what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
need to take a step back and really look at what you are saying and think about what you are saying. You are programmed to viciously attack anything that doesn't swing your way.
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did. He is no longer Super Bowl Hero David Tyree to you guys he is Bigoted Homophobe David Tyree.
I remember Tyree being a Super Bowl hero for our favorite team. Without him we don't have that magical win. It feels like some of you almost even resent that for happening just because of something he happens to believe (which btw is a majority opinion) and probably something most of the team Eli Manning, Tom Coughlin, John Mara etc believe.
and was instrumental in reforming it enough to be voted on by other republicans, like himself. Without him, there probably (definitely) isn't marriage equality in New York. Because of this, I'm fairly sure Tyree was on the list of people that said some pretty heavy, nasty stuff, heading up to the vote and aligned with some some groups that said some pretty hateful things about my father, my family etc. People even threatened to burn our house down. They all said similar things.
I can never respect someone like him.
And will people get a better grip on what freedom of speech is?
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
Do the Giants have any openly gay players? Why would an organization hire for a variable they don't believe they have?
Secondly, I think the Giants are far more concerned with young players who struggle with drugs, party lifestyle, and financial issues, given recent personnel history.
Thirdly, I would think Tyree can separate his personal views from his professional life to give good advice to any player. That is what a well reasoned professional does.
How many non-openly gay players do the Giants have now or will have in the future? How many of them will be comfortable to go to Tyree?
No excuse for anyone threatening or making hateful comments, but to be fair I find that generally the fringe elements from both sides of an issue says similar things.
Tom Coughlin might share the same beliefs as Tyree. He might not.
The key is he's smart enough not to use his vast platform to advocate his personal opinions on such topics. He's in the role of advising and guiding young men who are supposed to trust him.
How is any man who happens to be of that lifestyle supposed to trust the guidance of a person who you know believes that if you were to desire to get married and have a family of your own, it would be the downfall of the nation and the crumbling of moral values?
Let me start by saying I absolutely disagree with Tyree's beliefs
I support the rights for homosexuals to marry and I have no issue with anyone that is gay. Second, that, ordinarily should have nothing to do with a hire. However, the timing of this hire in the wake of Dungy's comments makes this particular hire look bad.
If he can perform his duties without his personal beliefs playing a factor, than there is no issue. But, if his beliefs are being preached to the lockerroom, then he doesn't belong in this position.
Incidentally, it was supposedly Mark Jackson's preaching that got him canned, not his coaching record.
I disagree with pretty much with everything Tyree said. I don't agree with those who automatically label those who have a problem with gay marriage a bigot. It is a definition problem for some of us old farts who will thankfully die soon. I prefer civil unions with equal rights to straight marriage. Not really a big deal to me that I will lose sleep over. I have discussed my thoughts pretty thoroughly on previous threads so I will not go there any further.
Who said I respect fundamentalists on most issues? Extremists are nutty.
However, don't underestimate how often it happens. Many of his "friends" stopped talking to him and said he would be doing the devil's work etc. This is not a tiny sliver.
And someone who was disappointed with one of his votes on tax issues never threatened to kill us and supply our home address.
I have yet to see anyone calling for him to be fired.
Where is this coming from?
DG's article criticized the hiring. That does not equal calling for Tyree to be fired.
Hell, even BBI posters have been doing nothing but questioning the hiring. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has called for him to be fired- they've just expressed that at the very least it is an odd hiring given the first openly gay player in history was drafted this past April.
Some have expressed that they probably wouldn't have hired him.
JFC. A lot of you are acting like questioning an obviously "odd" hiring is the same thing as wanting him eviscerated in town square.
The best though is cosmicj ranting about freedom of speech (which he obviously doesn't understand) while simultaneously bashing DG for exercising freedom of the press and bashing folks on BBI for exercising their right to free speech.
I'll repeat an earlier post on the subject:
Considering the media reaction so far, the reaction of th eHuman Rights Campaign, and comments from folks on BBI, it's plain that this was an odd hire for the Giants to make.
As a MOT I would be very very suprised that he would agree to hire someone with these pronounced views.
I love the catch but was very disappointed in his views on gay marriage.
I think they should rescind the offer. This is from 2011 - ( New Window )
I didn't think you supported any extremist on any side and wasn't trying to imply that. I was simply pointing out that generally the fringe extreme on either side of a heated positions will resort to hatred.
But there are a lot more people, a lot more heated about this than most other things. Lots of "non extremists", if you can call them that, said some pretty vitriolic stuff. These weren't nutjobs with signs all over their lawns or people picketing outside my house (which there were). I have never seen as much hate in my life, first hand, than the backlash from this and the election that followed. An extreme right winger ran against him the following year. A LOT more people voted for him than you might think.
If that was directed towards me, I was replying to Jesse and the fact that his family were receiving death threats and similar. You have to be on the extreme fringe to engage in that and if it would come out that Tyree made threats to peoples life then he needs to be let go by the Giants immediately.
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
I do understand that freedom of speech refers partly to the first amendment (which is not relevant to this case and applies to government suppression of speech), but it extends to suppression of speech via other means, as well.
Let's take an extreme example: in 1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
that some on BBI can't figure this out, and even applaud Tyree's beliefs.
This was a bad move for the Giants, full stop, drawing revenue and advertising dollars from, in large part, a city with one of the largest LGBT communities in the U.S.
And yes, your views outside of work can cost you your job or an opportunity for a job - recruiters regularly check Facebook and Twitter - how many high profile people have been fired for idiotic tweets? Or, maybe, facepaint a swastika on your forehead next time you have an interview...
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
I consider that a plus if the groups were truly anti gay (as opposed to what some here think is anti gay).
Interesting comment. The problem I see is that so many can be sympathetic to the cause of gay rights and yet vilified because they are not quite pure enough. If you mostly agree, but don't advocate the entire agenda, you are the enemy, homophobe, cretin, scum, etc. Thing is, that can turn off a lot of potential allies.
Here. Here. Being considered 3/5 a person should be enough.
Now there's a leap!
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then? Which rights that the rest of us have are you cool with homosexuals being denied? How 'normal' are you comfortable with David Tyree's children thinking gay people are?
RE: So lets look at possible scenarios based on todays headlines
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
I often find that people here mistake where some are coming from based on a comment on a narrow part of the discussion. Some here demand absolute purity to their side which sometimes is extreme. We need to fight both extremes. You generally know when you are right when you are attacked from both sides especially from the name callers who are possible to have an honest discussion with.
I often find that people here mistake where some are coming from based on a comment on a narrow part of the discussion. Some here demand absolute purity to their side which sometimes is extreme. We need to fight both extremes. You generally know when you are right when you are attacked from both sides especially from the name callers who are possible to have an honest discussion with.
Bravo!
RE: RE: So lets look at possible scenarios based on todays headlines
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Tyree willingly used his public status to espouse his beliefs which will alienate a section of humanity. Whether or not you agree or disagree with him is irrelevant.
What he said will effect how other people see him, and that will hamper how effective he can be in his role within the organization, even if he's able to put his prejudices aside and deal with everyone equally.
1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not give you freedom from the consequence of that speech.
Sure, if it's something you support- it sucks that there are negative consequences to what you say (the NAACP example...or your Tyree example). I'm sorry, though- there are consequences and as long as they are not illegal there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's kinda how the whole "freedom" thing you're all worried about losing actually works.
The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge...
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues. The same is true of sportswriters, whose indignation generally reflects that of their class rather than their customers. What Tyree said strikes me as wrongheaded and pretty galling, but as I said yesterday it's a standard hell in a handbasket spiel that would probably have as much, maybe more, currency among those in the locker room who grew up in the South and the Midwest or who went to particular denominations as the sort of opinions that most of us either agree with or find unobjectionable. When a guy involved in a double murder mentors young players it passes without much more than snark, when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
RE: The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge...
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues. The same is true of sportswriters, whose indignation generally reflects that of their class rather than their customers. What Tyree said strikes me as wrongheaded and pretty galling, but as I said yesterday it's a standard hell in a handbasket spiel that would probably have as much, maybe more, currency among those in the locker room who grew up in the South and the Midwest or who went to particular denominations as the sort of opinions that most of us either agree with or find unobjectionable. When a guy involved in a double murder mentors young players it passes without much more than snark, when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
But even if that's the majority, wouldn't you want to hire someone who has never said anything publicly to alienate anyone, so that players that might have fundamental opposing viewpoints to his feel comfortable relying on the person who the organization hired to help them?
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did. He is no longer Super Bowl Hero David Tyree to you guys he is Bigoted Homophobe David Tyree.
I remember Tyree being a Super Bowl hero for our favorite team. Without him we don't have that magical win. It feels like some of you almost even resent that for happening just because of something he happens to believe (which btw is a majority opinion) and probably something most of the team Eli Manning, Tom Coughlin, John Mara etc believe.
Quote:
He is no longer Super Bowl Hero David Tyree to you guys he is Bigoted Homophobe David Tyree.
The man said one or the other. Learn to listen, child.
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did.
That's because you made the choice to look past bigotry. Some of us didn't.
I don't want to assume something you're not actually saying.
I can never respect someone like him.
And will people get a better grip on what freedom of speech is?
Quote:
In comment 11777954 Emil said:
Quote:
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
Do the Giants have any openly gay players? Why would an organization hire for a variable they don't believe they have?
Secondly, I think the Giants are far more concerned with young players who struggle with drugs, party lifestyle, and financial issues, given recent personnel history.
Thirdly, I would think Tyree can separate his personal views from his professional life to give good advice to any player. That is what a well reasoned professional does.
How many non-openly gay players do the Giants have now or will have in the future? How many of them will be comfortable to go to Tyree?
How is any man who happens to be of that lifestyle supposed to trust the guidance of a person who you know believes that if you were to desire to get married and have a family of your own, it would be the downfall of the nation and the crumbling of moral values?
If he can perform his duties without his personal beliefs playing a factor, than there is no issue. But, if his beliefs are being preached to the lockerroom, then he doesn't belong in this position.
Incidentally, it was supposedly Mark Jackson's preaching that got him canned, not his coaching record.
With that line of thinking should that rule out an openly gay person from the position because there may be some players not comfortable going to him?
Quote:
Mr. Nickels : 12:34 pm : link : reply
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did.
That's because you made the choice to look past bigotry. Some of us didn't.
How do you know it was a choice and not genetic?
...they didn't want their kids thinking heterosexuals were normal, absolutely.
Homophobes should have no place in our society period.
Being gay isn't a choice, being a dick to people who are gay IS!
Quote:
How many non-openly gay players do the Giants have now or will have in the future? How many of them will be comfortable to go to Tyree?
With that line of thinking should that rule out an openly gay person from the position because there may be some players not comfortable going to him?
Did the openly gay person speak out against the heterosexual lifestyle? If not, then it's not the same thing.
He likened it to the downfall of society and as quoted above, said he didn't want his kids to think that gays were normal.
There's no question that at the time of those statements, Tyee was being a bigot, and most likely homophobic.
I do leave room that perhaps he's softened his position on that, but I've not heard him make any statement to that effect.
However, don't underestimate how often it happens. Many of his "friends" stopped talking to him and said he would be doing the devil's work etc. This is not a tiny sliver.
And someone who was disappointed with one of his votes on tax issues never threatened to kill us and supply our home address.
He likened it to the downfall of society and as quoted above, said he didn't want his kids to think that gays were normal.
There's no question that at the time of those statements, Tyee was being a bigot, and most likely homophobic.
I do leave room that perhaps he's softened his position on that, but I've not heard him make any statement to that effect.
I'd venture the PR staff is working on that statement right now.
Where is this coming from?
DG's article criticized the hiring. That does not equal calling for Tyree to be fired.
Hell, even BBI posters have been doing nothing but questioning the hiring. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has called for him to be fired- they've just expressed that at the very least it is an odd hiring given the first openly gay player in history was drafted this past April.
Some have expressed that they probably wouldn't have hired him.
JFC. A lot of you are acting like questioning an obviously "odd" hiring is the same thing as wanting him eviscerated in town square.
The best though is cosmicj ranting about freedom of speech (which he obviously doesn't understand) while simultaneously bashing DG for exercising freedom of the press and bashing folks on BBI for exercising their right to free speech.
I'll repeat an earlier post on the subject:
Considering the media reaction so far, the reaction of th eHuman Rights Campaign, and comments from folks on BBI, it's plain that this was an odd hire for the Giants to make.
I love the catch but was very disappointed in his views on gay marriage.
I think they should rescind the offer.
This is from 2011 - ( New Window )
Can't have it both ways
But there are a lot more people, a lot more heated about this than most other things. Lots of "non extremists", if you can call them that, said some pretty vitriolic stuff. These weren't nutjobs with signs all over their lawns or people picketing outside my house (which there were). I have never seen as much hate in my life, first hand, than the backlash from this and the election that followed. An extreme right winger ran against him the following year. A LOT more people voted for him than you might think.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
Let's take an extreme example: in 1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
This was a bad move for the Giants, full stop, drawing revenue and advertising dollars from, in large part, a city with one of the largest LGBT communities in the U.S.
And yes, your views outside of work can cost you your job or an opportunity for a job - recruiters regularly check Facebook and Twitter - how many high profile people have been fired for idiotic tweets? Or, maybe, facepaint a swastika on your forehead next time you have an interview...
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Interesting comment. The problem I see is that so many can be sympathetic to the cause of gay rights and yet vilified because they are not quite pure enough. If you mostly agree, but don't advocate the entire agenda, you are the enemy, homophobe, cretin, scum, etc. Thing is, that can turn off a lot of potential allies.
Now there's a leap!
Quote:
Here. Here. Being considered 3/5 a person should be enough.
Now there's a leap!
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then? Which rights that the rest of us have are you cool with homosexuals being denied? How 'normal' are you comfortable with David Tyree's children thinking gay people are?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
Bravo!
Quote:
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Tyree willingly used his public status to espouse his beliefs which will alienate a section of humanity. Whether or not you agree or disagree with him is irrelevant.
What he said will effect how other people see him, and that will hamper how effective he can be in his role within the organization, even if he's able to put his prejudices aside and deal with everyone equally.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not give you freedom from the consequence of that speech.
Sure, if it's something you support- it sucks that there are negative consequences to what you say (the NAACP example...or your Tyree example). I'm sorry, though- there are consequences and as long as they are not illegal there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's kinda how the whole "freedom" thing you're all worried about losing actually works.
But even if that's the majority, wouldn't you want to hire someone who has never said anything publicly to alienate anyone, so that players that might have fundamental opposing viewpoints to his feel comfortable relying on the person who the organization hired to help them?