This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Justin thomas
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  16 Jan 21 11.39pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Corporations are scared little faggots. Speech codes are perfectly sensible when they are guidelines and to promote politeness. But when they are used to punish people for mis-speaking, instead of a polite word.....Well, the people who enforce that are authoritarian c***s. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2021 11.42pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 16 Jan 21 11.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Corporations are scared little faggots. Speech codes are perfectly sensible when they are guidelines and to promote politeness. But when they are used to punish people for mis-speaking, instead of a polite word.....Well, the people who enforce that are authoritarian c***s. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2021 11.42pm) haha. Hasn't this been happening for decades though? Pretty sure he's not the first person to be ditched from a job, contract or otherwise for using inappropriate language. And I mean looking at ANY place of work. Not just saying something offensive on live TV that has now been shared and heard by millions You can see why no reaction at all would come off as endorsing that language, and by extension to some people (a large part, I'd assume, good 'ol american middle classes with cash) a corporation endorsing homophobic slurs is not the best thing to let slide. I don't see this as a 2020 thing. Or even a 2010s thing. I think this would have created an issue 20 years ago. Whether it would be amplified as much by social media? Maybe not. But here we are
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 21 11.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Maine Eagle
Sorry but you cant use a homphobic slur on national TV and expect to get away with it these days. I think if you are gay you dont need to "find a way" to be offended by that particular term, it would just come naturally. In fact I am not gay and I was offended quite naturally, and didnt need to "find a way" to be offended. If you are in the public eye and expect sponsorship deals with national brands, then you have to live by a higher standard than using offensive language like that by the mic. Justin Thomas probably doesnt have a single gay friend, so he uses terms like that with his pals. Its sad really. If Justin Thomas muttered "n*****" after missing a putt to "let off some steam" would that be ok in your world? You seem to go out of your way to be offensive to people you don't like though Mainey. While I have no issue with that I think you're a bit of a hypocrite to support this kind of thing. You want punishment for speech you don't like, but conversely you want to be allowed to offend who you don't like. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jan 2021 11.49pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
BlueJay  UK 16 Jan 21 11.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
BENDER. **Cough** I'll WINK before you blow a gasket. Nice of you to offer him a blowjob to begin with really. Reaching across the aisle? Edited by BlueJay (16 Jan 2021 11.52pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jan 21 11.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
haha. Hasn't this been happening for decades though? Pretty sure he's not the first person to be ditched from a job, contract or otherwise for using inappropriate language. And I mean looking at ANY place of work. Not just saying something offensive on live TV that has now been shared and heard by millions You can see why no reaction at all would come off as endorsing that language, and by extension to some people (a large part, I'd assume, good 'ol american middle classes with cash) a corporation endorsing homophobic slurs is not the best thing to let slide. I don't see this as a 2020 thing. Or even a 2010s thing. I think this would have created an issue 20 years ago. Whether it would be amplified as much by social media? Maybe not. But here we are I think it's gone way too far and has been around way too long....it's a cultural thing that needs to be pushed back on. As for homosexual slur....people call people names all the time. I'm not for thought policing or speech code advantages for special interest groups. People should not be punished for cultural 'wrong think'. This tendency was bad when it started back in the nineties and it's only advanced. It produces weak and pathetic societies....well it has already.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 16 Jan 21 11.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
But back to the topic at hand freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. If you're a 'brand ambassador' for people desperate to get their hands on designer underwear, a metrosexual audience at best', it's hardly money well spent if the person you'll paying millions to starts reeling off derogatory terms on daytime TV that decent minded people people aren't particularly interested in hearing. Upholding a very basic standard of behaviour isn't asking the world. One or two here might want to try it. Edited by BlueJay (16 Jan 2021 11.59pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 21 12.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
But back to the topic at hand freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. If you're a 'brand ambassador' for people desperate to get their hands on designer underwear, a metrosexual audience at best', it's hardly money well spent if the person you'll paying millions to starts reeling off derogatory terms on daytime TV that decent minded people people aren't particularly interested in hearing. Edited by BlueJay (16 Jan 2021 11.59pm) Both Hitler and Stalin had similar attitudes to that. They had no problem with you saying what you wanted. You just had a consequence coming.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 21 12.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I think it's gone way too far and has been around way too long....it's a cultural thing that needs to be pushed back on. As for homosexual slur....people call people names all the time. I'm not for thought policing or speech code advantages for special interest groups. People should not be punished for cultural 'wrong think'. This tendency was bad when it started back in the nineties and it's only advanced. It produces weak and pathetic societies....well it has already.
I get that viewpoint, but the difference here and what I was replying to originally is context. I still don't see how you'd expect nothing to happen in this scenario, which seems to be the inference of the OP. I'm sure people (unfortunately) use that word in a derogatory way all the time. The difference is they will most likely do so with likeminded individuals in earshot, not unknown members of the public or (initially) hundreds of thousands of viewers watching a golf tournament.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 17 Jan 21 12.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
But back to the topic at hand freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. If you're a 'brand ambassador' for people desperate to get their hands on designer underwear, a metrosexual audience at best', it's hardly money well spent if the person you'll paying millions to starts reeling off derogatory terms on daytime TV that decent minded people people aren't particularly interested in hearing. Upholding a very basic standard of behaviour isn't asking the world. One or two here might want to try it. Edited by BlueJay (16 Jan 2021 11.59pm) Exactly
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 21 12.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I get that viewpoint, but the difference here and what I was replying to originally is context. I still don't see how you'd expect nothing to happen in this scenario, which seems to be the inference of the OP. I'm sure people (unfortunately) use that word in a derogatory way all the time. The difference is they will most likely do so with likeminded individuals in earshot, not unknown members of the public or (initially) hundreds of thousands of viewers watching a golf tournament. I agree that it wasn't a positive word to be using. However, like I say society is overly focused upon some words over others based upon oppression narratives. I reject all that as bad for society in general. My attitudes is that you keep censorship as low as possible.....However, we don't live in that society anymore and I regard that as a significant downgrade for the freedom of the individual..
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 17 Jan 21 12.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Both Hitler and Stalin had similar attitudes to that. They had no problem with you saying what you wanted. You just had a consequence coming. Me pointing out that advertisers don't like people reeling off the word 'f****t' is worlds apart from that. They are a business, and they care about their bottom line. As others have said this stuff doesn't fly with advertisers and didn't even decades back.. it's damaging for a brand. You don't need to be 'woke' to realise that most people watching daytime TV don't want to hear this kind of thing. Maybe 40 or 50 years ago no-one would've cared less, but times move on. Maybe the catharsis someone like this golfer gets from reeling off "f****t" is worth the fact that once aired he may as well have been saying it to the faces of his gay family members or fans. People can say what they like, but advertisers aren't obliged to dish out millions to people who are actively damaging their brand, especially when the vast majority of people don't talk with this. It's naive to imagine that they would or should have acted differently.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jan 21 12.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Me pointing out that advertisers don't like people reeling off the word 'faggot' is worlds apart from that. They are a business, and they care about their bottom line. As others have said this stuff doesn't fly with advertisers and didn't even decades back.. it's damaging for a brand. You don't need to be 'woke' to realise that most people watching daytime TV don't want to hear this kind of thing. Maybe 40 or 50 years ago no-one would've cared less, but times move on. Maybe the catharsis someone like this golfer gets from reeling off "faggot" is worth the fact that once aired he may as well have been saying it to the faces of his gay family members or fans. Should we leaf through a book of challenges faced in life and look for the most negative words to used towards those already with enough on their plates. A disabled people 'oh a cripple', an aspie .. oh you mean 'a spaz', a 'nutter', a black person a n*gger. Afterall, just words aren't they. What does it matter if someone blurts them out on daytime TV? People can say what they like, but advertisers aren't obliged to dish out millions to people who are actively damaging their brand, especially when the vast majority of people don't talk with this. It's naive to imagine that they would or should have acted differently.
I see that buzz phrase used all the time, 'freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences' so it's time to focus upon it. You say that the Hilter and Stalin comparison is over the top....Well, in the sense of death as a consequence it is, but in the sense that it describes significant repression for thoughts in societies it isn't. Neither Hitler nor Stalin killed everyone who said a word out of place....well, Stalin more so.... however there were always consequences. I'm against a significantly censored society and I'm an opponent of that for various stated reasons. I agree that advertieers can employ and sack who they like. Just like I agreed with a company being allowed to refuse to bake a cake. However the law doesn't actually agree with an employer being able to hire and fire when it sees fit or deny services as it sees fit. You can only sack people or deny services for reasons that the law agrees with So for me this argument falls down at that point.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.