- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Right's next Brendan Eich; newspaper editor fired over anti-gay blog post
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:17 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:17 pm to Roger Klarvin
Let me see if I understand your position. You think the publishers were fine with calling homosexuality a sin and that in no way "tarnished the reputation" of the paper but the silly spellings were what sullied said reputation and resulted in his firing?
That's what you believe? seriously? If so then you're right, let's end this discussion here and now.
1
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:25 pm to Holden Caulfield
It wasn't just the silly spellings, it was the context. That was, at best, an emotionally charged rant and at worst a hateful tantrum. The entire context was demeaning and pious.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
Have no problem with the firing if thats what they feel is in their best interest.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:35 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The entire context was demeaning and pious
Exactly Roger. That's what I'm saying based upon what the publishers revealed as their reason for firing him. He could have eliminated the inane spellings and he would still be history with that paper. Once a newspaper's editor starts calling a segment of its readers sinners, he's a goner.
The goofy acronym and spellings were just that, goofy. But it's not what got him canned. Had he said the same thing san the goofiness, he's still gone.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:47 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Exactly Roger. That's what I'm saying based upon what the publishers revealed as their reason for firing him. He could have eliminated the inane spellings and he would still be history with that paper. Once a newspaper's editor starts calling a segment of its readers sinners, he's a goner.
The goofy acronym and spellings were just that, goofy. But it's not what got him canned. Had he said the same thing san the goofiness, he's still gone.
He didn't just call them sinners. He called them deceivers, implied they couldn't be Christian as well, used a form of a word representing Hitler's people, and he concluded with "we must fight back against the enemy".
I think it speaks for itself. If he could have written this in a civil manner saying he simply disagrees with changing the translation of the bible, he would have been fine.
This post was edited on 5/7/14 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
He didn't just call them sinners. He called them deceivers, implied they couldn't be Christian as well, used a form of a word representing Hitler's people, and he concluded with "we must fight back against the enemy".
I'm very quick to say people shouldn't be punished for their views as long as those views don't affect someone else negatively. In this case his views negatively affected his newspaper and I understand why they dismissed him.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 4:55 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:
I'm very quick to say people shouldn't be punished for their views as long as those views don't affect someone else negatively. In this case his views negatively affected his newspaper and I understand why they dismissed him.
I agree.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 5:10 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The same thing that makes the Book of Mormon's claims about native American Jews and the Quran's claims about 72 virgins silly.
You do not believe, thus it is silly?
Amirite?
Posted on 5/7/14 at 5:21 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I can't wait until you guys realize this isn't the "gotcha" line yall think it is.
Okay. I'll play along. Why isn't this the absolute height of hypocrisy?
This post was edited on 5/7/14 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 5/7/14 at 5:39 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
quote:
I'm very quick to say people shouldn't be punished for their views as long as those views don't affect someone else negatively. In this case his views negatively affected his newspaper and I understand why they dismissed him.
I agree.
Just curious, will those that support the paper when someone is fired because they said something that may be upsetting to those that are conservative? Clearly this paper fired him because they thought (they may be right) that he may have offended a portion of their readers, thus putting their profits at risk. I get that.
However, I am guessing that many that support the paper would not be so supportive if a homosexual, Global warming believer, Atheist or someone else is fired for their liberal leaning opinions or speech?
Posted on 5/7/14 at 5:46 pm to novabill
quote:
Just curious, will those that support the paper when someone is fired because they said something that may be upsetting to those that are conservative? Clearly this paper fired him because they thought (they may be right) that he may have offended a portion of their readers, thus putting their profits at risk. I get that.
However, I am guessing that many that support the paper would not be so supportive if a homosexual, Global warming believer, Atheist or someone else is fired for their liberal leaning opinions or speech?
I would say the same thing. The paper had that right.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 5:51 pm to novabill
quote:
You do not believe, thus it is silly?
Christians find things in every other holy book "silly". Why are you shocked that non-christians think the same of the Bible?
Posted on 5/7/14 at 5:51 pm to novabill
quote:
However, I am guessing that many that support the paper would not be so supportive if a homosexual, Global warming believer, Atheist or someone else is fired for their liberal leaning opinions or speech?
Nothing changes Nova. If an employee's action impacts his employer's business negatively they have every right to terminate that employee. Circumstances are not always the same and thus the consequences could vary but the employer's rights remain intact.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 7:21 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I would say the same thing. The paper had that right
While I am not sure they got it right, I am not ready to say they were wrong. Either way, they were within their rights to do so.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 7:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Christians find things in every other holy book "silly". Why are you shocked that non-christians think the same of the Bible?
Disagree with something= It is silly.
I do not think everything in other religions I disagree with is silly.
Posted on 5/7/14 at 7:24 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Nothing changes Nova. If an employee's action impacts his employer's business negatively they have every right to terminate that employee. Circumstances are not always the same and thus the consequences could vary but the employer's rights remain intact.
I respect this.
I just doubt that many of the others would agree with your statement if Chick Fil A fired an executive was fired for making a pro gay marriage statement.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News