Spoilers The Flash - Season 6

[Kai "the spy"]

Gustin isn't the Queen.

 

[Jayson1]

I think people are trying to cancel even him as well. Said something nice about a cop or some cops or something. Soon the Arrowverse is just going to be carboard cutouts of the characters with someone doing a voice impression of each character offscreen. Which you know I kind of would like to see.

Jason

 

[Professor Zoom]

Soon the Arrowverse is just going to be carboard cutouts ....

Jason

How would we know the difference?

j/k

 

[Guy Gardener]

Less obviously.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kirk Prime]

1. You don't know what they know.
2. They also felt they knew him until this happened.

Yet nothing was ever alleged or implied, and they had to go back 6-8 years for tweets that were likely long forgotten. Don't you see the danger of this kind of horrible policing?

Isn't that literally answering for it?

It's overkill. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. In some cultures, if you steal, they cut off your hand. Does that fit the crime? Why don't we kill him? That would also be answering for his tweets. There are punishments that don't fit the crime.

Who decides? I guess the business owner in this case.

To an extent that's true, but is this right? Should you be fired for a tweet from years ago that has nothing to do with your job, your performance, and is meant in clear jest and does not reflect who you are?

Call me when the state tells a citizen what they can say or not and we'll march together.

Why just the state? Don't you believe in civil rights? We have seen the state recently trample on fundamental rights in reaction to the virus, but beyond that, let's extend this--Sawyer was fired for making a tweet years ago. But let's say he made a tweet in support of Biden and was fired for it. Fired for exercising his views. Fired for what he believes in. Should a boss be able to fire someone for religious beliefs? Fire you because you're a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu? Should a boss be allowed to only hire one race, discriminating on the basis of race, religion, orientation? I'm going to make an educated guess and say you would say no to all of the above. Civil Rights acts exist to cover basic fundamental rights in the private sector. We are seeing stifling of views already. We are seeing some people calling for banning of movies like GONE WITH THE WIND or shows like DUKES OF HAZZARD because they don't like what they see.

If I don't like something, I don't participate with it--but I do not tell YOU that you can't enjoy it.

Tolerance doesn't mean "my way or the highway." Sawyer was wrong, but what happened occurred before he even started with The Flash, and they were just a couple of dumb tweets. Firing him was not the reasonable reaction.

But not fire?

Believe it or not, in some cases, no. I listed a few examples above. Let's say I hire you. You're doing a good job. No issues. One day, I find out you're gay. Can I fire you for that? It's a slippery slope between at will employment and discrimination.

In this situation, the most powerful piece on the board is an African American female.

Candice is the one with real power to save or ruin Hartley.

Is that right though? The man clearly was joking around, and it happened years ago, before Flash. Why should Sawyer have to kiss Candice's feet? Why should she have that power? Discrimination is discrimination whether you are using it to bring a race down or to empower them. It's the exact same principle.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Gustin isn't the Queen.

In this situation, the most powerful piece on the board is an African American female.

Candice is the one with real power to save or ruin Hartley.

While I don't buy into that premise, Eric Wallace being both the showrunner and being African-American would probably be the King on this chessboard?

 

[Jayson1]

I think showrunner is still not high enough to make this call. I think whoever owns CW would be. Maybe in most cases they would leave it to Wallace to decide but when it comes to something like this I think the choice goes a little higher.

Jason

 

[Professor Zoom]

Yet nothing was ever alleged or implied, and they had to go back 6-8 years for tweets that were likely long forgotten. Don't you see the danger of this kind of horrible policing?

Danger? I think that’s rather a strong word.

It's overkill.

That’s your opinion, of course. What would you rather have seen? Just an apology? He has to sit out several episodes—which causes production problems on the whole.

The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Except it’s literally not a crime. It’s about how a business wants to be represented to the public.

In some cultures, if you steal, they cut off your hand. Does that fit the crime? Why don't we kill him? That would also be answering for his tweets. There are punishments that don't fit the crime.

You’ve said that before. 1. Cutting off the hand, it’s state sanctioned—and of course barbaric. 2. Kill him? Getting a little hysteric now, aren’t we? Let’s put this in perspective: he got fired from a job.

To an extent that's true, but is this right? Should you be fired for a tweet from years ago that has nothing to do with your job, your performance, and is meant in clear jest and does not reflect who you are?

We know nothing about his performance at work other than what we have seen on TV. Unless you know more than the rest of us...

Why just the state? Don't you believe in civil rights?

Of course, I do. That’s why I said I’ll march with ya when the state starts banning speech, you know, a civil right.

We have seen the state recently trample on fundamental rights in reaction to the virus,

lols. I forgot, your posts aren’t to be taken all that seriously.

but beyond that, let's extend this--Sawyer was fired for making a tweet years ago. But let's say he made a tweet in support of Biden and was fired for it. Fired for exercising his views. Fired for what he believes in. Should a boss be able to fire someone for religious beliefs? Fire you because you're a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu?

Let’s go full Godwin: should an employer be prevented from firing an actor who praised Hitler? Should an employer be forced to keep a Nazi on the payroll?

Should a boss be allowed to only hire one race, discriminating on the basis of race, religion, orientation
I'm going to make an educated guess and say you would say no to all of the above. Civil Rights acts exist to cover basic fundamental rights in the private sector. We are seeing stifling of views already. We are seeing some people calling for banning of movies like GONE WITH THE WIND or shows like DUKES OF HAZZARD because they don't like what they see.

People have called for the banning of things for a long time. It’s nothing new. Call me when it’s illegal to buy Gone With The Wind.

Hiring and firing are two different things. And there’s a difference between hiring and firing an individual rather than NOT hiring a whole group of people based on race and religion. An individual is not a protected class.

Believe it or not, in some cases, no. I listed a few examples above. Let's say I hire you. You're doing a good job. No issues. One day, I find out you're gay. Can I fire you for that? It's a slippery slope between at will employment and discrimination.

Of course not, because you’re not firing me because of my individual behavior, but rather the behavior of a group. Sawyer was fired for his individual behavior. There’s no slippery slope.

You seem confused on the difference between the rights of a group of people and the individual. I can fire a black man if he’s not doing a job, but I can’t not hire black people because they are black. Do you not see the difference? So, you’re comparisons fall flat.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Danger? I think that’s rather a strong word.

Danger is exactly the right word. What you are seeing is massive censorship that goes well beyond Sawyer. This is a level of McCarthyism. Tow the line, or be blackballed. Say what we tell you, or be blackballed. When you start firing people for basic fundamental forms of expression, there's a problem. You are seeing freedom of speech shut down in multiple sectors and it's not good.

That’s your opinion, of course. What would you rather have seen? Just an apology? He has to sit out several episodes—which causes production problems on the whole.

I think given the nature of the tweets, and the length of time since the tweets, and the fact that we know of nothing that happened on set, and the fact that there is no evidence he did anything wrong as an employee, yes, an apology would be sufficient.

Except it’s literally not a crime. It’s about how a business wants to be represented to the public.

It's an expression, not meant to be taken as a literal crime. Sawyer did nothing to hurt CW or The Flash. The tweets were years ago, and it's unreasonable to have such a reaction. So yes, the punishment does not fit the transgression.

You’ve said that before. 1. Cutting off the hand, it’s state sanctioned—and of course barbaric. 2. Kill him? Getting a little hysteric now, aren’t we? Let’s put this in perspective: he got fired from a job.

What you are seeing it the point--that for any wrongdoing, there is a just punishment. Anything beyond that and we have overkill and overstepping. I believe that happened with Sawyer.

We know nothing about his performance at work other than what we have seen on TV. Unless you know more than the rest of us...

Presumption of innocence.

Of course, I do. That’s why I said I’ll march with ya when the state starts banning speech, you know, a civil right.

That's a fundamental right. But I'm talking about a civil right, which extends many constitutional principles to the private sector. For example, CW can't discriminate on the basis of race. It's not the constitution that prevents them from doing that. It's one of the Civil Rights acts. It may not have the power of the Constitution, but it is a federal statute. And right here, we have the CW banning speech.

lols. I forgot, your posts aren’t to be taken all that seriously.

That's not a counterargument. And there are quite a bunch of lawsuits and injunctions that show the overreach.

Let’s go full Godwin: should an employer be prevented from firing an actor who praised Hitler? Should an employer be forced to keep a Nazi on the payroll?

That's a terrific question. And the answer is it depends. Does a Nazi have freedom of speech and expression? As vile as it is, the answer is yes.

Should an employer have to keep a Nazi on the payroll? No, but let's have the fact pattern match the current one. Was the Hitler comments a joke, looking for shock value? OR is the guy an ACTUAL Nazi?

If it's the former, people need to lighten up and know that you're not dealing with an actual Nazi but rather a guy who made a bad joke. If it's the latter, and the guy is an actual skinhead Nazi, I think you have a difference. At that point, this person is going to hurt your product and your company, and stands for things you don't, and I do think it's ok. An example of the latter would be if Sawyer was caught at a KKK rally or a Nazi meeting. In that case, I think it's much different than some jokes in poor taste. I think that the transgression is much worse, especially if it's current.

So let me ask you--what if you were in the KKK or had racist or anti-semitic views years ago, but you're a changed person? Let's say you wore black face as an actor for a role. Or let's say you did it for Halloween one year, many years ago. Now you're older, wiser, and have done nothing anti-anyone. You just were dumb. Or you are reformed. An old picture of you in blackface resurfaces. An old picture of you hanging with people in the KKK or Nazis resurface. It's not you now though. Should you lose your job?

People have called for the banning of things for a long time. It’s nothing new. Call me when it’s illegal to buy Gone With The Wind.

Hiring and firing are two different things. And there’s a difference between hiring and firing an individual rather than NOT hiring a whole group of people based on race and religion. An individual is not a protected class.

Calling for the banning of things means nothing. When it actually happens, that's a big problem.

An individual can be PART of a protected class though. Being fired for your opinions is a real issue.

You seem confused on the difference between the rights of a group of people and the individual. I can fire a black man if he’s not doing a job, but I can’t not hire black people because they are black. Do you not see the difference? So, you’re comparisons fall flat.

I'm not saying you can't fire someone for merit. I do get the distinction. But merit requires something at least related to the job. Can you fire that black person for kneeling during the anthem at a sporting event in the stands? Is that ok?

 

[Professor Zoom]

Danger is exactly the right word. What you are seeing is massive censorship that goes well beyond Sawyer. This is a level of McCarthyism.

You do realize that McCarthyism was named after Senator McCarthy, right? As in State sponsored censorship, which is sorta against the whole First Amendment.

So, again, call me when the government bans Twitter, I'll be marching right along with you. In the meantime, Target is free to kick you out if you walk around shouting racial slurs because it's a private business. Much like a TV show.

Tow the line, or be blackballed. Say what we tell you, or be blackballed. When you start firing people for basic fundamental forms of expression, there's a problem. You are seeing freedom of speech shut down in multiple sectors and it's not good.

So, what you're saying is... I can't fire an employee whose a Nazi, and whose public tweets would affect my business? That's a hot take.

I think given the nature of the tweets, and the length of time since the tweets, and the fact that we know of nothing that happened on set, and the fact that there is no evidence he did anything wrong as an employee, yes, an apology would be sufficient.

Given that you just said we know nothing, maybe we aren't fit to decide what an appropriate punishment is.

What you are seeing it the point--that for any wrongdoing, there is a just punishment. Anything beyond that and we have overkill and overstepping. I believe that happened with Sawyer.

And you are free to have that point of view. You are also powerless to decide what should happen to him. And, honestly it's immaterial. A business should be free to fire someone whose actions cause harm to their business.

Presumption of innocence.

Not a court of law.

That's a fundamental right. But I'm talking about a civil right, which extends many constitutional principles to the private sector. For example, CW can't discriminate on the basis of race. It's not the constitution that prevents them from doing that. It's one of the Civil Rights acts. It may not have the power of the Constitution, but it is a federal statute. And right here, we have the CW banning speech.

His rights haven't been taken away. He is free to speak. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects one from the consequences of that speech except from the GOVERNMENT. If he went to jail for his tweets, I would be marching right along with ya.

That's not a counterargument. And there are quite a bunch of lawsuits and injunctions that show the overreach.

Nope, it isn't. Just context. And there have been "quite a bunch" that show it wasn't. But, that's an argument for a different thread.

That's a terrific question. And the answer is it depends. Does a Nazi have freedom of speech and expression? As vile as it is, the answer is yes.

Right, as protected by the Constitution, they can't be arrested by the state. They can't be persecuted by the state.

Should an employer have to keep a Nazi on the payroll? No, but let's have the fact pattern match the current one. Was the Hitler comments a joke, looking for shock value? OR is the guy an ACTUAL Nazi?

It doesn't matter. It literally doesn't matter. That owner is free to fire or not fire that employee.

If it's the former, people need to lighten up and know that you're not dealing with an actual Nazi but rather a guy who made a bad joke.

"Hey, Jews, just lighten up about the whole Holocaust thing!" Hot take.

But, again, that's up to the employer. Maybe the employer is a Jew and takes deep offense to the joke. Maybe the employer is a Christian book store and the joke goes against the values of the company. Or maybe the employer thinks it's funny and doesn't care.

So let me ask you--what if you were in the KKK or had racist or anti-semitic views years ago, but you're a changed person? Let's say you wore black face as an actor for a role. Or let's say you did it for Halloween one year, many years ago. Now you're older, wiser, and have done nothing anti-anyone. You just were dumb. Or you are reformed. An old picture of you in blackface resurfaces. An old picture of you hanging with people in the KKK or Nazis resurface. It's not you now though. Should you lose your job?

It's not up to me to decide my punishment. That's not how punishments work.

Calling for the banning of things means nothing. When it actually happens, that's a big problem.

Yep, and like I said, when the government starts trying to ban something, you and me, we'll go march.

An individual can be PART of a protected class though. Being fired for your opinions is a real issue.

Sure, an individual can be part of a protected class. And, being fired for your individual opinions might suck, but it's not wrong or illegal. If a gay man started going on Twitter and started some transphobic nonsense, if he was my employee, I would probably fire him. Because I wouldn't feel I could trust him in the work place to treat a transperson well.

I'm not saying you can't fire someone for merit. I do get the distinction. But merit requires something at least related to the job.

You do realize that being an actor is being in the public eye and how you behave can affect a show, right?

Can you fire that black person for kneeling during the anthem at a sporting event in the stands? Is that ok?

So, you were outraged when they forced Colin out of the NFL? Should we go look for that thread? Did you give this much thought and concern for Colin Kaepernick when he was pushed out for protesting against police brutality?

But, yes, is it "ok" in the sense the League had the right to do it. Right in the sense that it was moral? No. And they rightly go smashed for it. It's almost as if their speech had consequences.

The rights of racists and bigots, the rights of idiots posting incredibly insensitive jokes aren't being taken away. The government isn't swooping in and locking them up. The culture is pushing back against behavior it no longer finds acceptable.

 

[Kirk Prime]

You do realize that McCarthyism was named after Senator McCarthy, right? As in State sponsored censorship, which is sorta against the whole First Amendment.

I understand that, but the concept doesn't change no matter who does that. Of course, you're also finding it in schools, which take government funds, and could be construed as state actors.

So, again, call me when the government bans Twitter, I'll be marching right along with you. In the meantime, Target is free to kick you out if you walk around shouting racial slurs because it's a private business. Much like a TV show.

He wasn't doing that. That wasn't happening. But by your logic, Target then is free to kick you out if you walk around saying racism is bad.

So, what you're saying is... I can't fire an employee whose a Nazi, and whose public tweets would affect my business? That's a hot take.

Again, we're dealing with different things--an actual Nazi? That's different than someone who may have made a joke years ago that has nothing to do with his actual views or actions.

Given that you just said we know nothing, maybe we aren't fit to decide what an appropriate punishment is.

In the absence of knowledge, innocence must be presumed.

And you are free to have that point of view. You are also powerless to decide what should happen to him. And, honestly it's immaterial. A business should be free to fire someone whose actions cause harm to their business.

Ok, let's take that further. You live in Racistville, CA. Their founder is racist. Their people are racist. The Nonracist Store hires a black employee. The town freaks. They all say if this guy is your employee-we won't shop here. Can the owner fire him? His very existence causes harm to the business.

Take it down a notch. The employee, whose race is not even material for this purpose, goes to a game and takes a knee during the national anthem. It gets on TV. Should he be fired for that?

"Hey, Jews, just lighten up about the whole Holocaust thing!" Hot take.

But, again, that's up to the employer. Maybe the employer is a Jew and takes deep offense to the joke. Maybe the employer is a Christian book store and the joke goes against the values of the company. Or maybe the employer thinks it's funny and doesn't care.

That's the wrong take. Have you ever seen The Producers? Or Mel Brooks' To Be Or Not To Be? Or hell, pretty much every Mel Brooks movie? Lots of Hitler jokes. I'm Jewish. He's Jewish. They're funny.

It's not up to me to decide my punishment. That's not how punishments work.

That wasn't my question. Look at the example again and you be the boss. The employee is the black face wearing guy.

You do realize that being an actor is being in the public eye and how you behave can affect a show, right?

Of course, but we have seen many examples where actors slide for far worse than a tweet from years earlier. Do you really think that there are a lot of people that will magically stop watching Flash because of tweets made by Sawyer years ago?

So, you were outraged when they forced Colin out of the NFL? Should we go look for that thread? Did you give this much thought and concern for Colin Kaepernick when he was pushed out for protesting against police brutality?

That's not a bad question. The answer is no. And there's a distinction between Sawyer and Kaepernick.

1. Kaepernick engaged in a political protest during the national anthem while he was the equivalent to being on the clock. He brought down the entire league, and cost the league millions in lost revenue as the ratings went down. He disrupted the whole league.

An equal to this would be Sawyer going into these jokes in the middle of filming. He didn't.

2. Kaepernick was doing it in the present, while employed. An equal to Sawyer would be footage of Kaepernick in high school kneeling, where it never happened in the NFL and then he got released. THAT would be wrong.

3. Probably the most important--he wasn't a good quarterback. At best, he was a marginal football player who would never get in the game because he just wasn't talented enough to be in the league, and he used his kneeling to try to force the league to keep him. Evidence of that is in the fact that as soon as contract time came about, he publicly decided to end his kneeling. Also, he had no problem taking the $60 million settlement and the Nike contract. He profited a lot more from kneeling than he ever could have playing football. But let's get real--the NFL didn't get rid of him because just the kneeling--he wasn't an NFL level QB. Add that to the distraction and toxicity he brings to the game, no team would want him. Even without the kneeling, he likely wouldn't be in the NFL today.

Sawyer is different. There is no evidence that he wasn't a good enough actor to play Ralph Dibney.

The rights of racists and bigots, the rights of idiots posting incredibly insensitive jokes aren't being taken away. The government isn't swooping in and locking them up. The culture is pushing back against behavior it no longer finds acceptable.

And I don't have that much of a problem with the above. Where I draw the line is that there are some things that are not reasonable. This didn't happen on the job. He didn't do a racist interview for Variety as an employee on the show. It was a couple of tweets from YEARS ago. The punishment didn't fit the crime. It's overkill. CAN they do that? Maybe. But SHOULD they have? No. And it's horrible that his cast-mates turned on him.

 

[Jayson1]

For me the biggest issue was not only was he not at work he made the jokes in the past when those jokes weren't even seen all that bad to most people. It's one thing to say them on the job but I think it gives corporations or really any employer to much power for them to fire people because of what they say in their own home or away from work. Do we really want to give that much power to these places over us while we are not on the job? What you say at home or say online has nothing to do with what your doing at work. If it was beyond the pale stuff like he was spotted at a Klan meeting then yes I would understand but what he did was not nearly on that level.

Jason

 

[Kirk Prime]

If it was beyond the pale stuff like he was spotted at a Klan meeting then yes I would understand but what he did was not nearly on that level.

Agreed. That would be an entirely different animal.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I understand that, but the concept doesn't change no matter who does that. Of course, you're also finding it in schools, which take government funds, and could be construed as state actors.

There's no McCarthyism without the power and authority of the state.

He wasn't doing that. That wasn't happening. But by your logic, Target then is free to kick you out if you walk around saying racism is bad.

That's exactly what I'm saying. A business can determine what they find acceptable speech. They also get to have the consequences that go along with that determination.

In the absence of knowledge, innocence must be presumed.

Still not a court of law.

Ok, let's take that further.

*sigh. No. I'm getting bored of splitting hairs with you.

Edited to add: Let me be clear, I'm not arguing whether or not the show did the right thing or not to have fired Sawyer versus something else. I'm arguing they have every right to do so. It doesn't matter what I would do in their position, because I'm not. You can keep creating increasingly bizarre scenarios, but it doesn't matter. it wasn't my decision to make. They made it and have the freedom to do so.

That's the wrong take. Have you ever seen The Producers? Or Mel Brooks' To Be Or Not To Be? Or hell, pretty much every Mel Brooks movie? Lots of Hitler jokes. I'm Jewish. He's Jewish. They're funny.

*clutches pearls* MEL BROOK IS JEWISH?!

Of course, I've seen them. Lots of Hitler jokes. The musical is GREAT. Not the movie version, but the stage version. But, while I might find them funny, you might find them funny, others may not. They are free to buy a ticket or not. They are free to say if it is funny or not. A movie theater has the right to show it or not. The production company has a right to produce it or not.

So?

That wasn't my question. Look at the example again and you be the boss. The employee is the black face wearing guy.

I don't know honestly. What's my business? What am I wearing? How long have I known the guy? Is he married to my sister? WAIT, I HAVE A SISTER!?!

It's immaterial what I would do. Which is exactly my point. Sawyer's boss should be free to decide whether or not he wants to continue doing business with Sawyer.

Of course, but we have seen many examples where actors slide for far worse than a tweet from years earlier. Do you really think that there are a lot of people that will magically stop watching Flash because of tweets made by Sawyer years ago?

Should what is and isn't appropriate behavior be fixed and unchangeable? Which point should things have been fixed? 10 years ago? 30?

I don't know what people are going to do. I honestly don't care. There are going to be people who stop watching because he was fired.

That's not a bad question. The answer is no. And there's a distinction between Sawyer and Kaepernick.

[Jon Stewart] Go onnnnnnn. [/Jon Stewart]

1. Kaepernick engaged in a political protest during the national anthem while he was the equivalent to being on the clock. He brought down the entire league, and cost the league millions in lost revenue as the ratings went down. He disrupted the whole league.

POLITiCAL SPEECH BAD.

2. Kaepernick was doing it in the present, while employed. An equal to Sawyer would be footage of Kaepernick in high school kneeling, where it never happened in the NFL and then he got released. THAT would be wrong.

POLITICAL SPEECH IN THE PRESENT MORE BAD.

3. Probably the most important--he wasn't a good quarterback. At best, he was a marginal football player who would never get in the game because he just wasn't talented enough to be in the league, and he used his kneeling to try to force the league to keep him. Evidence of that is in the fact that as soon as contract time came about, he publicly decided to end his kneeling. Also, he had no problem taking the $60 million settlement and the Nike contract. He profited a lot more from kneeling than he ever could have playing football. But let's get real--the NFL didn't get rid of him because just the kneeling--he wasn't an NFL level QB. Add that to the distraction and toxicity he brings to the game, no team would want him. Even without the kneeling, he likely wouldn't be in the NFL today.

Sawyer is different. There is no evidence that he wasn't a good enough actor to play Ralph Dibney.

It's a hot take when you are arguing FOR Freedom of Speech for jokes to then turn around and also say that when it's political it shouldn't be protected.

You have to see the hypocrisy there.

And I don't have that much of a problem with the above. Where I draw the line is that there are some things that are not reasonable. This didn't happen on the job. He didn't do a racist interview for Variety as an employee on the show. It was a couple of tweets from YEARS ago. The punishment didn't fit the crime. It's overkill. CAN they do that? Maybe. But SHOULD they have? No. And it's horrible that his cast-mates turned on him.

And he's a white man who was just doing jokes, while Colin Kaepernick was a black man protesting police violence. In one case you're saying, Freedom of Speech, he shouldn't be fired, in the other case you're saying, when and what he was saying--where literally he was not saying a word but kneeling, is NOT Freedom of Speech. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

The fact that you are so concerned with Sawyer's right to tell a joke (which he still can) while desperately handwaving away Kaepernick's right to protest, ie, Freedom of Speech, as NOT something that should be protected, speaks volumes.

 

[Jayson1]

Kaepernick should have been hired. The only wrinkle with that is his contract was up were as Sawyer was still employed. It's actually bit harder in figuring out what to do in that situation. So technically if firing him is okay because it's a business decision then not hiring him is also okay because of it being a business decision because I remember the reasons people used was that he would be a distraction to their teams because of the media attention it would bring.

Jason

 

[Professor Zoom]

Kaepernick should have been hired. The only wrinkle with that is his contract was up were as Sawyer was still employed. It's actually bit harder in figuring out what to do in that situation. So technically if firing him is okay because it's a business decision then not hiring him is also okay because of it being a business decision because I remember the reasons people used was that he would be a distraction to their teams because of the media attention it would bring.

Jason

It's "okay" in the sense the NFL should be allowed to make their own decisions--and have the consequences of those decisions. It's not okay because it was morally wrong. They've even admitted they were wrong and should've let him protest.

 

[urbandefault]

It's a domino effect Jason.

Even if Hartley is 70 percent innocent, the last 4000 white guys were a little less innocent than he was, and most of them deserved a good smiting.

Sooner or later, all the white guys with something to hide are going to die off, and the playing field will level.

"Everybody's got something to hide, 'cept for me and my monkey." - John Lennon

 

[JD]

I don't agree with the vast vast majority of what you @Kirk Prime, there is one point I do agree with that I have not seen you address @Professor Zoom, the amount of time since the posts. That is my one and only issue with what happened, and I haven't seen you address it.
I have to confess, I made some similar arguments to the others when the Central Park Karen was fired, and my mom made a point that did get me to reconsider. Even though she was off the clock when it happened, and it didn't involve her job, she is still a part of that company and they are not going to want to be known as people who hire racists. Looking at it that way, I can see why the fired her. The majority of people out there these days are not going to want to be associated with racists, and having an employee who has been seen by thousands or possibly even millions of people being horribly racist, could do massive damage to a company's reputation.

 

[Ovation]

I can’t speak for others, but the issue of time has no weight on what the employer wants to do, in the sense of requirements. People are free to disagree with the decision and include the elapsed time as part of the disagreement, but in the case of Professor Zoom, his argument has consistently focused on whether the employer has the right to fire Sawyer, not whether the decision is one with which he agrees.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't agree with the vast vast majority of what you @Kirk Prime, there is one point I do agree with that I have not seen you address @Professor Zoom, the amount of time since the posts. That is my one and only issue with what happened, and I haven't seen you address it.

What's to address? His employer didn't think the timing was relevant but only the content.

But as to why it matters, I actually did address it several pages ago.

Hartley is a public figure. He is a public figure on a TV show that does press events, red carpets, etc. He will get the question every event. If you were in charge of the show, would you want this to keep dragging out? If you were in charge of the show, would you want this to be the headline rather than what new super villain the Flash is facing? Public Relations is a big part of the business, Hartley made it harder to sell the show. He did the right thing by accepting the consequences and parting ways with the show. In two months, only the crazies will give a shit.

It's similar to Amy Cooper. Not that Sawyer's actions are the same as Amy Cooper--not in the slightest. But rather, he's causing a PR mess that hurts the brand of the show.