Qatar Bans Beer Sales at World Cup Stadiums: Would Anheuser-Busch be Wrong to Withdraw Sponsorship?
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Obviously you've never spent much (any?) time in the executive offices of some of the major multi-nationals.
S2 #23
Or an NHL locker room?
There are many American English dialects. The Southern drawl may top the list. But I am aware some men cuss among men, but in "mixed company" employ a more church-friendly vocabulary. IIRC LBJ was in that camp, among many notable others. Biden too?
Or an NHL locker room?
There are many American English dialects. The Southern drawl may top the list. But I am aware some men cuss among men, but in "mixed company" employ a more church-friendly vocabulary. IIRC LBJ was in that camp, among many notable others. Biden too?
I suppose once again it's time for the "soap box" perspective.
The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment enshrines in law the right of our pioneer villagers to shuffle off to the village square, ascend a discarded soapbox, and attract and address a crowd on matters of public interest.
Fast forward 250 years and we still have that right. BUT !! It's a new millennium, a different world. Go to the public square today and it may well be deserted. Our countrymen are comfortably contained in their climate controlled SUV, on their way to the shopping mall.
Fine. So the commerce that used to take place in the public square in 1770 now takes place at the shopping mall. Right?
Right.
BUT !!
Though your countrymen and their pocketbooks are welcome at the shopping mall, their First Amendment right to free speech is not.
Many of the rights (including free speech) enumerated in the Constitution protect citizens from government intrusion.
But many shopping malls in the U.S. are privately owned. And U.S. government has no legal authority to dictate such terms to shopping mall owners.
The result: we can still ascend the soapbox in the public square and make a speech. But it's unlikely to be heard.
And while that same speech delivered at a shopping mall might reach many more citizens, many shopping mall owners limit or prohibit it.
So in this new millennium we need a venue. We need access to our countrymen so we can address matters of importance to our neighbors, fellow voters.
That's what BBS like Citizen Voice is about.
I understand the childish glee of disruption, trolling.
But such disruption / destruction places this exceedingly valuable form of communication in jeopardy. I'm not denying the appeal of the childish antic. But persons of sense must understand, when the risk to benefit ratio is objectively considered, it is the communication, the constructive presence of the public forum which is the more important.
This multi-faceted utility includes issues of national and or humanitarian import such as the recent judicial coup d'état on abortion, the Russian carnage in Ukraine, or the existential threat of atmospheric Carbon.
Included in this utility is empowerment of the minority, whether that be a minority by skin color, religious affiliation, or personal complement. (even the "lazy" can find the hidden meaning there)
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." pastor Martin Niemöller
It's easy in tranquil portions of ones own life to disregard the value, the utility, the importance of the cyber-soapbox. But that can change quickly. And when confronted by perilous adversity, a clear voice can be an invaluable tool.
It's foolish, childish, ignorant to scuttle such invaluable communication tool for such tawdry benefit of being naughty.
Even for those that don't have an immediate need of such communication tool, it makes sense to keep your powder dry. At very least it's bad karma to vandalize such a powerful medium by childish vulgar trolling. For while some may not have an issue of vital importance to address at the moment, others may.
One of the most conspicuous risks of violating the Golden Rule is, if you disrespect the rights of others, how rational would it be for you to expect respect of your rights from them?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Z #25,
The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment enshrines in law the right of our pioneer villagers to shuffle off to the village square, ascend a discarded soapbox, and attract and address a crowd on matters of public interest.
Fast forward 250 years and we still have that right. BUT !! It's a new millennium, a different world. Go to the public square today and it may well be deserted. Our countrymen are comfortably contained in their climate controlled SUV, on their way to the shopping mall.
Fine. So the commerce that used to take place in the public square in 1770 now takes place at the shopping mall. Right?
Right.
BUT !!
Though your countrymen and their pocketbooks are welcome at the shopping mall, their First Amendment right to free speech is not.
Many of the rights (including free speech) enumerated in the Constitution protect citizens from government intrusion.
But many shopping malls in the U.S. are privately owned. And U.S. government has no legal authority to dictate such terms to shopping mall owners.
The result: we can still ascend the soapbox in the public square and make a speech. But it's unlikely to be heard.
And while that same speech delivered at a shopping mall might reach many more citizens, many shopping mall owners limit or prohibit it.
So in this new millennium we need a venue. We need access to our countrymen so we can address matters of importance to our neighbors, fellow voters.
That's what BBS like Citizen Voice is about.
I understand the childish glee of disruption, trolling.
But such disruption / destruction places this exceedingly valuable form of communication in jeopardy. I'm not denying the appeal of the childish antic. But persons of sense must understand, when the risk to benefit ratio is objectively considered, it is the communication, the constructive presence of the public forum which is the more important.
This multi-faceted utility includes issues of national and or humanitarian import such as the recent judicial coup d'état on abortion, the Russian carnage in Ukraine, or the existential threat of atmospheric Carbon.
Included in this utility is empowerment of the minority, whether that be a minority by skin color, religious affiliation, or personal complement. (even the "lazy" can find the hidden meaning there)
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me." pastor Martin Niemöller
It's easy in tranquil portions of ones own life to disregard the value, the utility, the importance of the cyber-soapbox. But that can change quickly. And when confronted by perilous adversity, a clear voice can be an invaluable tool.
It's foolish, childish, ignorant to scuttle such invaluable communication tool for such tawdry benefit of being naughty.
Even for those that don't have an immediate need of such communication tool, it makes sense to keep your powder dry. At very least it's bad karma to vandalize such a powerful medium by childish vulgar trolling. For while some may not have an issue of vital importance to address at the moment, others may.
One of the most conspicuous risks of violating the Golden Rule is, if you disrespect the rights of others, how rational would it be for you to expect respect of your rights from them?
B. O. R. ARTICLE #1: Ratified December 15, 1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So you banned Borg for damaging free speech rights?
Well, that's ironic.
Anyway, within our free speech rights there is the freedom to use dirty words in public if we feel the desire to. You can change that for your private forum if you want to, but don't pretend it's in the service of or because of free speech.
Well, that's ironic.
Anyway, within our free speech rights there is the freedom to use dirty words in public if we feel the desire to. You can change that for your private forum if you want to, but don't pretend it's in the service of or because of free speech.
I temporarily suspended BR's posting privilege for about a month. He's still welcome to lurk here.
Superficially it may seem so. I see no shame in supporting civilized cultural norms here, as structured and applied by such standards as the FCC.
"No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen
The FCC regulates broadcasts on what are called "public airwaves". And the FCC routinely censors the vulgarity at issue here.
But you evidently deliberately miss, obscure the broader point. "One bad apple spoils the barrel."
Indulging low, vulgar styles of speech can often displace the kind of responsible discourse Citizen Voice was founded to support.
Portraying that as an irony is deceptive. Constructive speech as available here, does not intrude, infringe, or usurp your opportunity to post constructive speech here.
If trolling is your objective, why not accept supervisory duties @TRT?
There you might spew vulgarity to your heart's content. And to what purpose? To develop a devoted following of fellow trolls that would mirror such childish vulgarity?
Otherwise, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." In your house, if you want to tapdance on the Formica in golf shoes that's up to you. This is my house. Please leave the golf shoes outside.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
I used to work for one of the largest financial institutions in the world and four letter words were the order of the day.
I presume it's done for only a few reasons, either emphasis, or self-promotion.
Stand-up comedians wrestle with this. Particularly if they do NOT have a reputation for "working blue" (potty mouth) a very occasional * crossing of the line can reap the largest favorable audience reaction. BUT !! It's the nature of comedy to be surprising. A punchline the audience anticipates 3 sentences in advance isn't likely to draw much laughter.
And comedians tend to tailor their material and delivery to previous crowd reaction.
What I've noticed is: the first "blue" line may draw howls from the audience, but it doesn't take much more of it to have the opposite affect. It seems that's a complicated message for comedians performing stand-up: the biggest reward for a little, and no reward or negative feedback for too much.
Both in board room and in theater the downside is displacement. Arithmetically if half the words spoken are "blue" then it takes twice as long to communicate the message.
* Not once per paragraph. Once per performance or less.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Not at all. That was the norm. Just a reflection of the corporate culture and nobody gave it any thought.
I would not find plausible any other description.
I don't believe that. There are some human actions including those governed by the autonomic nervous system which are outside deliberate human volition. Except in cases of Tourette syndrome.
I'm not sure vulgar vocabulary is beyond human control, even in a corporate boardroom.
What I deduce from your posted words S2 is that it's so long-tenured a part of that corporate culture, if it ever had any significant meaning, that significance has been forgotten, obscured by intervening time. More than one possibility. A charismatic member of a prior board might have established it as tolerated, and it became a tradition as secure as the 10:AM coffee break.
Bottom line, reflexive slothful excessive potty-mouth over trivia such as using the wrong color stapler habituates the listener to it. It therefore quickly loses impact. There's no up-side to that. But one obvious consequence, in a genuine crisis or emergency when commanding full attention is most important, the chronic potty-mouth has forfeited the attention-riveting impact. It's thus self-sabotage, particularly for leaders.
Apart from that who does it really impress? I'd have thought poly-syllabic vocabulary would be the more impressive.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
It occurred at all levels from the Chairman on down. And I remember the Deputy Chairman (86 at the time) commenting that when the legal department insisted that they start recording their executive meeting that restricting things by not allowing profanity it actually led to poorer leadership because they couldn't say what they actually wanted and had to restrict things.
But a personal example. I was COO of one of their subs and had a dotted line of reporting to one of the senior lawyers in the company (actually their offshore tax guru). During one meeting he mentioned a problem the company had - seemed that some twenty years earlier a different legal entity had entered into a truly dumb deal - one that looked very profitable at the time but had since been shown to be a disaster (of course the guy who had inked the deal got a big bonus based on profits that never happened but that's hardly uncommon). That said, the company had spent an inordinate amount of time (and money) trying to resolve the problem - they were faced with a $25 million hit in about six months and more to come. So I asked a few questions. Told him that the obvious answer would seem to be ... and he did chuckle and say they'd thought of that and this is why it wouldn't work. Cool. So back to my office and doing my normal thing when a couple of days later I had a "eureka moment" when I suddenly realized how to solve the problem. So I called the guy and told him that this might be a little off the wall but I thought I'd solved his problem. Explained my solution and, after a short pause, he said "Yes it would work but that's the stupidest effing idea I've ever heard (he didn't say eff) and went on to say that nobody in their right mind would ever do something that effing stupid. I actually thought he was going to fire me. Tore my head off for ten minutes and hung up on me. Called me the next morning asking if I had a term sheet for my solution (answer, yes and I'd get it to him asap).
But a personal example. I was COO of one of their subs and had a dotted line of reporting to one of the senior lawyers in the company (actually their offshore tax guru). During one meeting he mentioned a problem the company had - seemed that some twenty years earlier a different legal entity had entered into a truly dumb deal - one that looked very profitable at the time but had since been shown to be a disaster (of course the guy who had inked the deal got a big bonus based on profits that never happened but that's hardly uncommon). That said, the company had spent an inordinate amount of time (and money) trying to resolve the problem - they were faced with a $25 million hit in about six months and more to come. So I asked a few questions. Told him that the obvious answer would seem to be ... and he did chuckle and say they'd thought of that and this is why it wouldn't work. Cool. So back to my office and doing my normal thing when a couple of days later I had a "eureka moment" when I suddenly realized how to solve the problem. So I called the guy and told him that this might be a little off the wall but I thought I'd solved his problem. Explained my solution and, after a short pause, he said "Yes it would work but that's the stupidest effing idea I've ever heard (he didn't say eff) and went on to say that nobody in their right mind would ever do something that effing stupid. I actually thought he was going to fire me. Tore my head off for ten minutes and hung up on me. Called me the next morning asking if I had a term sheet for my solution (answer, yes and I'd get it to him asap).
S2 #33
- alright -
But on individual basis I still believe hearing it ten times a day from someone imparts less impact than hearing it only once, in crisis. And I believe that principle scales up proportionally not merely to boardroom scale, but all the way up to corporate level & beyond.
I confess my own bias. But I am aware some prospectively constructive posters would find vulgarity off-putting. I don't think it's much of a sacrifice. One of two things is true. If cussing is that high a priority to Z or BR they're welcome to find a site that indulges it if there is one. If there is, nozzle toss! If not, then am I really that far out of line?
- alright -
But on individual basis I still believe hearing it ten times a day from someone imparts less impact than hearing it only once, in crisis. And I believe that principle scales up proportionally not merely to boardroom scale, but all the way up to corporate level & beyond.
I confess my own bias. But I am aware some prospectively constructive posters would find vulgarity off-putting. I don't think it's much of a sacrifice. One of two things is true. If cussing is that high a priority to Z or BR they're welcome to find a site that indulges it if there is one. If there is, nozzle toss! If not, then am I really that far out of line?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
After I changed jobs I remember telling my new manager about this particular instance and saying that I realized that if his response to something I'd suggested was "that's a stupid effing idea" I'd know that whatever I had said was so over the line as to be unreasonable.
But I also told him about another telecon with that employer. I was in Barbados and when I checked my voicemail at the end of the day I was being asked to call the number 2 in my previous company - tell his secretary that he was expecting his call. Thing is, I got the message several hours later and they'd resolved the question on their own. The important thing was that I was never so thankful to have missed a call in my life. But the important thing here - when I told my manager about this I made the comment that if the group CEO of my new employer called me I'd be glad to talk to him - after all, not only did he know who I was but he valued my opinion enough to speak to me.
A final comment on that previous employer. It had a corporate culture that ran on fear and, if you got close enough to that executive level you'd realize that it ran on terror.
I've read this a few times S2, puzzled over it for over an hour. Not quite sure what to make of any of it.
Meaning, your indication YOU had crossed a line for him crossing a line too?
Strategic job insecurity?
It's a competitive world. I consider workplace competition / rivalry bell-curvable. At zero competitiveness creativity stagnates, possibly along with perfunctory production. There's a zenith on the curve, and on the down-slope there's back-stabbing, dysfunctional communications channels, etc.
Maintaining the optimum is easier said than done. But I don't know why shareholders wouldn't want management to strive toward it.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
No - meaning that I had made a seriously stupid suggestion. One that was so dumb that he reacted that way. Nothing to do with me using profanity or anything related to how I presented it. Just that my suggestion was truly dumb.
- oh -
My interpretation was:
- "stupid" because it was unconventional, but because
- "I had a "eureka moment" when I suddenly realized how to solve the problem." he slept on it, and the next day
- "Called me the next morning asking if I had a term sheet for my solution (answer, yes and I'd get it to him asap)." so he could review it for viability & implementation.
I guess I got too much Disney when I was a boy.
My interpretation was:
- "stupid" because it was unconventional, but because
- "I had a "eureka moment" when I suddenly realized how to solve the problem." he slept on it, and the next day
- "Called me the next morning asking if I had a term sheet for my solution (answer, yes and I'd get it to him asap)." so he could review it for viability & implementation.
I guess I got too much Disney when I was a boy.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
No - stupid because while it ticked all the boxes (accounting, regulatory, and tax) without knowing the background it's not something that anyone in their right mind would do. That is, on a stand alone basis it didn't make any business sense. If that long standing issue hadn't been coming to a head it's not someone that anyone would have considered (as I said, on it's face it didn't exactly look like an intelligent thing to do). So I wrote up the term sheet and sent it over - since the entities involved were not my responsibility I don't know if they ever implemented it or not.