CNN fires Chris Cuomo

[Patrick Chewing]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/YzvPqrOVoS9tC/giphy.gif

[diamenz]

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/76226411/he-gone.jpg

[Patrick Chewing]

Dems taking massive L's this year. :oldlol:

[bladefd]

Cool, are you going to throw a party over it pattychew? Am I invited??

[Patrick Chewing]

Cool, are you going to throw a party over it pattychew? Am I invited??

I know it bothers you. It truly does.

But if I were throwing a party, I would never knowingly invite a Liberal. I have a strong dislike for Liberals.

[Dr. Lemon]

A true pioneer and visionary in the journalistic field.

He will be deeply missed.

[bladefd]

I know it bothers you. It truly does.

But if I were throwing a party, I would never knowingly invite a Liberal. I have a strong dislike for Liberals.

What bothers me? Cuomo being fired? I don't even watch CNN or tv news.

You seem more invested in Cuomo getting fired than a self-proclaimed liberal in yours truly. I honestly don't think most liberals will care much. What Cuomo did trying to secretly help his big brother facing sexual harassment charges is clearly wrong. Having said that, I suspect conservatives like you will care a lot because they feel threatened even though there is no reason to be.

[Hey Yo]

I don't even watch tv news


You're so full of shit...... :oldlol:

[TeflonDonTrump]

Another victim of the MAGA curse

[Patrick Chewing]

I don't even watch tv news


You're so full of shit...... :oldlol:

blade is here to provide us comedic relief :oldlol:

[warriorfan]

and blade having a meltdown about it :roll: :roll:

[bladefd]

I don't even watch tv news


You're so full of shit...... :oldlol:

If that helps you sleep better at night, then wonderful :oldlol:


But for those concerned with the facts, I have not tuned to tv news since I believe the Trump impeachment in February after Biden took office. The closest thing I've watched often that could be considered tv news was Real time with Bill Maher on HBO max once a week.. However, as far as cnn/nbcnews/abcnews/bbc/fauxnews/etc are concerned, I haven't watched any in 10 months. I will probably tune to them during next election in November unless something major happens in the world before that like a war in Ukraine or Taiwan or something crazy like high-level Trumpeters on trial for January 6.

[jstern]

CNN has no integrity whatsoever, and neither do their viewers. So they could have kept him, and just pretend as though nothing was going on. Lets not forget, this is the same company that brought back one of its people after he *********ed during a zoom conference call. (That's more embarrassing than what happened to Gaige Grosskreutz (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499671-Gaige-Grosskreutz-chair-breaks-during-Zoom-Call-Kyle-Rittenhouse-laughs-ass-off).)

I'm sure the usual suspects are upset about it. Bladedf and others. But the truth of the matter is that Chris Cuomo and the rest of the lying fakers at CNN are worse than criminals. They are worse than your average criminal murderers, because their lies lead to countless death and destruction.

And lets not forget about the thousands of nursing home patients that were killed because of his brother, as he sat and interviewed him and congratulated him for his "incredible leadership" during the China virus pandemic.

My prediction is that Cuomo will be back in 8 months, just as the shameless *********ing Jeffrey Toobin. Most people would be so ashamed and embarrassed after getting caught *********ing during a zoom meeting that they would never show their face again. It would just even be awkward for his colleagues, but like I said, these people lack human shame. These people are worse than animals.

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J0WeV85Oyo

[BurningHammer]

If that helps you sleep better at night, then wonderful :oldlol:


But for those concerned with the facts, I have not tuned to tv news since I believe the Trump impeachment in February after Biden took office. The closest thing I've watched often that could be considered tv news was Real time with Bill Maher on HBO max once a week.. However, as far as cnn/nbcnews/abcnews/bbc/fauxnews/etc are concerned, I haven't watched any in 10 months. I will probably tune to them during next election in November unless something major happens in the world before that like a war in Ukraine or Taiwan or something crazy like high-level Trumpeters on trial for January 6.

It is tough to draw ratings for news networks nowadays when there is the Internet. That is why some news specific networks like Fox News and CNN are what they are today. They are all waiting for some major news passing by to cover and probably shit all over it, otherwise they will just blindly pander to their core audiences daily.

I still watch some 24-hour news network on TV like CP24 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP24) for news, weather and live sport results all in one though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGZwAGvp2ow

[rawimpact]

Must've been an interesting Thanksgiving get together.

[hiphopanonymous]

That many on the left preaches cancel culture yet can't see that it will also result in their own self destruction is interesting.

[Patrick Chewing]

That many on the left preaches cancel culture yet can't see that it will also result in their own self destruction is interesting.


That's the hope, that one day when Cancel Culture cancels them out, that they'll look back and reflect on how maybe they shouldn't have acted like little Hitlers.

[Doomsday Dallas]

That's the hope, that one day when Cancel Culture cancels them out, that they'll look back and reflect on how maybe they shouldn't have acted like little Hitlers.

Liberals waking up to their fascist ways?

Yea, that’ll never happen.

One can hope though.

[hiphopanonymous]

That's the hope, that one day when Cancel Culture cancels them out, that they'll look back and reflect on how maybe they shouldn't have acted like little Hitlers.
Societies can spiral downward quick when things like that go unchecked and unfortunately it probably wouldn't "just" be them that sinks with the ship, as everyone is onboard the ship so everyone else would sink with them. It would just be ironic on their part.

I know you don't think I lean right but I definitely do and this is a good example. The left side of ideologies and politics can have a purpose balancing out a society especially when it's simply moderate left ideas meeting moderate right ideas. But, especially on this topic and how I've seen it affect our culture and what we know about past cultures all I can think of is that saying... Be careful not to throw your baby out with the bathwater.

By the way, since cancel culture seems to be pervasive at the moment (thankfully not in a legislative way yet, just a private business way so far) what would you suggest be a solution for rectifying it if you hypothetically were in a position of power to do so? Would you legislate employee protective laws from a federal or state level to actively reduce these instances? Or would you try to keep things small government still and sort of stay out of it and hope it solves itself? If you attempted to rectify any wrongful terminations how would you attempt to do this with as little alienation as possible to any alleged 'victims' of whatever wrongdoings came forward? (It could get twisted as legislation for protecting the guilty especially if the person was indeed guilty)

[Off the Court]

All of these news networks are getting canceled.

https://deadline.com/2021/09/fox-news-msnbc-cnn-ratings-1234846126/


In the third quarter primetime, Fox News averaged 2.37 million total viewers, down 32% from the same period a year earlier. MSNBC posted 1.27 million, down 40%, while CNN had 822,000, down 46%. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 377,000, down 37%; CNN posted 188,000, down 52%; and MSNBC was at 161,000, down 51%.

Watching news on TV is for boomers. It's going the same route as reading newspapers.

[Patrick Chewing]

By the way, since cancel culture seems to be pervasive at the moment (thankfully not in a legislative way yet, just a private business way so far) what would you suggest be a solution for rectifying it if you hypothetically were in a position of power to do so? Would you legislate employee protective laws from a federal or state level to actively reduce these instances? Or would you try to keep things small government still and sort of stay out of it and hope it solves itself? If you attempted to rectify any wrongful terminations how would you attempt to do this with as little alienation as possible to any alleged 'victims' of whatever wrongdoings came forward? (It could get twisted as legislation for protecting the guilty especially if the person was indeed guilty)

Government may have to get involved, but then the question is, what kind of government will get involved. If it's a Republican-controlled government, then you know the Democrats will fight it. And if it's a Democrat-controlled government, then they will do nothing about it because these are their voters they would be going against. This would definitely have to be a Supreme Court ruling.

Government would have to make a clear distinction of what is hate speech, and I think that distinction would be anything that encourages harm to the individual or individual. Government would then have to make it clear that no business whether private or Federal can fire someone based on their political affiliation or political opinions, but be highly encouraged to monitor any type of political discourse within their own work environment, and implement into their Code of Conduct manuals that perhaps politics is a no no in the workplace. Not to be discussed, or advertised in any way. Only outside of the workplace. That would discourage any snowflake from feeling "offended" and then seeking out to ruin you.

We are so divided that I don't think it will correct itself until the Left eats its own and then wakes up to what they've been doing and have been encouraging for so long. But then, that would take the Left realizing that they have been wrong and it would be that they would be aligning themselves with the Right in that regard. And I frankly cannot see any Liberal changing their mind on the Right.

Doxing should also be a Federal crime if it isn't already. Again, take away the tools that the Left uses against those they do not agree with.

[hiphopanonymous]

Government may have to get involved, but then the question is, what kind of government will get involved. If it's a Republican-controlled government, then you know the Democrats will fight it. And if it's a Democrat-controlled government, then they will do nothing about it because these are their voters they would be going against. This would definitely have to be a Supreme Court ruling.

Government would have to make a clear distinction of what is hate speech, and I think that distinction would be anything that encourages harm to the individual or individual. Government would then have to make it clear that no business whether private or Federal can fire someone based on their political affiliation or political opinions, but be highly encouraged to monitor any type of political discourse within their own work environment, and implement into their Code of Conduct manuals that perhaps politics is a no no in the workplace. Not to be discussed, or advertised in any way. Only outside of the workplace. That would discourage any snowflake from feeling "offended" and then seeking out to ruin you.

We are so divided that I don't think it will correct itself until the Left eats its own and then wakes up to what they've been doing and have been encouraging for so long. But then, that would take the Left realizing that they have been wrong and it would be that they would be aligning themselves with the Right in that regard. And I frankly cannot see any Liberal changing their mind on the Right.

Doxing should also be a Federal crime if it isn't already. Again, take away the tools that the Left uses against those they do not agree with.
That's an interesting take but if you don't mind my saying so it almost sounds like fighting censorship (through cancellation / termination) with more censorship (through muting people by regulation) just at a slightly earlier stage?

I could be misunderstanding that so feel free to clarify. But if perhaps that is what you were entertaining my own thought would be fighting fire with fire would just move the goalpost and achieve the same end result where free speech or rights to a fair trial are at risk of being lost. Free speech (and fair trials for those who get accused of things) is a right within our society as opposed to just a privilege.

My two cents for free speech and fair trial to remain as a "right" not just a privilege would be something more along the lines of legislation that simply protects an employees rights. This of course would come at the cost of the employer having less flexibility "discriminating" against their employees (in this case, discrimination based on legal proceedings in the personal life, or political opinions, etc as you mentioned). So that the majority of the populace is protected against being "cancelled" by social pressures. My guess is one of the many potential consequences of that would be that businesses will bear the brunt of things like boycotts more often. Because if the vocal mob calling for the firing of someone can't have their needs met they'll just try to boycott or something instead. This is ultimately what corporations and business owners are fearing which is why they fire people who are in the hotseat but if the government stepped in and said no, that employee has a right to continue employment and termination would be wrongful then hey, the corporation just has deal with it.

There would probably have to be many nuances and loopholes roped into something like that though, because things aren't always so cut and dry. Anyways that was just my two cents.

[bladefd]

So in workplace, you are usually allowed to discuss politics depending on their company policy, but yes businesses can technically fire you on some political difference depending on their company policy. They are allowed to because freedom of speech doesn't extend over private businesses. The way free speech works is you have freedom of speech from the government itself. However, that protection doesn't quite extend to between individuals (unless if one of the involved individuals is a government official in official capacity). What you are saying is that politics should be protected from discrimination alongside race, gender, etc, correct?

All those protections from discrimination on basis of race, gender, sex, etc come from one of the civil rights acts that provides protection from discrimination. It doesn't cover politics so you would have to amend that into the civil rights act or just pass a separate amendment that adds in protection for politics alongside race, gender, religion, etc. It sounds pretty simple, but in practice, passing amendments is very difficult.

Now say you passed that protection, what would society look like? Now businesses can't cut ties with you anymore over political differences without the government getting involved? Is that what you want? Imagine being a conservative business and you have a liberal outspoken employee calling you out in public over politics. Would you be okay with not being able to fire that individual anymore? Is that why you want governments to force businesses to ban any political discourse within workplace so now you can fire people on the basis of opening their mouths rather than political differences?

Hipho is right. Why would you support more censorship to quiet up people instead of the government being hands-off? Are you trying to get us to the point that even arguing about somebody's politics with them could be automatic discrimination?

[hiphopanonymous]

So in workplace, you are usually allowed to discuss politics depending on their company policy, but yes businesses can technically fire you on some political difference depending on their company policy. They are allowed to because freedom of speech doesn't extend over private businesses. The way free speech works is you have freedom of speech from the government itself. However, that protection doesn't quite extend to between individuals (unless if one of the involved individuals is a government official in official capacity). What you are saying is that politics should be protected from discrimination alongside race, gender, etc, correct?

All those protections from discrimination on basis of race, gender, sex, etc come from one of the civil rights acts that provides protection from discrimination. It doesn't cover politics so you would have to amend that into the civil rights act or just pass a separate amendment that adds in protection for politics alongside race, gender, religion, etc. It sounds pretty simple, but in practice, passing amendments is very difficult.

Now say you passed that protection, what would society look like? Now businesses can't cut ties with you anymore over political differences without the government getting involved? Is that what you want? Imagine being a conservative business and you have a liberal outspoken employee calling you out in public over politics. Would you be okay with not being able to fire that individual anymore? Is that why you want governments to force businesses to ban any political discourse within workplace so now you can fire people on the basis of opening their mouths rather than political differences?

Hipho is right. Why would you support more censorship to quiet up people instead of the government being hands-off? Are you trying to get us to the point that even arguing about somebody's politics with them could be automatic discrimination?
This is why I hedged with stating nuances or loopholes would need to be written in somehow. What those might be I honestly do not know and they would need to be carefully weighed and well thought out to try and prevent the people (who now have more rights) from taking advantage of the employers (who now have less ability to impose termination). If any employee is just manipulating an employer in a disruptive manner to gain notoriety or platform to push their agenda there's got to be some way an employer can spot certain patterns that maybe put the situation in a different light. Like if your out of work behavior actually flat out targets your employer to put them in a bad light. Otherwise your out of work behavior I would think should be protected in most cases but again this would need a lot of thought to figure out ways to keep the employer protected from deliberate efforts to disrupt their business.

Also I would imagine the "left" side might be tempted to take this political idea and run with it much in ways they've done for other anti-discrimination situations like you mentioned and attempt to actually make this a pushy "affirmative action" thing which I would be against. You know, like having political diversity quota's or something. I'm personally not a fan of affirmative action I tend to think economics solves itself because people in the business of making money or developing products want the best - not almost the best but had to pass on a few of the best candidates for hire due to diversity requirements.

[Patrick Chewing]

At home and on my cell phone so I won't type a whole lot, but to make a long story short, I support businesses making the discussion of politics in the workplace off limits if they choose to. Just like you can't talk about porn and having sex with a female colleague cause it would violate sexual harassment laws, I'm sure companies can come up with something that would fall under a similar category.

Now, let me first say that I'm not for this from the perspective that I support free speech to the fullest, but in today's climate, this is how you curb these Cancel Culture vipers. And remember, it's the rational person coming up with an idea like this in order to combat what the other side started. So until the other side can get it through their head that people have different opinions and that it's okay if someone doesn't like them or doesn't agree with their pronouns, then I don't know of another sensible way to stop it.

These people will weed themselves out though. When they realize they can't get their way, then they'll stop. When they realize that they're job is now in jeopardy because of their intolerant beliefs, then they'll understand the gravity of their actions.

I know what you're saying that it sounds like we're fighting censorship with further censorship, but I don't see it that way. We are fighting censorship by censoring those who perpetuate the cancel culture and intolerance.

And to answer blade's hypothetical about the employee chirping at me because of my beliefs. Well, if he has crossed that line of harassment, then it doesn't matter what the subject matter is, he violated a code of conduct rule and is able to be reprimanded as such.

[kabacho]

https://i.ibb.co/0tb7qgT/1638835208258.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

[hiphopanonymous]

https://i.ibb.co/0tb7qgT/1638835208258.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

Wrong thread

[bladefd]

At home and on my cell phone so I won't type a whole lot, but to make a long story short, I support businesses making the discussion of politics in the workplace off limits if they choose to. Just like you can't talk about porn and having sex with a female colleague cause it would violate sexual harassment laws, I'm sure companies can come up with something that would fall under a similar category.

Now, let me first say that I'm not for this from the perspective that I support free speech to the fullest, but in today's climate, this is how you curb these Cancel Culture vipers. And remember, it's the rational person coming up with an idea like this in order to combat what the other side started. So until the other side can get it through their head that people have different opinions and that it's okay if someone doesn't like them or doesn't agree with their pronouns, then I don't know of another sensible way to stop it.

These people will weed themselves out though. When they realize they can't get their way, then they'll stop. When they realize that they're job is now in jeopardy because of their intolerant beliefs, then they'll understand the gravity of their actions.

I know what you're saying that it sounds like we're fighting censorship with further censorship, but I don't see it that way. We are fighting censorship by censoring those who perpetuate the cancel culture and intolerance.

And to answer blade's hypothetical about the employee chirping at me because of my beliefs. Well, if he has crossed that line of harassment, then it doesn't matter what the subject matter is, he violated a code of conduct rule and is able to be reprimanded as such.

Have you considered unintended consequences? I don't think you have.

You are just throwing out "Yeah, let's have the government legislatures come in and make it illegal for anyone to even bring up politics in the workplace." You do know companies can already do that on basis of politics in their workplace if they want to, right? Majority of them choose not to. Now you want the government to come in and oversee that too? I thought you were a conservative against the government being in control of everything? Your idea is hardly American conservative. It's flat-out authoritarian.

[hiphopanonymous]

At home and on my cell phone so I won't type a whole lot, but to make a long story short, I support businesses making the discussion of politics in the workplace off limits if they choose to. Just like you can't talk about porn and having sex with a female colleague cause it would violate sexual harassment laws, I'm sure companies can come up with something that would fall under a similar category.

Now, let me first say that I'm not for this from the perspective that I support free speech to the fullest, but in today's climate, this is how you curb these Cancel Culture vipers. And remember, it's the rational person coming up with an idea like this in order to combat what the other side started. So until the other side can get it through their head that people have different opinions and that it's okay if someone doesn't like them or doesn't agree with their pronouns, then I don't know of another sensible way to stop it.

These people will weed themselves out though. When they realize they can't get their way, then they'll stop. When they realize that they're job is now in jeopardy because of their intolerant beliefs, then they'll understand the gravity of their actions.

I know what you're saying that it sounds like we're fighting censorship with further censorship, but I don't see it that way. We are fighting censorship by censoring those who perpetuate the cancel culture and intolerance.

And to answer blade's hypothetical about the employee chirping at me because of my beliefs. Well, if he has crossed that line of harassment, then it doesn't matter what the subject matter is, he violated a code of conduct rule and is able to be reprimanded as such.
I do not believe politically censoring anyone from any groups is the answer at all and I'm stunned you do. Do you want your rights to criticize those in power protected? Or do you want them taken away?

[Patrick Chewing]

Have you considered unintended consequences? I don't think you have.

You are just throwing out "Yeah, let's have the government legislatures come in and make it illegal for anyone to even bring up politics in the workplace." You do know companies can already do that on basis of politics in their workplace if they want to, right? Majority of them choose not to. Now you want the government to come in and oversee that too? I thought you were a conservative against the government being in control of everything? Your idea is hardly American conservative. It's flat-out authoritarian.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Government should only get involved if someone is fired for their political beliefs which is not the same as allowing your political beliefs to interfere with your work, or allowing your political beliefs to harass and demean others.

But what companies should implement is a no tolerance policy on political discourse until things settle down and the culture and climate have changed. You just had a case where a Netflix employee nearly singlehandedly took down Dave Chappelle. A fat, blue-haired gender neutral freak almost canceled Dave Chappelle. Let that sink in. That can't happen anymore.

[bladefd]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Government should only get involved if someone is fired for their political beliefs which is not the same as allowing your political beliefs to interfere with your work, or allowing your political beliefs to harass and demean others.

But what companies should implement is a no tolerance policy on political discourse until things settle down and the culture and climate have changed. You just had a case where a Netflix employee nearly singlehandedly took down Dave Chappelle. A fat, blue-haired gender neutral freak almost canceled Dave Chappelle. Let that sink in. That can't happen anymore.

"Government would then have to make it clear that no business whether private or Federal can fire someone based on their political affiliation or political opinions, but be highly encouraged to monitor any type of political discourse within their own work environment, and implement into their Code of Conduct manuals that perhaps politics is a no no in the workplace. Not to be discussed, or advertised in any way. Only outside of the workplace."

You are asking for the US government to prohibit private companies from allowing anyone to discuss politics while in the workplace. Private companies can already do that if they wanted to AFAIK, but they for the most part choose not to. You want the government to force the private companies to implement it. Is that not what you are saying?

[Lakers Legend#32]

Remember when Chewing said he was against cancel culture?

[Patrick Chewing]

"Government would then have to make it clear that no business whether private or Federal can fire someone based on their political affiliation or political opinions, but be highly encouraged to monitor any type of political discourse within their own work environment, and implement into their Code of Conduct manuals that perhaps politics is a no no in the workplace. Not to be discussed, or advertised in any way. Only outside of the workplace."

You are asking for the US government to prohibit private companies from allowing anyone to discuss politics while in the workplace. Private companies can already do that if they wanted to AFAIK, but they for the most part choose not to. You want the government to force the private companies to implement it. Is that not what you are saying?

No, I'm saying that private companies should encourage that lack of discourse of politics in the workplace. I'm sure some do already.

Government should only get involved to protect the worker if a company or someone within that company attempts to cancel or get that worker fired just for having any particular political opinion outside the workplace that doesn't coincide with theirs.

For example: You and I are friends on Facebook. You see a post I make saying something about how George Floyd had it coming to him. You then broadcast my opinion to the masses. Somehow, my opinion reaches the eyes and ears of my employer and because they employ me, they are getting hateful letters and threats of boycotts. Easiest thing to do is for my employer to fire me to cease the negative press. I have lost my job, thus being "canceled". So now, with the kind of government involvement I'm talking about, my current employer is now forbidden from firing me for my beliefs outside of the workplace.

So it's a two-part effect in order to combat and eliminate cancel culture. Private businesses enforce a No-Politics Policy on the premises. And government protects the worker from the witch hunt to get them fired.

I think we can all agree on this.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Earthshaking news for MAGAS.
For the rest of the world, who cares?

[Patrick Chewing]

Earthshaking news for MAGAS.
For the rest of the world, who cares?

If you're the rest of the world, then why are you here?

[Long Duck Dong]

I didn't really care about this story at the time but damn it's had huge implications. Apparently Chris Cuomo out Jeff Zucker, the CNN president's inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and he was just forced to step down because of it. CNN staff reportedly are totally devastated because the replacement president might take the network in more balanced, less woke direction

[Patrick Chewing]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/KeenEducatedBeetle-max-1mb.gif

[Long Duck Dong]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/KeenEducatedBeetle-max-1mb.gif

Chris Cuomo may be a douche but I bet he went out the door saying, "If I'm going down, the whole stack of cards is going down with me muthafvckers!". Zucker probably probably didn't think anything of it at the time. Now he's standing with Chris at the unemployment line.

[Patrick Chewing]

Chris Cuomo may be a douche but I bet he went out the door saying, "If I'm going down, the whole stack of cards is going down with me muthafvckers!". Zucker probably probably didn't think anything of it at the time. Now he's standing with Chris at the unemployment line.

I want that entire network to burn. Burn to the ground.

[Long Duck Dong]

I want that entire network to burn. Burn to the ground.


Jake Tapper called Chris Cuomo a "terrorist" for getting Zucker fired. Jim Acosta is so terrified that he says without his woke Daddy Zucker to keep the current agenda CNN will turn into "FOX News Lite". Their newsroom is in shambles. Loving it. :pimp: