Justin Thomas Curses and in 2021 Uses Homophobic Slurs

[Bonvivant]

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

... or it's like hitting 95% of greens in regulation but you can't putt.  You're admired for your tee-to-green prowess but defiled for your crappy putting.  I always try to bring it back to golf...

If you were going to go for the golf one, I would say its like all of the pros that say, "the short game is the reason people get to scratch". A bold face lie that goes against the way they train.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, iacas said:

So your point is that because they manufacture in some shitty countries, they're not allowed to take a stand on the actions of someone that endorses them?

You didn't answer my question.

[woodzie264]

14 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I only mentioned one thing; where they manufacture products. If I donate all of my money to the LGBT cause, but I made it from using labor in a country where being gay is a punishable offense, am I a good or a bad person? Am I a champion of LGBT or a menace to it?

 

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

So your point is that because they manufacture in some shitty countries, they're not allowed to take a stand on the actions of someone that endorses them?

Come on.

I see both of your points. To @Bonvivant’s point, if a company makes a point of being LGBT advocates, it seems counterintuitive/hypocritical to manufacture in a country where it’s illegal. I see that being the same argument many are making in the PGA 2022 thread who seem to equate financial partnership (with Trump’s course) with the advocacy of their partner’s views. If I follow that line of logic, I can see where @Bonvivant’s case that it’s hypocritical that RL can withdraw sponsorship from a guy who makes a slur, but continue in financial partnership with a country where it’s illegal. 
 

But, to @iacas’s point, of course RL has the right to withdraw their partnership from someone who makes a slur hostile to their social ideals. 
 

Ultimately I support a company’s right to sponsor/partner with anyone they see as an athlete who they feel best suits them...which is not JT in their eyes.

[Bonvivant]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

You didn't answer my question.

They can do what they like, but in my eyes, this is the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a while.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Bonvivant said:

They can do what they like, but in my eyes, this is the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a while.

Ha ha ha. So in trying to defend Justin Thomas (why?), you're taking on a company that, once again:

Quote

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LBGTQ advocacy group in the country, last year designated Ralph Lauren as “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ Equality.”

Apparently, and even if we assume that what you're saying about the countries in which they manufacture their clothes is accurate, to avoid being a "hypocrite" you think Ralph Lauren should have just said "oh well, we do some not great things under entirely different circumstances, so we're cool with you saying that word on national TV."

Again, I'll say: "come on."

3 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

it seems counterintuitive/hypocritical to manufacture in a country where it’s illegal.

The choice in this case might literally be to manufacture there (while perhaps lobbying for better policies, treatment, etc.) or to not manufacture at all.

Bonvivant, if someone at your job is a racist, sure you could quit, or you could take your concerns to management, but if management doesn't do anything and you need the job… what are you gonna do? Probably keep going to work, and try to work on the problem from the inside.

Ralph Lauren controlled what they could control here - Justin Thomas - and you (Bonvivant) likely have almost no idea what they're doing to try to control or influence that which they really have no control over at all (government policies).

Tweets (polls) like this drive me nuts:

Of course it was fair. What the heck are those 74.1% of people thinking?

[woodzie264]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The choice in this case might literally be to manufacture there (while perhaps lobbying for better policies, treatment, etc.) or to not manufacture at all, putting thousands out of work.

Ralph Lauren isn't a government, and has limited control over 

If someone at your job is a racist, sure you could quit, or you could take your concerns to management, but if management doesn't do anything and you need the job… what are you gonna do? Probably keep going to work, and try to work on the problem from the inside rather than leaving.

Ralph Lauren controlled what they could control here - Justin Thomas - and you likely have almost no idea what they're doing to try to control or influence that which they really have no control over at all (government policies).

I get what you’re saying. And if I’m RL, I continue to manufacture where cost is lowest to increase my profit margins and I let JT go because it may generate scrutiny from a social base that you support if you don’t. I personally would do nothing different than what they did...it’s business not personal. But I get what @Bonvivant is saying that they do have the choice (control) over where they do their manufacturing...whether it makes good financial sense or not.  So I what think @Bonvivant is pointing to is that if it’s a really big deal to RL, why are they choosing to keep their manufacturing where it is? 
 

But again, I would do exactly what RL did...it’s just business. 

[Bonvivant]

Just now, iacas said:

The choice in this case might literally be to manufacture there (while perhaps lobbying for better policies, treatment, etc.) or to not manufacture at all.

Then if they are such big LGBT champions they should take the latter in my eyes. That would be the "right" thing to do, if they were so worried about LGBT rights.

 

Just now, iacas said:

Ha ha ha. So in trying to defend Justin Thomas (why?), you're taking on a company that, once again:

I don't think that any of my posts have tried to defend JT. Quote it if I did. All of my posts have been about RLs hypocrisy.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, woodzie264 said:

But I get what @Bonvivant is saying that they do have the choice (control) over where they do their manufacturing

They may not, really, not practically. And again, @Bonvivant likely has no idea what measures they've taken to effect change in those countries.

Ralph Lauren sells clothes in a country that's often incredibly racist. Should they stop selling clothes in the U.S.? It's a bridge WAY too far to try to excuse Justin Thomas or something. WAY too far.

---

Let's go so far as to say Ralph Lauren is a "bad" company (they're clearly not, as their award indicates, but let's pretend).

They would have been a "worse" company if they kept Justin Thomas on board and acted as if this wasn't a big deal.

Just now, Bonvivant said:

Then if they are such big LGBT champions they should take the latter in my eyes.

Oh for f***'s sake. That's one of the dumbest things I've in this whole thing.

[woodzie264]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tweets (polls) like this drive me nuts:

Of course it was fair. What the heck are those 74.1% of people thinking?

Agreed

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Then if they are such big LGBT champions they should take the latter in my eyes. That would be the "right" thing to do, if they were so worried about LGBT rights.

To me, the way you post is you want all or nothing. Basically, you want a word that is unrealistic. You can't donate to charity unless you are Mother Teresa because it is demeaning to the people you are donating to if you are not. 

Here is the rub. What if RL goes to another country that has better LGBT policy for their manufacturing. What if that causes them to lose a ton of market share because their cloths prices go up. What if that causes them to cut funding to LGBT charities and fire employees who may be LGBT because they can't compete as well. I can easily see a scenario where you are doing more harm than good by going by your unrealistic ideological stance. The world is complex. Sometimes, you have to accept and work with the system you are in and still try your best to achieve a large positive change for good. 

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Of course it was fair. What the heck are those 74.1% of people thinking?

I agree. 

[Bonvivant]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

Here is the rub. What if RL goes to another country that has better LGBT policy for their manufacturing. What if that causes them to lose a ton of market share because their cloths prices go up. What if that causes them to cut funding to LGBT charities and fire employees who may be LGBT because they can't compete as well. I can easily see a scenario where you are doing more harm than good by going by your unrealistic ideological stance. The world is complex. Sometimes, you have to accept and work with the system you are in and still try your best to achieve a large positive change for good. 

If the only way that RL can profit is by using labor in countries that are anti-LGBT, they have a horrible business model and should fail. Their clothes aren't exactly cheap, and they could probably make them in a western country and still make profit. Obviously not as large, but they would be able to support far more LGBT people with this if that is what they care about (which I think they do, and they should). The problem is that they want to look like they care, but the only thing they actually care about comes in the color of green, and it isn't the grass golfers play on.

[woodzie264]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Let's go so far as to say Ralph Lauren is a "bad" company (they're clearly not, as their award indicates, but let's pretend).

They would have been a "worse" company if they kept Justin Thomas on board and acted as if this wasn't a big deal.

Great point

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

If the only way that RL can profit is by using labor in countries that are anti-LGBT, they have a horrible business model and should fail.

Oy.

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Their clothes aren't exactly cheap, and they could probably make them in a western country and still make profit.

You're going to great lengths to justify… what, exactly? And with nothing more than a little fact and a f*** ton of speculation.

The topic here is Justin Thomas.

You think it's hypocritical, but what should they have done when Justin Thomas uttered that word? Ignored it, simply because that wouldn't have been hypocritical?

You're making a really lousy argument.

7 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

The problem is that they want to look like they care, but the only thing they actually care about comes in the color of green, and it isn't the grass golfers play on.

Oh for f***'s sake, stop posting in this topic.

[Double Mocha Man]

50 minutes ago, iacas said:

Ha ha ha. So in trying to defend Justin Thomas (why?), you're taking on a company that, once again:

Apparently, and even if we assume that what you're saying about the countries in which they manufacture their clothes is accurate, to avoid being a "hypocrite" you think Ralph Lauren should have just said "oh well, we do some not great things under entirely different circumstances, so we're cool with you saying that word on national TV."

Again, I'll say: "come on."

The choice in this case might literally be to manufacture there (while perhaps lobbying for better policies, treatment, etc.) or to not manufacture at all.

Bonvivant, if someone at your job is a racist, sure you could quit, or you could take your concerns to management, but if management doesn't do anything and you need the job… what are you gonna do? Probably keep going to work, and try to work on the problem from the inside.

Ralph Lauren controlled what they could control here - Justin Thomas - and you (Bonvivant) likely have almost no idea what they're doing to try to control or influence that which they really have no control over at all (government policies).

Tweets (polls) like this drive me nuts:

Of course it was fair. What the heck are those 74.1% of people thinking?

The question was bogus.  What JT said wasn't "under his breath".  I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater all the time, but it's under my breath, so I never get in trouble.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

The question was bogus.  What JT said wasn't "under his breath".  I shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater all the time, but it's under my breath, so I never get in trouble.

True. Leading the witness… errr… poll answerers.

[Double Mocha Man]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

True. Leading the witness… errr… poll answerers.

74.1%?!  On the old TV series "Perry Mason" they would have said "Leading the sheeple."  Oh, but wait, that word wasn't invented yet..

[woodzie264]

With JT’s comment, do you guys expect there will be any demonstrations/public pushback at his upcoming events or do you think it’ll settle as he’s made his apology? 

Are any other sponsors expected to drop him?

[dennyjones]

Has anybody here done any research to determine where RL is manufactured or distributed?   

Companies are all about the $$.   Some companies may have a social conscience but the bottom line, they are in business to make money.   Could you protest RL and not buy his products?  Sure, but unless there were thousands, it wouldn't make any difference.   There have been companies that have changed their policies because of public outcry but few.  I believe they looked at their business summary and made the correct call.  It sucks for JT but there are consequences for one's actions.