Thanks to some whiny people I don't get to read Tuesday Morning Quarterback any more

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Because the target is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess this is an obejective/subjective thing. I dont know for sure who hezbollah targeted. Im not privy to the counsels of this terrorist group - are you? And in terms of charecterizing the attack, it doesnt matter. OBJECTIVELY it was an attack on Argentina, whatever Hezbollah thought. And that, by the way, is how every civilized state in the world views things. If an attack were launched by foreign terrorists in Paris, the govt of France would consider it an attack on France, regardless of the intentions of the perpetrators. Ditto for the US, Argentina, anywhere else.

And this raises other questions. What if Hezbollah had decided not to attack Jews, or to destabize the Argentinian state, but to murder Catholics? And found that Buenos Aires were a convenient place to do that. Would THAT be an attack on Argentina. We believe that Bin Ladens attack on the World Trade Center was an attempt to destabilize the US - and some of his communications indicate that - but other communications, and various Jihadi texts, indicate a desire simply to murder Christians and Jews. We cannot by any means rule out that the attack on the WTC was simply an attempt to murder christians and jews, not directly an attack on the American state. By your reasoning 9/11 is not clealy an attack on the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
Conservative political correctness says that it's offending to find anything that offends you, as being offensive.

I understand this - Mr fun makes perfect sense

Mr. Fun

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Of course I don't think NYE has done anything wrong. But according to the logic of "Easterbrooks is an antisemite" crowd, NYE has just done something terrible.

Has NYE actually called Easterbrook an antisemite?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Conservative political correctness says that it's offending to find anything that offends you, as being offensive.

Can anyone else figure this out? I'm drawing a blank.

What I mean is that conservatives have gotten so hyper about others being offended by racist, sexist or other slurs, that people might have to start apologizing for expressing their being offended by something.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That is a funny post. 'He can't just fire someone for pissing him off.'

Ahem. Why not?

what pchange seems to be saying is that he cant do it if its clearly against the stockholders interest - if say Letterman pissed off Eisner, and Eisner fired say Peter Jennings, and ABC News ratings went all to hell, then Disney stockholders would have a cause of legal action against Eisner, since he was acting against their interests as stockholders, which as their agent he does not have the right to do.

In fact I think it be almost impossible for such a lawsuit to prove that the firing was not INTENDED to be in the stockholders interest, even if it was a big star being fired. In the case of someone as obscure as Easterbrook a stockholder lawsuit would probably be thrown out as frivolous. Effectively yes, the boss even in a publicly held corp has the right to toss out anyone he doesnt like, even if in theory this is not the case.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by yavoon


I dont get the last paragraph. are u trying to appeal to my inner disdain for stereotypes? cuz it aint working.

obviously bosses CAN fire u for any # of reasons. and he CAN be fired. but thats not what its about. its about should. he mouths off at different ppl everyweek, or about everyweek. he took a crack at rupert murdoch in week 5 I think it was for monopolizing and raping the tv scheduling for football in america. he takes cracks at espn from time to time.

he picks different ppl or different things. it just so happened this time he had THE WRONG OPINION. and something is deeply disconcerting about that.

Yeah, this was different caused he criticized the big boss by name.

Whats disconcerting, if anything, is the level of media concentration. If he worked for a small town paper, and he got fired for criticizing the publisher, no big deal. If you can get fired for criticizng Eisner, thats important, cause SO MANY people work for Eisner.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Has NYE actually called Easterbrook an antisemite?

No. I didn't try to ridicule NYE. I was trying to ridicule a logic that hunts down every wording mishap and their dog. IMHO, NYE has been a very good poster in this thread.

As per the target debate: it seems we merely have two different logics to determine what a target is. To me, the intent of the attacker determines the target. To you, the actual victims of the attack are the targets. I'm not saying yours is wrong, those are simply two different definitions.

[lord of the mark]

what the New Republic said about Gregg Easterbrook (Greggs blog appears on TNR's site, and he is a long time TNR writer)

"To our readers:

We are sorry. Last week Gregg Easterbrook wrote an item in his blog for tnr.com about the moral culpability of Hollywood executives who profit handsomely from movies that glorify violence and depict it with pornographic vividness. In the course of his denunciation, Easterbrook referred to "Jewish executives [who] worship money above all else." Many readers found the remark offensive. They were right. The phrase was right out of the classical vocabulary of modern anti-Semitism. We make no defense of these words and we are mortified that they appeared under the auspices of a magazine that has for many decades been in the forefront of the campaign against anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds. Easterbrook's comment is false and ugly, and we do not wish in any way to make excuses for it. And neither does he, which is why he apologized for it, and made no extenuations for it. He candidly wrote on this Web site last Friday that "[w]hat I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize."

We associate ourselves with Easterbrook's contrition. We, too, failed our readers. This is not the time or the place to reflect on the new and uncharted editorial requirements of blogs and the other instantaneous publications and postings on the Internet. However fast the medium or however slow, on paper and online, the editors of The New Republic are responsible for the "content" that we put before the public; and in this instance we were delinquent in our responsibilities.

But, while we understand the outrage that Easterbrook's comment has caused, we are concerned also about the brutality of some of the criticism. There is another, important side to this story. We have known Easterbrook for many years, and we wish to say without doubt or hesitation that he is not an anti-Semite. Indeed, he is a person of high integrity. He has written prolifically and thoughtfully and with great erudition on many subjects, including science, the environment, politics, and religion; and the moral sensibility that appears in his writings is that of tolerance and open-mindedness. The many editors and writers who have worked with him over the decades of his career--at Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and The Washington Monthly, to name but a few--can all attest not only to his talent, but to his character. A good individual said a bad thing. Sometimes this happens. (Sometimes a bad individual says a good thing.) When it happens, he must credibly express his regret, and his understanding of how he erred. This Easterbrook has done. We have seen too many reputations unjustly ruined by media inquisitions and the vituperative politics of ethnic insult in America. We hope that the firmness with which Easterbrook's awful remark has been judged will be attended by fairness in the consideration of his character and his career. What he wrote last week is the terrible exception, not the terrible rule.

These accusations have, of course, been enormously upsetting to The New Republic's staff, which has spent a generation writing about Jews, Israel, and the elimination of prejudice. On these issues we stand by our record. (The spectacle of this magazine defending itself against the charge of anti-Semitism would be funny if it were not so sad.) And we have many times in our pages insisted upon the moral importance of culture, and worried about the deleterious consequences of the romanticization of violence in American popular culture. We do not believe that our arguments and our anxieties have been vitiated by this incident.

But we know that reputations are, by their nature, fragile things. So, as we apologize to you today, we also rededicate ourselves to keeping the faith of our readers in our old and proven commitment to decency in American life, and in the critical discussion of it.

the Editors "

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Of course I don't think NYE has done anything wrong. But according to the logic of "Easterbrooks is an antisemite" crowd, NYE has just done something terrible.

Im not calling Easterbrook an Antisemite. NYE isnt calling him an antisemite. AS far as I know, Abe Foxman, though not accepting the apology, has not called Easterbrook an antisemite. Eisner fired Easterbrook, but AFAIK has not said why.

As far as I can tell NO ONE has called Easterbrook an antisemite. Who is this "Easterbrook is an antisemite crowd"? Where is it? I dont see it. As far as I can tell, its simply a strawman, for those who want yet another chance to bash "whiny Jews". And to yet again assert that we talk about antisemitism too much. There are quite alot of people who'd like to see less discussion of antisemitism, from Kuala Lampur and Riyadh to Brussels and Paris.

[pchang]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That is a funny post. 'He can't just fire someone for pissing him off.'

Ahem. Why not?

Did you miss the fiduciary duty part of the post?

[Spiffor]

LOTM:
OK, make that the "Easterbrook is offensive" crowd. The logic is the same: if you're offended by Easterbrook's comments, your offended by NYE speaking about "Jews controlling the world" (something that also comes directly from modern antisemitism.

And like I said before, I'm all for opposing real antisemitism, in Kuala Lumpur as in Paris. I'm all against taking outrage for any mishap, like Easterbrook's mishap, or like NYE's mishap.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
OK, make that the "Easterbrook is offensive" crowd. The logic is the same: if you're offended by Easterbrook's comments, your offended by NYE speaking about "Jews controlling the world" (something that also comes directly from modern antisemitism.

And like I said before, I'm all for opposing real antisemitism, in Kuala Lumpur as in Paris. I'm all against taking outrage for any mishap, like Easterbrook's mishap, or like NYE's mishap.

First Easterbrook raised the issue, NYE was using the phrase in the context of discussing someone else's position. If I say "I wonder if Boddington thinks blacks are inferior" that hardly puts me in the same category was someone who sets out to discuss whether or not blacks are inferior - just cause I strung together the 3 words "blacks are inferior" Easterbrook's words may have been taken out of context, but they were not taken as far out of context as you have taken NYE's words.

Second - I expect more from a prominent journalist, writing in a blog published by one of Americas premier opinion magazines, then i do from a poster at 'poly (with all due respect)

Face it spiffor, you're quibbling.

[Spiffor]

I don't think I am quibbling. Well we can say I am in a quagmire like you, because I don't expect us to agree on the topic, but I expect us to continue exchanging lengthy posts .

I've repeatedly understood that Easterbrook had an offensive wording for a non-offensive thesis (did I have that right ?). I've understood that a watchful Jew could not let Easterbrook have such wording, because it could allow a slippery slope, where other people would speak of "Jews worshipping money above all else" with a much less noble intent and a much less specific target.

I've understood that the very words used by Easterbrook were the problem, and nothing else. Because those very words relay the wording of modern antisemitism. As such, the context is unimportant.

Now, you are telling me that it is different for NYE ? I don't think so at all. Actually, I'm quite sure that if NYE wrote the exact same sentences in some mainstream press, he'd have quite a few people complaining on how offensive he is, and how he spreads horrible prejudices.

And that's why I'm saying that condemning Easterbrook's wording or NYE's wording is exactly the same logic. Granted the minuscule scale of this thread prevents this logic to being put into action, but it doesn't mean the logic isn't identical.

I would probably let it slip by if I didn't actually care for antisemitism. I clearly oppose the whininess, because it gives a bad name to every other reaction to antisemitism, including when such reaction is a rightful and healthy one

EDIT: my style sucks Changed the last sentence

[yavoon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
About the last paragraph, no I did not think it would move you, but thanks for the opportunity to more clearly express what the guy did wrong as far as some jewish people might be concerned.

And yes, he did have the wrong opinion. Quite possibly the wrong opinion about the guy who could, and would fire his ass, unlike his previous targets.

So, is this a should about Jews controlling the world, or a should about bosses being able to fire people for pissing them off?

actually no bosses shouldn't be able to fire u for just pissing them off(in the way easterbrook did). u should sue ur boss if he tries something like that. now it so happens they basically can. but since u asked a should, I answered.

being fired for the wrong opinion. I'm surprised u dont see how dangerous something like this. what if someone had an anti gay boss and he had the opinion that gays were A OK. that might piss the boss off.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MrFun


What I mean is that conservatives have gotten so hyper about others being offended by racist, sexist or other slurs, that people might have to start apologizing for expressing their being offended by something.

incorrect. conservatives are worried that u ppl being offended keep demanding that it become a crime or someone gets fired or other gov't/bureacratic action. we're perfectly happy if u sit there and be offended or protest or wutever.

but ur trying to gank the system to suit ur "offendedness."