That post was a reference to the reasoning given for not recasting Kate Kane in Batwoman. They felt it would be too 'soap opery'.
Spoilers The Flash - Season 6
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
That's beside the point. Actions have consequences. He's agreed to accept the consequences rather than fight them. That's what matters. Anything else is between him and his own conscience.
You know what? I don't care. He is not the victim here. The straight white guy who said or did racist or sexist things is never the victim, because a whole civilization's worth of privilege is already on his side, protecting him by default. If that default privilege is finally being eroded, if people who exploit it are finally held accountable for doing so, that's a move toward fairness, not away from it.
And it's none of our business anyway, because it was a hiring decision between an employee and his employers. They have every right to make their own choices about whom they employ. They don't answer to us, and they sure don't answer to Twitter. At most, they answer to their stockholders.
Unless you belong to one of the groups he insulted, it's not your place to judge how serious the offense was. Eric Wallace does belong to at least one of those groups, and he was Sawyer's boss, so it was his place to say.
That's not how white privilege works. It means white people sometimes get advantages in society others don't. It's not about some racial caste system were right and wrong is determined by where you rank in the caste system. You still have to take each situation case by case when judging fairness and whether or not something is legal or not.
Jason
He was making jokes about killing women when the most popular show on TV was Dexter.
Nobody is taking away people's rights to say things we don't like or find offensive, all people are doing is making sure there are consequences for saying offensive things.
OK, I'll give you that one.
I really don't think you understand me, I don't know if it's just that you're so upset you're not really comprehending me or what. I never once defended what he said, the actual words he used are completely besides the point I'm making. I'm simply talking about whether or not it's fair to punish someone for something they did a long time ago. People can change a lot in six years, so I just don't think it's fair to punish something they said back then.
Like I said before, there is a statute of limitations for crimes, so I think it's only fair that people be given the same rule should apply for things that they posted online.
Of course, but the situation has been made public by the announcement, and it brings up some important issues that are worth discussing.
[/QUOTE]Unless you belong to one of the groups he insulted, it's not your place to judge how serious the offense was. Eric Wallace does belong to at least one of those groups, and he was Sawyer's boss, so it was his place to say.[/QUOTE]
All I meant was that in terms of the bad shit people do, posting stupid stuff online is fairly low level.
I don't mind consequences but firing someone is to much for this. Consequences is someone telling him off or someone no longer wanting to be his friend. I think we underestimate just what a big deal it is to have a job. It's how someone makes money to live off and pay bills and take care of your family. Also I noticed we never once ever asked if he was ever in trouble with the law. Has he been arrested for groping women or anything like that. As far as we can tell his offensive stuff was limited to words in tweets and not any actual violence or action towards people.
Jason
And as I've already said, it's the wrong question to make this about fairness toward one person. It's about the fairness of the institution as a whole. It might seem unfair to expect a judge or legislator to recuse themselves from a case where there's an appearance of conflict of interest that doesn't really exist, but it's not actually about them. It's about the institution having standards that it upholds consistently, to retain the faith of the public.
And as I said before, this is not a criminal or legal question, so that's an inept analogy. This is a business making a decision about whom it employs. People can get fired from their jobs for any number of reasons. It's not a violation of their rights unless it's because of their race, sex, age, etc.
Besides, even if it were a valid analogy, the statute of limitations is not an absolute. It generally dates from when the crime is discovered, not when it was committed. And it doesn't apply if the accused actively flees prosecution. It's not supposed to be a free pass; the idea is that the culprit's prolonged fear of discovery and prosecution over a long enough span of time is punishment enough. That doesn't apply if their crime was undiscovered or if they actively concealed it or fled from arrest.
I was under the impression you had to have, Just cause to fire someone. You can't just fire anyone on the whim. Are we saying people's feelings amount to Just cause and if that is the case then basically it means legally you can fire anyone at any time they hurt your feelings. Your assistant pisses you off because he forget to bring you a Diet Joke. Fire his ass and so forth with many other examples.
Jason
Jason
Many employment contracts contain a morals clause, violations of which constitute just cause for dismissal. It’s very likely such a clause exists in this case and it forms part of the justification.
Also, in the US (more than most other western countries), many jurisdictions are “at will” employment—no cause is required.
I never said it was about just this one case, that's why most of my language has been more general. I felt the same way when this happened to James Gunn, and I'd feel the same way if it happened to anyone else.
As for the institution, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to show that they are understanding, and willing to forgive people.
It might not be a legal case, but it's still about somebody being punished for something they did, so I'd say it's a more than fair analogy.
I didn't know the details of the literal statute of limitations, but I still stand by my point.
You have devoted multiple posts to defending the attacker and barely said a single word about the people hurt by his actions. To paraphrase a line from a very sobering article I just read, it's a toxic impulse of white men to look at harm done to other groups and think "How can I make this about me?" The question of institutional bigotry and how to cope with it is NOT about whether the feelings of the white men who participate in it are considered. HE IS NOT THE VICTIM HERE!!!!!!
I didn't even consider a morals clause. I remember years ago when this NFL player got cut from the team and lost all his money since they don't have guaranteed contracts because he got injured playing pickup basketball which was literally written in his contract as something he couldn't do.
Jason
You know what, I'm done with this conversation, since you're not going to respond what I'm actually saying here.
It were awful tweets, but he did delete them AND apologised for the tweets. And It is 8 year later. People can chance a lot in those years, but apparently the people who fired him doesn't believe in that
Next up to be fired by cancel culture it seems is Danielle Panabaker. Seems fans are trying to get her fired because she was undermining Candice Patton by supporting fan shipping between her character and Barry Allen I think it is. It is kind of confusing in part due to just how stupid it is but that means it will likely happen. Some story in something called BoundingIntoComics. Not sure if that is left or right clickbait but I actually heard their was some conflict on the set a year or so with her so I am guessing she will be gone as well.
Jason
Jason
I saw that two years ago.
Frankly, both women can do better.
Next time I rewatch, I'm rooting for Eddie.
Rick Cosnett is an African with an Australian accent?
I would have been a lot kinder, if I knew that he was acting through a fake accent the whole time.
Sigh.
GO EDDIE!
The people who fired him know him better than we do and are surely in a better position to judge whether or not he's changed.