Yantelope V2 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 I know this is completely beside your point, but it's related and I find it interesting: they can now make sperm from human bone marrow, meaning lesbian couples actually could have their own biological children (and men are now reproductively superfluous). Bingo! Dino-DNA! Seriously though, that would be crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) http://youtu.be/sgm06iMF4uE Even Fox News' own figureheads like Bill O'Reilly are on the right side of things once in a while. Howard Stern weighs in, too. Edited February 11, 2012 by DukeOfPwn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 I can't believe we're still having to worry about people being fired for being gay. It is 2012. There is no fucking excuse. Fortunately, those types seem to be in the minority now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 While I disagree with 1 Million Moms and don't think Ellen should be fired, I also don't think there's anything wrong with people saying they won't support a company while they employ a spokesperson that they disagree with on a fundamental level. I mean, what if instead of it being because she's gay what if she'd gone on a horribly racist rant on her show. Would it be wrong for people to refuse to shop at JC Penny until she's fired as spokesperson then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 But that's not what happened, not even close. Ellen's private life is just that. I've seen her show enough times to know that if it wasn't already common knowledge, you'd never know that she's gay. It's not something she plays up and it's not her defining trait. People can shop wherever they want, but there is no reason to fire her when she hasn't done anything to anyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 Okay, what if it wasn't a rant on her show, what if she was just generally known to be a racist but didn't play it up publicly? All I'm saying is I don't think it's wrong to pressure a company to stop using a spokesperson who does something you find morally reprehensible. That said, I think those of us who support gay rights should pressure JC Penny not to fire her, for the same reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 I can't believe we're still having to worry about people being fired for being gay. It is 2012. There is no fucking excuse. Fortunately, those types seem to be in the minority now. In the minority? They're a contender for the fucking presidency. It's absolutely shameful. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 Found this an interesting read: http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-where-right-went-wrong/1328974045 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 " I'm not sure [Tea Partiers] really know very much about taxation. Back when the Tea Party first came into existence, back in 2009 they had a big demonstration in Washington. And we went around and we surveyed a good percentage of the people in this demonstration about what they knew about taxes, what they thought the top rate was, what they thought their tax rate was. You know, questions of just straight factual knowledge, not opinion. And it turned out that these people all thought taxes were vastly higher than they really are, and that they were paying exorbitantly high tax rates that would be impossible for them to pay. And so, I think that this is part of what's going on here, is simple misinformation." THIS THIS THIS. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Okay, what if it wasn't a rant on her show, what if she was just generally known to be a racist but didn't play it up publicly? All I'm saying is I don't think it's wrong to pressure a company to stop using a spokesperson who does something you find morally reprehensible. That said, I think those of us who support gay rights should pressure JC Penny not to fire her, for the same reason. I think it is a question of semantics. Saying "I disagree with your choice of spokesperson and will no longer shop at your store and will encourage others not to shop at your store." is fine. Saying, "You should sack Ellen because she is gay and I don't like it." is not. How would this be different if the group had started because a shop assistant was hired who was known to be gay? I can't imagine anyone would be comfortable with telling JC Penny to sack Ellen who works on the tills on a Saturday for being gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 That was my initial reaction, but then I decided that saying you won't shop there is tacitly telling them to fire her and that I don't think obfuscating the message a little has much bearing on whether it's right or wrong. How would this be different if the group had started because a shop assistant was hired who was known to be gay? I can't imagine anyone would be comfortable with telling JC Penny to sack Ellen who works on the tills on a Saturday for being gay. The difference I see there is that you hire spokespeople to represent the company whereas people working the checkout counter are just random employees. As long as the random employees don't do anything offensive in their capacity as a store employee then people don't really care. As long as Chris the Checker doesn't go on a racist rant while he's checking people out I'm not going to hold his views against the store. With a spokesperson on the other hand the store actually went out and picked that person specifically because they think that person should represent their store. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 That was my initial reaction, but then I decided that saying you won't shop there is tacitly telling them to fire her and that I don't think obfuscating the message a little has much bearing on whether it's right or wrong. How would this be different if the group had started because a shop assistant was hired who was known to be gay? I can't imagine anyone would be comfortable with telling JC Penny to sack Ellen who works on the tills on a Saturday for being gay. The difference I see there is that you hire spokespeople to represent the company whereas people working the checkout counter are just random employees. As long as the random employees don't do anything offensive in their capacity as a store employee then people don't really care. As long as Chris the Checker doesn't go on a racist rant while he's checking people out I'm not going to hold his views against the store. With a spokesperson on the other hand the store actually went out and picked that person specifically because they think that person should represent their store. I agree, it's a fine line, and in practice doesn't make much difference. There's a big difference between being racist and being gay. Rather than a "racist rant", if Chris the Checker should, while conversing with a customer say that he's going out with his boyfriend that night, do you think that the customer would be (morally) right to raise an objection to his continued employment? I mean, all staff are representatives of their employer, we're constantly reminded of the company's values and expected to uphold those values when dealing with other people on company business, whether internal clients or end users. If we act in a way that is contrary to those principles, then we get reprimanded. In retail, you always have to be smartly presented, helpful, approachable, etc. etc. etc. this is because you are a spokesperson for the company when you're at work or depending on the organisation in uniform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 This is probably a sign of the area where I live, but I've known gay guys who when they're talking with a random person simply change pronouns, "he" becomes "she", "boyfriend" becomes "girlfriend", etc. It's really sad. And I understand that employees are representatives of the company when on company business, that was kind of my point: a regular employee represents the company when they're working, whereas a spokesperson represents the company all the time. People aren't going to hold it against JC Penny that they employ Chris the Racist Checker just because they employ him and he's racist, as long as he doesn't act inappropriately at work, just like (the vast majority of, but sadly not all) people opposed to homosexuality won't hold it against them for employing George the Gay Checker just because he's gay, as long as he doesn't act inappropriately at work (granted their definition of "inappropriate" may be a little different from yours or mine). I think people have a right and duty to try to influence society for (what they see as) the better. If I say it's wrong of them to pressure companies in certain situations to adhere to their viewpoints then it has to be because it's wrong to pressure companies in those situations in general, not just because of the viewpoints doing the pressuring. Aside: how do I always end up defending the Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Stop playing devil's advocate and join us in our crusade. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted February 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Probably because they're not very good at defending themselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Actually it probably does help that I'm not emotionally invested in the position, so it's easier for me to discuss it calmly and rationally. Also might have something to do with the fact that on here the left far outnumbers the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm not overly invested myself. I just think that Ellen, and all gay people should be treated equally. If the 40,000 mum's were complaining that she was the face of JC Penny when she had been caught up in some sort of publicly indecent lesbian romp in the middle of Central Park, then yes, her behaviour would not be conducive to continuing in that role. However, to my knowledge, Ellen has not been the subject of any recent sex, drug or violence scandals, so I don't see this as anything other than discriminating against someone because of what they are. On the other hand, someone who is known to have performed acts of violence against women, Chris Brown, should not have been on stage representing the Grammy's. Not because of what he is, but because of what he did. Note that this is all based on my morality. People are, and should be free to say what they want. There is no law against being closed minded and petty yet. It just winds me up when demonstrably bad people are let off the hook, while "good" people are vilified for their choice of partner. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/10/google-santorum/ A look at the "Spreading Santorum" google results and why it's not Googles problem, but Santorums. Some more discussion on the matter here: http://searchengineland.com/why-does-bing-hate-rick-santorum-110764 Just kinda follow the links about I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 So apparently Kansas is one of like 7 states with a ban on any device designed and marketed for the primary purpose of stimulating human genitals (though there is an exception for medical/psychological treatment). Yay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 how do I always end up defending the Right? Admit it, you like being right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixTwoSixFour Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 So apparently Kansas is one of like 7 states with a ban on any device designed and marketed for the primary purpose of stimulating human genitals (though there is an exception for medical/psychological treatment). Yay? My business just sells "back massagers," so we're still able to operate. They look the other way, and we keep their ladies happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/14/media-matters-memo-reportedly-detailed-plan-to-target-fox-news-staff/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 The tactics floated by Frisch were likened to a "presidential-style campaign," one which he hoped would "discredit and embarrass the network." Ah, I see they realised they could save their money and just watch from the sidelines instead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Oh but Media Matters is a totally trustworthy source and Fox is run by rednecks. The sad thing is, this isn't surprising. Neither is this with Michelle Antoinette as First lady http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8762 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 That's pretty scummy of them, but Fox News is still pretty much run by rednecks. In all seriousness, there is no media source you should trust completely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.