John Schattner out at Papa John’s.

[Fadingpain]

I have now seen this thread title 10,000 times and every time the misspelling of the guy's name bugs me.

 

It's SCHNATTER.  

 

And PS: never buy pizza made by a guy named Schnatter.

 

It reminds me of "Mueller's" pasta I see on the shelves at grocery stores.  Never buy pasta made by a German baker.

 

And while on the topic, if you are buying dried pasta in a box at a grocery store and if it doesn't say "De Cecco" on the box, you bought the wrong stuff.  It is usually a bit more expensive, but it's the best you're going to do with that type of pasta.

 

Barilla works, in a pinch, if De Cecco is not available.

 

 

 

 

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, stony said:

There's post's in this thread that seem unsure why black people can say it, and white people cannot.  

 

As for punishment, John Shattner's life isn't ruined so I'm not sure I get your point.  He was pressured to resign because he was harming his companies business.

 

Josh Allen got drafted 7th overall.  Life definitely not ruined.  

 

Yes you do, you're just ducking it.  You're tacitly approving of people being thrown out of high profile jobs (or any jobs) because they offended someone by saying the wrong word.

 

And I didn't write anything about anyone's life being ruined, but nice strawman.

[stony]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yes you do, you're just ducking it.  You're tacitly approving of people being thrown out of high profile jobs (or any jobs) because they offended someone by saying the wrong word.

 

And I didn't write anything about anyone's life being ruined, but nice strawman.

Yes, regardless of job, I 100% approve of people losing their jobs when they say that specific word. Why is this a big deal?

[Soda Popinski]

4 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

There's no confusion, saying something offensive isn't nice. But do you honestly think ruining people's careers for saying a naughty word is reasonable and equitable punishment? That response doesn't seem a tad overboard to you?

 

Putting people in prison for jaywalking would be considered absurd, yet we could just as easily use your "just don't do it" rationalization to dole out any punishment, no?

Didn't the LA Clippers owner have to sell his team because of some racist remarks?   

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, stony said:

Yes, regardless of job, I 100% approve of people losing their jobs when they say that specific word. Why is this a big deal?

 

Even if there's no animus behind it?  Especially in this case, where he's saying that he doesn't want to work with someone because they use it?

[mead107]

So when does the storyline stretch out to include Payton Manning ? 

[stony]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Even if there's no animus behind it?  Especially in this case, where he's saying that he doesn't want to work with someone because they use it?

Fair question. At the very least,  I think it showed incredibly poor judgement on his part. 

[RaoulDuke79]

Problem is Colonel Sanders used Ni$$er instead of Ni$$a and in turn Papa John did the same thing. As a white fella under no circumstances can you use the r version,  and you're pressing your luck if you use the a version. I don't even think eminem used it.

Edited July 20, 2018 by RaoulDuke79

[Doc]

37 minutes ago, stony said:

Fair question. At the very least,  I think it showed incredibly poor judgement on his part. 

 

Can't argue there.  He should have continued to say "N word." 

[NoSaint]

On 7/14/2018 at 8:16 AM, Keukasmallies said:

  On 7/12/2018 at 6:43 AM,  joesixpack said: 

"So the man who, through his own blood sweat and tears, built a company from nothing to nationwide status is out of his own company after using an offensive word?"

_________________________________________________

 

 

As I see it, it's only a partially offensive word as it depends on who says it.  If a black person says it, it's often seen as a badge of honor; if a Latino says it, it's sometimes acceptable depending on the context.  If a white person says it, it becomes much more confusing:  Saying it in conversation is always verboten and the speaker is taken to task big time (might even lose his pizza company); but if a white person (specifically an author) writes it, it appears to be acceptable and even appropriate.

 

Meanwhile, the derisive descriptors applied to whites are applauded by some, and especially by some whites who see it as a well-deserved shaming for whatever the speaker is attacking at the moment.  But the speaker/writer is never taken to task, eh?

 

 

 

 

Which part upsets you more? Not being able to use an epithet, or not being able to get upset?

[JoeF]

5 hours ago, mead107 said:

So when does the storyline stretch out to include Payton Manning ? 

Funny you should ask--The Onion has already made the leap..

 

https://www.theonion.com/peyton-manning-s-wife-quietly-asks-how-much-longer-papa-1827749723

[Happy]

6 hours ago, mead107 said:

So when does the storyline stretch out to include Payton Manning ? 

 

Why would it?  Peyton sold all his Denver area franchise locations years ago.  He appeared in some of the commercials, but so did JJ Watt and Joe Montana.

[mead107]

8 hours ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Why would it?  Peyton sold all his Denver area franchise locations years ago.  He appeared in some of the commercials, but so did JJ Watt and Joe Montana.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/peyton-manning-accuser-jamie-naughright-on-alleged-sexual-harassment/

thats why.  Story from last year.  

[boyst]

11 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

Which part upsets you more? Not being able to use an epithet, or not being able to get upset?

I love that people can use such words; it makes life that much more fun to see the reaction. Freedom of speech is not freedom of judgement. Saying stupid things should hurt. But, him being fired over this is ridiculous.

 

His firing doesn't upset me but it's as stupid as him using such proclamations in a public venue.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I love that people can use such words; it makes life that much more fun to see the reaction. Freedom of speech is not freedom of judgement. Saying stupid things should hurt. But, him being fired over this is ridiculous.

 

His firing doesn't upset me but it's as stupid as him using such proclamations in a public venue.

When your board of directors believe that you as the face of the company is a detriment to the business they are involved in it shouldn't be surprising that they take an action to disassociate the business from you. Sometimes what you say is not what you intend to say and mean. However, when you are a public figure associated with a well known business what you say is also associated with the business. 

 

Schattner does have freedom of speech. No one is curtailing what he can say. That doesn't mean that what he says doesn't have repercussions, not only for him, but from the board of directors point of view on the business that he also represents.  There was a simple calculation here by the directors: Are you an asset or liability in your role? It's obvious what their decision was. 

[boyst]

Just now, JohnC said:

When your board of directors believe that you as the face of the company is a detriment to the business they are involved in it shouldn't be surprising that they take an action to disassociate the business from you. Sometimes what you say is not what you intend to say and mean. However, when you are a public figure associated with a well known business what you say is also associated with the business. 

 

Schattner does have freedom of speech. No one is curtailing what he can say. That doesn't mean that what he says doesn't have repercussions, not only for him, but from the board of directors point of view on the business that he also represents.  There was a simple calculation here by the directors: Are you an asset or liability in your role? It's obvious what their decision was. 

Yep.  100%

 

But they were looking to remove him anyway, rightfully, as Papa John's has been talking recently.  It was a good and easy move disirregardless.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Yep.  100%

 

But they were looking to remove him anyway, rightfully, as Papa John's has been talking recently.  It was a good and easy move disirregardless.

I'm not saying this specifically about the Papa John case but saying this in general: Social media has altered how we communicate and receive information in some respects to the detriment. We have lost the ability to say stupid things without disproportionately being punished. The result is that this fear of repercussion has stifled dialogue. Very often when actually listening to someone's contrary view you find out that it isn't such a crazy notion. If you are truly listening you can realize that there may be a kernel of insight that you originally didn't consider. What's often lost is that although you may disagree with the point you still can acknowledge that there is merit to the point thus opening up an avenue for a dialouge. Too often it has come down to not even allowing legitimacy/respect to an opposing position because it is an opposing position. When the fence becomes too high to talk over to the person on the other side then we become stuck in our own fortresses.

 

John Schattner became a liability for the company. So he was dispatched. However, his mistake wasn't what he said because in a private setting the context of what he said and meant would have been understood. His mistake/blunder was that he didn't understand the nature of the volatility of the setting of a public discussion on a very fraught topic. He should have known better.  

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I'm not saying this specifically about the Papa John case but saying this in general: Social media has altered how we communicate and receive information in some respects to the detriment. We have lost the ability to say stupid things without disproportionately being punished. The result is that this fear of repercussion has stifled dialogue. Very often when actually listening to someone's contrary view you find out that it isn't such a crazy notion. If you are truly listening you can realize that there may be a kernel of insight that you originally didn't consider. What's often lost is that although you may disagree with the point you still can acknowledge that there is merit to the point thus opening up an avenue for a dialouge. Too often it has come down to not even allowing legitimacy/respect to an opposing position because it is an opposing position. When the fence becomes too high to talk over to the person on the other side then we become stuck in our own fortresses.

 

John Schattner became a liability for the company. So he was dispatched. However, his mistake wasn't what he said because in a private setting the context of what he said and meant would have been understood. His mistake/blunder was that he didn't understand the nature of the volatility of the setting of a public discussion on a very fraught topic. He should have known better.  

 

Well, that and the company was doing terrible, right? If he was still making everyone in the room millions there’s a good chance that the comment never gets to social media and becomes weaponized

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I'm not saying this specifically about the Papa John case but saying this in general: Social media has altered how we communicate and receive information in some respects to the detriment. We have lost the ability to say stupid things without disproportionately being punished. The result is that this fear of repercussion has stifled dialogue. Very often when actually listening to someone's contrary view you find out that it isn't such a crazy notion. If you are truly listening you can realize that there may be a kernel of insight that you originally didn't consider. What's often lost is that although you may disagree with the point you still can acknowledge that there is merit to the point thus opening up an avenue for a dialouge. Too often it has come down to not even allowing legitimacy/respect to an opposing position because it is an opposing position. When the fence becomes too high to talk over to the person on the other side then we become stuck in our own fortresses.

 

John Schattner became a liability for the company. So he was dispatched. However, his mistake wasn't what he said because in a private setting the context of what he said and meant would have been understood. His mistake/blunder was that he didn't understand the nature of the volatility of the setting of a public discussion on a very fraught topic. He should have known better.  

 

It's amazing how many people don't understand the dynamic they are eagerly cheering on.  And some of them do it while shouting 'Nazi!' at others.  

[Rob's House]

This outrage is gayer that a butt-!@#$ing circle. Anyone who finds what he said offensive has **** for brains. Fortunately for them, you don't have to have any sense to get offended.