Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Another example of the social and media hypocrisy of the United States


Recommended Posts

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-cagewriter/dana-white-did-not-appreciate-yoel-romero-s-post-fight-religious-rant-210703985-mma.html

 

 

Yoel Romero asking the US to remember its roots and to go back to Jesus Christ. That's all he said. Don't detour the conversation by stating how much you hate UFC and that boxing is better. Don't derail the conversation by talking about the atrocities that Christian have done through the centuries in the name of Jesus Christ... because it is true, it did happen, but that is not the point.

The point of this thread, and the context that should remain, is that if Yoel would have come out as gay, or applauded gay marriage, he would be a hero. Yet his religious opinions should be kept to himself.

Freedom of speech is disappearing people, like it or not, it is. When media outlets, Yahoo, I know, not much of a credible resource, prints a slanted article, it means that it's trying to sway the public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romero was allowed to say what he wanted. So his freedom of speech was not infringed upon.

 

Correct but this fight to speak out for your beliefs has only just started and for Christians this is not first century Rome. Maybe those who criticize Romero for speaking his views publicly and should keep his views at home can keep their public criticism at home as well? It goes beyond the public criticism however as the next step from the left is contacting sponsors and threatening boycotts. Soon the message will get out that public figures better state only the left approved message on what to say publicly or you might lose endorsements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romero was allowed to say what he wanted. So his freedom of speech was not infringed upon.

But you're missing the point. And you're intelligent enough to understand the point being made. Yes, he said what he wanted to say. But in the court of public opinion, he is being scrutinized and being asked to keep his speech to himself. You see no problem with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're missing the point. And you're intelligent enough to understand the point being made. Yes, he said what he wanted to say. But in the court of public opinion, he is being scrutinized and being asked to keep his speech to himself. You see no problem with that?

If he had gone up there and talked about how he can't wait to get home to smooch his husband on the mouth, I imagine there would be more than a few people who would scrutinize him and would claim that he was "shoving" his lifestyle in their face. Romero fights for a living and reaches a wide audience for fighting in the UFC. If you put yourself out there and open your mouth out all, you are going to be scrutinized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Correct but this fight to speak out for your beliefs has only just started and for Christians this is not first century Rome. Maybe those who criticize Romero for speaking his views publicly and should keep his views at home can keep their public criticism at home as well? It goes beyond the public criticism however as the next step from the left is contacting sponsors and threatening boycotts. Soon the message will get out that public figures better state only the left approved message on what to say publicly or you might lose endorsements.

Unpopular opinions tend to make companies not want to be associated with the person saying those unpopular opinions. That is just the facts. Had endorsements been a major thing back in the day, Ali would have lost endorsements for having unpopular opinions. If athletes or anyone else for that matter wants to say however they feel, they have to remember that people will be listening and make an opinion of that person based upon what was said. If those people feel strongly enough, they will refuse to buy the products associated with that person.

 

I know I won't pay to see a Michael Moore movie. I don't like what the guy stands for so I will actively try to avoid spending any money that I know will get back to him. If he was a shill for some products, I would be far less likely to purchase those products because of that association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go to see Michael Moore movies since I review most of them. I will, however, buy a ticket to something else and then go into his flick. My little social disobedience. :)

 

( by the way I hate his politics but he is a skilled propagandist and filmmaker. That doesn't mean he's right it just means he paints bullshit in a believable light. I wish someone on the right would do that.)

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go to see Michael Moore movies since I review most of them. I will, however, buy a ticket to something else and then go into his flick. My little social disobedience. :)

 

( by the way I hate his politics but he is a skilled propagandist and filmmaker. That doesn't mean he's right it just means he paints bullshit in a believable light. I wish someone on the right would do that.)

 

WSS

Oh I give him that. He can make chicken soup out of chicken shit but I just don't want to give the guy any of my money haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinions tend to make companies not want to be associated with the person saying those unpopular opinions. That is just the facts. Had endorsements been a major thing back in the day, Ali would have lost endorsements for having unpopular opinions. If athletes or anyone else for that matter wants to say however they feel, they have to remember that people will be listening and make an opinion of that person based upon what was said. If those people feel strongly enough, they will refuse to buy the products associated with the person.

 

I know I won't pay to see a Michael Moore movie. I don't like what the guy stands for so I will actively try to avoid spending any money that I know will get back to him. If he was a shill for some products, I would be far less likely to purchase those products because of that association.

I'm not so sure if it is just unpopular opinion but anything that might stir up controversy. Businesses don't want any kind of controversy. You have a vocal minority determined to try and shut down any speech they don't like. The left have people on the payroll who will monitor Fox 24/7 and Limbaugh and others just waiting for them to say anything they can use against them. When they think they have something they start threatening sponsors with boycotts. There is too much of that going on today and by far it is on the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is will Dana White tell him to keep this stuff to himself? Nobody else matters. What some goofballs say is meaningless. I never even heard of this and I saw the fight, probably turned it off before his comments but I simply couldn't give a fuck. He didn't insult nobody nor actually point anybody out as needing more Jesus. Had he gotten up there and said we've got too many fgts running around and they need some more Jesus, than I'd have a problem. This is a non issue.

 

If some dude after his fight talked about how we all need to recognize more that our true lord is Lucifer the light bearer....you bet your cunt hairs FOX news would spend "all" day on it. So who cares. No sponsor is going to pull UFC support over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think this a freedom of speech issue. Athletes will continue to praise Jesus Christ.

 

However, if a sponsor feels certain speech harms business, then it is in the best interest of the company to tell the athlete to curb his enthusiasm a tad when giving post game/fight interviews. It becomes a business issue, not a freedom of speech issue.

 

That said, the only ones harmed by Romeros comments were whiney ass "offended" liberals and or atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's this thing going around. A bunch of gay people in Brazil dressed some tranny up as Jesus and crucified it and whatnot. The media seems to be somewhere between ignoring it and glorifying it. Now I ask you this...if a bunch of christians staged some sort of protest where they dressed a guy up as Jesus and had a bunch of people acting as gays mock drag him to death behind a truck...how do you suppose it would go over? Even though that would be a very apt allegory for the current state of things.

 

sao-paolo-.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sao-paolo-.jpg

Interesting.

The Romans laughed at, mocked and crucified Jesus. Here the fags are playing the part of the Romans.

 

Jesus died for our sins, here its the sin of homosexuality.

 

I wonder if the person playing Jesus on the cross ever said "Forgive them Father for these fags know not what they do"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't think freedom of speech is under assault look no further than how the left is trying to punish Donald Trump for telling the truth about the border situation. What is controversial about stating the obvious we are getting some bad people from Mexico coming across the border.

 

First Univision punishes Trump, then Macy's, then NBC and now New York city is looking for ways to punish Trump. You have the right to free speech but the left will make sure you get punished if you go off the reservation and say something they don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is free to speak as he wishes and his business associates can react accordingly. If the government prevented him from saying it or arrested him, it would be a first amendment issue. If Donald thought he had a leg to stand on, he would be using the hell out of anyone who let him go.

 

I don't disagree Logic I am pointing out the tactic used by the left today to shut down free speech (or speech they don't like) and it is working. After seeing Trump get punished for speaking his mind it sends a message to others they will get punished if they speak out similarly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't disagree Logic I am pointing out the tactic used by the left today to shut down free speech (or speech they don't like) and it is working. After seeing Trump get punished for speaking his mind it sends a message to others they will get punished if they speak out similarly.

He said an unpopular opinion, and lost sponsorship. I'm not sure how that is the left limiting free speech...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't disagree Logic I am pointing out the tactic used by the left today to shut down free speech (or speech they don't like) and it is working. After seeing Trump get punished for speaking his mind it sends a message to others they will get punished if they speak out similarly.

Conservatives were threatening to boycott Cracker Barrel for pulling Duck Dynasty gear after threats from liberals to boycott Cracker Barrel. It goes both ways. If you ordered tshirts for a little league team and one of the sponsors on it started being vocal about something that you strongly disagreed with, I am sure you would pull their sponsorship. It only makes sense. I don't think it is a left or right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Left embraces boycott politics

 

Liberal activists are successfully using pressure campaigns and boycotts to pull corporate America to the left.

From gun control to climate change to same-sex marriage, a number of Fortune 500 giants are falling in line with liberal priorities and bolstering agenda items that Democrats have been unable to move through Congress.

 

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/219529-pressure-campaigns-pull-corporations-to-the-left

 

10 Rush Limbaugh Sponsors To Boycott

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/29/1353710/-10-Rush-Limbaugh-Sponsors-Every-Liberal-Should-Boycott

 

Left Claims to Have Chased Away 100+ Beck Advertisers

Liberals often claim they back free speech – except when they don’t like what is being said. Such is the case with the Glenn Beck boycott. A supposedly “nonpartisan” group pushed by liberal front groups and Web sites has been targeting Fox’s “Glenn Beck Show” since July. Their goal has been to get advertisers to withdraw. Organizers claim to have passed the 100 mark in companies that won’t push their wares on Beck.

 

http://www.mrc.org/articles/left-claims-have-chased-away-100-beck-advertisers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives were threatening to boycott Cracker Barrel for pulling Duck Dynasty gear after threats from liberals to boycott Cracker Barrel. It goes both ways. If you ordered tshirts for a little league team and one of the sponsors on it started being vocal about something that you strongly disagreed with, I am sure you would pull their sponsorship. It only makes sense. I don't think it is a left or right thing.

 

Most conservative boycotts are in reaction to the left. It is the left who are using boycotts primarily as a weapon to shut down speech they don't like. It was AFTER Cracker Barrel pulled their Duck Dynasty merchandise in a knee jerk reaction of fear to the threat of a boycott by the left that the right fought back and countered with a threat of a boycott of their own and Cracker Barrel realizing their customer base consisted of many church goers quickly decided what was in their best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...