They’re not putting on major sporting events for hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The problem is that there really are wolves out there. And if we stop crying wolf - even if occasionally we’re wrong - then the wolves have won. There are instances like this one, when the intentions are ambiguous, and we have to go by gut instinct. It’s better than being silent, out of fear of being wrong.
Is it really plausible that a Major League Baseball team would schedule a Pride Night and have the Gay Men’s Chorus perform for many years running and then decide to sabotage them this year for the first time?
Of course not. I don’t think anyone thought that.
One or two guys, working somewhere in the operation, that’s another matter.
Facebook, if that’s any indication, was full of people calling to boycott the Padres for life.
Do you think it’s plausible that one or two people would pull a very public stunt like this on purpose that would guarantee the end of their careers?
People are often dumb.
But unfortunately, crying wolf, and there being no wolf, tends to have more memorable effect in public memory than crying wolf, and there indeed being a wolf.
The example that comes to mind is Duke lacrosse. The false accusation against the Duke lacrosse players - and their subsequent acquittal and vindication - probably had longer-lasting imprint in public consciousness than any known charge of sexual crime indeed being successfully levied against and prosecuted against a bunch of college guys. “Duke lacrosse” is now brought up oftentimes whenever a new college assault accusation arises.
But in this case the intentions aren’t ambiguous. There’s no indication whatsoever that the DJ acted with any bias.
Beyond the crying wolf issue, things like this turn gay people into live bombs. Consider for a moment, this scenario if it were the San Diego Men’s Chorus instead of the San Diego Gay Men’s Chorus. Would any of us know about the screw up or would the DJ have lost his job? I don’t want to exaggerate this threat but I feel a bit of “but for the grace of God go I” when I look at this DJ. My employer, like the Padres in this case, isn’t going to care about the truth of any discriminatory accusation. They just want it to go away, and the easiest way to make it go away would be to fire me.
One of the long term effects of this “shoot first, ask questions later” policy is that it reinforces treating people differently. This is a pretty big message to other stadium sound people. Don’t fuck up with gay people or your ass is liable to be canned. Not being idiots other sound people are now going to see “gay” somewhere and think I better be extra careful with these folks.
So your solution is for nobody to claim they’ve been raped, until the accused has been arrested and convicted beyond any doubt? How would that work?
Many (most?) Gay Men’s Choruses don’t have “Gay” in their name. Mine doesn’t.
And that’s a bad thing? It’ll teach them to be extra careful with everyone.
Suppose a gay men’s choir was riding on a bus on the way to a baseball game but got delayed because of a flat tire. Which is more reasonable; to believe that it was just a flat tire, or deliberate sabotage?
Way to miss the point.
You can’t be extra careful with everyone. That’s the point of the word “extra”. It implies something above and beyond what is normal. And if some group causes you extra effort in the long run it will cause some people to avoid and/or resent that group.
The men should have exited with the gospel song I Cannot Keep From Singing.
What it does is raise the risk level for businesses that want to help with Gay Pride events. Some will likely pass in that it’s not worth the risk of an innocuous error turning into a headache. This does not help the cause. One of the points of Gay Pride events is not
We’ll make businesses paranoid, jump to conclusions on any error, and get people wrongly fired.
It’s
Gay people are just like everybody else and want to be treated like everybody else..
You ask for too high of a standard to take action with regards to bigotry. A reasonable person can assume that this was anti-gay. If its not, then offer the guy’s job back with back pay and a bonus. Otherwise, I have no problem with what the team did to quell the backlash
Do you know how discrimination lawsuits work? Because most of the time there is no evidence. Most people are not going to leave a video of themselves saying racist stuff justifying their actions. There will probably never be any hard evidence of the sound guy purposefully screwing up the sound while screaming anti-gay epithets. So you go with what you know: sound guy screwed up a gay men’s chorus. Is there precedent? Is this unique? Does he have history? Is this a big enough screwup that you can fire someone? What about public relations, is there any worry about how this will impact the team?
Given the result, it seems the team made a mistake, and that’s fine. People make mistakes, and given the information at the time, one can definitely act correctly while still being wrong later. You act with the info you have, not what you think you have later.
Neither is pretending there is no discrimination unless there’s a smoking gun.
Often facts are not there and people need to respond quickly. You should allow the team and companies in that situation the leeway to respond and correct themselves if need be.
Ah, yes - guilty until proven innocent. Just be careful, 'cause that sword cuts both ways.
I’m not sure you understand how the legal system works. No lawsuit of any kind can succeed with no evidence, period, end of story. There are many different kinds of evidence, but here must be some to prevail.
To be more precise, you can drop the words “it seems” from that sentence. The evidence shows it was a mistake.
No. People need to act correctly the first time. This was not a matter of life or death, accusations could have waited until the facts were in. Instead, the accusers now look silly. Especially those that still won’t let it go.
What I’m responding to is not a gay issue, straight issue, white/black/brown issue. It’s the issue of recreational rage that has overtaken all segments American society. No one needs the whole story anymore, just (over) react based on hearsay. :rolleyes:
I keep clicking this thread hoping to hear the DJ has been rehired, but I keep getting disappointed when no one is reporting he is.
Not following the topic all that close to heart, but c’mon. You’re a dj at a game. YOU. HAD. ONE. JOB. You screwed up. Surrender your torch.
Does your profession require 100% perfection in it? Does anybody’s?
Sorry that it made national headlines from a stroke of bad luck, but canning someone for one mistake? That’s just too harsh.
It’s really not. Is “DJ at Padres games” even a regular job? It’s like firing your tiler for tiling your front window shut.
You’re wrong, this isn’t a case in the legal system. I was using a discrimination suit as an example of how difficult it is to get concrete evidence of bigotry. This situation revolves around an employer and employee. While I fully support unions and the ability of an employee to challenge his termination, I don’t know if this was a independent contract job or a short term hire. Its not a legal issue, so there’s no need to go through the courts, evidence, a defense lawyer or prosecution. What we do know for a fact is that there was obviously a screw up, that’s probably justification enough for the team to fire him. That it might have been tinged with homophobia adds on to the original infraction.
Put it this way: would you be upset if the team simply fired the guy for screwing up the sound?
Again, your standards for bigotry is too high. There will almost never be evidence of bigotry. Do you think that means bigotry doesn’t exist?
The reason why the team acted is because it initially seemed like a pretty obvious case. That later evidence showed that it may not have been makes the team look bad for jumping to conclusions, and that’s something they have to weigh against acting quickly. It would be nice if everyone acted quickly and correctly the first time; that’s not going to happen. I happen to think homophobia is a big enough issue for organizations to come out strongly and decisively against it earlier rather than later.
Let’s say they waited though, and this was actually due to bigotry. At what point do you think they should have acted? Given that there’s likely no video of the guy spouting bigoted statements, do you just not fire him? Do you ignore it? When do you feel its ok for a company to act when no smoking gun exists?
First, its not recreational rage, its real rage, actual people have been hurt by bigotry and actual people are pissed off by it. Second, that the whole story didn’t emerge until later is a different subject altogether from the anger. Lastly, I like this world. I like how the internet and social media allows people to play a larger role in mustering up anger towards an injustice that in times past, would have been solely controlled by newspapers and TV networks. I take the good with the bad, sometimes the rage will be unfocused, or ill-directed. I still like this way better than the past