So let me get this straight about Alicia Machado...

[mjr]

It's not a question of how they got chosen. It's not a question of what the public thinks of them. It's not a question of what they say about themselves.

Oh, but it is, indeed. Since the contests are built around attractiveness.

They have a certain responsibility to the company and to the contestants as employees.

If you enter a contest, that doesn't actually make you an employee, does it? If I enter a poker tournament (which is, essentially, a contest) at a Casino, and I win, does that then make me an employee of the casino or the tournament's sponsor until I have fulfilled the agreement?

It doesn't matter if that performance is in how she speaks, how she acts, or how she looks.

Except when someone like Carrie Prejean is lambasted by someone like Perez Hilton (who was a judge) because of her stance on Same-Sex marriage...

Right?

By the way, Trump gave a second chance to a young woman named Tara Connor...

#8 in a Time article:

The Kentucky native became a staple of the city's gossip pages and was soon fielding allegations of promiscuity and drug use unbecoming of her crown. Connor was summoned to pageant co-owner Donald Trump's office amid rumors that she would be stripped of her crown. The Donald surprised Connor — and himself — by sparing her his famous Apprentice catchphrase. "After speaking to her, I saw not only a beautiful woman but a beautiful heart," he said.

Connor spent a stint in a rehab facility and, after her discharge, copped to alcoholism and cocaine use. Though she swore off booze and rebuilt her life, the incident was far from over for Trump. Talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell blasted the tycoon's declaration that Connor deserved a second chance, noting that his own prior indiscretions made him an unlikely "moral compass for 20-year-olds in America." Trump shot back, dismissing Rosie as "fat" and a "real loser." And thusly a juicy feud was born.

http://content.time.com/time/special...873896,00.html

[Kheldarson]

Oh, but it is, indeed. Since the contests are built around attractiveness.

*facepalm*

If Trump were a spectator, it wouldn't be a problem. However, he wasn't just a spectator. He was the person in charge. There's a world of difference.

If you enter a contest, that doesn't actually make you an employee, does it? If I enter a poker tournament (which is, essentially, a contest) at a Casino, and I win, does that then make me an employee of the casino or the tournament's sponsor until I have fulfilled the agreement?

You're effectively a freelance contractor, so yes. That means if they have rules of behavior in regards as to how you are to conduct yourself while a contestant, then you must hold to them.

Except when someone like Carrie Prejean is lambasted by someone like Perez Hilton (who was a judge) because of her stance on Same-Sex marriage...

Right?

He shouldn't have done that and was, in fact, questioned about his behavior.

By the way, Trump gave a second chance to a young woman named Tara Connor...

And? His behavior towards one individual does not negate his behavior toward another.


There's also the question of why did she get a second chance? Maybe because she's blonde haired and white?

[mjr]

You're effectively a freelance contractor, so yes. That means if they have rules of behavior in regards as to how you are to conduct yourself while a contestant, then you must hold to them.

Ok. But her rules of behavior were not only for during the contest, but also during her reign (1 year afterward).

If I enter a bowling tournament and win, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm an employee. A freelance contractor isn't an actual "employee". Just ask Uber. Or any actual contract worker.

And? His behavior towards one individual does not negate his behavior toward another.

So then it's a wash?

There's also the question of why did she get a second chance? Maybe because she's blonde haired and white?

Alicia Machado got to keep her crown. Just like Tara Connor.

[Kheldarson]

Ok. But her rules of behavior were not only for during the contest, but also during her reign (1 year afterward).

Right. Which means performance issues are treated like you would treat any other employee's during that time period.

If I enter a bowling tournament and win, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm an employee. A freelance contractor isn't an actual "employee". Just ask Uber. Or any actual contract worker.

I'm a contract worker, thanks. I'm employed as an online tutor. I still have rules and regulations to follow when I'm fulfilling my contracted hours as a tutor for the company. If I don't follow them, I'm let go. But they can't talk about my performance on their website or anything like that as my bosses.

Same thing with Machado.

So then it's a wash?

No, it means you look at the behaviors and circumstances and continued behavior and figure out if the latter case means that he grew up or matured in between instances.

I'm saying he thought Conner was prettier, so he was willing to do more for her. Ergo, no learning.

Alicia Machado got to keep her crown. Just like Tara Connor.

Still doesn't excuse his behavior.

[mjr]

Right. Which means performance issues are treated like you would treat any other employee's during that time period.

Which means that her crown could very well have been stripped. It wasn't.

I'm a contract worker, thanks. I'm employed as an online tutor.

Good for you. Ok, so freelance contractors are employees. My mistake. I do have the ability to acknowledge an erroneous statement -- if I think it's erroneous.

I still have rules and regulations to follow when I'm fulfilling my contracted hours as a tutor for the company. If I don't follow them, I'm let go.

True. The difference is Machado didn't...and wasn't.

No, it means you look at the behaviors and circumstances and continued behavior and figure out if the latter case means that he grew up or matured in between instances.

Well, considering the Machado thing happened BEFORE the Tara Connor thing...

I'm saying he thought Conner was prettier, so he was willing to do more for her. Ergo, no learning.

Got any proof that's why? Actual, real proof?

[wolfie]

It's all done in public. It's basically a "look how attractive I am" contest, if you boil it down to it's basic essence. And it's basically an "elimination". You have "Miss <State>", then Miss USA, then Miss Universe...

That last one is rigged - every year, an Earthling wins.

[Kheldarson]

Which means that her crown could very well have been stripped. It wasn't.

So because her crown wasn't stripped, that means his behavior is excused?

So, you can make a mistake at work and have your boss berate you in front of your coworkers, his bosses, and the press, but it's all cool because he didn't fire you. You realize that's what you're saying, right? That harassment and abuse by your boss is cool as long as you don't get fired for a performance issue.

I do have the ability to acknowledge an erroneous statement -- if I think it's erroneous.

Miracles do occur.

Well, considering the Machado thing happened BEFORE the Tara Connor thing...

...that was my point?

Got any proof that's why? Actual, real proof?

*points to Trump's responses to the sexual assault allegations*

He's a man who measures a woman's worth solely on her appearance. So he controlled himself around Machado enough to not engage in the public relations nightmare of letting go the first South American winner and the first one under his ownership, but not enough to completely degrade her because she was no longer pretty enough by his standards.

Conner, though, matched his standards, so she gets a pass.


If Trump honestly had an issue with Machado's ability to perform her duties, there were a million other ways he could have handled it in a better, more professional way. He took the worst possible option.

[s_stabeler]

What Trump has the right to do:
1. if it's a condition of the job, require Machado to maintain a set weight.
2. discipline Machado for not meeting the terms of her employment.
3. mandate Machado exercises to maintain her required weight.

What Trump has no right to do:
1. Mock Machado for failure to maintain her required weight. Specifically, making comments to the press like calling her "piggy".
2. punish her by making her exercise in front of the press. Again, it is more-or-less designed to humiliate her publicly.

In short, while he can punish her, the punishment went way too far, particularly since the punishment itself veers into demonising people who don't fit the "Miss X" standard of attractiveness.

[HYHYBT]

Your position seems to be this: "Beauty contests are based on appearance; therefore, the guy running the contest can say absolutely anything and everything he wishes, at any time, in any way, in any setting, and so long as it's related to appearance it's perfectly OK."

The trouble is that the part before "therefore" being true does not make the part adter it true. No amount of mere repetition of the claim that it does changes that.

[Gravekeeper]

I realize that "everybody does it" isn't an excuse, but let's at least try to not be self-righteous about it.

I'll try not to be self-righteous about it if you try not to be deliberately obtuse about it.

Fair? =p

[NecCat]

I'll try not to be self-righteous about it if you try not to be deliberately obtuse about it.

Fair? =p

I thought I was the one being accused of self-righteousness, I just didn't have the patience the last couple days to explain again that not everybody does "it" because the it that is being referred to in this thread is publicly dehumanizing and humiliating an employee on an international scale.

If you want to take the accusation though, more power to you.

[Rageaholic]

Your position seems to be this: "Beauty contests are based on appearance; therefore, the guy running the contest can say absolutely anything and everything he wishes, at any time, in any way, in any setting, and so long as it's related to appearance it's perfectly OK."

The trouble is that the part before "therefore" being true does not make the part adter it true. No amount of mere repetition of the claim that it does changes that.

Very well said.

Trump was exceptionally stupid in how he handled it once this resurfaced. To paraphrase a quote from Shrek "He had the right to remain silent, but it was the capacity he lacked".

[mjr]

I'll try not to be self-righteous about it if you try not to be deliberately obtuse about it.

Fair? =p

Somehow I doubt that.

[mjr]

I thought I was the one being accused of self-righteousness, I just didn't have the patience the last couple days to explain again that not everybody does "it" because the it that is being referred to in this thread is publicly dehumanizing and humiliating an employee on an international scale.

A bit of a goal post move with some narrow criteria, but I'll play.

I'm wording this question carefully: Have you ever, in your life, made fun of or mocked anyone? Just asking.

I'd wager if you were honest, the answer to that question is most likely "Yes". Of course, I know exactly where you're going to go with your answer.

And if you will note, I've never actually defended what Trump did -- at all. And why would I? It's alleged, also, that Hillary Clinton isn't exactly nice to "her" employees, either.

There's an old expression that goes, "When you point a finger at someone, you have fingers pointing back at yourself."

[Kheldarson]

A bit of a goal post move with some narrow criteria, but I'll play.

It's not a goal post move. You asked about why people were complaining about the comments/insults made about Machado's appearance.

Noting the differences between public and private behavior and limiting the discussion to public behavior is not a goal post move as the commentary that was made were all in the public realm.

I'm wording this question carefully: Have you ever, in your life, made fun of or mocked anyone? Just asking.

I'd wager if you were honest, the answer to that question is most likely "Yes". Of course, I know exactly where you're going to go with your answer.

I'm sure you do. But if you understand where we're going to go with our answer, then why don't you understand why there is a difference between saying shit between friends with the assumption of some privacy and saying shit to the media with the intent of getting the insults out there?

And if you will note, I've never actually defended what Trump did -- at all. And why would I?

Right. So that's why you keep insisting that his behavior is excusable because "it's her job to look pretty, so he's allowed to call her out in any way he wants". Victim blaming, ftw!

It's alleged, also, that Hillary Clinton isn't exactly nice to "her" employees, either.

And? There's a difference between being genuinely nice, being a hard boss, being a bit snappish, and being an ass of a boss who airs his employees' dirty laundry in an attempt to modify their behavior since they can't retaliate.