

[Madmick]

They should do whatever they want. Who are you to say the Oscars should beg him for anything? You're going way over any lines of rationality. They said he could still host from the very start, they just wanted him to address his comments, and he refused. That's all fine, everybody had their choice.

You can agree on disagree with either party's choice. But they both have the right to make their choice, and they both did.

Concession on the matter of the Academy asking him back. I didn't even have to manipulate you into twisting yourself up with that spurious assertion.

Of course I don't care how good or bad their business strategy is. Why should I? I don't work for them, they have nothing to do with me.

You're just making stuff up. I agree with their politics? I don't even know what their politics are. I just agree with their right to hire who they want, and Kevin Hart's right to say what he wants.

LOL, you don't pretend what their business strategy is, and yet you have referred to business as your primary argument to defend their reluctance, and to justify the politically-oriented dismissals of others in similar circumstances.

Apparently you pretend not to care when suddenly it isn't convenient because you got called on your bullshit.

Wrong. They lost many sponsors immediately, and more issues would have followed if the league did not act.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4...rling-clippers-losing-sponsors-state-farm-kia

Wrong. Chicken feed. The team's revenues finished at an all-time high that year. There was no serious threat to the continuing growth of that stream.

If you intend to establish business was adversely affected you're going to be disappointed, but I'd be delighted to see you continue flailing around trying to wish away a fact with your feelings.

 

[Andy Capp]

I cant believe this is still a thing..... he done nothing wrong and has apologised multiple times now to appease the retards. Now the retards need to get off his fucking back

That's not true, though, unless you have a different definition of apology than I do.

 

[nac386]

Concession on the matter of the Academy asking him back. I didn't even have to manipulate you into twisting yourself up with that spurious assertion.

Lol, what?

LOL, you don't pretend what their business strategy is, and yet you have referred to business as your primary argument to defend their reluctance, and to justify the politically-oriented dismissals of others in similar circumstances.

Apparently you pretend not to care when suddenly it isn't convenient because you got called on your bullshit.

Again, this makes no sense. Why would I care what their business strategy is? It has nothing to do with me.

Wrong. Chicken feed. The team's revenues finished at an all-time high that year. There was no serious threat to the continuing growth of that stream.

If you intend to establish business was adversely affected you're going to be disappointed, but I'd be delighted to see you continue flailing around trying to wish away a fact with your feelings.

If you are going to put your fingers in your ears I won't continue explaining this to you. I'll say it one more time.

They immediately began losing sponsors, so yes business was adversely affected. That is objective, it is fact. You cannot say business was not adversely effected when we have concrete evidence, widely reported upon, that it was. Is your argument really that the season ended with huge financial gains? You realize this all happened during the playoffs right, after the season was almost over already? And you realize the team and league responded right away to remedy the problems he was causing?

They remedied the problem by immediately responding the way they did, which you have described as cultural marxism (lol).

 

[shockaholic12]

Concession on the matter of the Academy asking him back. I didn't even have to manipulate you into twisting yourself up with that spurious assertion.

LOL, you don't pretend what their business strategy is, and yet you have referred to business as your primary argument to defend their reluctance, and to justify the politically-oriented dismissals of others in similar circumstances.

Apparently you pretend not to care when suddenly it isn't convenient because you got called on your bullshit.

Wrong. Chicken feed. The team's revenues finished at an all-time high that year. There was no serious threat to the continuing growth of that stream.

If you intend to establish business was adversely affected you're going to be disappointed, but I'd be delighted to see you continue flailing around trying to wish away a fact with your feelings.

Are the Clippers suddenly losing tons of revenue just because Sterling is gone? Probably not, and they don’t have worry about some political star rookie player down the line refusing to play for an owner who maybe they see as racist, or any distraction that brings. Who needs that in the back of your players minds? Can you say for sure Sterling sticking around would have zero effect on players coming or staying on the Clippers? No one can. But you can remove it as an issue all together.

Kevin Hart isn’t some superstar that they NEED. He’s ok I guess. But who is watching the Oscars just to see Kevin Hart? Watch Netflix if you want to support him.

Someone who takes some public idealogical stance about pushing his kids not to act gay probably not the best guy to hand out awards to flicks that are at complete odds with that kind of belief. Doesn’t have to be some by the numbers business decision. Just seems logical. Kevin Hart not a great fit for an organization that pushes itself to be inclusive. If he wanted it that bad he could change his stance but he doesn’t. Nobody is losing.

Lol at this being cultural Marxism, that’s way overreacting. If an art organization wants to focus on being pretty PC, that kind of makes sense.

 

[Madmick]

Again, this makes no sense. Why would I care what their business strategy is? It has nothing to do with me.

I will take this as a concession that business/money is a valid reason to defend politically motivated debacles like this one, and the Academy's spineless unwillingness to stand up for their choice of a host.

If you are going to put your fingers in your ears I won't continue explaining this to you. I'll say it one more time.

They immediately began losing sponsors, so yes business was adversely affected. That is objective, it is fact.

They remedied the problem by immediately responding the way they did, which you have described as cultural marxism (lol).

I will say this again because I can see you are determined to ignore the facts.

They lost a very small number of their sponsors that summer, and still made record profits. Six months later sponsorship was stable. The flood of sponsors leaving them never materialized. Meanwhile, they still saw record attendance. They still had record viewership. That includes the playoffs despite all the threats of boycott, and the rest of it. Those are the fundamentals which dictate whether not advertisers and sponsors desire to do business with you.

 

[nac386]

I will take this as a concession that business/money is a valid reason to defend politically motivated debacles like this one, and the Academy's spineless unwillingness to stand up for their choice of a host.

Of course business/money is a valid reason. It does not need a defense, it is a fact of life. For example, when Sterling caused his team to lose sponsors and people threatened boycotts, they got him out of the as soon as possible.

You call that cultural marxism, but I think it's just common sense.

They lost a very small number of their sponsors that summer, and still made record profits. Six months later sponsorship was stable. The flood of sponsors leaving them never materialized. Meanwhile, they still saw record attendance. They still had record viewership. That includes the playoffs despite all the threats of boycott, and the rest of it. Those are the fundamentals which dictate whether not advertisers and sponsors desire to do business with you.

There it is. Exactly, they lost sponsors.

Luckily, it was right at the end of a very successful season and they were already in the playoffs. Also, good thing the "cultural marxists" as you describe them moved to get rid of Sterling so that everything worked out well in the long run.

 

[Madmick]

Of course business/money is a valid reason. It does not need a defense, it is a fact of life. For example, when Sterling caused his team to lose sponsors and people threatened boycotts, they got him out of the as soon as possible.

You call that cultural marxism, but I think it's just common sense.

Can you make up your mind? You are terrible confused. You say you don't care about their business strategy, but then you attempt to pretzel yourself into supporting one that has been costing the Academy money, viewers, and reputation-- demonstrably-- over the past several years.

There it is. Exactly, they lost sponsors.

Luckily, it was right at the end of a very successful season and they were already in the playoffs. Also, good thing the "cultural marxists" as you describe them moved to get rid of Sterling so that everything worked out well in the long run.

But they weren't losing revenue. They weren't losing ticket holders. They weren't losing attendance. They weren't losing viewership. They weren't losing sales.

They weren't losing money.

Bring some figures. Not words. Not conjecture. You haven't cited total sponsorship inflow. Do you understand how your argument is supposed to work?

 

[nac386]

Can you make up your mind? You are terrible confused. You say you don't care about their business strategy, but then you attempt to pretzel yourself into supporting one that has been costing the Academy money, viewers, and reputation-- demonstrably-- over the past several years.

I don't care what their business model is. I support their right to do what they want. My stance here is not confusing.

But they weren't losing revenue. They weren't losing ticket holders. They weren't losing attendance. They weren't losing viewership. They weren't losing sales.

They weren't losing money.

Bring some figures. Not words. Not conjecture. You haven't cited total sponsorship inflow. Do you understand how your argument is supposed to work?

They lost sponsors. You admitted that. Losing sponsors decreases money.

Your argument is that they still did well financially. That's not an argument that proves Sterling did not have a negative effect though. They still did well for several reasons that go beyond the controversy. Namely, they had a super successful season competitively in which they were already in the playoffs, the controversy went down towards the end of the season, and the team and league immediately responded to the controversy to stop the bleeding that had already begun.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4...rling-clippers-losing-sponsors-state-farm-kia

State Farm, Kia, Virgin America and CarMax have each vowed to stop sponsoring the Clippers following the latest in a long line of disturbing racial comments by Sterling. CarMax, who has sponsored the team for nine years, and Virgin America announced deals with the Clippers have been canceled completely. AquaHydrate is also suspending its sponsorship with Sterling's team.

 

[shockaholic12]

Can you make up your mind? You are terrible confused. You say you don't care about their business strategy, but then you attempt to pretzel yourself into supporting one that has been costing the Academy money, viewers, and reputation-- demonstrably-- over the past several years.

But they weren't losing revenue. They weren't losing ticket holders. They weren't losing attendance. They weren't losing viewership. They weren't losing sales.

They weren't losing money.

Bring some figures. Not words. Not conjecture. You haven't cited total sponsorship inflow. Do you understand how your argument is supposed to work?

You admitted they did lose a few sponsers. So if he stuck around would future possible sponsors stay away, if others had already made that choice? Possible, you can’t argue that would never happen.

Would a star rookie be as attracted to the organization of Sterling was still there? Would a star player want to resign to him down the road. Maybe, maybe not. Why not remove the possibility?

Have the Clipper’s business been significantly negatively effected because Sterling left? You’d have to show it was for your argument to make sense. If a replacement without the same distractions could do his job why not replace him? Seems like good business .

 

[MayhemMonkey]

That's not true, though, unless you have a different definition of apology than I do.

so saying sorry isnt an apology now?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/08/kevi...ood-measure-following-oscars-debacle-8320529/
https://montrealgazette.com/enterta...body/wcm/5a3ae2df-f9e9-41c2-8d7c-9e37b54746c2

 

[Andy Capp]

so saying sorry isnt an apology now?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/08/kevi...ood-measure-following-oscars-debacle-8320529/
https://montrealgazette.com/enterta...body/wcm/5a3ae2df-f9e9-41c2-8d7c-9e37b54746c2

I'm talking about in the years prior and unless the person used quotation marks when it wasn't a quote, what I saw wasn't an apology. Obviously, if your link is more accurate, I'll accept that, as was my earlier position ITT.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Some people throw insults all day on here then get one joke thrown at them and can’t handle it. More or less.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I'm talking about in the years prior and unless the person used quotation marks when it wasn't a quote, what I saw wasn't an apology. Obviously, if your link is more accurate, I'll accept that, as was my earlier position ITT.

first off he didnt need to apologise to anyone in the first place, there was no target for his joke other than his son. secondly it was just a fucking joke, so whether you accept it or not he owes you nothing, yet has already apologised multiple times yet its still not good enough.

Id suggest the issue is with the ones still going on about it, and not with Kevin

 

[Contra-dictator]

With my buddy John as sidekick!

 

[unimackpass]

It's outlandish to say that Kevin Hart can say whatever he wants and the Oscars can hire whoever they want?

Explain that one.

It's outlandish to say what he said was a big deal. It's being blown out of proportion in our politically correct sensitive culture.