ESPN Issues Statement After SportsCenter Anchor Jemele Hill Calls Trump a ‘White Supremacist'

[aujeff11 6,243]

15 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're cherry picking. The adjective form?

What kind of an effect? The Guerilla effect. 

 

16 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage

Which this definition should tell you to look down because this definition obviously doesn't conform to the context on either side. It's common sense. 

 

18 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

The broad strategy underlying successful guerrilla warfare is that of protracted harassment accomplished by extremely subtle, flexible tactics designed to wear down the enemy.

Definitions by alternate sources on irrelevant topics are cute.

 

18 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

remember you embarrassing yourself for 10 pages before I decided to ignore you.

And I remember shutting every one on your unhinged rants down with cold hard facts while your sole argument was the japs "wouldn't die."

Maybe you need to "jog your memory." If that phrase offends, maybe try a treadmill ?

16 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Twitter didn't jump him for no reason.

The reason is called a homophone. LMAO if you think Twitter is the pulse of the nation or better yet, the voice of reason. 

 

23 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're playing too fast and loose with the English lang

Oh, so now you're turning this around. I've been preaching the English language and the highly possible homophone misinterpretation and the literal definition of guerilla while your whole argument has been "I think," but now you're all of a sudden wanting to call upon the English language. Go ahead, dear.

[AUDub 11,131]

34 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Picking at nits bere. He wasn't fired because he was reluctant to apologize, or your prior assertion, because he didn't apologize.

You can't say that for sure and neither can I, really. He said he was reluctant, as did ESPN. All I can say is, were I in his shoes, I am as apologetic as possible.

Quote

Anybody with half a brain cans see that ESPN is going to fire anybody that creates any opposition that completely contradicts their own political climate, even if the contradiction is derived by misinterpretation.

Puhleeze. To go back to the example of Schilling, he got away with his crap for months before they finally let him go. Hell, he got off relatively lightly for comparing Muslims to Nazis with only a suspension. 

Quote

Venus wasn't sporting a 240 Bravo or an M4.

OK? She wasn't sporting hand grenades or planting IEDs either.

Quote

You're completely attributing the wrong definition.... WTF?

And I'm not. You're twisting language to fit a narrative. It doesn't work. Even if it is a term of art, and you still haven't provided any good examples, it's not a good one word to use, and not one folks use in the context of completely dominating an opponent. Guerilla warfare is, again, asymetric by nature. Big vs. small. The Galactic Empire vs. the Rebellion.. Mao's communist forces early in the Chinese revolution against the Kuomintang. 

Quote

Pretty sure my defintion by Merriam Webster was more appropriate.

Not really. Aggressive like a weasel or ermine, maybe, in that they fight like wild. 

Quote

I already linked this one and it says the same thing as the bolded portion.... 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ethicsalarms.com/2017/03/20/the-destruction-of-doug-adler-guerillas-gorillas-espn-and-the-first-niggardly-principle/amp/

He's already fired. And he has a scarlet R for racist on his f****** resume. I'd be suing too. 

That doesn't say what you think it  says.

I doubt he has a case unless he has super specific wording in his contract.

His excuse is nonsensical. "Guerilla tactics" mean what they mean, sneaking around and ambushing, which does not describe an aggressive tennis match at all. 

I think he said gorilla and meant gorilla but, again, I doubt it had anything to do with race as it's common to ascribe traits like that to athletes. There's just baggage there he brainfarted on. 

Quote

Your whole argument seems to be pure speculation at this point. 

And you have certainty that isn't warranted. Again, argument by assertion. 

[AUDub 11,131]

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

What kind of an effect? The Guerilla effect. 

Which is a term I have never heard before. Neither has anyone else, apparently, since you still haven't provided an example. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Which this definition should tell you to look down because this definition obviously doesn't conform to the context on either side. It's common sense. 

There's nothing sensible about the context he used it in. None.

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Definitions by alternate sources on irrelevant topics are cute.

Do you have a better definition, then? 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

And I remember shutting every one on your unhinged rants down with cold hard facts while your sole argument was the japs "wouldn't die."

I provided mountains of evidence before giving up on you. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Maybe you need to "jog your memory." If that phrase offends, maybe try a treadmill ?

Hardy hardy har. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

The reason is called a homophone. LMAO if you think Twitter is the pulse of the nation or better yet, the voice of reason. 

A homophone that makes no sense in context. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Oh, so now you're turning this around. I've been preaching the English language and the highly possible homophone misinterpretation

One that makes zero sense. 

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

and the literal definition of guerilla

Again, making no sense in that context.

25 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 while your whole argument has been "I think," but now you're all of a sudden wanting to call upon the English language. Go ahead, dear.

Your command of the language, the sophistry you're using to twist it, is laughable. 

I'm done. The last word it yours, again.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

She only apologized for the backlash ESPN is getting. She's still sticking by her comments about Trump. She isn't actually sorry for what she said. It's an insincere apology and ESPN is ok with it.

 

There was an ESPN writer 5 years ago that titled an article about Jeremy Lin "Chink in the Armor" and he apologized repeatedly and was sorry for it yet he was fired regardless by ESPN.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

56 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You can't say that for sure and neither can I, really. All I can say is, were I in his shoes, I am as apologetic as possible.

There are only two chances that any kind of apology would've helped. And, although he was reluctantly apologetic, you're assuming ( if not projecting him) as unprofessional and nonfriendly with the staff that literally sprung this issue of outrage 24 hours after the fact.  Unless he was unprofessional, his reluctance is nothing more than a red-herding.  ESPN has shown that they will only protect the ones that echo their lefty beliefs of non-tolerant "tolerance," and anybody else is gone upon first embarrassment.

 

56 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

And you have certainty that isn't warranted.

Argument by assertion. 

56 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

doubt he has a case unless he has super specific wording in his contract

I'm not really optimistic that he wins the case. Depends on a lot of variables and I'm  sure the defendant will afford all of the best lawyers in the land. 

56 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

His excuse is nonsensical. "Guerilla tactics" mean what they mean, sneaking around and ambushing, which does not describe an aggressive tennis match at all. 

Dude. Guerilla tactics dont necessarily mean this. Get this through your thick skull.  In the 1995 "Guerilla Tennis"advertisement, did you see sneaking around or ambush at all? 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Man, are you guys not tired yet?

[aujeff11 6,243]

19 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

A homophone that makes no sense in context

It makes more sense than to call upon definitions that include the words "sabotage" and "harassment" to make a point. JS.

A lot of people in the Tennis world attribute Guerilla tactics to "aggressive" tactics- whether they are right or wrong. If the dictionary attributed "Guerrilla" to aggressive, and if people attribute Guerrilla( adj) Tennis( noun)  to aggressive Tennis, what's the flipping problem?!

25 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I provided mountains of evidence before giving up on you. 

You provided a perspective derived from ignorance. You told me that the atomic bombs were absolutely necessary and I squashed that theory like a bug. You also told me they would not give in, I provided concrete evidence from a bombing survey that they were literally already self imploding. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

35 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

It's an insincere apology and ESPN is ok with it.

 There was an ESPN writer 5 years ago that titled an article about Jeremy Lin "Chink in the Armor" and he apologized repeatedly and was sorry for it yet he was fired regardless by ESPN.

Well, of course. To say Adler's apology would have any effect on their good faith decision is foolish. ESPN is only going to protect those from the wolves that make radical statements or express radical beliefs if they fit congruent to and/or aligns with the beliefs within the political climate of the greater company. 

 

[AUDub 11,131]

24 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

She only apologized for the backlash ESPN is getting. She's still sticking by her comments about Trump. She isn't actually sorry for what she said. It's an insincere apology and ESPN is ok with it.

I'm actually glad ESPN hasn't fired her for this.

Not that I like her. Can't stand SC6 and choosing her to be an anchor was laughable. But the WH calling what she did a fireable offense is pretty funny, especially considering our current president's behavior when his predecessor was in office.

They should fire her for being bad at her job.

Quote

 

Quote

There was an ESPN writer 5 years ago that titled an article about Jeremy Lin "Chink in the Armor" and he apologized repeatedly and was sorry for it yet he was fired regardless by ESPN.

An anchor (not a big name one) used the same phrase around that time and was suspended.

I draw the distinction between the usage by the anchor or PbP guy vs. the online editor. When you write a headline, you have the opportunity to put a lot of thought into exactly what it means. Therefore, the editor should have figured out that this was a bad idea, and was rightly fired. For an editor, even without the accidental slur, a screw up like that is easily a fireable offense.

The guy was totally contrite too, because he knew how badly he screwed up.

[AUDub 11,131]

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Man, are you guys not tired yet?

I've had enough and thrown in the towel. Let him argue with air.

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I've had enough and thrown in the towel. Let him argue with air.

I can lead the horse to water, but I can't make  him drink. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'm actually glad ESPN hasn't fired her for this.

Not that I like her. Can't stand SC6 and choosing her to be an anchor was laughable. But the WH calling what she did a fireable offense is pretty funny, especially considering our current president's behavior when his predecessor was in office.

They should fire her for being bad at her job.

That's just it, she's getting a slap on the wrist. A soft reprimand by ESPN putting out a statement that labeled what she said as "inappropriate". She's hasn't even been suspended. ESPN is clearly showing inconsistency in how they punish their employees "inappropriate" comments.

Other ESPN employees who made "inappropriate" remarks or comments were either fired or at the very least suspended, regardless of whether it was their first offense.

It wasn't just Trump that Jemele Hill went after though, she also said that the people Trump surrounds himself with are white supremacists. So anyone that supports Trump or works for him are also white supremacists.

[aujeff11 6,243]

 

"An anchor (not a big name one) used the same phrase around that time and was suspended."

And for better understanding of the subject, he was suspended 30 days. Plus, his wife was Asian when he said it.

[homersapien 11,354]

11 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

You told me that the atomic bombs were absolutely necessary and I squashed that theory like a bug.  

No one has argued the atomic bombs were "absolutely necessary".  Both Ben and I acknowledged we would have won the war without them, albeit with millions of more casualites on both sides.

This is exactly why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you.

And the "I squashed that theory like a bug" reveals the insecurity that is at the core of your persona.  (That's the "mental" part.)

[aujeff11 6,243]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No one has argued the atomic bombs were "absolutely necessary".

Your hear this @Bigbens42? 

You didn't say:

[ quote]You cannot reach a person who rejects the necessity of having to make choices and then refuses to see the moral superiority of choosing to use atomic bombs when every other alternative would have literally taken millions of more lives. [/quote]

And btw, I debunked the second part as a lie as well. 

Don't kid yourself, the unethical revisionist weaseling of your own words is why rational discussions cannot be had. 

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And the "I squashed that theory like a bug" reveals the insecurity that is at the core of your persona.  (That's the "mental" part.)

Broken logic. Try again.

[homersapien 11,354]

46 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Your hear this @Bigbens42? 

You didn't say:

[ quote]You cannot reach a person who rejects the necessity of having to make choices and then refuses to see the moral superiority of choosing to use atomic bombs when every other alternative would have literally taken millions of more lives. [/quote]

And btw, I debunked the second part as a lie as well. 

Don't kid yourself, the unethical revisionist weaseling of your own words is why rational discussions cannot be had. 

Broken logic. Try again.

You are confused.  

Making the choice to use or not use bomb  was  necessary, which is exactly what I said above.

But the choice to use the bomb was not necessary, it was optional.  We would have won the war had it not been used.  But, using the bomb was morally justified if you compare the total number of lives lost - on both sides -from using it to not using it.  

Continuing to hurl insults does not make you look wiser or superior - just the opposite.   

[aujeff11 6,243]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Making the choice to use or not use bomb  was  necessary

Weasel gonna weasel. You explicit claimed there were no other alternatives to the bomb without killing millions of lives, hence making the bomb necessary. 

 

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But, using the bomb was morally justified if you compare the total number of lives lost - on both sides -from using it to not using it.  

 Wrong as usual. Operation starvation was so effective, Japan would've been resourcefully starved into surrender within three to six months. They would been malnourished and lacking of the goods to carry out war. Anybody that says otherwise is playing fast and loose with the facts. 

 

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Continuing to hurl insults does not make you look wiser or superior - just the opposite

 Did I take a page out of your playbook? You entered my conversation using an insult and use ad hominems ten times more than anybody else on the board. Get over it.

[homersapien 11,354]

59 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 Did I take a page out of your playbook? You entered my conversation using an insult and use ad hominems ten times more than anybody else on the board. Get over it.

Mental:

"Interests:Homer: "He (me) refuses to see the moral superiority of using the atomic bombs".

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

On 9/16/2017 at 1:13 PM, homersapien said:

Mental:

"Interests:Homer: "He (me) refuses to see the moral superiority of using the atomic bombs".

 

Surprisingly, we agree. Anybody that can say that quoted quote is a sick human being. 

[alexava 6,973]

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

On 9/15/2017 at 9:19 PM, aujeff11 said:

What kind of an effect? The Guerilla effect. 

 

Which this definition should tell you to look down because this definition obviously doesn't conform to the context on either side. It's common sense. 

 

Definitions by alternate sources on irrelevant topics are cute.

 

And I remember shutting every one on your unhinged rants down with cold hard facts while your sole argument was the japs "wouldn't die."

Maybe you need to "jog your memory." If that phrase offends, maybe try a treadmill ?

The reason is called a homophone. LMAO if you think Twitter is the pulse of the nation or better yet, the voice of reason. 

 

Oh, so now you're turning this around. I've been preaching the English language and the highly possible homophone misinterpretation and the literal definition of guerilla while your whole argument has been "I think," but now you're all of a sudden wanting to call upon the English language. Go ahead, dear.

LMAO

[caleb1633 1,418]

Here's what people don't seem to comprehend about the concept of free speech: it applies in the context that the government cannot prevent a private citizen from exercising his right to say what he wants, however ESPN is not the government. They are a PRIVATE corporation (or public if you wanna talk finances), and therefore it's their right to fire someone for expressing their point of view if it doesn't represent their corporation in a positive light.

And since we're on this topic too lately, how is ok that the NFL will allow players to display their political stance by kneeling during the national anthem, but won't allow them to wear decals commemorating police officers, or cleats to remember 9/11? And how come Tebow gets ridiculed and run out of the league because of his "freedom of speech", but these clowns who do nothing but draw attention to themselves and divide others are allowed to stick around? 

Bottom Line: People watch sports to escape real life. It's the one thing that actually united us. Now, because of "freedom of speech" it is dividing us just like everything else.

[aujeff11 6,243]

9 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

They are a PRIVATE corporation (or public if you wanna talk finances), and therefore it's their right to fire someone for expressing their point of view if it doesn't represent their corporation in a positive light.

The double standards of the matter is the crux of the debate. Like I said before, ESPN should have a set policy and stick with it. Whether it be letting the opinions go unpoliced, or whether it be enforcing a strict zero tolerance rule regarding embarrassment the company, the company should have a standard and stick with it. Can’t fire Schilling or shut up Mike Ditka but allow Jemele continue on with her own racist agenda. 

 

9 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

And how come Tebow gets ridiculed and run out of the league because of his "freedom of speech", but these clowns who do nothing but draw attention to themselves and divide others are allowed to stick around? 

 

Because ESPN is a secular organization with their own agenda. Same reason why CNN squashed NFL player Bengamin Watson’s interview when he said the root of racism was sin.

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Sign of the day this past Saturday on College Gameday:

[homersapien 11,354]

On 9/25/2017 at 1:17 AM, caleb1633 said:

Here's what people don't seem to comprehend about the concept of free speech: it applies in the context that the government cannot prevent a private citizen from exercising his right to say what he wants, however ESPN is not the government. They are a PRIVATE corporation (or public if you wanna talk finances), and therefore it's their right to fire someone for expressing their point of view if it doesn't represent their corporation in a positive light.

And since we're on this topic too lately, how is ok that the NFL will allow players to display their political stance by kneeling during the national anthem, but won't allow them to wear decals commemorating police officers, or cleats to remember 9/11? And how come Tebow gets ridiculed and run out of the league because of his "freedom of speech", but these clowns who do nothing but draw attention to themselves and divide others are allowed to stick around? 

Bottom Line: People watch sports to escape real life. It's the one thing that actually united us. Now, because of "freedom of speech" it is dividing us just like everything else.

Maybe because uniforms are company property?   

They can draw the line anywhere they want.