The thing about equality is we’re not all beginning from the same start line.
That's irrelevant at this level. If you fire someone for statements on your broadcast network, you shouldn't expressly condone it for another just because they're considered on a lower rung of equality.
Roenick might have had a claim if it was a like for like situation, but he was talking about a co-worker. If he had been fired for making sexualized statements about a competitor, and this thing he's saying happened actually happened (which honestly, I doubt), the starting line shouldn't matter. We're talking about TV personalities here, not someone not getting hired for a job because they're a minority.
He's still a clown though.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
In the promotional video for The At-Home Variety Show on the Peacock streaming service, Lipinski and Weir are joined on a video call by “Pitch Perfect” actors Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins.
After Lipinski, the 1998 Olympic gold medalist, introduces footage of Tennell from the Olympics, she says, “Nice camel spin into a toe loop,” even though Tennell does neither a camel spin nor a toe loop in the footage.
Higgins replies: “Yes, the camel toe. Gail’s very familiar with that one.”
Banks, who plays “Pitch Perfect’s” Gail, says, “I am, I am.”
Moments later, Weir jokes, “I’m really hoping we get to see her quads during this program.” Tennell attempted no quadruple jumps at the Olympics.
Banks replies, “Ah, easy, Johnny, your wife’s sitting right there.”
“Gail, we’re co-workers and besties,” Weir says.
“Oh, I see,” Banks says. “Office romance, gotcha.”
If that is the extent of it, it doesn't appear that Lipinski and Weir even said anything inappropriate. It was Banks and Higgins playing clueless hosts who misunderstood and made it inappropriate. Based on that transcript, it seems pretty clear that the figure skating commentary is just a set-up for jokes at the expense of the characters played by Banks and Higgins.
The figure skating video doesn't appear to be online anywhere, but here's a similar one for NASCAR with Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Other than both being lame attempts at humour, there doesn't seem to be any connection between this sketch and Roenick's comments.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
The thing about equality is we’re not all beginning from the same start line.
The thing about equality is that it's not about the starting lines but the finish line. If there's multiple finish lines then there can be no equality.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
On one had, if the NBC person did say “he’s gay so he can say whatever he wants” that’s ridiculous and actually harmful to the LGBTQ community, as the idea is equality, not special treatment. Special treatment is condescending.
On the other hand, looking at the statement as a whole and the situation Roenick is referring to, I am having trouble believing he has honest intentions here. If he’s honest, I hope he gets paid his money, because it’s ridiculous. But I look forward to seeing how this lawsuit shakes out.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
On one had, if the NBC person did say “he’s gay so he can say whatever he wants” that’s ridiculous and actually harmful to the LGBTQ community, as the idea is equality, not special treatment. Special treatment is condescending.
On the other hand, looking at the statement as a whole and the situation Roenick is referring to, I am having trouble believing he has honest intentions here. If he’s honest, I hope he gets paid his money, because it’s ridiculous. But I look forward to seeing how this lawsuit shakes out.
I agree with everything said here. However, I'm not sure special treatment is condescending in this situation (assuming it happened as he describes). The NBC person could essentially be implying his hands are tied because of his orientation. Essentially it's a free pass where little can be said in this day because some would accuse the network of homophobia. It's a very real dilemma, but it probably pushes the notion down the road of spelling these scenarios to their on-air staff that no matter what you say, you will be held accountable going forward, regardless of your orientation. This is evolving all over and is a touchy subject because there probably is a double standard in the name of progress. Growing pains in the meantime.
I'm not a fan of JR. Seems to be controversial to get a rise out of people, but this type of case is important to society to put everyone on the same foot going forward.
I think it's great. As if he's serious about being discriminated against. I'm pretty darn sure his point is that every group out there except for hetro white men can, and do, go cry about being wronged. Good on him.
Hetero white men do plenty of crying about being wronged
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joe Nieuwendyk For This Useful Post:
On one had, if the NBC person did say “he’s gay so he can say whatever he wants” that’s ridiculous and actually harmful to the LGBTQ community, as the idea is equality, not special treatment. Special treatment is condescending.
On the other hand, looking at the statement as a whole and the situation Roenick is referring to, I am having trouble believing he has honest intentions here. If he’s honest, I hope he gets paid his money, because it’s ridiculous. But I look forward to seeing how this lawsuit shakes out.
Agreed. IF that was actually said, then yes, Roenick has a point. Seems more likely though that Roenick has 'interpreted' things that way.
