Thanks to some whiny people I don't get to read Tuesday Morning Quarterback any more

[Ben Kenobi]

Amen, yavoon.

There are many posts that I have been personally offended, and I believe these still ought to be posted so that they can be refuted and ridiculed, not necessarily in that order.

Conservatives generally don't fear opinions that differ from their own because they are secure in their assumptions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


incorrect. conservatives are worried that u ppl being offended keep demanding that it become a crime or someone gets fired or other gov't/bureacratic action. we're perfectly happy if u sit there and be offended or protest or wutever.

but ur trying to gank the system to suit ur "offendedness."

I cant think of any occasions when a mainstream liberal (not andrea dworkin or al sharpton ) has called for banning of things that offend them certainly not in this case. I also have not seen ANYONE in this case who called for Easterbrook to be fired. Apparently Eisner made that decision himself. And I thought the right of a private company to fire at will was one of the things conservatives valued. Isnt it widely held that limits on the right to fire are just whats given France and Germany so many economic problems?

[pchang]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And I thought the right of a private company to fire at will was one of the things conservatives valued. Isnt it widely held that limits on the right to fire are just whats given France and Germany so many economic problems?

At will employment is something that conservatives want to protect. However, this is a slightly different topic than corporate governance. I'm not sure there is unified conservative stance on proper corporate governance.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I cant think of any occasions when a mainstream liberal (not andrea dworkin or al sharpton ) has called for banning of things that offend them certainly not in this case. I also have not seen ANYONE in this case who called for Easterbrook to be fired. Apparently Eisner made that decision himself. And I thought the right of a private company to fire at will was one of the things conservatives valued. Isnt it widely held that limits on the right to fire are just whats given France and Germany so many economic problems?

well

1)I'm not a conservative in that u can just saddle me w/ every opinion or platform of the big elephants in washington.

2)not being able to get fired is a problem in europe. but the problem is not that ur unfirable for mouthing off. its that ur unfirable FOR ALMOST ANY REASON. seniority and malaise dominate union choking businesses where skill/ability/ambition matter nothing compared to ur "seniority date."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


well

1)I'm not a conservative in that u can just saddle me w/ every opinion or platform of the big elephants in washington.

2)not being able to get fired is a problem in europe. but the problem is not that ur unfirable for mouthing off. its that ur unfirable FOR ALMOST ANY REASON. seniority and malaise dominate union choking businesses where skill/ability/ambition matter nothing compared to ur "seniority date."

you seem to forget why unions insisted on seniority. In the bad old days employers regularly fired employees for mouthing off - not about antisemitism, or black quarterbacks, but about the rather more important issue of unionization. What your employer DID NOT want you to say to your fellow employees was "lets form a union" And since an employer could almost always find an excuse for firing someone, and it was impossible to prove that someone was being fired for mouthing off, they insisted that people be let go in order of seniority, and that the employer jump through hoops to fire for cause.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


well

1)I'm not a conservative in that u can just saddle me w/ every opinion or platform of the big elephants in washington.

2)not being able to get fired is a problem in europe. but the problem is not that ur unfirable for mouthing off. its that ur unfirable FOR ALMOST ANY REASON. seniority and malaise dominate union choking businesses where skill/ability/ambition matter nothing compared to ur "seniority date."

I rather suspect the right to fire at will is not just a concern of bigwigs in washington - i rather suspect its something that every chamber of commerce from North Carolina to Alaska is intent on defending.

[KrazyHorse]

That wasn't an antisemitic statement, but it was badly phrased. Reading quickly I wasn't sure what he was getting at.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by pchang


At will employment is something that conservatives want to protect. However, this is a slightly different topic than corporate governance. I'm not sure there is unified conservative stance on proper corporate governance.

do you honestly think that firing Easterbrook will have any measurable impact on the value of Disney stock? Even if it costs ESPN some ratings (and how could you prove that?) arguably Eisner could say that the distraction to him personally is a bigger cost than the lost ratings. There aint no corporate governance case here.

[pchang]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
do you honestly think that firing Easterbrook will have any measurable impact on the value of Disney stock?

No.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Even if it costs ESPN some ratings (and how could you prove that?) arguably Eisner could say that the distraction to him personally is a bigger cost than the lost ratings. There aint no corporate governance case here.

The reason behind the firing is very important to corporate governance. All the problems at Enron, MCI, Tyco, et. al. pretty much stem from one problem. Corporate CEOs run their companies as though what's best for them is best for the company. Corporate CEOs need to remember that stockholders own their companies and they need to do what is best for their stockholders. Eisner has a history. He fired Katzenberg who as very beneficial to Disney due to a personality problem. Katzenberg went on to great success at SKG. One could argue that 1/3 the money that SKG earns should have gone to Disney. Disney also had to pay a huge settlement to Katzenberg as a result of the ensuing breach of contract suit. Eisner fired Ovitz. Ovitz was just the latest in a long line of people that were supposed to be groomed to take over for Eisner when it was time for him to retire. All of them were very talented individuals who went on to make money for new companies. Easterbrook doesn't even come close to this level, but he is the latest in a long line Eisner firings for other than business reasons.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by yavoon


incorrect. conservatives are worried that u ppl being offended keep demanding that it become a crime or someone gets fired or other gov't/bureacratic action. we're perfectly happy if u sit there and be offended or protest or wutever.

but ur trying to gank the system to suit ur "offendedness."

Wrong there -- I do not want to make it illegal to offend other people. That would just be retarded and against freedom of speech.

However, I get tired of some others who express outrage or bitter sarcasm towards me, just because to me personally, I find some slur comment offensive.

[Spiffor]

MrFun:

Like LOTM, your watchfulness is a good thing. But like LOTM, it sometimes get over the line. I think the people shocked by Easterbrokk's wording went over the line and disserved their right cause. And sometimes, it happens to you too.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor


You are relaying a stereotype that has been proven horribly deadly

(This time I don't even exaggerate to make my point: you have done exactly the same as Easterbrooks: because of your wording, you implied an old stereotype against Jews even though you clearly don't believe it)

No, I didn't. I was asking him to define on what grounds he wanted to debate this. It seems that a lot of people are seeing jewish boogey men having this guy fired for his unfortunate use of a phrase linked to jewish executives. Some others are saying, hold on, he was most likely fired because his boss is vindictive and didn't like being openly criticised by an 'employee'.

Two completely different issues. One of them is the case here, and the other is not. Let me put it this way, would there be an uproar if it were a WASP criticising his boss who was also a WASP, and then being fired? I don't think so. I don't think race or religion would even be mentioned.

So then I ask, why is it being harped on here?

[Agathon]

From what ixnay posted, he wasn't being anti-semitic, just pointing out that Jews, more than other people have reason not to glorify violence, having been subjected to more of it than most.

Anyway,

"It's unquestionably true that some Jews are rapists and murderers."

LOOK!!! I'M AN ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

[Spiffor]

NYE:
As it appears more and more that Easterbrook has been fired because of his criticism of Eisner, rather than because of the uproar from the whiny/watchful Jews, I don't criticize said Jews for having him fired.

However, I think the offense taken from his wording was something wrong, and that it was actually a wrong and contraproductive battle in the struggle against antisemitism.

What you did when you used the words "Jews dominating the world" was no different from Easterbrook: while you had no antisemitic intent (on the contrary), this wording reminds exactly the stereotype of modern antisemitism. And since the very wording of Easterbrook has been deemed offensive whatever the context, your very wording could be deemed offensive whatever the context.

As I said to LOTM earlier, I'm actually pretty sure that you'd have offended people if you had written this in the mainstream press. And I think it is really wrong.

[notyoueither]

So, you think that if I wrote a piece admonishing people for seeing jewish conspiracies where there were none, and asked them if they seriously thought that jews controlled the world, then you think that I would have a problem myself?

I think you are mistaken. Of course the context has something to do with it. Easterbrook was not discussing anti-semitism or reactions to it. When discussing anti-semitism of course the phrases that are associated with anti-semetism are going to come up! Are you trying to turn this into a caricature of PC?

Furthermore, would you take issue with some black people taking offence to the word n*****? Why do you have a problem that some jewish people have a problem with what Easterbrook said? Not many, apparently, but some. How many black people would have a problem with n*****, and would they be wrong?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon
From what ixnay posted, he wasn't being anti-semitic, just pointing out that Jews, more than other people have reason not to glorify violence, having been subjected to more of it than most.

Anyway,

"It's unquestionably true that some Jews are rapists and murderers."

LOOK!!! I'M AN ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

Yes, and some white, Protestant, straight men are rapists and murderers.

So what's your point?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, you think that if I wrote a piece admonishing people for seeing jewish conspiracies where there were none, and asked them if they seriously thought that jews controlled the world, then you think that I would have a problem myself?

With the wording that you used in this thread, yes. All it takes is one or a few people in circular logic, that take your words out of context and repeat them to other people belonging to the same interest group, or to spread it through the net. No matter how unsubtanciated the wlaim of antisemitism would be, you'll be writing an apology for your wording very soon.

I think you are mistaken. Of course the context has something to do with it. Easterbrook was not discussing anti-semitism or reactions to it. When discussing anti-semitism of course the phrases that are associated with anti-semetism are going to come up!

I don't think the extremist pro-PC will agree with you. And I don't doubt these extremists, despite being only a few, are the most noisy.

Are you trying to turn this into a caricature of PC?

I think PC can bring many good things. The injustice of our society does exist in language, and that's why I think language should be changed and watched to some extent, to diminish these daily reminders of injustice.
For example, in France, there is a ****ing practice among some of the alienated youth, which consists in collectively raping the girlfriend of a gang's member. These people use the harmless word "tournante" (a form of ping pong when more than two players are playing on one table), and the word is now used in the media. I think "collective rape" should be used, so that the horror of rape doesn't get erased by the nice, harmless word.

NOW, in the case of Easterbrook, and in your case as well, I think such reaction is unwarranted, because these antisemitic wordings don't belong to the daily American vocabulary, and it ain't gonna happen soon. As I said earlier, the outrage would have been much more appropriate if there was actually a latent antisemitism in the US.

Furthermore, would you take issue with some black people taking offence to the word n*****?

AFAIK, in English, the world "nigger" alone is an insult. As such the use of the world "nigger" cannot come from an accidental wording, except in the very specific case of historical document on slavery. If some Blacks were outraged by the use of the word "nigger" in a clearly non-racist documentary about slavery, then I'd call it Bullshit as well.

Why do you have a problem that some jewish people have a problem with what Easterbrook said?

I have a problem that some people can get outraged, and can actually react strongly enough to warrant several long explanations, because of a bad wording that had no antisemitic intent. It gives a bad name to the struggle against antisemitism, and this is bad. The overuse of the expletive "antisemite" by some noisy Jews in the past has lead many people not to take it seriously anymore, even when the warning on antisemitism is justified

How many black people would have a problem with n*****, and would they be wrong?

The outraged Blacks would be perfectly right if someone used "niggers" in the general sense of today, i.e an insult. Because except in very few circumstances, "nigger" can only be an insult today. By the same token, had Easterbrook been actually an anti-semite, I'd have absolutely no problem with the outraged Jews' reaction.

However, had some Blacks been outraged by the use of the word "nigger" when it was obviously in a historical context, I would have thought they are completely wrong and should pick their battles better.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As I said earlier, the outrage would have been much more appropriate if there was actually a latent antisemitism in the US.

There is no anti-semitism in the US? Damn, jewish people can sleep easier for your pronouncement, Spiff. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yes, and some white, Protestant, straight men are rapists and murderers.

So what's your point?

That is the point. One shouldn't be pilloried for telling the truth. If I said what you said, no-one would care; but some idiots would call me an anti-semite for saying what I did.

In any case, I don't see why, in this day and age, we should all fall over ourselves for the sake of the Jews. African Americans take worse **** than they do and yet insulting them doesn't seem to provoke half the response that having a go at Jewish folks does.

[MrFun]

But why point out that some people in only one particular group have committed crimes?

It's a universal human behavior, when it all comes down to it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun
But why point out that some people in only one particular group have committed crimes?

It's a universal human behavior, when it all comes down to it.

OK - but what if it happens to be Jews doing it in the particular case at issue? For example, the occupation/apartheid which Palestinians are subject to. There are people who will call you an anti-semite for criticising that.

Of course the usual response is yours, "look at all the bad things other people do, why pick on Israel?" But the problem with this is that it deflects from the real issue - the fact that other people do bad things is no excuse.

The problem is that the holocaust was a particularly horrible event and thus it's worse to be called an anti-semite than most other things. But this has been taken advantage of by some people who use the stigma of anti-semitism as a means of stifling criticism.

What's bizarrely funny is that, of all minorities, Jewish people probably have it the best. They are certainly much better off than Hispanics or Afro-Americans. Anti-semitism exists, but it has been notoriously unsuccessful at immiserating the Jewish community who seem to be doing quite well in Canada and the US.

I mean, imagine it, a wealthy, well educated and prosperous community with a very low rate of incarceration and victimization by the police is complaining about their lot. How ridiculous.

This doesn't excuse anti-semitism, but it makes me wonder why it should have that much of a profile seeing as how it doesn't seem to cause much evil.

[notyoueither]

Are you freakin' serious?

How many Catholic churches have you seen desecrated in the last few years in Canada and the US? Now, how many synagogues?

Brother!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...398846?s_name=

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Are you freakin' serious?

How many Catholic churches have you seen desecrated in the last few years in Canada and the US? Now, how many synagogues?

Brother!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...398846?s_name=

Oh yeah - how many Jewish folks have died in shootouts? What percentage fall under the poverty line? What percentage fail to graduate high school? What percentage are unemployed? Homeless? Subject to domestic violence?

[Agathon]

And how much of that stuff is committed by angry Arabs.

And another thing. I notice that the link was from CTV, part of a notoriously pro-Israel media empire. I watched a "documentary" about the Concordia riots on CTV a couple of weeks ago, what a laugh....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon


OK - but what if it happens to be Jews doing it in the particular case at issue? For example, the occupation/apartheid which Palestinians are subject to. There are people who will call you an anti-semite for criticising that.

Of course the usual response is yours, "look at all the bad things other people do, why pick on Israel?" But the problem with this is that it deflects from the real issue - the fact that other people do bad things is no excuse.

The problem is that the holocaust was a particularly horrible event and thus it's worse to be called an anti-semite than most other things. But this has been taken advantage of by some people who use the stigma of anti-semitism as a means of stifling criticism.

What's bizarrely funny is that, of all minorities, Jewish people probably have it the best. They are certainly much better off than Hispanics or Afro-Americans. Anti-semitism exists, but it has been notoriously unsuccessful at immiserating the Jewish community who seem to be doing quite well in Canada and the US.

I mean, imagine it, a wealthy, well educated and prosperous community with a very low rate of incarceration and victimization by the police is complaining about their lot. How ridiculous.

This doesn't excuse anti-semitism, but it makes me wonder why it should have that much of a profile seeing as how it doesn't seem to cause much evil.

I am not saying that we should ignore how Israelies are trying to defend themselves against terrorism and fanatical suicide bombers.

And to what extent is it fair to compare the societal experiences of one minority group to another?

I guess you can say that in many ways, homosexuals have it pretty well off because we can choose to repress ourselves at the expense of personal growth and an honest self-concept.

But this comparison gets us nowhere.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun

I am not saying that we should ignore how Israelies are trying to defend themselves against terrorism and fanatical suicide bombers.

One could as well say, defending them against a people whose land they invaded and occupied.

And to what extent is it fair to compare the societal experiences of one minority group to another?

It's completely fair. If the world were a better place, the worst off people would have their grievances given the most air time. As it stands Jewish people as a group tend to be better off than almost any other group in Canada. They suffer less from poverty and the other ills mentioned above, yet we hear endless tirades about how awful and terrible anti semitism is.

I've come to the conclusion that Canada is either not a very anti-semitic society and the Jewish community is suffering from a persecution mania or that its anti-semites aren't particularly good at what they do. Probably both...

I guess you can say that in many ways, homosexuals have it pretty well off because we can choose to repress ourselves at the expense of personal growth and an honest self-concept.

That's got little to do with what I said. The problems faced by homosexuals are real problems, the suicide rate among young homosexual men is a particular worry. But I'd rather suffer what a well off homosexual suffers than what black folk have to put up with in the US.

[MrFun]

Yes, real problems -- which I implied with the words "at the expense of personal growth and honest self-concept."

Homosexuals suffer many psychological stresses, along with problems imposed by a heterosexist and homophobic society.

But anyway, I digress . . . I was using that as an example to you trying to say that Jews are well off in spite of their problems.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
And how much of that stuff is committed by angry Arabs.

And another thing. I notice that the link was from CTV, part of a notoriously pro-Israel media empire. I watched a "documentary" about the Concordia riots on CTV a couple of weeks ago, what a laugh....

Ahh, we are getting closer to the 'jews rule the world' theory. Please tell.

'Pro-Israel media empire'? Are those the people with whom you disagree that anti-semitism could be a problem?

As for how much is committed by angry Arabs... No need to go outside the family. White neo-Nazis can fill the quota quite well, I think.

[notyoueither]

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/ant..._incidents.asp

May 20, 2002 - Quebec City - During the night, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue in Quebec City. The resulting explosion made a hole in the building's door and shattered several windows.

April 13, 2002 - Montreal - Pictures of swastikas and graffiti reading, "Six million was not enough," were found on a memorial to Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg behind a synagogue in Montreal.

April 6, 2002 - Saskatoon - An arson attack destroyed one room in the synagogue in Saskatoon, burnt numerous books, and caused significant damage to the property.

Now, pin head, do you want to maintain that there isn't a problem?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you seem to forget why unions insisted on seniority. In the bad old days employers regularly fired employees for mouthing off - not about antisemitism, or black quarterbacks, but about the rather more important issue of unionization. What your employer DID NOT want you to say to your fellow employees was "lets form a union" And since an employer could almost always find an excuse for firing someone, and it was impossible to prove that someone was being fired for mouthing off, they insisted that people be let go in order of seniority, and that the employer jump through hoops to fire for cause.

I forget nothing. maybe u can remember that its coming back to bite them. that neither end of the scale is the right end. and besides I never once mentioned I support firing for opinion. infact thats what I"m defending and ppl are attacking! if ur boss fires u for wrong reason, sue him. that'll get his attention.