Depends. If they're friends it's ok. Guys get stupid when they're playing sports. Talking shit, just having fun, but if he's just being an asshole. No it's not.
Since when is on-the-field speech between players subject to punishment? What about comments to umpires, or the stuff said at the bottom of a pile in a football game? Granted, it's stupid and insensitive, but I think this has more to do with the fact that the Blue Jays suck this year, and can't afford another public relations problem.
Calling a married man a faggot is not the same as calling a black person a nigger. Using the word faggot is somewhat anti-gay, but the pitcher wasn't gay so it doesn't really mean anything. Using nigger is racist, so saying it to a black person means quite a bit. A valid more valid comparison would be calling a white person a nigger, because that doesn't really mean anything to a white person.
Reset the sails...
I'm not sensitive to words..
In life if that is the worst that happens to you, you are lucky..
lighten up and know who you are, not what someone says!
On here, I have been called several names. Consider the source. Move on..
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm mentioning the power of words. Thinking faggot is bad is PC but thinking nigger is wrong is just decent? No. They're the same.
Granted my childhood falls under "different times", but if this was a punishable offense in the 90's, 75% of any team I have ever played for would have been suspended at any given time.
The only things that matter are company policy and FCC regulations during broadcast. In this case, he works for the company, violated company rules, and is being punished by the company. Go take your inhumane desire to insult people and "free speech" tears somewhere else, snowflakes.
Plenty of black people use it jokingly to rib each other, which is analogous to what happened here.
The question isn't whether it not I would use it (I would not) the question is whether using it once in a non-hostile context should warrant a warning or a suspension. Plenty of things I wouldn't do don't warrant suspension.
Gay mafia's minions are the "thought police" mainstream media. Have to keep everybody in check - but only on gay/transgender issues. Make derogatory names about anybody else (except Muslims because they're "peaceful") and it's considered a celebration of free speech.
The consequences have become somewhat severe for everything. Everyone is offended by everything. Everyone calls for everyone else to be punished. Was what he did right? No. However, words change over time. It appears the term "retard" is used now as a common insult but when that same speaker actually refers to a person who might previously have been called "retarded" they use the more correct "intellectually impaired". Calling someone "a retard" today seems like calling someone an idiot and is not intended as a slight against intellectually challenged people.
Was this other player gay?
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
My point is that you clearly stated this did not fall under free speech. If he sued, it might as the courts seem to determine what is free speech and what is not.
It doesn't fall under free speech. Most ever case you listed involves the government in some respect. Not yelling fire in a theater is about not putting people's lives in danger. Obviously not the case here
In addition, I would think he could make the case, that he is from Cuba and in Cuba the term is used in such a way as "you are not a real man". It is apparently a common insult.
Two great ideals from the left come into play here. Cultural attributes and gay rights. Well, as he was not insulting a gay man but seemingly everyone on the opposing team, it was not a slight at any homosexual as much as it was a taunt to the opposing team.
This has nothing to do with gay rights. MLB suspended him because they knew not taking action would hurt the league in the eyes of some fans which would ultimately impact their bottom line.
Kevin Pillar yelled it at a Braves player. He apologized. Ok. You mean, if he called the person other names that would have been ok but "faggot" was out of bounds? If baseball is like football (soccer) you hear a lot more than that at those games.
If I'm standing in a field playing a game and someone shouted at me "you filthy kike" (I am Jewish) I would not like it but assume it's part of competition. It was a taunt. I'm not going to say "waaaa, he insulted me". If I hear that said to another player it just lowers my opinion of the speaker, that's all.
The team reacted to placate a public that seems overly impacted by words and speech. Sensitivity is all the rage these days. The American public needs to put on their big boy panties and stop being offended about everything. Was he wrong to say it? Yes. He apologized.
Personally being offended about words gives those words greater impact, if you ask me.
It really amazes me that someone is suspended for 2 games for using this word and is sent to deliver a tear jerking apology speech for using this word. If you read baseball players' lips, the MLB has a lot of work to do if they are trying to produce a "professional environment." They are really inconsistent with punishments. Using the Lord's name in vain repeatedly occurs on the diamond, but players never get suspended for that.
Why should they? "Oh my God" has become a common expression in America and is even said during sex. You can't punish a player for saying a common expression like that. Saying the term faggot in professional circles has become equivalent to saying the term nigger as its a taboo phrase directed to and only to humans and is derogatory in the fact that people view it as offensive since it's insulting people. "Oh my God" is offending people who are offended for their God..that's it. There's no God to get offended over it and if there is, boy does he get triggered easily. I'm not saying he should've been punished but if he has been then he should get a punishment equivalent to saying "nigger" rather than fining people for offending you because you think God is offended for me saying a common culturally accepted phrase.
You certainly don't have much compassion toward Christians. If suspensions revolve around others being offended, why are Christians exempted from sympathy?
Because we don't make exceptions for Muslims who want to wear their headscarf on the field, for Buddhist players who want to meditate during the game, or nudist players who want to play nude.
The difference between gays, blacks, and Christians are that gays and blacks are offended because you offended them with that word or phrase and you're directly offending them. When I say "Oh my God" I'm not meaning to offend anyone since it's a culturally accepted phrase and we say it loosely while saying nigger and faggot aren't culturally accepted words and are directly meant to be taken as negative insults. Gays can't choose to be gay, you can't choose who you're attracted to. Blacks can't choose to be black, you can't choose your skin color. Religious people do choose whether or not to listen to opposing arguments or not or to be offended or not and you're deciding to be offended for a guy who hasn't been proven to even exist. Case closed.
"OMG" is not what I expect people to get suspended from. I would expect a suspension for "GD" if you are going to suspend someone for saying, "f*ggot."
If you can prove God exists scientifically, rationally, and that he is who you claim he is, then we could we could say that "God" was directed at someone and thus offensive. Until then you getting offended for a deity isn't the same thing as a gay or black person getting insulted and offended towards something directed about them. Until then, "Oh my God" and other terms like that can't be deemed offensive due to it not offending the "person" it's directed at. Rather a similar situation is me being offended for a gay person after someone calls them a "gay person" and this example isn't even that good as gay people exist and you haven't proven your god does.
You don't seem to understand that insulting someone's God is insulting to the person. I don't need to prove God for this discussion. I'm simply making the point that this suspension revolved around a word offending a group of people. "GD" offends a group of people, but the punishment for saying that during a baseball game is nothing. This is a classic example of double standards.
Again, it insults the religious because they feel as if their God is being insulted. So this feeling of offense is completely irrational unless you can prove your God claim. Until that point it's equivalent to me being offended for Flat Stanly for being called anorexic, even though there's no evidence Stanly exists, he can't get offended, and the only one who is offended is me and that's only because I thought the Flat Stanly books were historically accurate documents.
This whole conversation revolves around what you deem is correct. I hope that you don't believe that morals are relative because if you do your whole premise is a contradiction.
You still haven't made a compelling case for the existence of God and thus your argument of being offended is about as rational as the existence of Flat Stanly and me being offended because someone called him anorexic. And no, I don't believe in a subjective morality. Morality seems to be determined by evolution, societal evolution, and survival. Total murder is wrong because it goes against our self interest as a species to do it on a massive scale (everyone going around killing literally everyone), but small scale murder (wars, regular murder, even genocide) differ in the moral beliefs of various cultures. While Nazi Germany believed some genocide was okay, Nazi Germany would've fallen a lot sooner if Germans went around killing literally anyone they saw. If you need me to explain I can but as objective as I can be, this is how I see morality working. A bit of subjective and objective morality working together.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment