ImageImageImageImageImage

OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN

Moderators: Duffman100, Morris_Shatford, DG88, 7 Footer, Rhettmatic, niQ, Patman, pbj, Alfred

Fairview4Life
RealGM
Posts: 56,608
And1: 21,024
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
     

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#221 » by Fairview4Life » Thu Apr 8, 2021 1:55 am

SharoneWright wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:Yes actually, he was also a bad analyst.

Now do Jamelle Hill or Dan Lebatard or someone who doesn’t suck.


Quality of analysis has nothing to do with things anymore. There's other criteria you are ignoring.

No one at ESPN even tried to pretend he was fired for being a bad analyst.


Who. Cares. They both sucked and are now gone. ESPN wants their on air personalities to not say dumb **** that embarrasses the company. Milbury wasn’t fired because of one thing. Neither was Pierce. Stephen A Smith would have a lot more leeway if he did something dumb. Your perpetual victim squad doesn’t need to roll out for any of this meaningless ****.
9. Similarly, IF THOU HAST SPENT the entire offseason predicting that thy team will stink, thou shalt not gloat, nor even be happy, shouldst thou turn out to be correct. Realistic analysis is fine, but be a fan first, a smug smarty-pants second.
Ackshun
Head Coach
Posts: 6,499
And1: 2,568
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#222 » by Ackshun » Thu Apr 8, 2021 2:12 am

Fairview4Life wrote:
Ackshun wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:
You can also watch naked people having sex on your TV. That has nothing to do with Paul Pierce being fired.


Don't be ridiculous because it suits your argument. We are discussing MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Not porn.


My guy, I said TV. You can watch people having sex on your tv, brought to you by MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Cable! Oh no! That still has nothing to do with Paul Pierce being fired.



I clearly stated I didn't have an opinion because I don't want to get dragged into this debate, especially by miserable people that think they know it all. But yet. Here I am.

I said - whether I agree with it or not, I can understand where the poster sees logic, based on what I have seen on SNL and what Paul was fired for. On one hand, the producers at NBC allowed the glorification of sex and on the other, PP was tossed for glorifying it himself on social media. Again, I have no opinion I just stating what I believe are facts. I also dont know what porn has to do with this. You didn't articulate it well I guess.

Anyhow, the way you are carrying yourself in this thread is incredibly embarrassing. You are a long time poster and should carry yourself with more grace. You are behaving like a child with your rant and I have reason to believe that you are an adult.

Anyhow I'm blocking you because you are way too negative for me. Bye my guy
agkagk
Rookie
Posts: 1,057
And1: 655
Joined: Sep 03, 2011

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#223 » by agkagk » Thu Apr 8, 2021 2:30 am

SharoneWright wrote:Mike Milbury fired by ESPN.



For being a bad analyst?



I think they just found out about the Yashin trade.

Spezza AND Chara?!? :o
User avatar
SharoneWright
RealGM
Posts: 22,572
And1: 8,914
Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Location: Flavortown, USA.
     

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#224 » by SharoneWright » Thu Apr 8, 2021 2:57 am

agkagk wrote:
SharoneWright wrote:Mike Milbury fired by ESPN.



For being a bad analyst?



I think they just found out about the Yashin trade.

Spezza AND Chara?!? :o


Haha :lol: Bad GM that’s for sure!
Is anyone here a marine biologist?
User avatar
ReggieSlater
Starter
Posts: 2,255
And1: 711
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Location: Ottawa
 

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#225 » by ReggieSlater » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:00 am

agkagk wrote:its quite simple and obvious, the same media machine that punished paul pierce...


You can stop right there. The "media machine" didn't punish Paul Pierce. He was fired by ESPN. This is where your Post-Hoc fallacy comes in. You know the result, Paul Pierce was fired. You then fallaciously apply a cause, that he was punished by the media machine. Don't know what that means, but it is also incorrect.

Trying to figure out why you think this might help in trying to avoid future biases.
User avatar
ReggieSlater
Starter
Posts: 2,255
And1: 711
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Location: Ottawa
 

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#226 » by ReggieSlater » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:07 am

SharoneWright wrote:Progressives have pushed he envelope in culture/TV to accept more overt expressions of sexuality in the public domain. As you say, nudity on cable is now mainstream. Until now, the edgy cultural brokers have couched it as "female empowerment" even though it was largely exploitation. Pierce played by those former rules. Except he can't anymore. Progressives have changed the narrative. He didn't keep up with the times. Pierce got fired for objectifying womxn, not for "not wearing a mask". :lol: What Pierce did is now misogynistic, even though "you can watch naked people on TV having sex" and Cardi B is celebrated for her bravery. It is a double standard set by liberal mainstream media and Paul's head must be spinning.


How have progressives pushed the envelope in culture? By what mechanism and who are these progressives? How have the rules changed for Paul Pierce and how do you know the specific reason he was fired if ESPN hasn't commented? Why do you think ESPN is beholden to these progressives, and what do they have to gain from caving to their demands? These are all questions you should be wondering if you want to come to honest conclusions.
agkagk
Rookie
Posts: 1,057
And1: 655
Joined: Sep 03, 2011

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#227 » by agkagk » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:17 am

ReggieSlater wrote:
agkagk wrote:its quite simple and obvious, the same media machine that punished paul pierce...


You can stop right there. The "media machine" didn't punish Paul Pierce. He was fired by ESPN. This is where your Post-Hoc fallacy comes in. You know the result, Paul Pierce was fired. You then fallaciously apply a cause, that he was punished by the media machine. Don't know what that means, but it is also incorrect.

Trying to figure out why you think this might help in trying to avoid future biases.


oh wow post hoc fallacy and then you doubled down with fallaciously, damn son, you sure got me in a corner.

Except, You got rocks for brains and espn is a part of a large highly influential media conglomerate with global influence— but I’m sure you already new that.

I like how you don’t know what I meant but know that it’s wrong. Go back to writing essays in your moms basement.

When you get some life experience maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

I literally didn’t bother to read half of your gibberish, but congrats on learning a big word. Way to try and deconstruct what I wrote, you really added a ton of context and wisdom. :roll:



Personal Attack. Warned.
You can make your point without the insults.
User avatar
dTox
RealGM
Posts: 13,125
And1: 11,778
Joined: Jan 26, 2007
Location: 416
   

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#228 » by dTox » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:21 am

Image
TBZ for the win
User avatar
Jcity08
Head Coach
Posts: 6,305
And1: 7,951
Joined: May 06, 2018
       

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#229 » by Jcity08 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:21 am

I dont like that the term "progressives" are now being co-opted for everything negative. Like Liberal or Socalism. I used to take it as more economically progressive, pushing for standardized affordable healthcare, better environmental practices, stronger labor laws and championing social security.
Image
User avatar
SharoneWright
RealGM
Posts: 22,572
And1: 8,914
Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Location: Flavortown, USA.
     

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#230 » by SharoneWright » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:32 am

ReggieSlater wrote:
SharoneWright wrote:Progressives have pushed he envelope in culture/TV to accept more overt expressions of sexuality in the public domain. As you say, nudity on cable is now mainstream. Until now, the edgy cultural brokers have couched it as "female empowerment" even though it was largely exploitation. Pierce played by those former rules. Except he can't anymore. Progressives have changed the narrative. He didn't keep up with the times. Pierce got fired for objectifying womxn, not for "not wearing a mask". :lol: What Pierce did is now misogynistic, even though "you can watch naked people on TV having sex" and Cardi B is celebrated for her bravery. It is a double standard set by liberal mainstream media and Paul's head must be spinning.


How have progressives pushed the envelope in culture?
By running major media corporations and creating content.

By what mechanism and who are these progressives?
By raising money for and by voting for progressive political candidates as well as by marketing discretionary content that expands boundaries.
They are the board members of the major media corporations.


How have the rules changed for Paul Pierce and how do you know the specific reason he was fired if ESPN hasn't commented?
Because #MeToo is now the prevailing force that threatens corporations with lawsuits as well as negative publicity, whereas 'sexy edginess' has lost it's sexy edginess and is certainly no longer en vogue.

Why do you think ESPN is beholden to these progressives,
Because ESPN is 1. Run by progressives and 2. Virtue signalling is currency with some of their sponsors and some of their viewership.

and what do they have to gain from caving to their demands?
Safeguarding themselves from accusations of misogyny (lawsuits?) as well as vainglorious corporate one-upmanship. ESPN>Coke>UAL>>>>ExxonMobile

These are all questions you should be wondering if you want to come to honest conclusions.


just my opinion. it's a cultural reckoning. the culture set by liberals is now being corrected by liberals. as a conservative, and an innocent bystander, it's kind of interesting (funny?) to watch. but it's definitely why PP was canned. not because he's a bad analyst.
Is anyone here a marine biologist?
beanbag
Veteran
Posts: 2,792
And1: 3,830
Joined: Apr 07, 2012

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#231 » by beanbag » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:22 am

SharoneWright wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:Yes actually, he was also a bad analyst.

Now do Jamelle Hill or Dan Lebatard or someone who doesn’t suck.


Quality of analysis has nothing to do with things anymore. There's other criteria you are ignoring.

No one at ESPN even tried to pretend Milbury was fired for being a bad analyst.

He was cancelled due to wokeism. And I suppose there is a certain audience for that.


Why are you pretending as though people getting fired for saying the things Millbury said is some new thing and not something that has always happened?
beanbag
Veteran
Posts: 2,792
And1: 3,830
Joined: Apr 07, 2012

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#232 » by beanbag » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:26 am

SharoneWright wrote:
ReggieSlater wrote:
SharoneWright wrote:Progressives have pushed he envelope in culture/TV to accept more overt expressions of sexuality in the public domain. As you say, nudity on cable is now mainstream. Until now, the edgy cultural brokers have couched it as "female empowerment" even though it was largely exploitation. Pierce played by those former rules. Except he can't anymore. Progressives have changed the narrative. He didn't keep up with the times. Pierce got fired for objectifying womxn, not for "not wearing a mask". :lol: What Pierce did is now misogynistic, even though "you can watch naked people on TV having sex" and Cardi B is celebrated for her bravery. It is a double standard set by liberal mainstream media and Paul's head must be spinning.


How have progressives pushed the envelope in culture?
By running major media corporations and creating content.

By what mechanism and who are these progressives?
By raising money for and by voting for progressive political candidates as well as by marketing discretionary content that expands boundaries.
They are the board members of the major media corporations.


How have the rules changed for Paul Pierce and how do you know the specific reason he was fired if ESPN hasn't commented?
Because #MeToo is now the prevailing force that threatens corporations with lawsuits as well as negative publicity, whereas 'sexy edginess' has lost it's sexy edginess and is certainly no longer en vogue.

Why do you think ESPN is beholden to these progressives,
Because ESPN is 1. Run by progressives and 2. Virtue signalling is currency with some of their sponsors and some of their viewership.

and what do they have to gain from caving to their demands?
Safeguarding themselves from accusations of misogyny (lawsuits?) as well as vainglorious corporate one-upmanship. ESPN>Coke>UAL>>>>ExxonMobile

These are all questions you should be wondering if you want to come to honest conclusions.


just my opinion. it's a cultural reckoning. the culture set by liberals is now being corrected by liberals. as a conservative, and an innocent bystander, it's kind of interesting (funny?) to watch. but it's definitely why PP was canned. not because he's a bad analyst.


Again, he was fired by rich TV executives protecting their own pockets, not the woke left.

No matter how badly you want that to be true, it just isn't.
User avatar
SharoneWright
RealGM
Posts: 22,572
And1: 8,914
Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Location: Flavortown, USA.
     

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#233 » by SharoneWright » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:32 am

beanbag wrote:
Again, he was fired by rich TV executives protecting their own pockets, not the woke left.

No matter how badly you want that to be true, it just isn't.


Ok. Going down that road... Who are the they protecting their pockets from? Where is the pressure coming from these days?
Is anyone here a marine biologist?
beanbag
Veteran
Posts: 2,792
And1: 3,830
Joined: Apr 07, 2012

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#234 » by beanbag » Thu Apr 8, 2021 4:42 am

SharoneWright wrote:
beanbag wrote:
Again, he was fired by rich TV executives protecting their own pockets, not the woke left.

No matter how badly you want that to be true, it just isn't.


Ok. Going down that road... Who are the they protecting their pockets from? Where is the pressure coming from these days?


These days? The pressure is, and always has been from the same place. In the case of TV executives, the pressure comes from sponsors who themselves are pressured by the majority of public opinion. This is not new.
User avatar
Neutral 123
RealGM
Posts: 10,757
And1: 2,515
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
Location: Pandora

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#235 » by Neutral 123 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 12:20 pm

Fairview4Life wrote:Yes actually, he was also a bad analyst.

Now do Jamelle Hill or Dan Lebatard or someone who doesn’t suck.

LMAO Jemelle Hill? She's like the queen of the leftist cancel cult. You'd need photos of her in bed with Trump to get her cancelled.
.
User avatar
ReggieSlater
Starter
Posts: 2,255
And1: 711
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Location: Ottawa
 

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#236 » by ReggieSlater » Thu Apr 8, 2021 1:57 pm

Neutral 123 wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:Yes actually, he was also a bad analyst.

Now do Jamelle Hill or Dan Lebatard or someone who doesn’t suck.

LMAO Jemelle Hill? She's like the queen of the leftist cancel cult. You'd need photos of her in bed with Trump to get her cancelled.


Or, there is no agency behind cancel culture and it's just a series of corporate decisions that aren't linked at all. We link them based on our own confirmation bias because it seems intuitive that they are linked. That they illustrate a progressive movement or a growing trend. Are these new things though? Do you think there is a period of time where a parent company like Disney would not have dismissed Paul Pierce for similar transgressions? Are Paul Pierces alleged transgressions related to other people who were fired from their businesses? Are any of those people who were fired at all related to each other by anything other than allegations of socially engineered conspiracies?
User avatar
ReggieSlater
Starter
Posts: 2,255
And1: 711
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Location: Ottawa
 

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#237 » by ReggieSlater » Thu Apr 8, 2021 2:14 pm

SharoneWright wrote:
beanbag wrote:
Again, he was fired by rich TV executives protecting their own pockets, not the woke left.

No matter how badly you want that to be true, it just isn't.


Ok. Going down that road... Who are the they protecting their pockets from? Where is the pressure coming from these days?


I think this is the main problem with this idea. It assumes that anyone can understand the composition of any group of people discussing any topic. That is simply unknowable. Topics like the Paul Pierce incident are talked about all over the internet by so many people. Opinions are either for or against. Some may want him fired, some may want him to get a raise. Some may already hate him, some may already love him. It is impossible to understand what all these voices want, and what agency is behind it. We then hear reports like "Paul Pierce faces backlash over so and so", and we think, that's ridiculous. What is the composition of that backlash? Who is even talking about it. Imagine if 1 billion people (there are actually more than that on IG alone) were all screaming at each other with megaphones and we were then trying to listen to them all and understand what they were saying. We then conclude that a discussion, in the form of nuance, and lack of nuance, anger and rationality, object and derision all added up to a simple headline in the media. The media informs us people are upset about this. All discussion has been filtered down to something that can be understood but is actually not knowable. So where do we go from here? Post-Hoc fallacy, every single time. The result is based on the reaction, and not the original event. All that is knowable is that Paul Pierce did something, and ESPN fired him for it. The noise is irrelevant since it is unknowable. Saying ESPN is afraid of them is possible, but ESPN is equally ignorant of what the "mob" wants. They could easily be siding with the wrong side. Maybe only 1% of the people discussing it actually want Paul Pierce fired and only a small percentage actually care what he said or did. We make a determination of what people are saying based on a corporate decision (again this is a post-hoc fallacy). Businesses don't care about social agendas unless the perception of those agendas can make them money. If you think they are catering to a minority opinion, I would say that is a bad business decision, but they may have their reasons, but ESPN isn't going to lose money simply to push an agenda.

If you actually care about the truth of this, you can challenge ESPN (and possibly Disney, there's no evidence that Disney had any say in this for the record). Aside from anecdotes of individuals in a mass of over 1 billion voices, ESPN is the only definitive opinion on this topic we can look at. The above would also be true of conservative values, and in many cases they are. What Paul Pierce did could be looked at as an objection to a more classic puritanical conservative faux-pas by the way. We frame it as a liberal progressive transgression because it fits the narrative.
User avatar
ItsDanger
General Manager
Posts: 8,482
And1: 5,207
Joined: Nov 01, 2008

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#238 » by ItsDanger » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:05 pm

Make no mistake, ESPN is Disney. One word from corporate, and Pierce is terminated. Period. Given their recent media track record, I would suggest the common profit perception from the public is clouded. Would Bill Rasmussen (a founder of ESPN) have fired Pierce? I highly doubt it.

Some here want to downplay certain issues because of their own agenda. Sad
Organization can be defined as an organized body of people with a particular purpose. Not random.
agkagk
Rookie
Posts: 1,057
And1: 655
Joined: Sep 03, 2011

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#239 » by agkagk » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:16 pm

ReggieSlater wrote:
Neutral 123 wrote:
Fairview4Life wrote:Yes actually, he was also a bad analyst.

Now do Jamelle Hill or Dan Lebatard or someone who doesn’t suck.

LMAO Jemelle Hill? She's like the queen of the leftist cancel cult. You'd need photos of her in bed with Trump to get her cancelled.


Or, there is no agency behind cancel culture and it's just a series of corporate decisions that aren't linked at all. We link them based on our own confirmation bias because it seems intuitive that they are linked. That they illustrate a progressive movement or a growing trend. Are these new things though? Do you think there is a period of time where a parent company like Disney would not have dismissed Paul Pierce for similar transgressions? Are Paul Pierces alleged transgressions related to other people who were fired from their businesses? Are any of those people who were fired at all related to each other by anything other than allegations of socially engineered conspiracies?


In the 60’es the president of the United States was celebrated for openly cheating on his wife with Marilyn Monroe.

I have older family that has started and built large white collar companies from the ground up.

Fun fact; the show mad men underplays how debaucherous the corporate world was. 80es and early 90es could straight up border on drug induced orgy.

Disney in particular has more then a few skeletons, mistresses, dead bodies and prostitutes in its closet — it’s not like these stories are hard to find.

I honestly think your just talking for your own reflection and mistaking your opinion for all knowing fact without any real knowledge or experience to back it up.
User avatar
ReggieSlater
Starter
Posts: 2,255
And1: 711
Joined: Jul 13, 2005
Location: Ottawa
 

Re: OT: Paul Pierce fired by ESPN 

Post#240 » by ReggieSlater » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:26 pm

ItsDanger wrote:Make no mistake, ESPN is Disney. One word from corporate, and Pierce is terminated. Period. Given their recent media track record, I would suggest the common profit perception from the public is clouded. Would Bill Rasmussen (a founder of ESPN) have fired Pierce? I highly doubt it.

Some here want to downplay certain issues because of their own agenda. Sad


You're illustrating a point that you are certain of, even though it can't be known, and you think others are downplaying issues for their agenda?

Would you say the time to believe something is before or after you have proper evidence for it?

Return to Toronto Raptors