Savage fired by MSNBC

[korme]

How could they fire the Macho Man??

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Fritz
WTF does this have to do with the topic (like I am one to ask that sort of question)

MylesKnight brought up the war. I just offered some extra commentary on it before I addressed his point. He says society thinks it is ok to go off to war and kill people in other countries, but does not like people saying "go get AIDS and die" to one another. The fact is it was the US government going off to Iraq, and it was the US government killing people. A large segment of society did not approve of it then, and even fewer probably approve of it now since Bush's claims never materialized (and they've even taken one of those claims back now, well after the fact). Anyway, at the end of it all, just because the US government goes off and kills people does not mean the rest of us here must keep a soft spot in our hearts for every intolerant asshole's ramblings.

[Leonidas]

So what does eating sausage have to do with being a sodomite anyway?

BTW, in my OOTP league I named a team from Las Vegas the Sodomites. Maybe I should be fired as commish of that league and placed into sensitivity training. I think I should recommend this to Markus over at .400 sports. Add the option for firings due to politically insensitive remarks or actions. Maybe Jim could add this for TCY2.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
How could they fire the Macho Man??

Ooooooooooh Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by MylesKnight

What a country.. We can go attack and conquer Middle Eastern countries

For some reason I read this as "Middle Earth". I think it was the use of the word "conquer".

Speaking of which... I haven't watched my FotR DVD for a good 4 or 5 months and there's really nothing on tv tonight...

SI

[CAsterling]

Oh please, so he insulted somebody (who basically equates to a customer) - and his employer fired him.
No big deal happens every day.

In some of the offices I have worked in that insult could be considered mild if used between employees - in fact in my current company's New York office, it would be considered positively wimpish.

I have no problem that his employer decided to fire him, thats a company policy option.

However why this phrase can be considered unacceptable outside his office environment is beyond me - If used anywhere else the whole 'Freedom of Speech' issue can be used.

Guess I'm just a stupid foreigner who doesn't understand what the fuss is about !!

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by CAsterling
In some of the offices I have worked in that insult could be considered mild if used between employees - in fact in my current company's New York office, it would be considered positively wimpish.

If this is used in your current office, I'd hate to be your HR manager. It'll end up costing the company big bucks long-term.

[CamEdwards]

CAsterling,

Freedom of Speech, as guaranteed in the Constitution, guarantees us the ability to speak freely without recrimination from the government. It does not absolve one of any punishment employers, private citizens, or talk show hosts care to dish out.

[Tekneek]

And it can create a hostile work environment with that kind of attitude thrown around, which you do have legal protection from.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Ooooooooooh Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

SI

Forget the sausage....SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!

[KWhit]

It amazes me that this guy is getting support from any of you. What he said was extremely offensive. He definitely should have been fired.

Reading between the lines, it seems that many of you believe that since he was derogatory against gays that it should be okay.

I think this board in general could use a little less homophobia.

[clintl]

Anyone who thinks this is a free speech issue forgets that MSNBC also has free speech rights. Those rights include editing and controlling the content it broadcasts. It is under no legal obligation, beyond whatever contractual agreements it made with Savage, to continue to pay him and provide a forum for him to disseminate views it does not agree with.

Savage has the right to say what he wants. He does not have the right to get paid for doing so, nor does he have the right to use any private sector commercial forum he chooses.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by KWhit
It amazes me that this guy is getting support from any of you. What he said was extremely offensive. He definitely should have been fired.

Reading between the lines, it seems that many of you believe that since he was derogatory against gays that it should be okay.

I think this board in general could use a little less homophobia.

I STRONGLY agree.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I STRONGLY agree.

like you needed to post that

[Marmel]

I am just surprised that Galt waited until page two to jump in here.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
I am just surprised that Galt waited until page two to jump in here.

This thread was a disaster from the start and I didn't see a reason to post until KWhit offered his gem. Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.

why is it a low point?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
why is it a low point?

There was virtually no discussion of the issues and instead there was anti-gay drivel posted and applauded. It is bad enough when homophobia isn't opposed, but when it becomes fun, it is sickening for me read.

[Marmel]

This is far from a low point of this board John. Most of the discussion was about whether he should have been fired vs. whether he had a right to say what he did, etc...

[Fritz]

I guess even you are not exempt from the "if I don't like something its wrong" mentality.

[Marmel]

dola....

re-reading page one shows me that outside of the predictable FranklinNoble comments, most people said he should have been fired....

I think you are off base here John Galt.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Marmel
dola....

re-reading page one shows me that outside of the predictable FranklinNoble comments, most people said he should have been fired....

I think you are off base here John Galt.

Yeah, that confused me too. It seems that the general consensus is that he should be gone and I concur. Even if you absolutely abhor "political correctness", and I do, it's monumental stupidity to ignore that it exists especially if your job is in the spotlight. Monumental stupidity is definately a worthy reason to be fired no matter how you feel about the opinion expressed.

As far as crossing over the lines go, I think that the statement definately crossed my lines but I don't presume that my opinions or lines necessarily mirror community standards so I won't comment on that one. It does seem obvious though that most people on this thread feel it crossed their lines too so there you go. I'm back to my first paragraph.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Marmel
dola....

re-reading page one shows me that outside of the predictable FranklinNoble comments, most people said he should have been fired....

I think you are off base here John Galt.

Marmel, clearly Savage should be tarred, feathered, bound, gagged, then crucified upside down. Anything else and we're being soft on homophobia.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Marmel
This is far from a low point of this board John. Most of the discussion was about whether he should have been fired vs. whether he had a right to say what he did, etc...

Yes, some of that finally started (and it turned into the same misconceptions about "free speech" that occurs in everyone of these threads). The early parts of the thread are not so bland. These quotes in particular were frightening to me (because of what they said and in some cases how little reaction they got).

"Terrible day . Can't even speak your mind about the downfall of this countries culture without being fired."

" Hmm... I kind of like his use of the word "sodomite." Sounds more polite and sophisticated than "faggot.""

"Is bidding a sodomite wishes that he "get AIDS and die" really any different than wishing a drug addict would "overdose and die" or that a drunk driver would "drive off a cliff and die" or that those stupid PBR bullriders would "get stomped by a bull and die?"

So, he doesn't like people that engage in anal sex, and he wishes them the worst possible outcome of one of the well-documented hazards of the activity... Really, his comment could be applied to just about any group of people that happen to share any sort of potentially hazardous pastime."

"I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is)."

"But so are some lucky married guys, who I am sure Savage does not have a problem with. Whether or not it was accurate (which I agree it was) it was certainly intended to degrade homosexuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and your point is what?"

"More people like Michael Savage (as only the most recent example) are needed, in my opinion."



And I just saw your new post and Axxon's post. My problem isn't that most people did or did not think he should be fired. My problem (and I think KWhit's) is how casually people can be bigotted and it be treated as part of a discussion. Yes, Franklinnoble is particularly notable, but I just found the tone to so many of the posts to be disturbing.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola--

That was sarcasm, in case anyone didn't realize it.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Marmel, clearly Savage should be tarred, feathered, bound, gagged, then crucified upside down. Anything else and we're being soft on homophobia.

Sounds pretty kinky there Dog.

[Axxon]

John,

being from a culture that faces prejudice all the time ( I was seriously advised by my sister to change my name when I moved here so no one would know I'm hispanic ) my opinion is that I'd much rather the idiots speak their mind rather than hide behind political correctness. That way I can know who to watch out for.

The problem of course is how their speech can influence others to think the same way but they do that anyway and as long as there are rational people involved in the discussion, and there are here, quotes like you pointed out above are unfortunate, but don't bother me so much, although I can see how it could bother some pretty badly so I don't offer this as any kind of "how it should be" post.
If it had truly been a homosexual bashing thread I'd much more see your point but then again, that would be the time for you to post and try and present your view rather than avoid it I'd think.

[CamEdwards]

And this is why politically correct folk with an axe to grind annoy the piss out of me.

80% of the discussion supports Savage's firing, with a few anti-gay jibes thrown in by one, maybe two individuals. Yet it's homophobia, and that's just evil.

You can't force people to applaud your sex life. You can't even force people to stop making fun of it. It might be homophobia, or it might just be a different view of what is moral and what is not.
And I thought you were all about free speech. Weren't you one of the ones advocating the right of a college professor to call for the deaths of a million servicemen and women? I guarantee you more people heard about Nicholas de Genova's comments than Michael Savage's comment.
Can you explain the difference?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I guarantee you more people heard about Nicholas de Genova's comments ...

Who???

Ok, I kid the conservative radio star.

[Axxon]

Dola,

yes I was kidding but think about it. Out of context I wouldn't have recognized the name but I surely heard about the incident. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one in this situation either.

[Marmel]

Great point Cam. (especially for a Sox fan).

[Ksyrup]

The fact that none of us jumped down those peoples' throats for making some of those comments doesn't mean we support them. At the time, the discussion was going in a more interesting and substantive direction, and so I think you should take the lack of responses to those people as being an acknowledgement by the participants in this thread that those people weren't adding anything substantive to the discussion worth commenting on.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
And this is why politically correct folk with an axe to grind annoy the piss out of me.

Despite popular misconception at FOFC, I do not support "political correctness."

Originally posted by CamEdwards
80% of the discussion supports Savage's firing, with a few anti-gay jibes thrown in by one, maybe two individuals. Yet it's homophobia, and that's just evil.

Exactly (except for the "evil" part). Even if the majority supports Savage's firing, it has NO bearing on the fact that people here are casually using bigotted language and meaning. This is about homophobia at FOFC not in radio land.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You can't force people to applaud your sex life. You can't even force people to stop making fun of it. It might be homophobia, or it might just be a different view of what is moral and what is not.
And I thought you were all about free speech. Weren't you one of the ones advocating the right of a college professor to call for the deaths of a million servicemen and women? I guarantee you more people heard about Nicholas de Genova's comments than Michael Savage's comment.
Can you explain the difference?

And this is where your conservative diatribe falls apart by using nonsensical strawmen. No one is trying to "force" you to "applaud my sex life." No one is trying to "force" you to "stop making fun of it." It is funny, conservatives seem to understand the concept of "force" very well when they say things like, "No one is forcing you to live in America," or "the government has no right to force me to hire a minority," but they often get confused when talking about words and speech.

I'm engaging in counter-speech (aka a right-wing solution to offensive speech). I do nothing to "force" anyone - I do not report the thread to SD to have you banned - I don't report you to the mythical thought police - I just say, "don't be a bigot." And that "drives you crazy?" It sounds like I'm not the one who is upset that other people's opinions don't match my own.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Axxon
John,

being from a culture that faces prejudice all the time ( I was seriously advised by my sister to change my name when I moved here so no one would know I'm hispanic ) my opinion is that I'd much rather the idiots speak their mind rather than hide behind political correctness. That way I can know who to watch out for.

The problem of course is how their speech can influence others to think the same way but they do that anyway and as long as there are rational people involved in the discussion, and there are here, quotes like you pointed out above are unfortunate, but don't bother me so much, although I can see how it could bother some pretty badly so I don't offer this as any kind of "how it should be" post.
If it had truly been a homosexual bashing thread I'd much more see your point but then again, that would be the time for you to post and try and present your view rather than avoid it I'd think.

I actually agree with in large part. I don't support PC efforts to squash speech and I think there is a large value in knowing who the bigots are. The one thing I would take issue with is that in today's day and age, a lot of -ism's are hidden or even subconscious. In those cases, I think it is still important to call people out on it so that it doesn't become "acceptable" in that culture.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by John Galt
I actually agree with in large part. I don't support PC efforts to squash speech and I think there is a large value in knowing who the bigots are. The one thing I would take issue with is that in today's day and age, a lot of -ism's are hidden or even subconscious. In those cases, I think it is still important to call people out on it so that it doesn't become "acceptable" in that culture.

Which I agree with thus my last sentence.

If it had truly been a homosexual bashing thread I'd much more see your point but then again, that would be the time for you to post and try and present your view rather than avoid it I'd think.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Axxon
Which I agree with thus my last sentence.

Sorry, I missed the implication to the last sentence.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by John Galt
Sorry, I missed the implication to the last sentence.

No problem.

[KWhit]

Wow. Look what I started.

My point was never that the whole thread was offensive. Yes, many/most people agreed that he should be fired. My point was that I was surprised that everyone didn't see it that way.

This is not about PC running wild. In my mind, what he said was just as offensive as if he would have called someone the n-word.

My belief is that certain people feel the way they do only because he was offensive to gay people and some here may agree with his beliefs. This board consistantly shows bigotry toward homosexuals. This last thread was just one of many instances of homophobia that I find offensive.

[Bee]

I don't see why so many are offended by homophobia. If someone is afraid of buying a house, we really should put them in contact with a real estate agent to explain that it's not that scary.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by KWhit
Wow. Look what I started.

My point was never that the whole thread was offensive. Yes, many/most people agreed that he should be fired. My point was that I was surprised that everyone didn't see it that way.

This is not about PC running wild. In my mind, what he said was just as offensive as if he would have called someone the n-word.

My belief is that certain people feel the way they do only because he was offensive to gay people and some here may agree with his beliefs. This board consistantly shows bigotry toward homosexuals. This last thread was just one of many instances of homophobia that I find offensive.

Not to be nitpicky but until the day comes ( which it won't ) where all prejudice is wiped out bigotry, especially on an anonymous internet board will exist and those bashed ( and those who oppose bashing in general ) will find it offensive.

My question though is more, what percentage of the board hold those views not how vocal are the viewholders. While I'll admit that much of this bashing flies below my radar as it doesn't affect me, I don't THINK this board is largely gay bashing. Just a few guys who are very in your face about it.

Am I wrong about this??

BTW, stating that one is morally opposed to homosexuality doesn't constitute bigotry in my opinion so I don't count those guys. I don't understand them because I'm firmly in the "it's genetic" vs "it's choice" camp and find opposing it morally is akin to being morally opposed to hispanics or blacks but as it's a gray area I cut them that slack.

[CamEdwards]

John,

You found this quote to be "disturbing", "bigotted", and "frightening":

"I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is)."

That's my statement. What in particular is disturbing, bigotted, and frightening about that? Engaging in the act of sodomy (either same sex or different sex) makes you a sodomizer or a sodomite. Why does this disturb and frighten you?

Does the fact that you're scared of this statement make you a heterophobe or a bigot towards people who disagree morally with homosexuality as a lifestyle (or simply a sex act)?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
John,

You found this quote to be "disturbing", "bigotted", and "frightening":

"I'm guessing it was the "I hope you die" comment that got him fired. That to me is much more offensive than calling someone a sodomite (which, technically, that person is)."

That's my statement. What in particular is disturbing, bigotted, and frightening about that? Engaging in the act of sodomy (either same sex or different sex) makes you a sodomizer or a sodomite. Why does this disturb and frighten you?

Does the fact that you're scared of this statement make you a heterophobe or a bigot towards people who disagree morally with homosexuality as a lifestyle (or simply a sex act)?

I noticed you ignored my last post in reply to you, but turning to your new questions . . .

Your statement disturbed me precisely because of the conclusion you continue to draw. Using "sodomite" is not just axiomatic with "gay" in the way it wasy used. Imagine if someone said, "I hope all those mongoloids go back to Asia and die." Technicially, Asians are mongoloids (or at least many of them are), but the use in that phrase carries meaning beyond the specific word. "Sodomite" plays the same role in Savage's quote. And, calling someone a "sodomite" makes their identity just subject to their desire to have anal sex - being "gay" is about much more than that.

And of all the quotes I listed, this one was actually the least problematic to me and I wouldn't have said anything, but for the other quotes in the thread.

[CamEdwards]

Sorry, I didn't mean to not reply to your last post.

And this is where your conservative diatribe falls apart by using nonsensical strawmen. No one is trying to "force" you to "applaud my sex life." No one is trying to "force" you to "stop making fun of it." It is funny, conservatives seem to understand the concept of "force" very well when they say things like, "No one is forcing you to live in America," or "the government has no right to force me to hire a minority," but they often get confused when talking about words and speech.

I'm engaging in counter-speech (aka a right-wing solution to offensive speech). I do nothing to "force" anyone - I do not report the thread to SD to have you banned - I don't report you to the mythical thought police - I just say, "don't be a bigot." And that "drives you crazy?" It sounds like I'm not the one who is upset that other people's opinions don't match my own.

First of all, I wasn't using a strawman as an example. I was using you as an example. You seem to feel that we should all be more accepting of homosexuality and you're frightened and disturbed by the fact that some people don't approve of homosexuality in general.

You're not engaging in counter-speech, you're not trying to say "don't be a bigot". In fact, you've never said "don't be a bigot". What you've said is more of the same passive-aggressive bullshit that some parents try to use on small children.

And yes, it drives me crazy that a man who stood up for Nicholas de Genova's right to call for the deaths of a million servicemen is not only opposed to Michael Savage's call for the death of an individual, but opposed to people being unaccepting of homosexuality in general.

At least I'm consistent. I think Nicholas de Genova was wrong, and I think Michael Savage was wrong.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
This thread was a disaster from the start and I didn't see a reason to post until KWhit offered his gem. Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.

Funny, I could say the same thing about your thread from about two weeks ago.

The bottom line here, John, is that when it comes to issues like this, there are, by my admittedly limited observation, three kinds of people.

- Gay people.
- Straight people who think it's OK to be gay.
- Straight people who think it's not OK to be gay.

There's little doubt here where you or I reside within the above categories. I find homosexuality morally reprehensible. I make no apologies for that. I could probably do a better job of making more intelligent arguements when threads like these pop up, but I have a self-destructive tendency to weigh in with lewd comments instead. I've been banned for it - but I dare say on any other topic, others have posted in similar fashion and have repeatedly gotten away with it. Is it any different or less hurtful to cap on Bengals fans?

With regards to the Supreme Court ruling, my opinion is pretty much in line with what Scalia said in his dissent. The court had no business getting involved in the first place with a law that is no longer on the books in most states, and exceptionally rarely enforced in the rest. The decision set all manner of bad precedents, and not just with regards to legislation of sodomy and homosexual lifestyles.

With regards to Savage - I think MSNBC had every right to fire him, and I think he crossed the line with the "I hope you get AIDS and die..." bit. My comments may be hurtful and offensive to you, but I honestly would never wish any harm on anyone just because they didn't agree with me. The only think that bothers me about the Savage firing is the apparent double-standard in the media when it comes to dealing with talk-show personalities that spew hateful messages. Liberal commentators have gotten away with just as much as Savage had to say, and no one has raised an eyebrow.

[Franklinnoble]

Dola...

Cam is doing a much better job at this than I am... I think I'm just gonna shut up for the time being.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by John Galt
This thread was a disaster from the start and I didn't see a reason to post until KWhit offered his gem. Frankly, this thread represents one of the low points for this board in my mind and I didn't want to contribute to that.

Do you
1) Strongly Agree
2) Somewhat Agree
3) Somewhat Disagree
4) Strongly Disagree

*press 4*

I feel that the Macho Man joke between shorty, cuervo, and I may have been kindof stupid but in no point represent a low point on the board. In fact, I think it was a fun little pop culture reference.

Thank you for your comments regarding this post. They have been sent to the web site and tabulated.

"SterlingIce: Continually missing the point, since 1997"

SI

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble

The bottom line here, John, is that when it comes to issues like this, there are, by my admittedly limited observation, three kinds of people.

- Gay people.
- Straight people who think it's OK to be gay.
- Straight people who think it's not OK to be gay.

There is a fourth. People who think that what any number of consenting adults do is any of their business therefore there is no need to have any opinion of the OK or not OK ness of the act in general. It simply will never enter my life so even contemplating passing judgement on it seems entirely dishonest and unnecessary to me.

Now, if you want to say that I feel it's ok to be whatever the hell you want to be if you don't hurt anyone then that's me but to break it down to the individual components, gay, Trekkie, Wiccan whatever, simply hasn't ever entered my thought process. I simply don't care or see it as valid in my interactions with people. Period.

[Fritz]

that would be the first or second option Axxon

[vtbub]

Some people just don't understand that it's not worth it to be outraged over everything.

Was Savage wrong? Yes.

Does everything need to be turned into a pity party for the oppresed? No.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
that would be the first or second option Axxon

No, Fritz, it's not. Remember, I am in the "genetic" not "choice" category so it would be the same as saying it's either ok or not ok to be bald or black or short. It's a meaningless fact, no need to have an opinion if it's right or wrong and having said opinion is absurd. The fact offers no interpretation. It is merely a fact.

Do you have an opinion if it's ok or not to have 5 fingers on each hand?? Do we really need to think that deeply on subjects like this? I don't. If you think it's a choice then you can form an opinion yes, but if it's predetermined I just can't see it.