Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2011 20:11:49 GMT -5
You know, rather than outright fired, I'd rather 30 Rock do an episode focusing on this and making Tracey look a total tit. That would be pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by Limity (BLM) on Jun 10, 2011 20:13:36 GMT -5
He's still protected. If he's fired to ''Protect Gay Rights'' or whatever than that's violating his rights. It isn't, because the initial right to free speech isn't being infringed upon. Jesus christ, you people need to actually read and comprehend the Constitution. Our 'rights' to free speech apply only to protection from government censorship.
|
|
|
Post by Macho Dude Handy Damage on Jun 10, 2011 20:34:59 GMT -5
Anyone can say whatever they like under "freedom of speech" -- I don't have to agree. However, there is also the often forgotten "freedom to ignore now and going forward" which can easily be followed. While this is true, I refuse to defend the rights of someone like that. Of someone that ignores a statement such as this or someone who spouts out the kinda thing Morgan spouted?
|
|
Tony Stark
Bubba Ho-Tep
I'm totally not Iron Man ?_?
Posts: 587
|
Post by Tony Stark on Jun 10, 2011 20:48:16 GMT -5
So, I take it none of you have ever seen a Frankie Boyle show then.
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jun 10, 2011 21:52:34 GMT -5
You know, with all the censorship and other stuff goin on in TN, I kinda am hoping against hope this is one big meta joke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2011 21:55:03 GMT -5
I don't deny that he doesn't have a right to free speech, but it can come with consequences. If I was an NBC executive, I wouldn't want the company associated with homophobic rants, which this appeared to be. If his career is ruined, then it's his own fault for speaking without due consideration first. He's still protected. If he's fired to ''Protect Gay Rights'' or whatever than that's violating his rights. No, NBC (or whoever has his contract in order for 30 Rock) isn't the government so it isn't violating any rights. NBC is a company and as such can have their own standards for how their employees act on and off company time, and if he violated said standards then they are well within their rights to fire or release him from his contract and he is well within his rights to accept it. Plus, they would not be prohibiting him from saying the things he said, just no longer requiring his services for their television program. None of his rights are being violated.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Jun 10, 2011 23:24:49 GMT -5
Again, Tracy Morgan is no more protected from being fired from his job by the Constitution than you or I are protected from being modded, suspended or banned from the forums by the Constitution.
The 1st Amendment *only* covers government suppression of speech. People and private companies are still free to denigrate or ostracize you for the things you say.
Please get this right.
|
|
Fern
Bubba Ho-Tep
Who gives a f***?
Posts: 528
|
Post by Fern on Jun 11, 2011 0:35:55 GMT -5
So, I take it none of you have ever seen a Frankie Boyle show then. I can actually guarantee that Frankie Boyle would not wish to be compared to this.
|
|
|
Post by rchi84 on Jun 11, 2011 2:18:04 GMT -5
whatever. it's just his opinion and he's entitled to it. Doesn't mean he's right though..
|
|
|
Post by Chuckie Finster on Jun 11, 2011 6:07:02 GMT -5
I have my opinion, but if I tell you all, then you're going to form an opinion based on my opinion and some of them I might not like. I also have my opinion of several of your opinions, but i won't say them because then you might tell me how I should formulate my opinion regarding your opinion.
Eh f*** it.
Morgan screwed up. It would be in his best intrest of his career to do damage control. Being a LGBT can be a choice as well as a lifestyle and your choice and/or lifestyle is not something that would make me think differently of you. We all have the right to be offended at what anyone says. The First Amendment has no basis in this conversation unless it becomes a criminal matter (under the new TN law, who knows).
|
|
|
Post by Zero Orchestra on Jun 11, 2011 13:50:34 GMT -5
Sadly, Tracy has a history of homonegative commentary. I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen after he espoused these views in a public forum. I've noticed people across the board trying to pardon this behaviour by saying, "oh, he was only joking" but that doesn't sit well with me. Yes, comedians often make edgy jokes and try to push the envelope but generally when they do, it's intelligent satire or they make clever use of derogatory terms. Tracy, however, was ranting. There was no punchline, there was no "haha" moment, just a sad 40 year old man ranting about other peoples private sexual habits. I agree with another poster who said that they aren't necessarily angry at him, but rather, pity him and I'd have to echo that.
|
|
Fern
Bubba Ho-Tep
Who gives a f***?
Posts: 528
|
Post by Fern on Jun 11, 2011 13:54:02 GMT -5
Sadly, Tracy has a history of homonegative commentary. I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen after he espoused these views in a public forum. I've noticed people across the board trying to pardon this behaviour by saying, " oh, he was only joking" but that doesn't sit well with me. Yes, comedians often make edgy jokes and try to push the envelope but generally when they do, it's intelligent satire or they make clever use of derogatory terms. Tracy, however, was ranting. There was no punchline, there was no "haha" moment, just a sad 40 year old man ranting about other peoples private sexual habits. I agree with another poster who said that they aren't necessarily angry at him, but rather, pity him and I'd have to echo that. There being nothing funny in it is just you're opinion. (And mine, too). It doesn't mean it's fact.
|
|
|
Post by Zero Orchestra on Jun 11, 2011 13:57:00 GMT -5
Sadly, Tracy has a history of homonegative commentary. I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen after he espoused these views in a public forum. I've noticed people across the board trying to pardon this behaviour by saying, " oh, he was only joking" but that doesn't sit well with me. Yes, comedians often make edgy jokes and try to push the envelope but generally when they do, it's intelligent satire or they make clever use of derogatory terms. Tracy, however, was ranting. There was no punchline, there was no "haha" moment, just a sad 40 year old man ranting about other peoples private sexual habits. I agree with another poster who said that they aren't necessarily angry at him, but rather, pity him and I'd have to echo that. There being nothing funny in it is just you're opinion. (And mine, too). It doesn't mean it's fact. Well, yes, I understand that humour is subjective, but where, exactly was the punchline? Was the audience intended to laugh when Tracy explained how he would stab his gay child? Was the audience intended to laugh when he said that he doesn't care if he "offended gays"? There is a difference between delivering a joke and a hateful rant and this was most certainly the latter.
|
|
The Man
Trap-Jaw
Don't Blame Me
Posts: 253
|
Post by The Man on Jun 11, 2011 14:06:24 GMT -5
I don't know if this has been brought up yet since I didn't read the whole thread, but a lot of people keep saying that the most offensive part was Tracy saying he would stab his son if he were gay. The problem is that he didn't say that. This is a word for word from the article posted.
Morgan informed the audience “that the gays needed to quit being p—ies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying” and that “if his son that was gay he better come home and talk to him like a man…or he would pull out a knife and stab that little [n-----] to death.”
Now there are a few ways you can interpret his words. The first would be that Morgan doesn't want his gay son coming home to him and whining about bullies. The second way could be that Morgan would stab his son if his son starts talking in the stereotypical "gay" voice. Anyway I'm sure there are a few more interpretations you could make, but I don't believe any of them are as straightforward and blatant as if my son were gay I'd stab him.
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,873
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on Jun 11, 2011 14:09:29 GMT -5
I don't know if this has been brought up yet since I didn't read the whole thread, but a lot of people keep saying that the most offensive part was Tracy saying he would stab his son if he were gay. The problem is that he didn't say that. This is a word for word from the article posted. Morgan informed the audience “that the gays needed to quit being p—ies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying” and that “if his son that was gay he better come home and talk to him like a man…or he would pull out a knife and stab that little [n-----] to death.” Now there are a few ways you can interpret his words. The first would be that Morgan doesn't want his gay son coming home to him and whining about bullies. The second way could be that Morgan would stab his son if his son starts talking in the stereotypical "gay" voice. Anyway I'm sure there are a few more interpretations you could make, but I don't believe any of them are as straightforward and blatant as if my son were gay I'd stab him. Yeah, agreed on that. I even made comment on it in my first post. The headline of the article is definitely sensational and a little misleading. I still don't think the stuff he said was okay, but yeah, he didn't straight up say he would stab his son if he were gay.
|
|
|
Post by Zero Orchestra on Jun 11, 2011 14:14:10 GMT -5
and that “if his son that was gay he better come home and talk to him like a man…or he would pull out a knife and stab that little [n-----] to death.” Whatever way you want to interpret it, it's a hateful thing to say. The implication is that, if his son came home and spoke like a homosexual, that he would stab him "to death". He then followed this by claiming that he didn't care if he "offended gays". This is inexcusable.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfpack Bitch on Jun 11, 2011 14:37:01 GMT -5
Whatever was said or wasn't said. This was put out there to cause a stir. Publicity, either good or bad is still publicity. People are talking and wagging their tongues.
People in today's society are going to read things and read into things in a manner that allows them to be offended. We, as a whole, are an easily offended people that overall need to toughen up regardless of the topic. Too many people go out of their way to be offended. If someone has an opinion that differs from yours, so be it. They're allowed. Shrug it off, you're never going to change their minds anymore than they will change yours. Live and let live. You don't like what celebrity X has to say, stop watching their movies, buying their music whatever. You are never going to get him / her to stop saying things to offend you.
Now, who the hell is Tracy Morgan ?
|
|
|
Post by Zero Orchestra on Jun 11, 2011 14:53:27 GMT -5
People in today's society are going to read things and read into things in a manner that allows them to be offended. Yeah, I agree that people can be too sensitive, but no matter what way you read into what Tracy said, there is no excuse for his hateful, destructive tirade. This is the same kind of rhetoric that we have been trying to curb for years. Obviously people are entitled to feel as they want to about other cultures, sexualities, races etc. However, when you are a 'celebrated' person who can easily influence others, you need to be careful about what you say and how you say it. That's the nature of being a celebrity. There was near universal outrage when Michael Richards went on his rant but I've noticed that because in this case it is sexuality rather than race, there are too many people excusing this behaviour and rationalising it as a "joke". I'm wondering why there is a distinction there. If he had said that he would stab his son if he were white, wouldn't you think there would be a massive outcry? Homosexuality, like race, is not chosen and therefore are perfectly comparable.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfpack Bitch on Jun 11, 2011 14:57:50 GMT -5
People in today's society are going to read things and read into things in a manner that allows them to be offended. Yeah, I agree that people can be too sensitive, but no matter what way you read into what Tracy said, there is no excuse for his hateful, destructive tirade. This is the same kind of rhetoric that we have been trying to curb for years. Obviously people are entitled to feel as they want to about other cultures, sexualities, races etc. However, when you are a 'celebrated' person who can easily influence others, you need to be careful about what you say and how you say it. That's the nature of being a celebrity. There was near universal outrage when Michael Richards went on his rant but I've noticed that because in this case it is sexuality rather than race, there are too many people excusing this behaviour and rationalising it as a "joke". I'm wondering why there is a distinction there. If he had said that he would stab his son if he were white, wouldn't you think there would be a massive outcry? Homosexuality, like race, is not chosen and therefore are perfectly comparable. I'm not saying that what he's said is a joke or should be passed off as one. I'm saying that he's putting something out there to simply get a reaction and garner attention. In an educated society, we need to realize that and not play his game. The more reactionary we, the common public, are with stuff like this the more often edgier celebs are going to use it as a publicity tool.
|
|
|
Post by Zero Orchestra on Jun 11, 2011 15:08:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree that people can be too sensitive, but no matter what way you read into what Tracy said, there is no excuse for his hateful, destructive tirade. This is the same kind of rhetoric that we have been trying to curb for years. Obviously people are entitled to feel as they want to about other cultures, sexualities, races etc. However, when you are a 'celebrated' person who can easily influence others, you need to be careful about what you say and how you say it. That's the nature of being a celebrity. There was near universal outrage when Michael Richards went on his rant but I've noticed that because in this case it is sexuality rather than race, there are too many people excusing this behaviour and rationalising it as a "joke". I'm wondering why there is a distinction there. If he had said that he would stab his son if he were white, wouldn't you think there would be a massive outcry? Homosexuality, like race, is not chosen and therefore are perfectly comparable. I'm not saying that what he's said is a joke or should be passed off as one. I'm saying that he's putting something out there to simply get a reaction and garner attention. In an educated society, we need to realize that and not play his game. The more reactionary we, the common public, are with stuff like this the more often edgier celebs are going to use it as a publicity tool. I don't think anybody is likely to adopt this kind of rhetoric as a "publicity tool". Espousing views like this has been career suicide. Mel Gibson is ruined. Isaiah Washington is ruined. Michael Richards is ruined. As a society, we must be reactionary to ignorant tirades like this because if we don't, we are allowing this kind of vitriol to be spread by some of the most entitled people in the world. Not only are they paid erroneous amounts of money, but they are also allowed to spread destructive ideas using a public forum? That doesn't sit well with me.
|
|