The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10172
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by Solauren »

Let's everyone stop and think about this for a minute.

The WWE is, but it's very nature, a very, very public business. Even more so with the Internet then it was in the 80s and 90s.

And all the Wrestlers are contracted employees, with lots of termination clauses. My one cousin Chris works as in the 'little leagues' here in Ontario, and has meet and worked with some ex-WWE, WCW, ECW, and TNA wrestlers (i.e He's worked with Rhyno, who's worked for WWE, ECW and TNA), and has heard stories of their contracts.
(He's a smaller guy, so I doubt he'd ever be offered a WWE contract. He'd have to bulk up first)

There are apparently lots of clauses for release for their behavour outside the ring. Some of the clauses are retroactive to prior to being hired. And they will terminate you if something becomes public.

i.e Rob Van Damn, when he was WWE + ECW champion was arguably their most popular wrestler. He got nailed for possession. They stripped him of the title, and when he got nailed again, they fired him.

Hogan got caught doing something that was probably against contract, and got nailed for it.

Now, as a WWE fan, I do think they went a little overboard with the 'total purge' of Hogan.

If It had been me in charge, I'd have removed his face from the website, and his merchandise, and demanded him to fix the situation with outreach and stuff before he'd ever be back on television or anything.
But totally blacking him out? Slap in a face to everyone that helped build his career, including several deceased people.

Now, as for racism in general in wrestling.

If it's on camera, it's 99.999% Staged. 'Shoots' are pretty rare.

I mean, come on. We've seen people portraying racists one week, go off TV for a month, and then come back and save someone, and ta-da, face turn, total peace and harmony.

I mean, does anyone remember Farooq and the Nation of Domination?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by General Zod »

Back in the kayfabe era of the 80s and 90s when people still thought wrestling was real, wrestlers had stipulations in their contract about not breaking character even while out of the ring so they could more effectively sell their characters. You couldn't have Hogan slamming down drinks with the Earthuake in public without risking spoiling the illusion. They've relaxed on that a lot ever since Vince had to testify about it in court and fans have access to the internet now.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1488
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by biostem »

This type of scenario is only going to happen more often, as recording technology continues to shrink, and media that can be controlled, (in the sense that a person can request an offending piece of audio be removed), disappears in favor of distributed/shared formats. I'm not saying that you can't shouldn't be yourself or trust your own family, but all it would take is someone close to you who is pissed off, to bait you into saying something offensive and using it against you later.

Heck, how long do you think it'll be before we have some sort of contact-lens-sized camera? I've seen camera pens, and I'm certain that they could make a sound recorder that looks like a hearing aid, so we're not too far off...

I guess if I had a point to make, it's that celebrities will never have any privacy, even in their own homes. I'm not endorsing what Hogan said - but unlike a court trial, the court of public opinion doesn't care if the evidence wasn't obtained "legally".
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by Flagg »

SCRawl wrote:
Pinjar wrote:A single employer is responsible for an entire regions employment situation through this type of worker protection in the same way that a single driver is responsible for climate change by not keeping their tyres properly inflated. It is one tiny thing, not even the most important thing that they do, that individually makes nearly no difference but collectively has a great effect.
It's a nice, flowery analogy, but it doesn't hold. If I dismiss an employee without cause, chances are I'm going to replace him with someone else. So the net effect to the unemployment rate is zero.
Pinjar wrote:In reality any ability to fire without cause results in worker abuse. Even if not directly then indirectly because of the things they are unwilling to report and the short-cuts they take to avoid rocking the boat. e.g. Labour-Hire workers are reluctant to take time off sick and feel pressure to take short cuts. American's must know about this because there was even a House episode about a cleaner at his hospital that was making people sick because she was afraid to loose her job. The ability to fire without cause and poor worker rights encourages subservience to the employer rather than loyalty to society. A poor state of affairs.
It *can* result in worker abuse, and probably does in an extreme minority of cases, simply for the reasons I've mentioned: it's expensive to just sack people for no good reason. (And not everyone here is an American, nor does everyone watch "House". Maybe some day I'll catch up and watch the series.)
Pinjar wrote:I don't actually understand why going further that you state translates into having a right to a job. It has been explicitly stated that you don't have a right to a job.
Well, it's like this: if I'm an employer, and I want to dismiss an employee, under your preferred system I don't have the right to do that, which means that the employee's right to his position is greater than my right to dismiss him. Isn't that fairly plain?
Pinjar wrote:However my position is that it isn't that an employee has a right to a job it’s that an employer has no right to employees. An employer benefits greatly by society allowing them freedom to undertake activity on their own recognizance. In exchange they are expected to do things that benefit society. Rather than get into explaining to everyone that we are all in this together society just says "make money" and allows greed to work for it rather than against it, mitigating its effects by imposing regulations and laws and further directing it and forcing people to use money with taxation etc.
Companies must (or at least should) *on balance* do things that benefit society. Not every activity undertaken has to move the needle in a positive direction, but merely needs to do so in aggregate. If my company emits CO2 in the process of normal operations, then (in a sane world) I will be taxed or will otherwise have to offset these emissions. If I lure a customer away from a competitor, I will decrease my competitor's economic activity, which has a negative effect on society, but at the same time I am increasing my own, which approximately restores the balance. If I fire one employee without cause and hire another employee whom I like better, the two actions offset each other. (The dismissed employee might disagree, but we're talking about society as a whole.)
Pinjar wrote:In my mind the reason we have companies, corporations, etc. is because it is the best way we have of organizing ourselves and allowing useful slack (e.g. people that are used to working, organizations with ships or supplies that can be re-purposed etc.) that can be taken up in times of crisis or war. The reason we focus on profit is because money is a simple (very imperfect, exploited and perverted) way of representing good done for another person. It’s not explicitly to enrich companies or make individuals rich, the concentration of money in successful enterprizes and people is allowed by society so that those with a proven track record of societal good can undertake new or large projects that might result in additional societal good.

Even if you have a guaranteed continuous minimum wage independent of employment it still doesn't benefit society for a person to be unnecessarily unemployed. Most people want to please other people and so unnecessary unemployment, e.g. when someone has been doing a good job but the boss didn't like the cut of their jib, also has a psychological effect that can ruin people, even if it does not leave them out on the street, and it’s all about the people.

It was mentioned that law was about fairness? I might suggest that the underlying reason for laws is societal good. Its good for society that the powerful are not constantly at war and that abuse of the masses is not so prevalent there are constant revolutions and so fairness does indeed creep in. I just don't feel that fairness has ever been the basis of law.
Laws exist to provide a framework for society to exist, and one of the crucial underlying premises of this is fairness. If laws are fundamentally unfair, society really can't exist. The fact that some laws have been pretty clearly unfair in the past -- see the pre-civil rights era US for just one set of examples -- and are closer to the ideal of fairness now shows that we're moving in the right direction, moving as we generally do against the objections of entrenched interests. Ultimately there should be equality of opportunity for every person, and of course we're nowhere near that right now.
Pinjar wrote:Of course every society will have a slightly different cultural background that means what is an essential protection or regulation in one society will be completely unnecessary in another e.g. I would not need a regulation in Australia saying that immigrant workers can't be ground up for mince, but I might need a regulation specifing a maximum amount of ground up immigrant worker in mixed meat mince in a republican's ideal USA.
I doubt that even the worst Reagan-worshipping rock-ribbed Republican voter would contemplate exploiting immigrant workers for their intrinsic nutritional value. But it's a nice line :)
Pinjar wrote:I don't want to bash America, and not everyone that disagrees with the way things are does, I found this in a google search and it looks palatable so I will just post this link to people that want to "preserve the American Dream for current and future generations of hard-working people". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
It goes too far in the sense that it inserts the government between every employer and dismissed employee. It reminds me of the idea that each pregnant woman must justify her abortion before being allowed to terminate her pregnancy. There must be some constraints -- no 30th week abortions, for example -- but whether or not we agree with their reasons for their decisions, those decisions are not ours to make.
Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the government dictating a persons personal constitutionally protected right to a medical procedure and telling an employer that "no, you can't fire Doug because when he takes a shit after lunch the entire building smells no matter how much Lysol and febreeze you spray, even though he's one of your best sales workers." I don't think anyone who isn't a pro-Union no matter what ideologue would say that you as an employer have no right to terminate a shithead, but I think it's in the interest of society as a whole that someone who shows up on time, follows company policy, and performs their job satisfactorily gets to remain employed (barring layoffs and cutbacks).

I mean I had to go to work every day as a security guard (I just can't say "security officer" :lol: ) and take orders from people whose job I could easily do 10x as well while sleeping, and worked on the same level with people who could be outsmarted by a trained chimp at 3D chess. But part of being an adult is learning how to pretend that you don't want to murder half of your coworkers/ underlings due to the sound they make as they breath through their agape slack-jaws.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
muse
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1788
Joined: 2003-11-26 07:04pm

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by muse »

Flagg wrote:Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the government dictating a persons personal constitutionally protected right to a medical procedure and telling an employer that "no, you can't fire Doug because when he takes a shit after lunch the entire building smells no matter how much Lysol and febreeze you spray, even though he's one of your best sales workers." I don't think anyone who isn't a pro-Union no matter what ideologue would say that you as an employer have no right to terminate a shithead, but I think it's in the interest of society as a whole that someone who shows up on time, follows company policy, and performs their job satisfactorily gets to remain employed (barring layoffs and cutbacks).
Of course I can fire him. If having a talk with him and getting him a nutritionist doesn't work. He (hypothetically) may be my best salesmen but he's only one of my salesmen and one of my many workers. If, hypothetically speaking, his excessively smelly #2s are making the rest of my workers unhappy and giving my customers a poor impression of my company, and the cost of this is greater than Doug's contribution to the bottom line, then yes, he is so gone.
ø¤ º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)

I like Celine Dion myself. Her ballads alone....they make me go all teary-eyed and shit.
- Havok
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by Flagg »

muse wrote:
Flagg wrote:Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the government dictating a persons personal constitutionally protected right to a medical procedure and telling an employer that "no, you can't fire Doug because when he takes a shit after lunch the entire building smells no matter how much Lysol and febreeze you spray, even though he's one of your best sales workers." I don't think anyone who isn't a pro-Union no matter what ideologue would say that you as an employer have no right to terminate a shithead, but I think it's in the interest of society as a whole that someone who shows up on time, follows company policy, and performs their job satisfactorily gets to remain employed (barring layoffs and cutbacks).
Of course I can fire him. If having a talk with him and getting him a nutritionist doesn't work. He (hypothetically) may be my best salesmen but he's only one of my salesmen and one of my many workers. If, hypothetically speaking, his excessively smelly #2s are making the rest of my workers unhappy and giving my customers a poor impression of my company, and the cost of this is greater than Doug's contribution to the bottom line, then yes, he is so gone.
Then you get sued under the American's With Disabilities Act and now Doug's smelly farts give the orders.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1488
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by biostem »

Flagg wrote:
muse wrote:
Flagg wrote:Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the government dictating a persons personal constitutionally protected right to a medical procedure and telling an employer that "no, you can't fire Doug because when he takes a shit after lunch the entire building smells no matter how much Lysol and febreeze you spray, even though he's one of your best sales workers." I don't think anyone who isn't a pro-Union no matter what ideologue would say that you as an employer have no right to terminate a shithead, but I think it's in the interest of society as a whole that someone who shows up on time, follows company policy, and performs their job satisfactorily gets to remain employed (barring layoffs and cutbacks).
Of course I can fire him. If having a talk with him and getting him a nutritionist doesn't work. He (hypothetically) may be my best salesmen but he's only one of my salesmen and one of my many workers. If, hypothetically speaking, his excessively smelly #2s are making the rest of my workers unhappy and giving my customers a poor impression of my company, and the cost of this is greater than Doug's contribution to the bottom line, then yes, he is so gone.
Then you get sued under the American's With Disabilities Act and now Doug's smelly farts give the orders.
If the employer can demonstrate that they have made reasonable attempts to accommodate the disabled person, and even after said adjustments, the person's condition is still causing "undue hardship", then yes, they person can be terminated without violating the law. Taking the given example, if there is some issue with the person's GI tract or they have some glandular issue, which cannot be compensated for by a change in diet or something like an air filter that is kept near them, and assuming the job is not something that can be accomplished by telecommuting, then the employer has done everything reasonable.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: The fall of my childhood heroes continues (Hulk Hogan)

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Purple wrote: How about the fact that when a persons very private moments were leaked to the public by unscrupulous journalists he got fired for it?
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you honestly have such a troubled relationship with basic reasoning and the English language in general that you think this is actually an intelligent response?

I asked you (TWICE now, not to mention the fact that you have continued to ignore General Zod from page 3 as well, don't think I'm going to let you go for that, you dishonest little shit) to provide some evidence that THIS IS A BAD THING. That is, that Hogan's firing was unjust, and a result of inadequate worker protection laws in this country (as you have claimed multiple times without subtantiation). And you think the evidence I look for is to just repeat the fact that he got fired? Do you understand the notion of a tautology?

WHY is Hogan's firing a reflection of inadequate worker protection laws? What are the laws in question, and what are the comparable laws in "the rest of the world" (as you claimed back on page 3), which according to you does it differently? Why is his firing unjust in the first place, beyond the fact that you personally don't like it?
Post Reply