So no one can every say anything that someone might be offended by, right?
:smack:
Best I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-an-Onion-Headline story:
Which part of what I said says anything about:
- Offending someone, or
- Someone “can’t say” something
Words can be more than words. They can have a cumulative effect that influences society, even if it is “just some guy on the Internet.”
What I said was, if someone says X, then I’m going to say Y, because it’s important. Which part of that is “people can’t say” something?
What makes you think that people should give you a pass for saying something on the Internet that they wouldn’t give you a pass for saying to someone’s face?
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech. As s human being, as a member of society, you should think about how what you say affects other people. That’s part of being an adult.
Free speech isn’t just “I get to say what I want.” It’s also “Other people get the freedom to say that what I said is wrong or harmful,” or whatever. “I don’t like what you said” is me exercising my freedom of speech.
There is anonymity on the web that allows folks do be outrageous when they would not in person.
I am amazed at the Facebook groups of left and right politicals. They insult the other guys left and right, but there is no attempt at discussion between the two. Each side believes the other to be “asshats” and worse.
:dubious:
Well, that’s just nature, not just human nature. You pick you teams, tribes, colonies, etc. and the other guys are ipso facto bad guys.
You can call it out, sure, but instead of working for prison reform initiatives, it’s really only feel-good slactivism. Because the only thing that truly happens is what’s gone on in this thread… almost total derailment from the original topic with a side heaping of sanctimony. It honestly doesn’t accomplish anything except preventing those who wanted to have a discussion into wading through a bunch of bullshit in its place.
And this is a pile of sanctimony, fallacious arguments, clichés, and name-calling that amounts to nothing but “shut up.”
Let’s everyone calm down some and dial back the outrage. The comments in here are getting a bit heated and are starting to push the envelope of what is okay in this forum.
Where’s the name-calling?
Can’t we all just hate Jared instead of each other? I mean really, did anyone ever like the guy before?
He came and went. Just when you had forgotten about him, they’d bring him back. Earlier this year he and his (former) family appeared in new commercials which retold his “origin story”.
The shitty thing about this for Subway is that Jared never did anything else. So every news story describes him as “former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle”. Unlike for example O.J. Simpson, who was “former professional football player” and not just “Hertz spokesman”.
To be surprised, I would have had to spend a nonzero amount of time thinking about Jared Fogle’s sexuality. I didn’t. If it were possible to spend negative time thinking about it, I would have done that.
Is Subway’s new sandwich going to feature prison loaf?
Somebody who watches porn featuring six-year-olds counts as a pedophile to me.
From what I’ve read, I believe he came numerous times.
At that point, and even now, it’s not clear what he was looking at or why. I was stating that it didn’t matter whether he wanted kiddie porn or not because of the other serious issues. So I don’t have to find out if he inadvertently ended up with that porn on his computer, he’s scum according to what we do know.
This reminds me of the whole Penn State fiasco. People went to business superiors rather than the authorities and those superiors covered it up.
Oh, and Fogle paid for sex with minors in Thailand, and who knows how young they were.
No biggie, but he just kinda pinged my gay-dar.
Can straight guys have gay-dar?
I saw a story that a specially-trained dog sniffed out the flash drives he’d hidden and that contained the incriminating photos and videos. I’m kind of surprised, because I didn’t think flash drives had much of a smell.
Lots of links about the guy in question, and this link. I dunno.
Maybe on the surface. At Penn State we are talking about school officials who are mandatory reporters. An advertising executive is not a mandatory reporter. And as far as the article states we are not talking about eyewitnesses. In this case she had text messages with no concrete information. No named victims. No proof. No witness to any crimes. So yes I see the similarities. Bosses sticking their head in the sand. People putting their job and organization ahead of the welfare of children. But I think in terms of both culpability and immorality the Penn State case is much worse.
I am a bit surprised though that if anyone high up in the company knew about it that they kept him on. Companies are usually very risk adverse and scared of bad publicity. Even if they didn’t want to go to the police they could have just dropped him quietly.
You also could ask why Cindy Mills didn’t go to the police if she believed a crime was happening. At least at Penn State there was supposed to be a mechanism where school officials would have to report to police. You can make an argument like Paterno did that in telling his boss he reasonably felt the matter would be taken care of. Telling the executive in charge of advertising for a fast food chain is not the same.
I am having a hard time with the timeline of the investigation. It does seem that the FBI knew about him since about the time that Cindy Mills said she had these conversations. Another woman wore a wire for the FBI after first hearing him say disturbing things in 2007. It’s not clear to me when she started to wear the wire and when they started to gather evidence. Of course him talking would not be enough evidence for a conviction. It seems like a very involved investigation that probably took a very long time to complete.
Yes, but then many business execs would be risk-averse to act “just” for an individual’s private report of creepy conduct. Even when there’s a specific accusation, they often wait for it to become or be about to become publicly known to act – see Cosby, for example: there were claims going back decades but only once his case started reaching wide public notoriety did the different companies quickly jump to distance themselves. It may be that lower-level officials decided they did not have enough to send it upstairs.