|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 15, 2022 10:23:03 GMT -5
Again, this is me understanding the "logic" (besides the not having sex workers be in the same company as something marketing to kids because that's weird but whatever) but the answer just seems to be "America still has a bad image towards sex workers and sex work in general" and yeah, I also watched that episode of Last Week Tonight.
But I'm trying to understand how me as a company wouldn't look at some of the other stuff that came out in the last couple of years and not think that would also affect their image as a sponsor? Like, this is the same company that fired Emma for shoplifting minutes after they found out about it before rescinding it when they found out the full story. How is one crime, a crime that doesn't harm anyone except, in theory, the store she's steling from, less serious than another? Just make it make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by WoodStoner1 on Dec 15, 2022 10:24:20 GMT -5
I am wondering if she was a scapegoat for WWE to prove they're still PG despite this week's WSJ's writings. That said, I can see Hunter possibly taking this back.
|
|
|
Post by mistery on Dec 15, 2022 10:32:11 GMT -5
Again, this is me understanding the "logic" (besides the not having sex workers be in the same company as something marketing to kids because that's weird but whatever) but the answer just seems to be "America still has a bad image towards sex workers and sex work in general" and yeah, I also watched that episode of Last Week Tonight. But I'm trying to understand how me as a company wouldn't look at some of the other stuff that came out in the last couple of years and not think that would also affect their image as a sponsor? Like, this is the same company that fired Emma for shoplifting minutes after they found out about it before rescinding it when they found out the full story. How is one crime, a crime that doesn't harm anyone except, in theory, the store she's steling from, less serious than another? Just make it make sense to me. The difference is they rehired Emma after it was found out that she was actually innocent. Also America and the world in general views DUIs and drug offenses as more minor than sex work. Also sex work in general is frowned upon by society, and people will have to change the perception of that if they want it to change. But I realistically don't see it happening within our lifetime. As for Mandy's stuff, she was willingly putting this stuff out there, despite knowing that WWE was pushing itself as a PG product. And she signed a contract knowing that she was violating the morality clause. Basically she was this meme brought to life (f bomb alert). www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6sbPCIEMyIPeople are more compassionate about DUIs and other drug offenses because its been proven that alcohol and drugs are addictive. So WWE likely offers rehab as a gesture of good will. If they turn down rehab, then they likely get fired. And if they get three offenses, they get fired. That's been public knowledge for awhile. I am wondering if she was a scapegoat for WWE to prove they're still PG despite this week's WSJ's writings. That said, I can see Hunter possibly taking this back. He won't have a say in the matter, because odds are pretty good that Hunter would be overruled by Nick Khan if it would jeopardize their partnership with Mattel or any other company they work with. Nick is higher on the pecking order than Hunter in the corporate ladder.
|
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 17,458
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on Dec 15, 2022 10:33:30 GMT -5
I think my issue is just the fact that companies have this double standard about things. It's "fair" if you use a morality cause to fire Mandy if she didn't want to stop her lucrative side hustle. But if that the case, maybe use that morality clause to cover things like people risking others lives (something I'd think is a bigger issue than pornography) or look further than their noses when multiple people accuse someone as a sex pest.
Like I get firing her here, I don't agree with it but I get it, but have those standards extend beyond something harmless like porn at least.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Dec 15, 2022 10:36:48 GMT -5
I think my issue is just the fact that companies have this double standard about things. It's "fair" if you use a morality cause to fire Mandy if she didn't want to stop her lucrative side hustle. But if that the case, maybe use that morality clause to cover things like people risking others lives (something I'd think is a bigger issue than pornography) or look further than their noses when multiple people accuse someone as a sex pest. Like I get firing her here, I don't agree with it but I get it, but have those standards extend beyond something harmless like porn at least. They don’t need to point to a morality clause or the like in order to fire her. They can fire any talent for any reason. The “morality” aspect only comes into play because this seems to have involved a big sponsor getting upset about it. If sponsors were upset about the other outside the ropes issues (such as the DUIs), then I would expect similar treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 15, 2022 10:38:59 GMT -5
I think my issue is just the fact that companies have this double standard about things. It's "fair" if you use a morality cause to fire Mandy if she didn't want to stop her lucrative side hustle. But if that the case, maybe use that morality clause to cover things like people risking others lives (something I'd think is a bigger issue than pornography) or look further than their noses when multiple people accuse someone as a sex pest. Like I get firing her here, I don't agree with it but I get it, but have those standards extend beyond something harmless like porn at least. And using "Well, America just sees that stuff as minor compared to sex work" doesn't make things less logical, it makes it more illogical to me. Like, I'd rather people just say what the NFL does for all the domestic abuses that get pushed aside. That it's more marketable for the company to keep Jimmy Uso around despite the DUIs or (insert WWE star accused during Speaking Out) than someone who is doing something they can't control or breaks the messed up contracts. Just be honest about it.
|
|
|
Post by mistery on Dec 15, 2022 10:41:09 GMT -5
I think my issue is just the fact that companies have this double standard about things. It's "fair" if you use a morality cause to fire Mandy if she didn't want to stop her lucrative side hustle. But if that the case, maybe use that morality clause to cover things like people risking others lives (something I'd think is a bigger issue than pornography) or look further than their noses when multiple people accuse someone as a sex pest. Like I get firing her here, I don't agree with it but I get it, but have those standards extend beyond something harmless like porn at least. So here's the thing about the morality clause. If the person in question is credibly accused of a crime and they are found guilty in a court of law, WWE can invoke the morality clause, depending on the offense. The Usos DUI stuff likely also falls under the whole three strikes rule, and both of them have only been found guilty once or twice, and were sentenced to probation. Neither of them faced any actual jail time for their crimes. However, in the case of sex work, the morality clause also comes into effect, because it's written into the contracts that if something would offend a sponsor or other employees, the company reserves the right to terminate your contract at any time. And guess who would be offended by it? Sponsors definitely would be. It's basically at the company's discretion. And the goal of a business is to make money. Mandy's sexcapades would cost them money. A lot of it. That's not even factoring in advertisers likely not wanting anything to do with it, which would jeopardize WWE's TV deals.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 15, 2022 10:42:51 GMT -5
I think my issue is just the fact that companies have this double standard about things. It's "fair" if you use a morality cause to fire Mandy if she didn't want to stop her lucrative side hustle. But if that the case, maybe use that morality clause to cover things like people risking others lives (something I'd think is a bigger issue than pornography) or look further than their noses when multiple people accuse someone as a sex pest. Like I get firing her here, I don't agree with it but I get it, but have those standards extend beyond something harmless like porn at least. So here's the thing about the morality clause. If the person in question is credibly accused of a crime and they are found guilty in a court of law, WWE can invoke the morality clause, depending on the offense. The Usos DUI stuff likely also falls under the whole three strikes rule, and both of them have only been found guilty once or twice, and were sentenced to probation. Neither of them faced any actual jail time for their crimes. However, in the case of sex work, the morality clause also comes into effect, because it's written into the contracts that if something would offend a sponsor or other employees, the company reserves the right to terminate your contract at any time. And guess who would be offended by it? Sponsors definitely would be. And my point is that it's messed up. Because both should be under the latter. The fact they're not is messed up, regardless of all the weird justifications for it that people can have.
|
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 17,458
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on Dec 15, 2022 10:46:32 GMT -5
I think my issue is just the fact that companies have this double standard about things. It's "fair" if you use a morality cause to fire Mandy if she didn't want to stop her lucrative side hustle. But if that the case, maybe use that morality clause to cover things like people risking others lives (something I'd think is a bigger issue than pornography) or look further than their noses when multiple people accuse someone as a sex pest. Like I get firing her here, I don't agree with it but I get it, but have those standards extend beyond something harmless like porn at least. So here's the thing about the morality clause. If the person in question is credibly accused of a crime and they are found guilty in a court of law, WWE can invoke the morality clause, depending on the offense. The Usos DUI stuff likely also falls under the whole three strikes rule, and both of them have only been found guilty once or twice, and were sentenced to probation. Neither of them faced any actual jail time for their crimes. However, in the case of sex work, the morality clause also comes into effect, because it's written into the contracts that if something would offend a sponsor or other employees, the company reserves the right to terminate your contract at any time. And guess who would be offended by it? Sponsors definitely would be. I get that but it makes zero sense. Sex work isn't and shouldn't be a crime, so why isn't something, that while not prosecuted as a crime, is more harmful to the world at large held in the same regard and judged as such? I know the answer but it doesn't make me any less annoyed and pissed off. I'd rather some asshole with multiple DUIs get canned over someone putting out 10 second porn vids at $100 bucks a pop.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,413
|
Post by Legion on Dec 15, 2022 10:59:41 GMT -5
So here's the thing about the morality clause. If the person in question is credibly accused of a crime and they are found guilty in a court of law, WWE can invoke the morality clause, depending on the offense. The Usos DUI stuff likely also falls under the whole three strikes rule, and both of them have only been found guilty once or twice, and were sentenced to probation. Neither of them faced any actual jail time for their crimes. However, in the case of sex work, the morality clause also comes into effect, because it's written into the contracts that if something would offend a sponsor or other employees, the company reserves the right to terminate your contract at any time. And guess who would be offended by it? Sponsors definitely would be. I get that but it makes zero sense. Sex work isn't and shouldn't be a crime, so why isn't something, that while not prosecuted as a crime, is more harmful to the world at large held in the same regard and judged as such? I know the answer but it doesn't make me any less annoyed and pissed off. I'd rather some asshole with multiple DUIs get canned over someone putting out 10 second porn vids at $100 bucks a pop. Then next time it happens, if WWE does nothing, people need to alert the sponsors en masse. As it seems WWE will only care if they are made to. It seems this stuff had actually been going on a long time and WWE did nothing, they only acted when Mattel made them. So if we want to see change for other alleged moral issues, then we need sponsors to take notice. Didnt something similar happen with Snickers and a social media campaign that spooked them about something that made WWE change plans? So it can work.
|
|
|
Post by mistery on Dec 15, 2022 10:59:54 GMT -5
So here's the thing about the morality clause. If the person in question is credibly accused of a crime and they are found guilty in a court of law, WWE can invoke the morality clause, depending on the offense. The Usos DUI stuff likely also falls under the whole three strikes rule, and both of them have only been found guilty once or twice, and were sentenced to probation. Neither of them faced any actual jail time for their crimes. However, in the case of sex work, the morality clause also comes into effect, because it's written into the contracts that if something would offend a sponsor or other employees, the company reserves the right to terminate your contract at any time. And guess who would be offended by it? Sponsors definitely would be. I get that but it makes zero sense. Sex work isn't and shouldn't be a crime, so why isn't something, that while not prosecuted as a crime, is more harmful to the world at large held in the same regard and judged as such? I know the answer but it doesn't make me any less annoyed and pissed off. I'd rather some asshole with multiple DUIs get canned over someone putting out 10 second porn vids at $100 bucks a pop. That's not a WWE problem, that's a sponsor problem. Take it up with WWE's sponsors, but they'll likely just either ignore you or laugh you out of the room. WWE isn't going to jeopardize TV deals and sponsorships which would result in losing hundreds of millions of dollars just to keep Mandy Rose happy. As for the DUI stuff, society in general views DUIs as smaller moral offenses than sex work. That's just reality right now. Also alcohol and drugs are addictive, and WWE offers rehab for that stuff. If the wrestler refuses to go to rehab, they get fired. Likewise, if they get three offenses, they get fired. I get that but it makes zero sense. Sex work isn't and shouldn't be a crime, so why isn't something, that while not prosecuted as a crime, is more harmful to the world at large held in the same regard and judged as such? I know the answer but it doesn't make me any less annoyed and pissed off. I'd rather some asshole with multiple DUIs get canned over someone putting out 10 second porn vids at $100 bucks a pop. Then next time it happens, if WWE does nothing, people need to alert the sponsors en masse. As it seems WWE will only care if they are made to. It seems this stuff had actually been going on a long time and WWE did nothing, they only acted when Mattel made them. So if we want to see change for other alleged moral issues, then we need sponsors to take notice. Didnt something something happen with Snickers and a social media campaign that spooked them about something that made WWE change plans? So it can work. The Moolah stuff, which was basically that she sexually abused the women and made them into prostitutes. So it falls under the same general umbrella as Mandy's stuff did (sexual in nature). As for the DUI stuff, you can get outraged all you want at sponsors, but they'll just ignore you, because you don't see any of the people who are getting these DUIs or drug offenses going out there and saying "hey yeah driving while intoxicated and doing drugs are cool". Where Mandy is willingly doing this and doesn't want to stop doing it.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 15, 2022 11:00:49 GMT -5
Makes me wonder how much Google plays a role in things today; I remember being a kid and being sad as hell when they took Pee Wee's Playhouse off CBS on Saturday mornings, but the irony is that the only reason I heard about what Paul Reubens had been caught doing was because they took Pee Wee off TV, and I asked questions about it and got a (relatively kid-friendly) answer.
But again, no Google back then, so different world, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 15, 2022 11:07:28 GMT -5
I feel like someone should check in on Wade Barrett right now. Check in on your horndog bisexual friends today. I'm doing fine, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hypnosis on Dec 15, 2022 11:09:20 GMT -5
Makes me wonder how much Google plays a role in things today; I remember being a kid and being sad as hell when they took Pee Wee's Playhouse off CBS on Saturday mornings, but the irony is that the only reason I heard about what Paul Reubens had been caught doing was because they took Pee Wee off TV, and I asked questions about it and got a (relatively kid-friendly) answer. But again, no Google back then, so different world, I suppose. I'm guessing the answer was:"Some things are better off left inside the Playhouse."
|
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,966
Member is Online
|
Post by XIII on Dec 15, 2022 11:11:16 GMT -5
One of my main issues is that the WWE is woefully inconsistent in how they punish people:
Jimmy Uso: 5 arrests for DUI. The most recent from July 5, 2021 dude blew a .205 at 10:35 AM(how insane is that!?) but no disciplinary action was taken because he was important to the Roman storyline.
Rob Van Dam pulled over for speeding and they found weed and some Vicodin pills(in which the charges were dropped when he showed a prescription) dropped the WWE and ECW titles and suspended for 30 days. This was before the WWE was a strict PG.
Paige makes multiple sex tapes that are leaked including with other wrestlers and cumming on a WWE title, it becomes a big joke referenced years later ON WWE programming.
Mandy releases nothing near as graphic as that but it’s for profit and behind a paywall that you need a credit card to even access and some of it is leaked by a loser that then tries to blackmail her. Released.
We all get it, she was in violation of the terms of contract and the WWE and Mandy made their choices and they’ll both be fine, but there is absolutely zero consistency with how the WWE doles out these punishments.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Dec 15, 2022 11:17:34 GMT -5
Jimmy Uso: 5 arrests for DUI. The most recent from July 5, 2021 dude blew a .205 at 10:35 AM(how insane is that!?) but no disciplinary action was taken because he was important to the Roman storyline. . I’ll correct you and say that wasn’t his most recent. It was April 2022. That’s where the infamous “We have no responsibility for what our talent do outside of work” statement came from. It was also a couple of weeks before the Usos unified the tag titles.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Stud Muffin (BLM) on Dec 15, 2022 11:18:12 GMT -5
One of my main issues is that the WWE is woefully inconsistent in how they punish people: Jimmy Uso: 5 arrests for DUI. The most recent from July 5, 2021 dude blew a .205 at 10:35 AM(how insane is that!?) but no disciplinary action was taken because he was important to the Roman storyline. Rob Van Dam pulled over for speeding and they found weed and some Vicodin pills(in which the charges were dropped when he showed a prescription) dropped the WWE and ECW titles and suspended for 30 days. This was before the WWE was a strict PG. Paige makes multiple sex tapes that are leaked including with other wrestlers and cumming on a WWE title, it becomes a big joke referenced years later ON WWE programming. Mandy releases nothing near as graphic as that but it’s for profit and behind a paywall that you need a credit card to even access and some of it is leaked by a loser that then tries to blackmail her. Released. We all get it, she was in violation of the terms of contract and the WWE and Mandy made their choices and they’ll both be fine, but there is absolutely zero consistency with how the WWE doles out these punishments. The Paige situation was diff. She wasn’t selling those videos for profit, it was a legit invasion of her privacy. Meanwhile, with Mandy her stuff got leaked and if she has it protected, she can sue the people who probably violated the rules of ownership of that material that she sold to them them
|
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,966
Member is Online
|
Post by XIII on Dec 15, 2022 11:23:38 GMT -5
Jimmy Uso: 5 arrests for DUI. The most recent from July 5, 2021 dude blew a .205 at 10:35 AM(how insane is that!?) but no disciplinary action was taken because he was important to the Roman storyline. . I’ll correct you and say that wasn’t his most recent. It was April 2022. That’s where the infamous “We have no responsibility for what our talent do outside of work” statement came from. It was also a couple of weeks before the Usos unified the tag titles. LMAO this dude is a menace. I forgot about that one.
|
|
XIII
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,966
Member is Online
|
Post by XIII on Dec 15, 2022 11:31:57 GMT -5
One of my main issues is that the WWE is woefully inconsistent in how they punish people: Jimmy Uso: 5 arrests for DUI. The most recent from July 5, 2021 dude blew a .205 at 10:35 AM(how insane is that!?) but no disciplinary action was taken because he was important to the Roman storyline. Rob Van Dam pulled over for speeding and they found weed and some Vicodin pills(in which the charges were dropped when he showed a prescription) dropped the WWE and ECW titles and suspended for 30 days. This was before the WWE was a strict PG. Paige makes multiple sex tapes that are leaked including with other wrestlers and cumming on a WWE title, it becomes a big joke referenced years later ON WWE programming. Mandy releases nothing near as graphic as that but it’s for profit and behind a paywall that you need a credit card to even access and some of it is leaked by a loser that then tries to blackmail her. Released. We all get it, she was in violation of the terms of contract and the WWE and Mandy made their choices and they’ll both be fine, but there is absolutely zero consistency with how the WWE doles out these punishments. The Paige situation was diff. She wasn’t selling those videos for profit, it was a legit invasion of her privacy. Meanwhile, with Mandy her stuff got leaked and if she has it protected, she can sue the people who probably violated the rules of ownership of that material that she sold to them them That’s true, my point though is that if sponsors are truly worried about these types of things then they’re not going to care whether it was released legally or illegally. It’s WWE wrestlers getting freaky on camera and being referenced ON WWE programming. Literally the only difference is that Mandy was getting paid for her content. Which leads me to deduce that the real problem is that it somehow it got out to management at just how much Mandy was making and that’s at least part of the reason why she was let go. Just my opinion. 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
pinja
Unicron
Posts: 3,144
|
Post by pinja on Dec 15, 2022 11:32:50 GMT -5
The fact that you can find nudes or porn of a female celebrity when using google rings hollow as the sole argument when you can find fakes and deepfakes of pretty much anyone. The difference would be that one is "real" and the other is not, but in both cases finding it in the general public would not be what the celebrity wants.
|
|