Dolphins Don Jones suspended for tweeting about Michael Sam

[bucky]

My tolerance of gays is not based on what God said/didn't say.

Others beliefs on homosexuality are based on what God said. You are no more right or wrong then they are until you can prove their God doesn't exist or that their God does and didn't say gay is a sin. They are no more right or wrong than you until they can prove their god does exist and did say gay is a sin.

Its based on being a decent human being,

So is theirs based on being a decent human being.

and seeing no logical reason for hating gays other than ignorance/fear.

You're wrongfully equating morality and hate. A religion defining morality for it's followers, defining sin, is not the same thing as hate.

I would HOPE that most/all ethical "dilemmas" aren't dependent on what God says.

I do too. I don't believe in God.

 

[bucky]

You can't prove a negative. Prove to me unicorns don't exist. And what provable evidence is there towards what God did and didn't say? A book that was written possibly a hundred years after his death? This thread has become painfully stupid.

That's the point. There is no provable evidence one way or the other. The fight isn't with the belief. People have a right to believe. The real fight is with the acts of oppression. And right now, our Govt has legislation that is oppressive toward homosexuals. That's were the fight should start. Get our Fed. Govt to step in and take the question of gay marriage out of the sate level. Anything to do with oppression should be a federal issue.

 

[bucky]

Why are we even debating this? It doesn't fucking matter, it's not pertinent to this thread. If the NFL says don't tweet stuff that makes us look bad, NFL employees can either comply or not comply and be dealt with accordingly.

:catshaq:

Of course it matters. It's a question of ethics.

 

[Youk]

Of course it matters. It's a question of ethics.

You're right. Every company is ethically wrong for having a public relations department.

 

[bucky]

You're right. Every company is ethically wrong for having a public relations department.

Only if the function of a company's public relations department is to oppress.

 

[Youk]

Only if the function of a company's public relations department is to oppress.

Oppress aka do their jobs aka make sure that the company and it's employees don't cause a public relations nightmare.

 

[NAHSTE]

Only if the function of a company's public relations department is to oppress.

:lol4:

 

[bucky]

Oppress aka do their jobs aka make sure that the company and it's employees don't cause a public relations nightmare.

Aren't we grossly exaggerating the fairly tame tweet of a personal opinion on an opinion based issue? So your are telling me that a company's PR department is so inadequate at doing their jobs that they have to oppress employees personal views stated outside of workplace to do their jobs adequately? There are not other methods of avoiding a PR nightmare?

 

[Senser81]

Aren't we grossly exaggerating the fairly tame tweet of a personal opinion on an opinion based issue? So your are telling me that a company's PR department is so inadequate at doing their jobs that they have to oppress employees personal views stated outside of workplace to do their jobs adequately? There are not other methods of avoiding a PR nightmare?

So you think that doing nothing is the best method to avoid a PR nightmare?

 

[Youk]

Aren't we grossly exaggerating the fairly tame tweet of a personal opinion on an opinion based issue? So your are telling me that a company's PR department is so inadequate at doing their jobs that they have to oppress employees personal views stated outside of workplace to do their jobs adequately? There are not other methods of avoiding a PR nightmare?

Outside of the workplace, yet on a twitter account that represents a player of said team. Is it hard for you to understand that because he has the logo of the team everywhere and acknowledges that he is a member of the team (aka an employee), that means that it is a team affiliated twitter?

A PR team is not there to hold the player's hand while he tweets. They are there to create the policy and then clean up the mistakes people make.

 

[bucky]

What other function would it have? Serious question. I thought public relations' job is to oppress all opinions that aren't copacetic with the company's opinion (i.e. stephensonmc and MM in 2006).

MM, not the best example.

Anyway, SRS, I don't think I've ever been trolled by you before. It's been fun. The sites much better with you back. I've seriously missed you while you were gone.

 

[bucky]

So you think that doing nothing is the best method to avoid a PR nightmare?

Where did I say do nothing. You can even go back and look where this was already discussed.

A company can come out and make a public statement on the company's views on the particular issue. Back it up with action, like organizing a gathering in support of the issue, campaign funds for officials that support the issue. A PR dept should be able to come up with all kinds of things to support issues the company says it back. And do it w/o oppressing.

 

[MVPete]

The cake thing was a bit much, most of us were saying horrible when it was aired. I can assure you the Rams war room was probably thinking the same thing :falcons:. If he makes the roster the only thing that would become annoying is the attention he will draw from the commentators and pregame videos, but it's for good reason. Once the media blows their load on this story if he is still around only the super anti gay crowd will continue to hate on Sam.

 

[bucky]

The cake thing was a bit much, most of us were saying horrible when it was aired. I can assure you the Rams war room was probably thinking the same thing :falcons:. If he makes the roster the only thing that would become annoying is the attention he will draw from the commentators and pregame videos, but it's for good reason. Once the media blows their load on this story if he is still around only the super anti gay crowd will continue to hate on Sam.

And it's the super anti gay crowd (the extremists) that will never be won over into reasonable.

You can always reason with the reasonable, but can never reason with the unreasonable.

After a while, the reasonable ones will become more and more accepting.

 

[Pitty]

I have a question since I had no idea who Sam was before the draft, but was he always this flamboyant or is that a new development?

I do get the feeling that he is playing this up a bit, as much as the media is.

 

[NAHSTE]

I have a question since I had no idea who Sam was before the draft, but was he always this flamboyant or is that a new development?

I do get the feeling that he is playing this up a bit, as much as the media is.

He's been "out" for about two months, so nobody knows.

 

[Houston]

You can't prove a negative.

There is no 5 year old in Congress.
There is no married bachelor.
There is no woman NFL player.

The list of provable negatives goes on and on....

 

[Aso]

There is no 5 year old in Congress.
There is no married bachelor.
There is no woman NFL player.

The list of provable negatives goes on and on....

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#.22You_can.27t_prove_a_negative.22

 

[Villain]

I never mentioned law. Just the ethicality of suppressing one opinion over another. Isn't financially suppressing an opinion a classic definition of oppression? Are you only against oppression when it's a cause you believe in? And don't care about it otherwise?

This isn't about suppressing an opinion. This is about the NFL, as a private entity, not allowing the people who represent its brand to spew out hateful bigotry. Now, in this case, "hateful bigotry" is awfully harsh terminology. Home boy was just being a dumbass and he needs a slap on the wrist so he can get back into form with the company line.

What the NFL did was suspend him (during the off-season) and make a bunch of hollow threats that will be lifted once they put him through "sensitivity training" and straighten him out. You bet your ass that he'll come out with some super-contrite statement about love and unity and he'll also probably make some public appearances or do some volunteer work with a LGBT non-profit of some sort. The punishments (as far as suspension) aren't real, but they need to appear to be harsh and swift on paper so that any overly sensitive people out there will be unable to make the argument that the NFL doesn't care about hate speech.

This also sets a precedent for the case that if someone else says anything worse, they can bring the hammer down harder.

 

[Villain]

I am beyond confused as to what your possible end goal is, bucky. Your entire argument collapses in on itself in the real world. Here's a quick breakdown of how things would go if everyone could say what they wanted, hypothetically (I am not talking about this situation per se):

- Person A comments on a picture posted by Person B, his co-worker, of Person B and his gay lover kissing. He comments: horrible.
- Company A, Person A and B's employer, worried that they might oppress Person A's right to express himself, does not reprimand him.
- The story gets national traction, and people begin to openly express disdain for Company A, including anything from negative opinions to refusing to purchase products or do business with Company A.
- Company A now must decide between effectively oppressing themselves and their otehr HUNDREDS of employees by continuing to damage their profitability, etc...by supporting Person A's opinion of a co-worker.
- Person's C-Z are all Company employees as well, and they feel that Person A is a scumbag who is not only harming Person B, but them as well through the damage he is doing to the company.

Do you not see how trying to take a strict ethical stance of "anyone is free to say whatever idiot thing that they want with no consequences" probably isn't a remotely realistic business proposition?

Taking your example a step further, Person A's comments about Person B's actions can be seen as harrassment. If Person A felt like Person B was being inappropriate, he should've either respectfully approached Person B or taken his complaint to higher-ups. Making a negative comment in a public forum not only embarrasses Person B, but it makes the company look bad.

If the Company does not address the polarizing and unprofessional comments, then it will appear that the Company either endorses the comments or doesn't find them offensive. All the while, the lack of action by the Company is making Person A feel vulnerable and alienated.

Rounding back to this case, the NFL must do something - at least superficially - to address the situation. That's what happened here. It is not unethical for a company to outline what it will and will not accept from its employees at all times. These employees are not being forced to work for this company. They are agreeing to work for, and represent, the NFL under the terms that the NFL has laid out.

Since Bucky loves the term ethical so much, I want him to pick which of these synonyms he would deem acceptable to describe the NFL's action towards Don Jones:

immoral, amoral, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, wrong, deceitful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent, underhanded, wicked, evil, sneaky, corrupt

Is it immoral to enforce an agreed-upon code of personal conduct? Try the other adjectives and see how many times the answer is "yes."

:itsover: