ADVERTISEMENT

Clint Eastwood makes joke about Caitlyn Jenner,..

Maybe, Maybe not. He's making millions off this though.

He's not faking the issue.

What he is doing is exploiting it; which is why it's stupid for anyone to be too sensitive over a remark that doesn't even have a clear point. That's why I say it isn't as equivocal as Tarheel coats it.

I don't cry to my cul-de-sac over personal issues, how does he get a pass to tell the world? Dude was on a reality show that made the country dumber. If it's so hard for him, gtfo.
 
Meanwhile Clint is probably asking the person who brought him his soup, "Who was this Caitlyn person the writer put in my speech? I remember being in several movies with Jim Brown, and he was great in Driving Miss Daisy. But who is this Caitlyn? When will the soup be ready? That chair..........won't stop talking to me!"
 
My point was that what he said was harmless, but it was seen as harmful.
Isn't that the point of Spike's executives? Some saw the comment as potentially harmful (re: advertisers). It's not that much different than that guy from Duck Dynasty who made some comments about same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality. A & E initially kowtowed to public opinion; however, later realized the ones "offended" were not actually fans of the show anyway, and soon brought the program back on the air.

Clint Eastwood apparently said something about Jenner (which is his right).

Some took exception to the comment (which is their right).

Spike weighed the the price of the comment, and made a decision.

If Spike didn't feel it would affect their bottom line, then there would be no ramifications.

I would think most capitalists would agree with Spike in this situation: they've done what they feel is best for their business. If you don't like the decision, then by all means complain to Spike.

Your understanding of "free speech" appears to be lacking.
 
Isn't that the point of Spike's executives? Some saw the comment as potentially harmful (re: advertisers). It's not that much different than that guy from Duck Dynasty who made some comments about same-sex marriage and/or homosexuality. A & E initially kowtowed to public opinion; however, later realized the ones "offended" were not actually fans of the show anyway, and soon brought the program back on the air.

Clint Eastwood apparently said something about Jenner (which is his right).

Some took exception to the comment (which is their right).

Spike weighed the the price of the comment, and made a decision.

If Spike didn't feel it would affect their bottom line, then there would be no ramifications.

I would think most capitalists would agree with Spike in this situation: they've done what they feel is best for their business. If you don't like the decision, then by all means complain to Spike.

Your understanding of "free speech" appears to be lacking.
So something that isn't actually harmful, is seen as harmful, because some overly sensitive types will raise hell about it? You don't have a problem with that?
 
So something that isn't actually harmful, is seen as harmful, because some overly sensitive types will raise hell about it? You don't have a problem with that?
Number 1: I'm a capitalist. If it bothers enough people that it will potentially impact the company's bottom line, then who am I to condemn their decision?

Number 2: YOU see the comment as not being harmful (I don't either, by the way). However, you are implying that someone else who sees the comment as "harmful" is somehow wrong for feeling that way. Why don't they have the same right to pass judgement on Eastwood's comment?

Nobody's rights to freedom of expression have been denied in any way, shape, or form.
 
So something that isn't actually harmful, is seen as harmful, because some overly sensitive types will raise hell about it? You don't have a problem with that?

You keep saying "harmful" like that means something. Try offensive...it works better. And some people found the joke offensive...as is their right. They complained...as is their right. Spike weighed their options and opted to cut the joke...as is their right. YOU didn't find the joke offensive and you're complaining about...I'm not sure what. You keep complaining about it as if someone's right's have been abridged. That never happened. Nobody's freedoms were abridged...never happened.

You're free to complain about the joke being cut and you're free to say the joke wasn't offensive and you're free to complain about Spike but you can't complain about rights or freedoms being lost because those arguments do NOT apply here...at all.
 
So something that isn't actually harmful, is seen as harmful, because some overly sensitive types will raise hell about it? You don't have a problem with that?

And as usual, you are missing the important step: A private business made their own decision what to do.

After all of your nonsense posts in here, you seem to have adopted the idea that Spike is the wrong actor here. They are the ones doing your "censoring". You've said you are ok with the comment, ok with the rights of the complainants, but are angered by the censorship, which would be Spike. Which makes little sense, normal for you.
 
I'm sure the left will lose their shit when Bill Maher or any black comedian spends 10 minutes making fun of Jenner way way way harsher than the nothing that Eastwood did.

Wait...no they won't. They will laugh. They still love Tracy Morgan after saying he would kill his child if he was gay. Yeah...the left has issues. We know this.
 
I'm sure the left will lose their shit when Bill Maher or any black comedian spends 10 minutes making fun of Jenner way way way harsher than the nothing that Eastwood did.

Wait...no they won't. They will laugh. They still love Tracy Morgan after saying he would kill his child if he was gay. Yeah...the left has issues. We know this.
Not a Tracy Morgan fan here.
 
I'm sure the left will lose their shit when Bill Maher or any black comedian spends 10 minutes making fun of Jenner way way way harsher than the nothing that Eastwood did.

Wait...no they won't. They will laugh. They still love Tracy Morgan after saying he would kill his child if he was gay. Yeah...the left has issues. We know this.
Who's Tracy Morgan? Any relation to Harry Morgan?
 
[QUOTE="YellowSnow51, post: 366804, member: 2594"They still love Tracy Morgan after saying he would kill his child if he was gay. [/QUOTE]

He's my father, its different.
 
Was this Eastwood's attempt to insult D Johnson? I know he is taking a mild shot at Jenner. However calling Jenner a former athlete turned actor is not a good comp to DJ. Jim Brown also? Whole thing is just jibberish.

How does Clint get these movies directed? Every time I see him on an awards show he reminds me of the really old grandad that is on the verge of doing something tasteless and off color.
That's because he is really old and at any given time generally on the verge of doing something tasteless and off color. I'm about 15 years younger than Clint and I am always on the verge of doing something tasteless and off color. I usually go ahead and do it, just like Clint.
 
I think his point is just that we're a bunch of sensitive sallys, and Spike admins are pussies. Nothing more, nothing less.

images

Basically this. At some point people have to tell the shame police to stfu.
 
Complaining is more American than most things we pretend are American. You can complain about Bruce, you can complain about people complaining about Caitlyn, you can then complain about the people complaining about those complaining about Bruce. Then, and this is the best part, you can go home, turn on the "news" and watch millionaires complain about all of the above.

And none of it violates free speech, nor is it infringed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk in SEC Country
At the age of 85, Clint Eastwood is an American Icon.
Like the late, great Howard Cosell, you will hear Clint
tell it like it is. Freedom of speech trumps political
correctness.
 
I'm sure the left will lose their shit when Bill Maher or any black comedian spends 10 minutes making fun of Jenner way way way harsher than the nothing that Eastwood did.

Wait...no they won't. They will laugh. They still love Tracy Morgan after saying he would kill his child if he was gay. Yeah...the left has issues. We know this.
Link? As comedians know it's about timing. Clint has bad timing.
 
Bring offended is the new American past time.

Oh lord.... He made a joke. BFD.

To be fair you did have jabberjaw banned from this site because he made a joke. Granted it was about your daughter but you brought it on yourself with your thread on the situation. Regardless it was just a joke. Did you develop a sense of humor between that post and this one?
 
To be fair you did have jabberjaw banned from this site because he made a joke. Granted it was about your daughter but you brought it on yourself with your thread on the situation. Regardless it was just a joke. Did you develop a sense of humor between that post and this one?


For the record and for the last time. I've never had anyone banned for any reason.
Kakert has verified this. But I don't expect you to listen or get it. Because you never have.
 
The fact that it happened simply because there would possibly have been a reckoning is what the infringement is. Yes it's a private corporation, but are they doing this because they really give a shit, or because it would create a ridiculous amount of backlash. Anyones whos even somewhat joked about this publicly has been made to apologize, or gotten attacked by legions of whiny ass people.
So . . . are you saying people don't have a right to be critical when they hear someone talking out his ass?

Or . . . are you saying a corporation shouldn't be allowed to discipline an employee whose thoughtless comments bring negative attention to the company?

Or what?

Free speech may guarantee your right to say something stupid, but it doesn't protect you from catching shit for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrVenkman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT