Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Perhaps is that someone were rational in his/her explanation people would rationally talk about the subject with him/her. Self righteousness doesn't choose sides, does it? This is a cop out, IMO. I think lots of people make dishonest, inappropriate, and/or offensive comments, many of which are not rationally based in reality. However, I rarely if ever call for the speaker to be forcibly silenced. I call out the absurdity of his statement and point out why it's absurd. It's an often overlooked truth that if you can't provide a rational explanation for your position, you don't have one. People going on emotionally charged tirades would do well to remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Kevin Kiley, the sports talk radio host who called the hiring of a female coach "absurd," is out of a job. He cited his "principles" as leading to his resignation. He told radio fans, "You shouldn't accept censorship ever." Apparently we should accept misogyny. We should accept sexism and idiocy. We should accept a man who denigrates a woman he doesn't even know. But we shouldn't accept the outcry of rightly offended people who drove him out of his job? http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/02/kevin_kiley_sports_talk_radio_host.html People seem to mistake the principle "freedom of speech" for "license to say whatever you want, wherever you want" and "freedom from other people's freedom of speech" I used to work for a company that had a clear policy that employees shall not talk to the press, they shall direct press inquiries to a public relations spokesperson. One young woman talked to a reporter about a potential gunfire/assailant situation on site and though her remarks were pretty uncontroversial, she was terminated immediately for cause. She was not being censored. Kiley was free to say what he wanted. He is still free to say whatever he wants. People who heard what he said and didn't like it are also free to say what they want. They are equally protected under the law. The company that he worked for is free to decide his opinions don't align with the image they want to present and ask him to conform to the image they want to present or depart. He can give interviews to other media outlets expressing his outrage with this, he can get a job with another media outlet where his views align with their image. He is not being prevented from so doing in any way, which WOULD be censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Perhaps we as a society shouldn't be so quick to throw around PC buzz words like "sexism" and "misogyny" anytime someone says something that touches on any issue of sexual politics. Perhaps instead of calling for the heads of people we disagree with we should rationally explanation what flaws we see in their positions and why. Perhaps we should pull our heads out of our self righteous asses and climb said asses down from our high horses. I have no problem with the dialog. This guy sounds like a clown "women should not be allowed to vote on the HOF ballot" is another of his lines--who is now getting his 15 minutes. No one will miss him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 This is a cop out, IMO. I think lots of people make dishonest, inappropriate, and/or offensive comments, many of which are not rationally based in reality. However, I rarely if ever call for the speaker to be forcibly silenced. I call out the absurdity of his statement and point out why it's absurd. It's an often overlooked truth that if you can't provide a rational explanation for your position, you don't have one. People going on emotionally charged tirades would do well to remember that. I don't think so. Guy had a public forum that you and I don't have. His words/actions carry weight that even yours fail to approach. He was an idiot. He faces the consequences of that idiocy. But, continue on your own self righteous way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Perhaps we as a society shouldn't be so quick to throw around PC buzz words like "sexism" and "misogyny" anytime someone says something that touches on any issue of sexual politics. Perhaps instead of calling for the heads of people we disagree with we should rationally explanation what flaws we see in their positions and why. Perhaps we should pull our heads out of our self righteous asses and climb said asses down from our high horses. I don't think this is an "either or not both" situation. People can explain why they see flaws in a position they disagree with, AND feel that they don't want to subsidize a platform for someone to state that position in the form of listenership to a radio station or readership of a paper. Their freedom to make both views known is just as protected under the first amendment as the views they object to. Having a right to free speech does not constitute a right to a specific platform to express that speech or to protection from others free-speech right to object to the speech, or the possession of the platform from which to express it as long as the objections are expressed lawfully. Implying that exercising free-speech rights in response to views one dislikes constitutes having one's head up one's ass and being self-righteous is, IMO, an expression of self-righteousness on your part. I will be pleasantly surprised if you're able to see this, however. Edited February 14, 2016 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I don't think this is an "either or not both" situation. People can explain why they see flaws in a position they disagree with, AND feel that they don't want to subsidize a platform for someone to state that position in the form of listenership to a radio station or readership of a paper. Their freedom to make both views known is just as protected under the first amendment as the views they object to. Having a right to free speech does not constitute a right to a specific platform to express that speech or to protection from others free-speech right to object to the speech, or the possession of the platform from which to express it as long as the objections are expressed lawfully. Implying that exercising free-speech rights in response to views one dislikes constitutes having one's head up one's ass and being self-righteous is, IMO, an expression of self-righteousness on your part. I will be pleasantly surprised if you're able to see this, however. I don't have any problem with people expressing themselves. I don't have a problem with people who choose not to listen. I choose not to subscribe to HBO because I don't want to support the garbage they peddle. I don't, however, start online petitions, send emails to the parent company, etc. demanding that they cancel or censor the people I don't like. Not sure how that makes me self-righteous, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I don't have any problem with people expressing themselves. I don't have a problem with people who choose not to listen. I choose not to subscribe to HBO because I don't want to support the garbage they peddle. I don't, however, start online petitions, send emails to the parent company, etc. demanding that they cancel or censor the people I don't like. Not sure how that makes me self-righteous, but whatever. Piggy-backing on Rob for a second, I don't even care if folks who really feel that strongly are the ones advocating for his removal. Moreso, I care about the folks petitioning for his removal who do it to pander and due to a mob mentality. How many will still care about this in 2 weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I have no problem with the dialog. This guy sounds like a clown "women should not be allowed to vote on the HOF ballot" is another of his lines--who is now getting his 15 minutes. No one will miss him. i like that station a lot but he's an idiot most of the time so I avoid that show. I'll probably tune in again now, his partner is decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 @buffalobills Congrats to the Pegulas on receiving the Tank Younger Award for fostering NFL diversity! http://bufbills.co/ZjPqgn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boater Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) @buffalobills Congrats to the Pegulas on receiving the Tank Younger Award for fostering NFL diversity! http://bufbills.co/ZjPqgn Thanks 26. I'm not a strident proponent of diversity.. but from practical experience, I know successful organizations need it. (long story omitted) Yay for the Bills, KP and TP. This deserves a new thread. Edited February 28, 2016 by boater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Bills quality control- special teams coach Kathryn Smith visits the White House Buffalo Bills quality control- special teams coach Kathryn Smith recently visited the White House for a reception in recognition of Women's History Month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 Bills quality control- special teams coach Kathryn Smith visits the White House nice catch 26 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts