When is the madness............

gonna stop.............ESPN pulled a Chinese announcer from the Virginia game because of his name, Robert Lee, "for his own safety". Jesus H Christ this country is as screwed up as Hogans goat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/...versity-virginia-charlottesville.html?mcubz=0

 

ESPN has stated it was mutual and that Lee agreed with their position. He lives in NY and was moved to the Pitt game anyhow.

OutkickTheCoverage tried to turn this into a "how dare those liberal snowflakes at ESPN do this" when ESPN was pretty sure no one would even find out about it. It's not like they fired him. It was a dumb coincidence and ESPN was giving Lee an out.

 

Mutually stupid.

If he was to be reassigned, just make the reassignment without fanfare ... but actually stating that it was because of his name alignment with the Confederate General ...

insane.

 

Meanwhile, something I predicted Thursday of last week, just came to me, USC's mascot is a white stallion named Traveler; Robt E Lee's horse was named Traveller.

Just a matter of time until some other snowflakes pointed this out in the last couple of days. This and the Robert Lee (an Asian) are like something out of The Onion.

Pure insanity. Pure adolescent behavior. I don't blame them as much as the press and politicians who don't just stand up and look these snots squarely in the eyes and say: "Oh, SHUT UP, and eat your cookies and drink your warm milk. It's bedtime."

 

I'm staying away from Bruce Lee movies just to be safe.

 

That was no "coincidence". The fact that you are actually trying to defend this idiocy does not help your credibility. The proper response is, "what a gaggle of fools ESPN has become".

 

Talk about a nothingburger.

 

1. It's not even televised. It's on streaming only. No one would have known who the commentators for either the UVA or the Pitt game were anyhow. This didn't become public until blogs forced ESPN's hand.

2. ESPN released their statement after outkickthecoverage found out about the switch. They're not the ones who made it a big deal. It was the conservative bloggers who are quick to call out "MSESPN" for anything they do related to social relevance.

3. Lee was consulted about it and agreed with them. So is he a fool too for going along with it? Should he take a stand and say that ESPN is overstepping their boundaries as a sports-only network and should reinstate him on a nothing game on no television channel even though there was already a comparable solution? Pitt/Youngstown is probably a better game to call anyhow.

You honestly believe that when they were scheduling commentators for nonconference ESPN3 games back in June or whatever, and they threw Robert Lee into the UVA/Sisters of the Blind game for next weekend, they should have had the foresight to understand that the name "Robert Lee" would have been a hotbutton issue in that exact city in August? It's really NOT a coincidence?

 

The issue is that ESPN considered it a hot button issue to begin with. Whether it was mutual or not, someone saw his name and said "man, that's gonna look bad if we have a guy named Robert Lee at a Virginia football game." I don't know whether the guy felt coerced into switching, if he just didn't care, or if he wasn't really "asked" so much as "told to agree." It's irrelevant.

 

Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Na-ghee-na-na-jar. Nagheenanajar.

Michael Bolton: Yeah, well, at least your name isn't Michael Bolton.

Samir: You know, there's nothing wrong with that name.

Michael Bolton: There *was* nothing wrong with it... until I was about twelve years old and that no-talent *** clown became famous and started winning Grammys.

Samir: Hmm... well, why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?

Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

 

I am going to petition to the US Congress to formally change our country from The United States of America (USA) to The United Sissies of America (USA).

I can't believe I spent 22 years of service defending this country and watch it turn to a society of butthurt individualism.

 

^^^^^This ^^^^^^

 

There is relevance to many facets of this decision. If Lee was "ordered" off the game, that's relevant. If Lee was offered the Pitt game on his own prerogative, that's relevant. If Lee was offered the Pitt game without being told it was because of his name, that's relevant. As stated, this didn't become a "thing" until Clay Travis made it a thing. It's a little surprising that ESPN is questioned for a decision to do something for its own snowflake bottom line since corporations are technically treated as "people."

 

OK, I don't like Michael Bolton for all the obvious reasons, but I have to admit that he has a sense of humor and is a very good sport.

 

Corporations make decisions all the time for PR reasons. ESPN is clearly trying to mitigate the risk of getting into the middle of a political firestorm. Now they are being beat up for avoiding it. Damned if you do...damned if you don't.

 

It's funny... most of the Hollywood movies that paint these dystopian futures where everything is gray and muted and no one is allowed to dissent seem to hint that it came from a white, republican-ish, police state that imposed the thought police and the "we know what is right for you" mantra. We are entering a space where almost the other side is shutting down speech. When a dudes rather generic name is now construed as potentially alarming...we are through the looking glass.

 

Should CNN be forced to fire Wolf Blitzer for his resemblance to Robert E Lee?

 

that's why corporations should opt for the "we are just a sports network, we talk about sports" response instead of running social profiles. This will eventually happen to all the CEO's that think they can use the clout of the companies and organizations to apply economic force. Just like the Camping World CEO that had to eat crow after the NASCAR dude threatened to pull his order.

Stick to running your organizations folks. Leave the politics to the political arena. That's what voting is for. The lefts' use of the court system and boycotts has caught up with them. Everyone has caught on and everyone is now claiming offense. All these disparate groups trying to each have their turn at being offended can wear you out. It's a no win for a corporation. Just stick to your mission of pleasing shareholders.

 

Well, I don't think I've ever seen Wolf and RE Lee at the same place at the same time, hmmm.

Of course same goes for Janet Reno/David Broder or Yassir Arafat/Ringo Starr.

 

Only a front running dumbass would believe an Asian sports announcer in 2017 with a similar name as a Civil War General that has been dead for 150 years would offend someone, and even if it did offend someone why would any sane person give a rat's ***? What kind of screwed-up person even thinks such thoughts, and what kind of freaks think defending this foolishness makes sense? It doesn't matter if the game were only shown on an etch-a-sketch to a blind man at night in Bora Bora, or who pointed out the blatant idiocy. The fact that someone actually made the decision is beyond ridiculous.

 

I think the issue is more of simple risk/reward. They're all working lower level games and switching one for the other is like moving the 3rd level player on the depth chart for punt returns. That said, some idiot (antifa) could do what he thought was striking out at someone and actually hurt someone else. Chances are likely similar to getting struck by lightening, winning the lottery or committing in person voter fraud. But, to quote Lloyd, "so you're saying there's a chance?" I mean, the President started up a whole commission on similar odds...

 

If what you state is true, ESPN management is basing their personnel decisions on the possible actions of a psychopath. This could explain why the network is tanking and they laid off 200+ employees recently, but it certainly doesn't represent rational strategic or tactical thinking. In other words, they're nuttier than squirrel sh--, and represent a bigger threat to the network than any useless Antifa lowlife.

 

Even if it's about some snowflake that rounds up 20 other snowflakes to send in emails to the ESPN ombudsman, it's still a risk/reward thing. The switching of two lower level teams on some weekend weeks in advance is surely done for a variety of small reasons (wedding plans, lower travel costs, etc.) Much ado about nothing.

 

The reaction alone on this thread by conservatives demonstrates why ESPN was wise in their attempts to avoid this morass. It's a great example of how emotional people are around this issue. Nearly every reaction on this thread is coming at it from "ESPN cowtowing to the liberals" when they clearly wanted to avoid the controversy altogether.

 

If they wanted to avoid the controversy altogether, they shouldn't have created a controversy that never existed in the first place. They are not "cowtowing" to the liberals, they are the liberals.

 

Bubba, I'm sure you meant to convey a thought with your post. Sorry it didn't work out.

 

His point was that with essentially no cost, the most gossamer benefit would suffice, even avoiding irrational criticism.

What this shows is how amazingly irrational the actual edge of the "take-offense" group is these days.

 

If he would have used the term "gossamer benefit", I would certainly have understood his post better.

 

LOL. Ditto!

AFA this attempt to throw criticism upon those who are generally conservative ...

@iatrongenic smacked the noggin of that nail, too.

^^^^^THISSSSSS^^^^^^

But see ... they DID want a controversy. Now sports fans are talking about ESPN again!

ughh.

 

Always seeking clarity.