(08-22-2020, 11:10 PM)jason Wrote: Some of you are so funny. This isn't about PC or hate speech or sticks and stones. It's about right and wrong. What he said on air is wrong. It's that simple. Do I have a right to push up on your wife, daughter, or mother at work? Sticks and stones... Am I right? Can I call her a ****? It's just words. It's obviously in decay, but we live in a society, and we're not supposed to treat each other or behave that way. Thom's life isn't over... He can go get a different ***** job, just like the rest of us do when we get canned at the previous one.

It's not really about right and wrong, I think everyone agrees it was wrong. I suspect the argument is more about does the punishment fit the crime? Not just this situation, but in many others, someone will say something they shouldn't and it will be recorded, and the next thing you know the "crowd" wants that person to never be able to earn a living doing anything again, when sometimes what was said could be corrected with an apology or suspension. I'm not entering into this conversation as far as this situation, just the overall topic of cancelling people.  

And another thing. The Reds need to change their name because it is a slur against Communism that was widely used in the 600's through the 80's.

(08-22-2020, 05:17 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Referencing the Paradox of Tolerance with the implication that it's hypocritical to not be tolerant of intolerance is not a good argument. 

It's actually perfectly apropos.   You refusing to see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

(08-23-2020, 01:05 PM)McC Wrote: It's actually perfectly apropos.   You refusing to see it doesn't mean it isn't true.

This isn't a matter of true or false. You'r'e trying to claim that being intolerant of intolerance makes the person not tolerant. It's called the paradox of tolerance because it creates a circular loop that is meant to point out the hypocrisy of tolerance. Don't you understand how flawed that viewpoint is?

"It's impossible to be tolerant because in order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance, but then you aren't being tolerant therefore we shouldn't even try to be tolerant!"

That's your viewpoint, yes?

(08-23-2020, 12:02 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It's not really about right and wrong, I think everyone agrees it was wrong. I suspect the argument is more about does the punishment fit the crime? Not just this situation, but in many others, someone will say something they shouldn't and it will be recorded, and the next thing you know the "crowd" wants that person to never be able to earn a living doing anything again, when sometimes what was said could be corrected with an apology or suspension. I'm not entering into this conversation as far as this situation, just the overall topic of cancelling people.  

And another thing. The Reds need to change their name because it is a slur against Communism that was widely used in the 600's through the 80's.

Cincinnati Bolsheviks.

(08-23-2020, 01:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This isn't a matter of true or false. You'r'e trying to claim that being intolerant of intolerance makes the person not tolerant. It's called the paradox of tolerance because it creates a circular loop that is meant to point out the hypocrisy of tolerance. Don't you understand how flawed that viewpoint is?

"It's impossible to be tolerant because in order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance, but then you aren't being tolerant therefore we shouldn't even try to be tolerant!"

That's your viewpoint, yes?

I'm not claiming anything like that.  I'm saying that once a certain group receives the level of tolerance they require,  it's quite ironic how intolerant they become.  It's the human condition, it's the corrupting component of power. 

He said a stupid thing.  He lost his job and probably his career.  But wait, that's not enough.  There must be revenge.  The entire Reds organization must be punished.  The whole network must be made to pay.  All of MLB must pay.  The whole past has to be avenged.  It's the current crazy notion that the past can be erased in the here and now.

In today's world, people have the naive notion that bias and prejudice and hatred can be eliminated, despite the thousands of years of evidence that such a thing will never happen.  And the only hope for that to ever happen, which is understanding and love, get buried under loud outcries for punishment.  This need for revenge creates push back and resentment and just deepens the issue and widens the divide.

(08-23-2020, 01:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This isn't a matter of true or false. You'r'e trying to claim that being intolerant of intolerance makes the person not tolerant. It's called the paradox of tolerance because it creates a circular loop that is meant to point out the hypocrisy of tolerance. Don't you understand how flawed that viewpoint is?

"It's impossible to be tolerant because in order to be tolerant, you must be intolerant of intolerance, but then you aren't being tolerant therefore we shouldn't even try to be tolerant!"

That's your viewpoint, yes?

It's parallel to the 1st Amendment issue. It's easy to follow the 1st Amendment when speech is nice, it's  more difficult when the speech is vile. (not saying this is a 1st Amendment issue, because he had a right to say it, and they had a right to fire him for it.)

(08-23-2020, 02:13 PM)McC Wrote: I'm not claiming anything like that.  I'm saying that once a certain group receives the level of tolerance they require,  it's quite ironic how intolerant they become.  It's the human condition, it's the corrupting component of power. 

He said a stupid thing.  He lost his job and probably his career.  But wait, that's not enough.  There must be revenge.  The entire Reds organization must be punished.  The whole network must be made to pay.  All of MLB must pay.  The whole past has to be avenged.  It's the current crazy notion that the past can be erased in the here and now.

In today's world, people have the naive notion that bias and prejudice and hatred can be eliminated, despite the thousands of years of evidence that such a thing will never happen.  And the only hope for that to ever happen, which is understanding and love, get buried under loud outcries for punishment.  This need for revenge creates push back and resentment and just deepens the issue and widens the divide.

I may be out of the loop, but I have not seen the argument that the Reds or the network or MLB must pay because Thom said an intolerant thing. If someone did say that, I agree with you that it's absurd. But I disagree that people "become intolerant" once they receive the level of tolerance they require. I think this is beginning to spiral a bit.

Thom said an intolerant thing. He's being suspended and possibly fired for his intolerant thing, which is the organization's right to do so (and, in my opinion, the correct thing to do) and that is almost certainly where it will end. 

As far as the notion that prejudice can be eliminated, maybe it is impossible. But we can strive for it, can't we? Like, say someone reveals themselves to be homophobic, right? Maybe that person shouldn't be broadcast into the homes of thousands of people every night to, possibly, spread his ideals. Don't you think that's a reasonable goal?

You may never be able to eliminate hatred, but you can at least attempt to de-platform it.

(08-23-2020, 02:15 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It's parallel to the 1st Amendment issue. It's easy to follow the 1st Amendment when speech is nice, it's  more difficult when the speech is vile. (not saying this is a 1st Amendment issue, because he had a right to say it, and they had a right to fire him for it.)

Yea, I think people often conflate what is legally acceptable to say and what is socially acceptable to say.

It is not illegal to be sexist, racist, homophobic or anti-semitic, unless it blatantly and actively incites violence or alarm.
It is, however, not socially acceptable anymore. Meaning, if your boss or your friends or your co-workers hear you say those things, they may not want to work with you anymore. Or, in public affairs like this, fans will not want to interact with anything that you are a part of.

That is all that is happening here. He isn't being arrested. His life isn't being ruined. He is just suspended and possibly fired. If he's talented enough, he'll get another job. There are many celebrities who were "cancelled" but then went on to get a new job a little while later. I'm not even certain there has been a celebrity that was "cancelled" that has not gone on to have a career afterwards anyway, with the exception of the ones that are going to prison, like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby.

Now, that may not happen for Thom because, in my opinion, he was never a good commentator and was only given his job because of his father. But maybe some team disagrees with me and gives him a shot.

Who's to say?

(08-23-2020, 02:55 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I think people often conflate what is legally acceptable to say and what is socially acceptable to say.

It is not illegal to be sexist, racist, homophobic or anti-semitic, unless it blatantly and actively incites violence or alarm.
It is, however, not socially acceptable anymore. Meaning, if your boss or your friends or your co-workers hear you say those things, they may not want to work with you anymore. Or, in public affairs like this, fans will not want to interact with anything that you are a part of.

That is all that is happening here. He isn't being arrested. His life isn't being ruined. He is just suspended and possibly fired. If he's talented enough, he'll get another job. There are many celebrities who were "cancelled" but then went on to get a new job a little while later. I'm not even certain there has been a celebrity that was "cancelled" that has not gone on to have a career afterwards anyway, with the exception of the ones that are going to prison, like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby.

Now, that may not happen for Thom because, in my opinion, he was never a good commentator and was only given his job because of his father. But maybe some team disagrees with me and gives him a shot.

Who's to say?

As much as people love the vilification process, they also love the redemption process about as much.  But it's gonna take time, obviously.  He needs an image repair specialist and a bunch of positive action.

I don't know if he's capable of that.  I've never liked him at all.  He's an arrogant whiner, imo, proving the apple never falls from the tree.  I never liked his old man either for the same reason, tbh, which probably puts me in the minority among Reds fans.

Go watch an episode of All In the Family. Archie Bunker said that word all the time

(08-23-2020, 04:57 PM)Kingslayer Wrote: Go watch an episode of All In the Family.  Archie Bunker said that word all the time

Half a century ago, and for very specific reasons. I'm a big fan of All in the Family, but Archie Bunker was meant to be a character that highlighted the ignorance of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc - 'a simpleton left behind by the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, a pathetically displaced historical loser.'

(08-23-2020, 04:33 PM)McC Wrote: As much as people love the vilification process, they also love the redemption process about as much.  But it's gonna take time, obviously.  He needs an image repair specialist and a bunch of positive action.

I don't know if he's capable of that.  I've never liked him at all.  He's an arrogant whiner, imo, proving the apple never falls from the tree.  I never liked his old man either for the same reason, tbh, which probably puts me in the minority among Reds fans.

Marty has exemplified classiness throughout his entire career.. He's ashamed of son Thom right now

(08-23-2020, 04:33 PM)McC Wrote: As much as people love the vilification process, they also love the redemption process about as much.  But it's gonna take time, obviously.  He needs an image repair specialist and a bunch of positive action.

I don't know if he's capable of that.  I've never liked him at all.  He's an arrogant whiner, imo, proving the apple never falls from the tree.  I never liked his old man either for the same reason, tbh, which probably puts me in the minority among Reds fans.

I came into the Reds fandom with everyone saying how great his father was. Maybe he was at one point. All I know him for was bitching about Joey Votto's contract and how he walks too much, so my image of him was tarnished by him trashing my favorite player.

I always thought Marty was an asshole. Loved Joe.

(08-23-2020, 05:51 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Half a century ago, and for very specific reasons. I'm a big fan of All in the Family, but Archie Bunker was meant to be a character that highlighted the ignorance of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc - 'a simpleton left behind by the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, a pathetically displaced historical loser.'

He was funny though

(08-23-2020, 05:51 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Half a century ago, and for very specific reasons. I'm a big fan of All in the Family, but Archie Bunker was meant to be a character that highlighted the ignorance of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc - 'a simpleton left behind by the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, a pathetically displaced historical loser.'

Well it had Meathead as the hero. 

(08-23-2020, 04:57 PM)Kingslayer Wrote: Go watch an episode of All In the Family. Archie Bunker said that word all the time

So we should take our cues from a 50 year old tv show?

I know how the cancer culture works but grow a pair.  Be a man.  If a grown man calls you a bad word then be a man and take it.  Don't go crying to mommy and get the man grounded.  

Mommy is now the message board admin, mommy is the Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube or Snapchat admins. They run and tell mommy they got called a bad word and hope to get them banned. They are literally grown ass babies.

The absolute worst pile of worthless human waste ever created by man,  the "timeout" generation has taken over, and all of you have bent the knee like a bunch of Lannisters

(08-23-2020, 12:33 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I am a Christian and people calling us bigots is offensive to my faith. 

People only say that when Christians use their faith to support bigotry.

Christians are the most privileged and powerful group in this country.  88% of congress is Christian.  It is hilarious to hear one of them try and play the victim card.