Retired Indy 500 driver Derek Daly fired from TV job for use of N-word 35 years ago

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

if you believe that employers should retain this ability to fire whoever, whenever you don't get to cry foul when employers do just that.

 

Your words not mine above, that sounds like you are calling my motivation into question, but feel free to not answer my question about your opinion

i don't see where you're getting that, and did answer your question.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

The bolded words are a direct quote from you

[Dashinka 24,110]

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 4:31 PM, smilesammich said:

so you think if this guy and his son were liberals (i don't know that either of these guys are conservatives, i don't know anything about them except one of them is from australia or something) the would still have their job/sponsorship?

Quite honestly yes, if they were leftist (not liberals, there is a difference), or if they were a protected class, or a different color, then the media wouldn't give this the time of day since it doesn't perpetuate the narrative they, the media has created.

 

Here is a great example, ESPN and Jamele Hill  are finally parting ways, but was Hill outright fired for her racist activities (tweets, comments, etc.), no, she received a nice buy out settlement. 

 

https://www.thewrap.com/jemele-hill-to-exit-espn-with-buyout-from-sporting-network/

Edited August 27, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

On 8/25/2018 at 2:59 PM, smilesammich said:

i don't get the comparison. 

i don't know why his son lost a sponsorship (not the same as being fired) but i'm fairly certain it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is fair or who else has a job that you think shouldn't. employers can fire whoever, whenever so all outrage should be focused on that unreasonable premise. if you believe that employers should retain this ability to fire whoever, whenever you don't get to cry foul when employers do just that.

So you are ok with an employer the New York Times hiring someone who has made very racist statements on Twitter and Ok with Nascar firing this guy, cause of something he said 30 years ago. I think the argument is Employers should be able to manage their own businesss.

 

So if that same employer doesn't want to bake a cake or pay for a morning after pill because it goes against the core of their religious beliefs , is that ok too. ?

[smilesammich 10,727]

33 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Quite honestly yes, if they were leftist (not liberals, there is a difference), or if they were a protected class, or a different color, then the media wouldn't give this the time of day since it doesn't perpetuate the narrative they, the media has created.

 

Here is a great example, ESPN and Jamele Hill  are finally parting ways, but was Hill outright fired for her racist activities (tweets, comments, etc.), no, she received a nice buy out settlement. 

 

https://www.thewrap.com/jemele-hill-to-exit-espn-with-buyout-from-sporting-network/

how is jamele hill racist? what racist activities? 

 

anyway, if you have a problem with hill's buy out - take it up with her former employer.

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

10 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So you are ok with an employer the New York Times hiring someone who has made very racist statements on Twitter and Ok with Nascar firing this guy, cause of something he said 30 years ago. I think the argument is Employers should be able to manage their own businesss.

 

So if that same employer doesn't want to bake a cake or pay for a morning after pill because it goes against the core of their religious beliefs , is that ok too. ?

again, yes i am okay with nyt hiring jeong - because she is not racist. 

yeah, the argument is employers should be able to manage their own business, if they decided to fire this guy - it's there decision.

 

trying to compare the decision of a small business owner to not provide the service he's in the business of providing (because he's a bigot, and that's about it) to an employer's right to fire anyone at any time isn't very effective. the law is on the side of the employer, the one doing the firing.

[Dashinka 24,110]

9 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

again, yes i am okay with nyt hiring jeong - because she is not racist. 

yeah, the argument is employers should be able to manage their own business, if they decided to fire this guy - it's there decision.

 

trying to compare the decision of a small business owner to not provide the service he's in the business of providing (because he's a bigot, and that's about it) to an employer's right to fire anyone at any time isn't very effective. the law is on the side of the employer, the one doing the firing.

How is she not a racist?  Certainly in 35+ years when her tweets come back up they will look as racist as they are today.  We live in a PC world, words matter.

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How is she not a racist?  Certainly in 35+ years when her tweets come back up they will look as racist as they are today.  We live in a PC world, words matter.

 

who are you talking about, jeong? do we really have to go over this again? 

blows my mind that trump's tweets are met with a big ol shrug but when considering jeong's tweets - poor girl can't even get some context.

 

Quote

In tweets like the one embedded above, Jeong appeared to be commenting on the idea that white people often believe they are being discriminated against when they aren’t. To equate “being mean to white people” with the actual systemic oppression and marginalization of minority groups is a false equivalency.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

18 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

again, yes i am okay with nyt hiring jeong - because she is not racist. 

yeah, the argument is employers should be able to manage their own business, if they decided to fire this guy - it's there decision.

 

trying to compare the decision of a small business owner to not provide the service he's in the business of providing (because he's a bigot, and that's about it) to an employer's right to fire anyone at any time isn't very effective. the law is on the side of the employer, the one doing the firing.

Jeong's public comments define her, just as any other public figure.  Her comments are more racist in my opinion than what this guy did 35 years ago.  Back then, the N word wasn't nearly so taboo as it is today, and clearly he doesn't go around using it today.

 

Someone who follows their religious beliefs is not a bigot just because you don't agree with their religious beliefs.  That people have strong core values should be admired, not looked down upon.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

Jeong's public comments define her, just as any other public figure.  Her comments are more racist in my opinion than what this guy did 35 years ago.  Back then, the N word wasn't nearly so taboo as it is today, and clearly he doesn't go around using it today.

 

Someone who follows their religious beliefs is not a bigot just because you don't agree with their religious beliefs.  That people have strong core values should be admired, not looked down upon.

a cake baker who refuses to bake a cake for a person because of who they love is a bigot. look up the definition of bigot. 

and again:

Quote

In tweets like the one embedded above, Jeong appeared to be commenting on the idea that white people often believe they are being discriminated against when they aren’t. To equate “being mean to white people” with the actual systemic oppression and marginalization of minority groups is a false equivalency.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, smilesammich said:

a cake baker who refuses to bake a cake for a person because of who they love is a bigot. look up the definition of bigot. 

and again:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-tweets-backlash-racism

 

 

No.  A person who chooses to stay true to their religious beliefs (pretty much all religions believe gay=wrong) is not a bigot. The bible is not an opinion, it is a life guide handed down for generstions. 

 

However, you calling them a bigot because you don't agree with their religious belief... now that is textbook bigotry.

 

And again: treating white people badly, to include being racist towards them, is ok today.  Got it.  We have to pay for the sins of our forefathers.  Noted.

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

No.  A person who chooses to stay true to their religious beliefs (pretty much all religions believe gay=wrong) is not a bigot. The bible is not an opinion, it is a life guide handed down for generstions. 

 

However, you calling them a bigot because you don't agree with their religious belief... now that is textbook bigotry.

 

And again: treating white people badly, to include being racist towards them, is ok today.  Got it.  We have to pay for the sins of our forefathers.  Noted.

 

just helping to explain what racism actually is, there's plenty of confusion in this thread given the comments.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 

just helping to explain what racism actually is, there's plenty of confusion in this thread given the comments.

 

I'm good, but thanks for your help.  (I'm sure others will appreciate your views on racism towards whites, too) But since I have never considered my race superior to anyone else's,  I have never been a racist.  Nor do I make racist remarks.  So I'm good.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

43 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Jeong's public comments define her, just as any other public figure.  Her comments are more racist in my opinion than what this guy did 35 years ago.  Back then, the N word wasn't nearly so taboo as it is today, and clearly he doesn't go around using it today.

 

Someone who follows their religious beliefs is not a bigot just because you don't agree with their religious beliefs.  That people have strong core values should be admired, not looked down upon.

she is not a racist cause she isnt a white male. Its that simple 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

she is not a racist cause she isnt a white male. Its that simple 

do you agree that these sorts of things are up to the employer?

if nyt wants to take the heat for joeng - it's their call

if wish-tv wants to fire daly for whatever he said or didn't say 35 years ago - it's their call

if espn wants to buy out hill's contract - it's their call