What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

USA Today Race And Inclusion Sports Editor Fired (1 Viewer)

What's your take on her firing?

  • Definitely deserved to be fired

    Votes: 21 45.7%
  • Probably deserved to be fired

    Votes: 14 30.4%
  • On the fence

    Votes: 6 13.0%
  • Probably did not deserve to be fired

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • Definitely did not deserve to be fired

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • Total voters
    46
Good point. Issues aside, I think most people are frustrated with the hypocrisy. From both sides. We're seeing that with the border stuff. People now are up in arms over things they seemed to be less concerned about last year. And people now are dismissing stuff at the border that were concerned last year. It's incredibly discouraging but it's how it is. 
Except where in Tim's post did he say any of that?  He added her article and gave his opinion that she was right on what she had posted.  He didn't opine on her firing there...in face he said earlier she probably deserved to be.  He gave his opinion that the NCAA should not be letting schools like Oral Roberts in...but is that the same as what he is being criticized for?  I don't think Tim is acting hypocritical here.  I don't think he is saying the NCAA cannot have their own rule and enforce them...he is giving his opinion that their rules should be where places that discriminate should not be allowed in their tournaments.  If anything...Tim is remaining pretty consistent with what he has said on many issues when it comes to discrimination.

Edit to add:  And this in a thread with a poll where less than 12% think she should not have been fired.   And around 73% think she at least probably should have been.  Seems like we are not seeing some double standard with this vs big tech.  We are seeing the same thing...that people here still strongly believe private companies (be it twitter or the USA Today) can enforce their rules.  No matter if that means firing or banning a conservative or a liberal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good point. Issues aside, I think most people are frustrated with the hypocrisy. From both sides. We're seeing that with the border stuff. People now are up in arms over things they seemed to be less concerned about last year. And people now are dismissing stuff at the border that were concerned last year. It's incredibly discouraging but it's how it is. 
China just signed an economic and protection pact with Iran, giving them banking access we denied with sanctions. Russia has jailed Putin’s political rival (and I’ll be surprised if navaly is alive by 2022). Channel 9 in UK was about to do a story on that and suffered a massive cyber attack. Oh, by the way, we still haven’t dealt with our own Russian cyber intrusions. A group of protestors bashed their way into the Capitol. Pandemic still here. 

We are facing some real world stuff right now and 90% of Americans probably don’t have any idea that it’s happening. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except where in Tim's post did he say any of that? 
:confused:    

My post was in reply to: "So we are switching back from private companies can do what they choose (Big Tech banning Trump) to private companies shouldn't be allowed to have their own rules?   Neat."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:confused:    Who said anything about a post by Tim?
You replied to a post being critical of Tim.  I followed the stream because I had not seen what that poster was talking about with this supposed hypocrisy.  And Im not seeing the hypocrisy from tim or others.  Im not seeing anyone claiming we are back to private companies not being about to do so.  It seems people have been consistent thinking similar to big tech being able to enforce their own rules.

 
China just signed an economic and protection pact with Iran, giving them banking access we denied with sanctions. Russia has jailed Putin’s political rival (and I’ll be surprised if navaly is alive by 2022). Channel 9 in UK was about to do a story on that and suffered a massive cyber attack. Oh, by the way, we still haven’t dealt with our own Russian cyber intrusions. A group of protestors bashed their way into the Capitol. Pandemic still here. 

We are facing some real world stuff right now and 90% of Americans probably don’t have any idea that it’s happening. 
Agreed. It seems people would prefer to spend all day typing rebuttals or gotchas to update their zinger scorecard. Sigh. 

 
Hard to view this through the same lens as cancel culture the more I think about it. It is one thing to get fired for a tweet that has nothing to do with your job. But would anybody think twice about an NFL player getting cut because he went on social media and said dumb things about his coach or a fake rumor about the starting QB?

Her tweeting dumb racist things is pretty intertwined with her position. 

 
No, but I am not here that often and that logic is something out of George Orwell. 
From what I gather, a decent portion of the most common posters from the right around here would agree with that sentiment though.   I have seen more a few posts about how racist the left is or how racist their policies are.  

 
  • Sad
Reactions: rct
No, but I am not here that often and that logic is something out of George Orwell. 
No it isnt. You are viewing being anti racist as just being against racism. Thats logical, but the term anti-racist has a very different meaning for the people out there pushing CRT. 

The reason people view antiracists as being racist is because they focus so much on whiteness and white adjacent and all sorts of other things that are clearly racist. 

They allow for this because they redefined racism to have to include institutional power. So therefore saying things that are clearly racist to us, arent racist because black people are incapable of racism. 

So yes. "Anti-racism" as coined by Kendi is racist in so many ways. 

 
but since they ARE fired over a tweet or something said a decade ago ... can we agree it needs to be fair and equal and EVERYONE be fired that does it ? 
No, this isn't how I prefer to operate.  The author of this particular tweet hasn't done anything to indicate that she deserves forgiveness, but I'm going to forgive her anyway.  I strongly believe that that's the best course of action in most of these cases.

(The only major exception to this rule is one of the cancellers themselves is the one getting cancelled -- like the ridiculous episode that played out at Teen Vogue.  I can live with that on the grounds that folks should have to live by the standards they impose on others, but that isn't what we're talking about here).  

 
She seems to have learned from this experience and will be smarter about what she tweets in the future.

Oh wait, nope, she is blaming the publication for not having clear social media policies. 

 
I didnt vote.  On the fence here.  I'm not a big fan of firing someone over stuff like this.  But then again, I suppose if the brand ambassador of Coca Cola got caught drinking Pepsi you would have to question whether he is the right person for the Coke job.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I lean towards agreeing with this philosophy in general.

But...

I also think that if you're the "race and inclusion editor", and you make a sweeping, ignorant accusation against one race, then you probably aren't qualified for your job.
This is probably the best answer

Seeing that it was the exact job to avoid things like that you have pretty much shown you are not good at your job

 
I didn't know having twitter was a job requirement.  If it was a work related twitter account she shouldn't be posting racist, inflammatory tweets on it.  Apparently she had a history of this as well since her termination letter, which she discussed in an article on her firing, mentions other incidents.  If her twitter account was personal she shouldn't have had her job title and place of employment listed on it.  She can't have it both ways. 
:goodposting:

She was fired because of two yellow cards.  She didn't get a straight red here.

 
No, this isn't how I prefer to operate.  The author of this particular tweet hasn't done anything to indicate that she deserves forgiveness, but I'm going to forgive her anyway.  I strongly believe that that's the best course of action in most of these cases.

(The only major exception to this rule is one of the cancellers themselves is the one getting cancelled -- like the ridiculous episode that played out at Teen Vogue.  I can live with that on the grounds that folks should have to live by the standards they impose on others, but that isn't what we're talking about here).  
While I would tend to agree and that's an admirable way of looking at this, I think the fact that she's shown no remorse or awareness of what she did as well as the position that she holds are extenuating circumstances that cannot be overlooked.

 
She seems to have learned from this experience and will be smarter about what she tweets in the future.

Oh wait, nope, she is blaming the publication for not having clear social media policies. 
Which is ironic because one of her previous positions was social media editor.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No, this isn't how I prefer to operate.  The author of this particular tweet hasn't done anything to indicate that she deserves forgiveness, but I'm going to forgive her anyway.  I strongly believe that that's the best course of action in most of these cases.

(The only major exception to this rule is one of the cancellers themselves is the one getting cancelled -- like the ridiculous episode that played out at Teen Vogue.  I can live with that on the grounds that folks should have to live by the standards they impose on others, but that isn't what we're talking about here).  
so if a white male journalist had jumped to a conclusion on say, a robbery where 3 were shot dead and said it was again a black guy obviously doing thug things or something like that, you'd treat them the same ?

I'm just trying to figure out if some people get different passed for very similar things said/done ?

 
so if a white male journalist had jumped to a conclusion on say, a robbery where 3 were shot dead and said it was again a black guy obviously doing thug things or something like that, you'd treat them the same ?
Yes.  I feel like I've been pretty consistent on this point.

 
What exactly is the purpose of a race and inclusion editor? 

I am usually against these firings, but like SD posted, maybe this is a case of it being appropriate? 


I'll break down the practical points for you in terms of how this kind of position actually gets created.

Jesse Jackson was one of the greatest innovators in modern media optics. When a celebrity or a major corporation said or did anything that was racist or could be construed as racist, he was right there. Here was his pitch, and it was brilliant for it's time, even far ahead of it's time, but not ethical at all. He'd say, well I could go into the press and call you a racist and demand everyone who associates with you to stop doing business with you, or I'll smear them just the same, or you can hire this "consulting firm" that will talk to you and be deeply involved with you and your company about how to stop future racism. Then, if that happens, I'll give you some fluffy media ops and spin control that will paint you in a positive light. ( Now who owned and operated and staffed these groups? Do you think it was just strangers to Jesse Jackson? )

So Jackson took what is basically a classic mob concept  ( "protection money") and translated it to big business and became the first true "race hustler" of the modern age.

What do you think that planted diversity person did when they were entrenched? They are an outsider but they have massive leverage and now you have a total stranger, who might not even know your business, start to make demands or try to drive you towards specific clients. You can "comply" or be labeled a racist in public. And if your budget is tight, because it's not like there is a money tree for every business, even a large corporation, maybe it means you have to lay some people off to put in this new disruptive psychotic outsider.

So let's take this to a local scenario. I've observed Sigmund Bloom over time. He's gotten a lot better from where he started in terms of media engagement and interviewing and intermediate level PR. He's in a specific role that forces him to get that experience, but he's also putting in the work. The morning jacket is still horrid, but OK, good for him. Hard work pays off. So Bloom has two choices really, as FBG grows and become part of the standard sports media lexicon and inches into the daily sports media cycle, the risk factor goes up. Someone might say something that offends someone. Or many people. It might be completely innocent and not intended, but it's clear to everyone here the woke cancel culture doesn't care. Purity tests operate like bombardments. No forgiveness ever. Punishment must be absolute.

His choices

1) Take no proactive steps. Meaning if someone says something on social media or some article that spins out of control, he has to be reactive. A "For Profit" cancel culture crew can threaten FBG's sponsors, it's advertisers, the networks, Invision board, their social media accounts ,their YouTube accounts, and on and on and on. What's the price? Annual "donation" to some group or hiring some "diversity firm" to ensure no more racists can ever exist at FBG. What if the budget can't take another person on? Well that means you get attacked at multiple fronts, sapping your energy from your actual work product to try to defend what you have right now. The choice often becomes for companies to lay someone else off. Think about that, for what could be an honest mistake, you are now being leveraged for a yearly gouge deep in your pocket, then you have to fire one of your friends. Maybe someone you've known and liked for years, maybe decades, to take in a stranger whose only goal is to entrench and make stupid demands and try to grab more money or force you to hire other people you don't want or make you say things you don't want to say. An outsider. Maybe someone who doesn't know one single damn thing about actual football. And if Bloom and the rest are justifiably pissed off? Then the "For Profit" race hustler extortionist is actually doubly happy. Because it's baiting those antagonized to react or to say anything, where they can shout - "See, see , you are a racist/bigot/xenophobe/karaoke fan/etc"  And this justifies their entire extortion racket. There are true and honest activists out there who do want to improve their communities. They exist. But most in this field are basically low rent race hustlers looking to rain make anyone in their path, whether those people are guilty or not. And if FBG has no women nor minorities on staff nor any history of doing something that looks like woke social justice, that only limits the possible immediate defenses Bloom can actually deploy. This is a bad position to be in and many companies have to deal with this new current reality

2) Or Bloom can be proactive. He gives himself the title of "Race And Inclusion Officer".  He doesn't need to hire anyone else.  It's title on top of his other duties. He doesn't need to fire one of his own soldiers to make room for some outsider only looking to destroy this business and "bust it out"  Also it directs any race based conflicts and question directly to him. All his button men can simply deflect and say, "Well, let me get you to the best resource possible to answer your questions". Then he comes to Old Man Gekko and says, "This is going to spiral out of control at some point, how do I manage the media spin on this?"  And since I like Bloom and he made a gesture for me once, I'd help him. Years ago, when he would post up for questions on his podcast, I asked him to talk about Toys For Tots and Wounded Warrior and ask him to mention that it's a good time to give and think of those in need and be proactive for your community. It wasn't football related, but he did it. Both he and Lammey. Though people rarely say no to someone so persuasive with devastating levels of charm. And humility. A gesture should be repaid with a gesture. This is how honorable men should behave. So I'd tell him to see any cost related to this as a form of insurance. Write it off on your taxes and try to double it up as some kind of marketing push. At minimum, an open virtue signal to ward off the jackals at the gate looking for blood. Then I'd tell him to make a yearly donation to a self created children's charity that includes diversity and race. A donation from FBG as a whole and from each individual Staff member, based on extra money given to them at the  end of the year but cycled back with a paper trail. The DNC does this all the time, except they do it to launder money and enact open tax evasion. So why not do it here except for not the washing money and not cheating the IRS part. Something for kids like a charity that buys bookbags or school supplies for at risk/needy kids. It's internal so there's actual control over it. Now if someone makes a mistake on social media, and FBG's are called racist and face a For Profit race hustler, Bloom can say, we have a Race And Inclusion Officer, we have records for many years of donations to a worthy cause that helps minority kids, but also all kids, that comes from the parent organization but also each individual here. Then Old Man Gekko shows up and does spin control where if an attack happens,  it looks like some black militants hate children. They are so racist themselves, that they don't want poor needy children in Colorado or wherever from having backpacks and art supplies. See, that taps into parents above any political or racial narratives. Left or right, they are parents first. White or black or Asian or Latino, they are parents first.

This is what you call a "strongpoint" in crisis management, it's a defensible counter narrative that can't be flanked. There are some things you can't do in media optics no matter what and even the cancel culture can't attack them. You can't look like you hate children. You can't hard roll people who are special needs. You can't get caught on video punching a puppy in the face. You can't disparage an elderly combat veteran. Speaking of disparaging, I would probably also send Bloom a jacket he could wear any time of day, not just mornings, and one that won't make my eyes bleed.

All businesses need insurance. Think about all the insurance you have today. Heath insurance (Obama said you can keep your .... he even promised....never mind.....), car insurance, property insurance, business insurance, so now you need Race Hustler Extortion Insurance too. USA Today has a bigger profile and more to lose than FBG, that's a scaled up reality. So a "Race And Inclusion Editor" might sound completely stupid, but mostly it's designed to fight off socially acceptable stupid. Remember, I have lots of media optics skill, Bloom has some intermediate level skill, but many of these working stiff civilians out there are just trying to survive and stand no chance at all against even a mediocre lazy Race Hustler backed by a woked out MSM, simping Hollywood and bizarrely sociopathic Big Social Media.

As Slim Charles would say - The game is the same, it just got more fierce.

I saw Jesse Jackson last in front of Little League squad that got caught cheating ( they did something nutty like bring in a 32 year old Double A ringer to play 3rd base or something insane as such) and immediately said it was because of ... wait for it... racism. He changed the world, of that I have no doubt. He did do some things that helped racial divide early in his career. But he also created a For Profit cancel culture legacy that helped fill the world with uncomfortable silence and just plain hatred. His self inflicted fall from grace is what I mean when I say purity tests never truly end, they just keep looking for new targets.

The people I feel worst for are true activists for positive race relations who try to be decent human beings and want real lasting change to make the world a better place. What race hustlers steal the most isn't money or a false sense of power. They rob all hope from these good people who committed the crime of believing in a world worth saving.

Bloom, you put in the grind and what you have here, you earned. Good for you, son.

 
We got a Jesse Jackson reference up in here regarding "wokeness." In my lifetime, that's sort of exactly how I remember him operating (and I was young, so forgive me if this is incorrect). You strongman them into making a hire of a consultant. That was always the hustle.

Not sure how the FBG analogy fits at all and am unfamiliar with their hiring practices, but that sort of seems like a point best left unmade. It's confusing.

Anyway, here's Jesse, popping up at the Apple shareholder's meeting, for some reason. (Yes, he's a shareholder. Showing up at the meeting is a little, um, odd for most shareholders. Check the portending future shakedown in the paragraphs that follow the FBI bit.

Jesse is on the scene.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/26/reverend-jesse-jackson-apple-tim-cook-fbi-shareholders-meeting

 
More racism from the anti-racists.  A Boston hospital says it will offer “preferential care based on race” and “race-explicit interventions” in an attempt to engage in an “antiracist agenda for medicine” based on critical race theory. LINK

"Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law."  

 
More racism from the anti-racists.  A Boston hospital says it will offer “preferential care based on race” and “race-explicit interventions” in an attempt to engage in an “antiracist agenda for medicine” based on critical race theory. LINK

"Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law."  
Fighting RACISM!  with even more RACISM!

wow.  :doh:

 
More racism from the anti-racists.  A Boston hospital says it will offer “preferential care based on race” and “race-explicit interventions” in an attempt to engage in an “antiracist agenda for medicine” based on critical race theory. LINK

"Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law."  
Strangely, the authors of this piece seem to know perfectly well that what they're proposing is plainly illegal.  It's not often that you see people say that out loud.

Offering preferential care based on race or ethnicity may elicit legal challenges from our system of colorblind law. But given the ample current evidence that our health, judicial, and other systems already unfairly preference people who are white, we believe—following the ethical framework of Zack and others—that our approach is corrective and therefore mandated. We encourage other institutions to proceed confidently on behalf of equity and racial justice, with backing provided by recent White House executive orders.
Edit: Note how the word "colorblind" is used by the authors as a mild pejorative.  That's pretty normal in these circles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edit: Note how the word "colorblind" is used by the authors as a mild pejorative.  That's pretty normal in these circles.
Yep. Definitely been seeing this. It is crazy to me that they think such a strategy will net gains in the long run. 

Basically saying you must recognize our identifying characteristics as special and defining and acknowledge that your characteristic is really bad, but then denounce any other identity with that characteristic. 

How do they not see what the end result of that will be? 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top