[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:58 am

While having such policies is understandable, I have to disagree with Lord Hall. There can, in fact, be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by commercial considerations. In fact, there should be one rule for one and one rule for another dictated by commercial considerations.

Because, really, if enforcing your rule just makes things worse, you shouldn't enforce it.

You shouldn't let assholes hold you hostage, but at the same time when the asshole is genuinely remorseful to the point where he turns himself in without any outside prompting, pressing the "everyone loses" button doesn't actually help anyone. It hurts everyone.

And that makes you worse than the asshole who punched a guy because his food wasn't hot.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:37 am

It really does not. If you shot a guy but then felt bad about it, it would not matter how guilty you felt about it because you still shot somebody and you need to be punished / your mental health must be assessed. In much the same vein: if you punch a guy and then feel bad about it, you still punched that guy and that's still wrong.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:29 am

Obviously no matter who you are and what you do, there is a line where you get fired. Now for Clarkson it wasn't bullying his coworkers. It wasn't getting caught out fabricating test results to make electric cars look bad. It wasn't coming out as a giant science denier at he behest of his big oil corporate sponsors. It wasn't going off on sexist rants. It wasn't going off on racist rants. We know none of those things were the line, because he is such a monstrous asshole that he already did all of those things and didn't get sacked because of any of them.

The line in his case was apparently going off on a racist rant where he gave a coworker an earful about being "lazy and Irish" and then beating them physically until an onlooker intervened and pulled him off, putting his coworker into the A&E with a split lip. That is a line so far away from any line anyone I've ever known has had to cross to get fired that it defies comparison. That is a fucking crime that would normally see a person go to jail. And not even a white person crime that rich people normally get away with like bank fraud.

The fact that anyone anywhere is surprised or offended that Clarkson doesn't have a job anymore after that is sickening.

-Username17

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:39 am

I mean, yeah, I get it: endangering a show and by extension the livelihoods of the people who depend on that show for employment is an ugly business. But you know what? Whether he intended to or not, Clarkson was in effect holding jobs hostage and that enabled him to get away with some egregious bullshit that simply shouldn't fly among adults. At some point there can and should be a reckoning if you are employing someone pulling shit like that, because you are in large part responsible for allowing it to continue.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:28 am

hyzmarca wrote:You shouldn't let assholes hold you hostage, but at the same time when the asshole is genuinely remorseful to the point where he turns himself in without any outside prompting, pressing the "everyone loses" button doesn't actually help anyone. It hurts everyone.

And that makes you worse than the asshole who punched a guy because his food wasn't hot.

No, it definitely does not make you an asshole to fire a dude for beating on his coworkers in spite of his popularity. It would make you an asshole not to. We don't actually live in a world where rich white guys can openly get away with beating the peons who serve them (if just barely), and your suggestion that that wouldn't really be so bad is actually just fucking creepy.

And if you think Jeremy Clarkson is genuinely remorseful for anything other than the damage to his career, you're an idiot. Jeremy Clarkson has spent his entire career being an unrepentant asshole. We shouldn't be talking about whether or not he gets to keep his job, we should be talking about how many months he'll be spending in jail. The details of the assault are outrageous. Jeremy Clarkson didn't just strike someone unprovoked in a fit of rage. He beat a junior employee he had just spent twenty minutes screaming at, and when they refused to defend themself (presumably in part because he had just finished screaming at them about how he could have them fired) he kept beating them until he was pulled off by witnesses. Half a minute (which is the witness guestimate of how long this went on) may not sound like a long time, but it really fucking is. I want you to imagine beating on someone for thirty fucking seconds while they fearfully wait for you finish. Grab a pillow and count it out. Thirty seconds of that, except the thing on the other end of your fist is a human being - a human being who isn't fighting back because you're their rich, famous boss who gets away with everything.

Jeremy Clarkson is a sociopath who has gone so long without seeing consequences that he has become physically dangerous to the people around him.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:57 am

A violent outburst like that really seems out of character for Clarkson. I'm not saying "that sounds far-fetched, I bet it didn't happen", that isn't being contested. It's just... weird. If you said "Jeremy is in trouble again", people will assume it's because of:
*Sexism
*Racism
*Saying grossly inappropriate things that might be related to the above, or just related to things like "They should shoot (the striking workers) in front of their families"
*New EU regulations that ban "making shit up to promote a product while pretending to be reliable"
*Being rude to the wrong individual

It would take many guesses before someone went for "Did he attack someone?" What's made him go off the deep end now?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:26 am

There are two things to take away from the long string of controversies surrounding Top Gear:

1) Jeremy Clarkson has no self-restraint. We are talking about a man who feels comfortable saying the n-word in front of his coworkers and a camera. Even by "I'm not racist, but..." standards, that is incredibly unguarded.

2) No one ever tells Jeremy Clarkson no. The fact that there are multiple instances of Jeremy Clarkson saying offensive racist bullshit in front of a camera doesn't mean cameras make him racist. It means he says offensive racial bullshit all the time, and he kept doing it long enough to get caught on camera more than once because no one has ever tried to make him stop doing that.

It doesn't actually seem out of character to me. It seems unlikely, because even the biggest celebrity assholes oh-so-rarely cause actual violence, but I'm not surprised Jeremy Clarkson can now count himself among that club. It's the natural result of taking a complete asshole and giving them ten years of free reign with zero accountability for anything they say or do; you'll make a monster out of something that was barely a man to begin with.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:42 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
hyzmarca wrote:You shouldn't let assholes hold you hostage, but at the same time when the asshole is genuinely remorseful to the point where he turns himself in without any outside prompting, pressing the "everyone loses" button doesn't actually help anyone. It hurts everyone.

And that makes you worse than the asshole who punched a guy because his food wasn't hot.
And if you think Jeremy Clarkson is genuinely remorseful for anything other than the damage to his career, you're an idiot. Jeremy Clarkson has spent his entire career being an unrepentant asshole. We shouldn't be talking about whether or not he gets to keep his job, we should be talking about how many months he'll be spending in jail. The details of the assault are outrageous. Jeremy Clarkson didn't just strike someone unprovoked in a fit of rage. He beat a junior employee he had just spent twenty minutes screaming at, and when they refused to defend themself (presumably in part because he had just finished screaming at them about how he could have them fired) he kept beating them until he was pulled off by witnesses. Half a minute (which is the witness guestimate of how long this went on) may not sound like a long time, but it really fucking is. I want you to imagine beating on someone for thirty fucking seconds while they fearfully wait for you finish. Grab a pillow and count it out. Thirty seconds of that, except the thing on the other end of your fist is a human being - a human being who isn't fighting back because you're their rich, famous boss who gets away with everything.

While punishment is certainly warrented, I don't think firing is the aproperiate or proportional.

If I was in charge of the BBC, I'd go with schoolyard rule on this one. If someone hits you, then you get to hit them back for free. So Oisin Tymon would be allowed to beat Clarkson for 30 seconds and Clarkson wouldn't be allowed to defend himself.

It's a simple, elegant solution that makes everything even without endangering the show.

Small children can figure out that this is the most fair solution for everyone, so why can't BBC execs?

violence in the media · Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:04 pm

@hyzmarca -- Why is it so important to you that this guy not be fired? Wasn't the show about to end anyway? Also, what in your world would be a fire-able offence, if not assaulting a coworker or subordinate?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:40 pm

violence in the media wrote:@hyzmarca -- Why is it so important to you that this guy not be fired? Wasn't the show about to end anyway? Also, what in your world would be a fire-able offence, if not assaulting a coworker or subordinate?

You firing is the last resort when an employee's actions damage the profitability of the business. If the problem is between coworkers, then firing is only appropriate if it impacts their performance and if they can't work out a satisfactory solution. If everyone involved wants to work things out, then you help them work it out. In that case firing someone is inappropriate.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:47 pm

You firing is the last resort when an employee's actions damage the profitability of the business.

A business has a responsibility to the health and welfare of its employees as well. Jezzer fucked up, and he cross the line into physical violence, which isn't acceptable. I'm glad he was man enough to apologize, and to report it himself instead of trying to deny it or cover it up. I might wish they'd come to some sort of settlement or arbitration to keep the show on the air, but I can't really fault them for the decision.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:59 pm

hyzmarca wrote: You firing is the last resort when an employee's actions damage the profitability of the business. If the problem is between coworkers, then firing is only appropriate if it impacts their performance and if they can't work out a satisfactory solution. If everyone involved wants to work things out, then you help them work it out. In that case firing someone is inappropriate.

So, you're saying he doesn't get fired for punching someone, but he does get fired for going to jail for punching someone, because he can't do his job?

Weird.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:11 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
hyzmarca wrote: You firing is the last resort when an employee's actions damage the profitability of the business. If the problem is between coworkers, then firing is only appropriate if it impacts their performance and if they can't work out a satisfactory solution. If everyone involved wants to work things out, then you help them work it out. In that case firing someone is inappropriate.
So, you're saying he doesn't get fired for punching someone, but he does get fired for going to jail for punching someone, because he can't do his job?

Weird.

Depending on the impact to the ratings, it might even be best to encourage him to punch people.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:13 pm

Which might actually happen, seeing how the police has requested the internal documents concerning this from the BBC.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:37 pm

I think there's something else going on. I'm gonna put my money on Clarkson having some sort of medical problem.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:57 pm

hyzmarca wrote:
violence in the media wrote:@hyzmarca -- Why is it so important to you that this guy not be fired? Wasn't the show about to end anyway? Also, what in your world would be a fire-able offence, if not assaulting a coworker or subordinate?
You firing is the last resort when an employee's actions damage the profitability of the business. If the problem is between coworkers, then firing is only appropriate if it impacts their performance and if they can't work out a satisfactory solution. If everyone involved wants to work things out, then you help them work it out. In that case firing someone is inappropriate.

Your Capitalism level just broke my scouter.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:20 pm

hyzmarca wrote:While punishment is certainly warrented, I don't think firing is the aproperiate or proportional.

If I was in charge of the BBC, I'd go with schoolyard rule on this one. If someone hits you, then you get to hit them back for free. So Oisin Tymon would be allowed to beat Clarkson for 30 seconds and Clarkson wouldn't be allowed to defend himself.

It's a simple, elegant solution that makes everything even without endangering the show.

Small children can figure out that this is the most fair solution for everyone, so why can't BBC execs?

Might have something to do with the fact that people can die from a single punch.

Also not everyone is a violent sociopath that enjoys hitting people.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:17 pm

There is a reason it's called a "schoolyard rule", and that's because it's not applicable to problems after you leave fifth grade. Also, your crazy belief that money should dictate morality is crazy and I urge you to stop talking. This honestly just sounds like rationalization because you picked a stance that's effectively incapable of being defended, and there's no need to incite a bunch of people into making fun of you over something that is essentially a lie.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:58 pm

I'm a pretty aggressive person and I'd have trouble beating on someone for thirty seconds when they aren't fighting back. Even going off of nothing but pure catharsis, all I'd want is a chance to fight him directly without worrying about harming my career or getting in legal trouble for it. That someone would consider beating on a helpless opponent because "they have it coming" to be cathartic is unsettling. That someone would consider it good policy is insane.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:15 pm

...You Lost Me wrote:There is a reason it's called a "schoolyard rule", and that's because it's not applicable to problems after you leave fifth grade.

It works so long as everyone involves abides by the gentleman's agreement. If everyone wants the solution to work out, many solutions will work. If the parties involved don't want them to work, then nothing will work. But in this case, the aggrieved party didn't even make a complaint and doesn't want to offender punished. So really, any solution would be effective, and no solution at all would be effective. The only issue is that it would have to restore equity or provide some sort of punishment against Clarkson in the eyes of outsiders.

Hypothetically speaking, paying the guy's medical bills would probably be more equitable, but I'm not sure that's childish enough.

Also, your crazy belief that money should dictate morality is crazy and I urge you to stop talking.

In a world where money doesn't dictate morality, everyone starves to death because no one has any money with which to buy food. A lost job is a greater harm than a split lip. Dozens of lost jobs is a much greater harm than a split lip.

A split lip is a momentary inconvenience, somewhat painful and annoying but something that will heal on its own. The consequences of a lost job range from a minor reduction in quality of life to actually and literately starving to death. Of course, I don't think that many people at the BBC are in such dire financial straits that they couldn't stand a period of unemployment, it's still a substantial loss.

And the principle certain applies to industries that are far less lucrative and white-colar than television.

Chamomile wrote:I'm a pretty aggressive person and I'd have trouble beating on someone for thirty seconds when they aren't fighting back. Even going off of nothing but pure catharsis, all I'd want is a chance to fight him directly without worrying about harming my career or getting in legal trouble for it. That someone would consider beating on a helpless opponent because "they have it coming" to be cathartic is unsettling. That someone would consider it good policy is insane.

The schoolyard rule of free licks has nothing to do with catharsis and everything to do with an unsophisticated and childish notion of equity and fairness, with the ultimate point being to make the two parties even so that they can put the dispute behind them and move on as friends, or at least cooperative non-enemies. It is, of course, childish and unsophisticated because the rule was invented by children.

The point being that even five year olds know that restorative justice is vastly superior to punitive justice, even if their means of restoration leave much to be desired.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:34 pm

hyzmarca wrote:The schoolyard rule of free licks has nothing to do with catharsis and everything to do with an unsophisticated and childish notion of equity and fairness, with the ultimate point being to make the two parties even so that they can put the dispute behind them and move on as friends, or at least cooperative non-enemies. It is, of course, childish and unsophisticated because the rule was invented by children.

The point being that even five year olds know that restorative justice is vastly superior to punitive justice, even if their means of restoration leave much to be desired.

You are a fucking idiot. Someone else wailing on him back for 30 seconds would only be "restorative" if they derived as much pleasure from it as the pain they received, which would of course only apply if they were a sadist, and even then only a specific kind of sadist.

You are advocating stupid punitive justice. Because that is what hurting him back is. Punitive.

Firing him is not restorative or punitive, it is preventative, like how we lock up murders at least partly to prevent them from murdering more people. This is a person who punished someone he believed deserved punishment, and he believed it was his place to punish. Since you can't do anything about the former, a reasonable preventive move is to remove him from the position of thinking he is responsible for punishing others. You do that by firing him.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:52 pm

Hyzmarca, you're being a fucking idiot. The purpose of criminal law is for the government to disincentivize certain actions by making a credible threat to punish those who perform them. It is punitive only in the sense that punishments serve as disincentives and that locking certain people up directly prevents crime and also happens to be a punishment. It is only restorative when restorative justice is sufficient for those actions to continue being disincentivized. It is (indirectly) preventative. There are actual honest to god reasons to avoid issuing jail as a sentence (petty theft by the poor) and there are actual honest to god reasons to lock people up and throw away the key (serial killers) and there are actual honest to god reasons to use everything inbetween (months for beating the shit out of your willfully defenseless subordinate coworkers, years for massive banking fraud). And yes, as a society, we get a lot of this completely backwards. Oops.

Jeremy Clarkson needs to lose his fucking job (and preferably go to jail for a few months), or else the government is no longer credibly promising to protect people from sufficiently rich and famous employers who want to beat the shit out of them. Oisin Tymon needs be awarded a substantial sum of money out of Jeremy Clarkson's pocket (far more than simply medical expenses), because the government needs to credibly promise that just because your boss beat the shit out of you your livelihood won't be endangered if you allow it to go public. The world will be a better place if the government credibly promises to jail rich old white guys who physically hit their underlings and the world will be a better place if the government credibly promises to guarantee your financial security if public scandal surrounding the abuse jeopardizes your job.

Your "punch for a punch" bullshit is monstrous and unfair and the world you are describing is dystopian. Your "if Oisin Tymon says it's okay, it's okay" bullshit is monstrous and naive and you should consider how it would sound if you were talking about domestic abuse.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:45 pm

DSMatticus wrote:you should consider how it would sound if you were talking about domestic abuse.

Or child abuse.

Taken to obvious conclusions, Hyzmarca, your monstrous ideal policies suggest it is okay to have someone beat the shit out of one of your kids so long as the child gets its medical expenses paid and the child gets a chance to hit them back, if they recover enough strength to do so.

What the fuuuuuuuck?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:10 am

Your "if Oisin Tymon says it's okay, it's okay" bullshit is monstrous and naive and you should consider how it would sound if you were talking about domestic abuse.

New evidence suggests that mandatory arrest laws do more harm than good, especially among the poor and minorities. Apparently, witnessing one's partner being arrested greatly increases one's chances of dying from heart disease.

erik wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:you should consider how it would sound if you were talking about domestic abuse.
Or child abuse.

Taken to obvious conclusions, Hyzmarca, your monstrous ideal policies suggest it is okay to have someone beat the shit out of one of your kids so long as the child gets its medical expenses paid and the child gets a chance to hit them back, if they recover enough strength to do so.

What the fuuuuuuuck?

Ah, but this wasn't child abuse. This was two adult men, and the degree of injury does not rise to the level of injury does not rise to level of beating the shit out of. Rather, the injury is on the level of a minor scuffle.

A friend you've worked with for over a decade gets angry and does something incredibly stupid. He apologizes, you forgive him, life goes on. Maybe you do some stupid male-bonding ritual to cement the deal.

All I'm saying is you don't compound the problem when the guilty party knows that they screwed up and wants to make amends.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:26 am

A minor scuffle that someone had to go to the hospital for? That's the scuffle we're talking about, right? The one where the victim is trying not to talk to his aggressor at all even though they're "friends"?

Do you not realize how disconnected you are from the real world?