Yes, that's the northwest tip of Maui, just off the one-lane road from Kapalua to Wailuku.Originally Posted by Glenn
Yes, that's the northwest tip of Maui, just off the one-lane road from Kapalua to Wailuku.
I haven't offended anyone on FaceBook in over a year. I just can't believe just how stupid people really are. Social Media is the single biggest threat to ones own personal security and well being. There is no easier way to destroy ones own self than by participating in this elementary school show down. People love to build other people build up, because peeps love more is finding something, anything, perceived or real, just so they can gang up and tear a person down. There ain't much thrill in building up, it's the tearing down that turns into an orgy of outrage. BS is what it is.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat" -Teddy Roosevelt
I guess I'm in the minority here. As a firm believer in free speech in/on whatever platform is used, Tracy or anyone else should be free to express whatever opinions they want, whether they are perceived as racist, insensitive, bigoted or whatever. Robin Miller has always been big on touting the beneficial effects of controversary on the relative popularity of the sport, and perhaps there is something to that notion. Personally, I do not care for Tracy. He still comes off as a petulant blowhard. I have never felt any need to interject any subjective pronouncement about his job, though. The fact that he arouses so much angst is perhaps even commendable.
The way in which he managed to jerk Anne Proffit's chain ('Really sad when a racist hack like Paul Tracy still has a job and dedicated racing journalist John Oreovicz doesn't') gave me a chuckle, but then I got a load of some of her social media pages and began to understand how it could happen. We get it, Anne. You don't like Trump either. LOL.
But I digress. 2018 was a year in which ostracization of personalities over words continued unabated. Puritanical, witch hunt judgement handed down in knee jerk fashion has become the societal norm, and that is potentially far more dangerous than offensive words. I believe the real reason Tracy got to retain his job is because he is not high profile enough in a niche program offering to make any sort of difference to a mass audience. So NBC probably wondered why to even bother.
Supporting Indy Car racing since 1959
I was just thinking about this very thing earlier today. I actually considered posting something on my own page similar to what you have written here ... but then I also realized that I would be doing the very thing that I am complaining about, so I refrained.
I am also on the "WGAF" side of the argument with Tracy. He's a human being and we as humans are allowed to have feelings about a certain topic. Is it worth it to keep him behind a microphone at the risk of losing "sensitive" fans? Well, that's up to NBC to decide. And we as consumers get to decide if we want to tune in or not. Welcome to America.
Sure, I agree 100 percent. I think most would.
Where it all goes wrong, it seems, is when those same people ***** about the consequences of their words. Freedom of speech? Hell yes, but there’s no freedom from the consequence of free speech. I don’t know why that’s a difficult concept to grasp for many. It’s akin to calling someone an a-hole and then wondering why that person won’t have anything to do with you anymore. But I was exercising freedom of speech!
Worse, is the inevitable backtracking when someone faces the consequences of their speech. “Who me? I didn’t say anything racist!” Fill in blank of ready-made excuse: “I got hacked”, “I was drinking”, “I was joking”, “I no longer feel that way”, “I didn’t realize my social media post was public”, etc., etc.
I deplore racism, but if you’re going to say it? Own it. Own your words. Own your social media bluster. And own the consequences, including the fact that most employers will fire you for it. That’s real free speech. Not a half-assed have-it-both-ways free speech without consequences that most morons who get caught up in these situations want or think is reality.
He did not talk aboutHe did not talk about gang raping your wife. He offered an ill advised hypothetical scenario based on some extreme opinion about illegal immigration. How it got twisted to your take on it is on you, and probably why he still has his job.
And it is also 'free speech' for an employer to disassociate themselves with someone who espouses racist/bigoted views.
Incorrect use of the the freedom of speech card.
Its not a 1st Amendment issue when comments you make online are deleted or when your job is impacted by something you say.
Live like Dave
Tracy has been and remains free to express his opinions and has repeatedly. Social and professional blow back are not a violation of First Amendment rights.
Where it all goes wrong, it seems, is when those same people ***** about the consequences of their words. Freedom of speech? Hell yes, but there’s no freedom from the consequence of free speech.And it is also 'free speech' for an employer to disassociate themselves with someone who espouses racist/bigoted views.It’s not a 1st Amendment issue when comments you make online are deleted or when your job is impacted by something you say.Tracy has been and remains free to express his opinions and has repeatedly. Social and professional blow back are not a violation of First Amendment rights.
All good, if not common, points. My deeper concern from a societal standpoint is the arbitrary and capricious nature of corporate caving in to mob mentality that happens all too frequently. This is why it seems refreshing that Tracy still has a gig even though he gets himself into trouble a lot and has a rich history of saying and typing really stupid things.
He is free to express his opinions. However, his employer is likewise free to react to his words and actions.
It is SOP for television networks to put detailed conditions/clauses in their contracts with on-air personalities that address behavior both on, and off, the air and what the consequences are should that employee cross some line. Ask Megyn Kelly, Anthony Cumia (of Opie and Anthony), former news anchor Wendy Bell, former Paramount Television President Amy Powell Bell, or Paula Deen about freedom of speech.
Speaking of social media, racism and offensive words, and since you appear to have strong feelings on the topic, what would say about someone who, in the past, frequently referred to fans of Adrian Fernandez as "taco folders," or said of a particular motorsport event that, "fans will flock to it like African Americans to McDonald's"?
Yeah, dontcha just hate those types?
"I would really like to go to NASCAR. I really enjoy NASCAR and if I could be there in a couple of years that's where I'd want to be." - Jeff Gordon (after testing a Formula Super Vee)
I was a big O&A fan.
Anthony Cumia is a total trainwreck now. He had the world by the short and curlies and tossed it all away because he couldn't stay off Twitter.
He will die broke and alone.
Lesson in life: If you're going to express yourself with reckless hyperbole be prepared to suffer the consequences.
"He went into a tire barrier, which is certainly the nicest of all the barriers." -Bobby Unser, Denver '90
One man's "mob mentality" is another's "consumer sentiment". Corporations (attempt to) seek profit and increased share price, not social justice.
As I said earlier, I like PT on the broadcast and I'm fine with him coming back but if he continues to directly insult consumers, NBC will be right to fire him. Unless they bring in Goodyear or Cheever, most won't even notice he's gone after a while. PT is enjoyable but far from irreplaceable. Just ask Roger Penske or Barry Green.
A valid, if not common, point. My deeper concern from a societal standpoint is the arbitrary and capricious nature of corporate caving in to mob mentality that happens all too frequently. This is why it seems refreshing that Tracy still has a gig even though he gets himself into trouble a lot and has a rich history of saying and typing really stupid things.
I get that. It remains troubling, however, to see otherwise entertaining people get knee-jerked out of a career over hypersensitivity, rampant subjectivity and, again, corporate cave-ins. I prefer John Q. Public choosing for him/herself by simply changing the channel if they get offended. It is more natural that way.
I probably would not say anything. I would not care. Social crusading is not something I am into. It would not be any of my business. I would simply change the channel or walk away, like any actual adult. If pressed hard for an opinion, I would simply advise that sensitivity and subjectivity has increased dramatically in recent years, and that entire careers regularly end for uttering far less callous words that selectively offend casual bystanders who feel compelled to interject their feelings.
No. I admire, whether grudgingly or not, most gadflies. They represent breaths of fresh air in an overly stilted society. If they are able to push the buttons of others, it is fun to watch. YMMV.
In my experience, people that excuse or champion malicious or disgusting speech are often those accused of it
Most people don't have much use for it.
There's really no such thing as Gary the Møøse, Sybil.
True dat. That is why freedom to change channels is as great a right as freedom of expression.
NBC used some pretty tame language by Megyn Kelly as a pretext to fire her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-...e-had-answers/Kelly kicked things off by mocking the University of Kent in Britain, which wants to ban students from dressing up like cowboys. “The costume police are cracking down like never before,” she said. When her co-hosts pointed out that some Halloween guidelines make sense (for example, dressing up like Harvey Weinstein would be creepy), Kelly agreed, but added, “I don’t want the University of Kent telling me I can’t do it.”
“You can’t wear anything Mexican-based,” she continued. “You cannot dress as a Native American. That’s apparently been some rule for a long time. You can’t dress as a nun. I mean, isn’t the purpose of Halloween to dress up and pretend you’re something other than yourself?” The studio audience applauded loudly.
This went on for a while, as Kelly also dismissed the recent anger over a “sexy ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ " costume (“Get over it, wear what you want"). Then Soboroff noted that “freedom of expression is a beautiful thing. So is freedom of speech.”
“It’s part of why I like living in the United States of America,” he said. “You can dress like an idiot, act like an idiot, and actually dress and be a racist — then somebody should say something to somebody. But you should still be able to dress like a moron.”
“But what is racist?” Kelly asked. “Because truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Like, back when I was a kid, that was okay, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.”
“If somebody feels like something is offensive to them, you should say it and that’s fair game. And you should be able to take it if you’re going to dress up like that,” Soboroff responded.
“Yeah, you gotta be able to take it,” Kelly agreed.
The conversation continued as Rivers lamented the fact that some people dress up like Nazis now, and Bush Hager added, “I think there are limits on how far you want to go, 'cause you’re making people feel bad.” No one elaborated on Kelly’s blackface comment until she brought it up again.
“There was a controversy on ‘The Real Housewives of New York’ with Luann, as she dressed as Diana Ross, and she made her skin look darker than it really is,” Kelly said. “And people said that that was racist. And I don’t know, I thought, like: Who doesn’t love Diana Ross? She wants to look like Diana Ross for one day? I don’t know how that got racist on Halloween. It’s not like she’s walking around in general."
“I have not seen it. But it sounds a little racist to me,” Soboroff said.
“I haven’t seen it either, but if she wanted to look like Diana Ross, she should have dressed as Michael Jackson,” Rivers said, as the studio audience erupted in laughter.
“I can’t keep up with the number of people we’re offending just by being, like, normal people these days,” Kelly said.
Kelly's ratings with NBC had been poor, she was seen as a bad fit for the network and they used this incident as an excuse to fire her.
They are still in settlement talks. Kelly wants $30 million right now with the ability to work somewhere else. NBC wants to pay her $37 million over 18 months, the original time and value of her contract and they want her to keep quiet about NBC over that time.
… to a channel where they don't put up with it, yep
And/or those guilty of it.In my experience, people that excuse or champion malicious or disgusting speech are often those accused of it
Whew. I'm glad I no longer work with NBC. At least I left of my own accord. Retirement = fewer filters, except in places where folks tend to cling to words, past or present, as if they are important.
I cannot help but laugh at your dismissive use of "common" in response to my post and that of Brickyard Jones (post #95). To the extent the points raised can be considered "common" is simply down to the fact that they are true.
Your sympathetic reaction to such actions is duly noted and comes as little surprise.
Probably? You mean you don't know?
Imagine my surprise at your refusal to directly address the "taco folder" and "African American/McDonald's" remarks that I asked you about.
There was no TV channel to change in the aforementioned instances. These were remarks made on an Internet forum focused on open wheel racing. Would you say such comments were made by an "actual adult?"
I think you are confusing the words "fresh" and "hot."
You never really did.
What a "common" (though, in this case, shortsighted) view.
Words are important. They inform and reveal everything.
“Words: So innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.”
- Nathaniel Hawthorne“Handle them carefully, for words have more power than atom bombs.”
- Pearl Strachan Hurd
“Sketchy black van? Weird stalking of my house? What are you going to do next, offer me some candy?”
― Hannah Harrington, Saving June
“It’s not stalking if you don't follow them home, right?”
― Laini Taylor, Night of Cake & Puppets
“He who searches for evil, must first look at his own reflection.”
― Confucious
They type of controversy Robin Miller touts is two drivers not getting along, like Rossi vs. Wickens, or Davison vs. Hinchcliff. We're talking about someone who represents IndyCar posting racist stereotype memes on MLK Day. Those are not the same kinds of controversy.
Be a better driver, move right except to pass.
If the "not common" points are actually uncommon its due to a deep and widespread lack of understanding of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.
Agreed.
We should steer this conversation back onto the topic. Here's a hypothetical: If you were Stephen Burke or Michael Edelstein, and this particular item crossed your desk and/or e-mail, what would you do? Fire Tracy? Shrug? Delegate?
There's two parts to that question:
1 - Do you believe Tracy's story that he was hacked and did not post the message. If so, you move on. This is what NBC has done. (At least publicly)
2 - If you believe Tracy did post the message, then you have to do your own calculus on whether or not keeping him is worth it. You will lose some fans either way.
.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks