Politics in Reply.

"Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis" (Dwhite95)
05/03/2014 at 11:12 • Filed to: None

Have an Alfa!

With the most recent statement from the BBC on Clarkson I'm curious, have we reached a point where no one is allowed to make a mistake. You see people like

David Sterling and Paula Dean, and while I dont support what they said the circumstances are a bit worrying. Are people no longer to make mistakes, and are things that happened in your past now meant to permanently haunt you to your grave? I think Mark Cuban put it best, "if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that."

DISCUSSION (6)

Brian Silvestro > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
05/03/2014 at 11:15

It just seems like you're not allowed to be yourself if you're famous or in a position of power.

duurtlang > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
05/03/2014 at 11:27

Some people just love to get offended. That said, I think there's a huge difference between what Clarkson did and what that sports club owner did.

Laird Andrew Neby Bradleigh > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
05/03/2014 at 11:28

We all make mistakes, we should be allowed to do so.. While I'd never use the word he supposedly said I can't deny I've used the word Neger (Norwegian for Negro) and noone looked twice at me for using that. That said, I'm left wing, quite far at that (think anarcho-socialism) and would be the target of hatred from MANY people in the US because of that. here in Europe tho it's not that frowned upon.

TL.DR: Politics will always come with some sort of Social stigma, depending on where you're from. :)

TheBaron2112 > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
05/03/2014 at 12:11

I think it's conflating politics with business. Yeah, they're being forced to divest property, but they're being made to because of their mistakes as a spokesperson for that property. And they're being made to BY another/their private entity.

So overall, it has nothing to do with politics or government. Money rules the world now and if you are the Face of some Product, and you screw up and put that Product and its reputation in jeopardy with your stupidity, then whoever stands to lose money from your mistake has every right to kick you out to protect their investment.

And that's the capitalism people champion. I'm no socialist, but if we want a free market system, we've got to take the bad with the good.

LappingLuke > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
05/03/2014 at 13:11

Sterling's case was a lot different than Paula Deen's really...let's face it, Paula Deen was just being stupid and trying to make a tasteless joke. She wasn't being outwardly hateful or really even racist. Sterling on the other hand obviously believed he owned his players. They were not his employees in his eyes.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis
05/06/2014 at 17:02

People are getting WAY, WAY, WAY to touchy.

There is no right to be un-offended. But there is also no right to consequence-free inappropriate behavior.

I always try to stress the difference between inappropriate (perpetrator's issue), which may be offensive, vs. taking offense, which is an issue of each audience member, sometimes rightfully taken, sometimes NOT rightfully taken.

People have forgotten the concept that I may utterly despise what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.

The trick is... what constitutes a "Right".

A right to say something and not be imprisoned for it by the authorities is a right. The right to speak something contrary to 'political correctness', and not be punished officially for it. The right not to be treated differently *under the law* due to what you say.

However, in interpersonal associations, including employment or ownership by choice in the private sector, contractual agreements can have any sort of agreed terms.

And if the agreed terms are that there will be consequences for racist, bigoted, or other truly inappropriate behavior, then that is between the person and their employer... just as it would be the freedom to associate or choose not to associate for any particular reason.

It does get political, but not legal, if someone is held to a double standard that other people are not held to.

Jeremy Clarkson and Paula Dean are examples... They are eligible targets, where other people or groups of people would not be politically correct to challenge when they would use the same vocabulary. Double standards are hypocrisy, but again, that isn't under the law, that is under freedom of association.

David Sterling's issues with the NBA are freedom of association issues, and NBA can leverage force within their scope to apply consequences to David Sterling. They aren't legally requiring him to sell the team, but they are applying a great deal of pressure within their scope of authority to pressure it.

However, it was illegal, under the law, for his mistress, or whoever that woman was, to secretly record him, and release it without his permission, and that is a legal matter in which she was fairly clearly wrong to record and release that material, even if her social mentality on racism and bigotry was in the right place.

And as despicable as his opinions may be... consequences of private speech in an assumed private conversation, in a private residence that was not spoken in context to be released, and permission was not given... perhaps should bear some context on the consequences brought to bear... but that is for the NBA to decide.

Freedom of speech is essential, and level heads should prevail... but that doesn't mean that there are not consequences within the freedom of association for people who are or act inappropriately.

Character assassinations for minor, and even un-released, and un-publicized mis-speaking, like Dean, and now Clarkson, are WAY overboard, and arguably the retaliation attacks are FAR, FAR worse and more ethically problematic than the initial mis-step being exploited.

This is why the court of LAW should never be the court of public opinion, or the court of political correctness, and why a country that is a respecter of laws is necessary, and not to be a respecter of men/people, one over another... but now, our country, and most others also, are not respecters of law, and definitely seem to hold some people to a double standard, or an arbitrary and unknowable standard.