ESPN Removes Announcer Because of Name

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 09:34 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The problem with your example being that Muhammad Ali, both named Muhammad and a Muslim, visited ground zero NYC on 9/20. Just 9 days after the towers went down and 3,000 people died.

Meanwhile an asian guy isn't allowed to be an announcer on a football game THREE WEEKS after one person died, because he shares a name with a white guy who died 147 years ago.

Bad example.

I didn't say the reaction was right or wrong, I was saying that is more similar an example than the white guy in a black area. How it ended doesn't matter, it is about comparing the climates and the circumstances of the peoiple considering the decision to enter the climates.  I tend to think both situations shouldn't stop either from being there or doing whatever. In this thread I have more so pointed out that I don't really think it's anyone business if the guy wasn't comfortable.

So again....the analogy is fine. The result of Ali showing up doesn't change what the thought process in the making a decision is closer to in it's original context.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 09:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: In this thread I have more so pointed out that I don't really think it's anyone business if the guy wasn't comfortable.

Except nowhere has it been reported that Mr. Lee was uncomfortable calling the game, at least not that I've seen. All I've seen is that ESPN went to him and asked if he'd be okay calling a different game.

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 10:27 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Except nowhere has it been reported that Mr. Lee was uncomfortable calling the game, at least not that I've seen. All I've seen is that ESPN went to him and asked if he'd be okay calling a different game.

USA Today said they (ESPN) asked him if he'd be more comfortable switching assignments and he was.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 10:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: USA Today said they (ESPN) asked him if he'd be more comfortable switching assignments and he was.

So his bosses, the ones that just recently fired hundreds of people (many well-known) come to him and ask if he wants to switch. What do you THINK he was going to say?

But, fine, let's assume Lee was truly uncomfortable. All that means is that it's Lee who's the moron.

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 10:51 AM)PhilHos Wrote: So his bosses, the ones that just recently fired hundreds of people (many well-known) come to him and ask if he wants to switch. What do you THINK he was going to say?

But, fine, let's assume Lee was truly uncomfortable. All that means is that it's Lee who's the moron.

So they threatened to fire him or intimidate him into changing? You said "nowhere has it been reported that Mr. Lee was uncomfortable", which it was, now you have decided to create some sort of intimidation angle. Things don't always have to be nefarious.

Your view on it is fine, I'm sure plenty of people think decisions you make every day make you a moron as well. That is how the world works people live lives, and others judge their decisions.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 10:56 AM)Au165 Wrote: So they threatened to fire him or intimidate him into changing? You said "nowhere has it been reported that Mr. Lee was uncomfortable", which it was, now you have decided to create some sort of intimidation angle. Things don't always have to be nefarious.

I never said it was nefarious or that they openly threatened him at all. But, if you've ever worked for someone else, when you're boss or supervisor asks you to do something, oftentimes, it's not a question. And even if it is, there's always that threat because it's your boss or supervisor asking.

(08-25-2017, 10:56 AM)Au165 Wrote: Your view on it is fine, I'm sure plenty of people think decisions you make every day make you a moron as well. That is how the world works people live lives, and others judge their decisions.

Yes, thank you. I am well aware of that. Did you also know that this a message board? A forum where people can come and share their views on how the world works and where oftentimes judgements on people's decisions are made?

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 11:29 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I never said it was nefarious or that they openly threatened him at all. But, if you've ever worked for someone else, when you're boss or supervisor asks you to do something, oftentimes, it's not a question. And even if it is, there's always that threat because it's your boss or supervisor asking.


Yes, thank you. I am well aware of that. Did you also know that this a message board? A forum where people can come and share their views on how the world works and where oftentimes judgements on people's decisions are made?

I don't work in this type of environment, when I have discussions with our president he asks my opinion on things and I give them knowing I was asked for my opinion, not to certify his belief. If your in a place where your supervisor asks your opinion and you are scared to give it for fear of firing it probably isn't a good place to be.

My understanding is they didn't ask him to switch, they asked if he was more comfortable if he switched i.e. asked his opinion on it.

Nope didn't know that.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 11:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: I don't work in this type of environment, when I have discussions with our president he asks my opinion on things and I give them knowing I was asked for my opinion, not to certify his belief. If your in a place where your supervisor asks your opinion and you are scared to give it for fear of firing it probably isn't a good place to be. 

It's not always about the pressure that company puts on the employee. Many times its the pressure (real or imagined) felt by the employee. I've worked in many a job where there was no threat or intimdation by the supervisors and I felt free to share my opinions yet in those  same places I had coworkers who were afriad to speak up because they felt some some sort of intimidation from the same supervisors who I felt were perfectly reasonable.

(08-25-2017, 11:33 AM)Au165 Wrote: My understanding is they didn't ask him to switch, they asked if he was more comfortable if he switched i.e. asked his opinion on it.

Based on how it's been reported, my understanding is more like ESPN felt that it'd be best to remove him but asked if he woudl be okay with the switch and, of course, he was. I base this on the reports that ESPN, not Lee, was worried about all the memes and internet trolling that would result from having Robert Lee call a game in Virginia.

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 11:40 AM)PhilHos Wrote: It's not always about the pressure that company puts on the employee. Many times its the pressure (real or imagined) felt by the employee. I've worked in many a job where there was no threat or intimdation by the supervisors and I felt free to share my opinions yet in those  same places I had coworkers who were afriad to speak up because they felt some some sort of intimidation from the same supervisors who I felt were perfectly reasonable.


Based on how it's been reported, my understanding is more like ESPN felt that it'd be best to remove him but asked if he woudl be okay with the switch and, of course, he was. I base this on the reports that ESPN, not Lee, was worried about all the memes and internet trolling that would result from having Robert Lee call a game in Virginia.

Fair, I still contend it was presented as a question of his feelings on the subject. I do agree though that some peoples assumption of what they think are supposed to do in situations can do self inflicted damage.

This was from SI. They statement makes it sound like they were appeasing him, but only the people in the room will really ever know.

ESPN later issued additional comments, first to Yashar Ali of New York Magazine and then to other outlets: “No biggie until someone leaked it to embarrass us,” said an ESPN PR spokesperson. “They got their way. That’s what happened. No politically correct efforts. No race issues. Just trying to be supportive of a young guy who felt it best to avoid the potential zoo.”

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 11:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: This was from SI. They statement makes it sound like they were appeasing him, but only the people in the room will really ever know.

ESPN later issued additional comments, first to Yashar Ali of New York Magazine and then to other outlets: “No biggie until someone leaked it to embarrass us,” said an ESPN PR spokesperson. “They got their way. That’s what happened. No politically correct efforts. No race issues. Just trying to be supportive of a young guy who felt it best to avoid the potential zoo.”

Of course ESPN is going to try to save face, but we can all agree that only the people in on the conversation truly know what happened and the reasons why.

[Au165]

(08-25-2017, 11:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Of course ESPN is going to try to save face, but we can all agree that only the people in on the conversation truly know what happened and the reasons why.

Sir, I think we just found common ground. :andy:

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2017, 11:47 AM)Au165 Wrote: Sir, I think we just found common ground. :andy:

[THE Bigzoman]

So ESPN's PR machine actually made me laugh. An interview with an anoymous executive said they they removed him, not because of political correctness, but because they didn't want people to make memes about the fact that someone named Robert Lee was announcing a UVA game.

A well known law on the internet is that if you tell the internet to not do something, that just makes the internet more likely to do it.

This is like shooting yourself in the dick while trying not to shoot yourself in the foot.

[BFritz21]

[StLucieBengal]

This was hilarious and also in line with ESPN. At least they didn't fire the guy like they did with "chink in the armor" guy.

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2017, 11:32 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:

Did ESPN have an official position on Obama's middle name?

Also, what's wrong with the name Hussein? 

[BFritz21]

(09-04-2017, 12:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did ESPN have an official position on Obama's middle name?

Also, what's wrong with the name Hussein? 

You mean aside from being the name of a ruthless dictator that tortured people and used chemical weapons against people, among many other things?

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2017, 09:06 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You mean aside from being the name of a ruthless dictator that tortured people and used chemical weapons against people, among many other things?

So anyone time someone with a common name commits atrocities, no one should use that name? Obama was born 18 years before Saddam became president of Iraq and his father, the man he gets his name from, was born before Saddam was. 

We've also had many Presidents named George, the name of the tyrant king we fought against for our independence. We've had plenty of Josephs, most recently Biden, but Stalin was named that too...

It's a silly argument to make, just as silly as not having a guy named Robert Lee on the sidelines, but it's silly for a whole different reason.

[Belsnickel]

(09-05-2017, 10:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So anyone time someone with a common name commits atrocities, no one should use that name? Obama was born 18 years before Saddam became president of Iraq and his father, the man he gets his name from, was born before Saddam was. 

We've also had many Presidents named George, the name of the tyrant king we fought against for our independence. We've had plenty of Josephs, most recently Biden, but Stalin was named that too...

It's a silly argument to make, just as silly as not having a guy named Robert Lee on the sidelines, but it's silly for a whole different reason.

But George, Robert, and Joseph are white people names.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-05-2017, 10:41 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So anyone time someone with a common name commits atrocities, no one should use that name? Obama was born 18 years before Saddam became president of Iraq and his father, the man he gets his name from, was born before Saddam was. 

We've also had many Presidents named George, the name of the tyrant king we fought against for our independence. We've had plenty of Josephs, most recently Biden, but Stalin was named that too...

It's a silly argument to make, just as silly as not having a guy named Robert Lee on the sidelines, but it's silly for a whole different reason.

Then name your child Hussein.

This whole topic is a joke . The reason to not name your child Hussein is because it's ridiculous.