"Hundreds" of Nike employees walk out to protest re-opening of Salazar Building

yeah real solid there wrote:

solid thinking wrote:

That is not implied anywhere in my post that was merely pointing out how absurd it is to claim that you cannot protest X if you aren't protesting Y, Z, A, B, C, etc. How is voicing that Salazar is a cheat and a bad person "negating the poor brown" person making shoes?

Oh come on, you are excusing silence about sweat shops from these employees by suggesting 'you can't protest everything' and you know it.

And I never said anything about negating, it isn't negating, it is ignoring. The idea here is that people are walking out over AS but nobody is walking out in protest of sweat shops. So like I said, the implication is obvious. Only first world problems are worth protesting over apparently.

It is absurd to say that one can't protest Salazar unless they protest sweat shops. That's illogical. How can you argue otherwise?

"And I never said anything about negating"

...

"Let’s protest the abuse of middle class white women and negate the poor brown one who is making the shoes."

Any Nike employees sell their stocks and donate proceeds to #albertoevilempire fund?

rojo wrote:

facts facts facts wrote:

Let's not forget that the cheat Salazar has been banned for a number of anti-doping rule violations by an unanimous decision of the American arbitration panel AAA for four years based on all the evidence, after USADA wanted him banned for life-time. .

Is that true? Do we know it was unanimous? I know at points in there was some language implying disagreement on a few topics.

Salazar got banned for three violations, two of them (forbidden method and testo traficking) in an unanimous decision , the third (tampering) by panel majority (of three arbitrators). But even without the third, it would have been a four year ban.

There was a fourth vote too:

A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes

Now if CAS votes 2:1 instead of 1:2 on this one, the ban will at least get doubled.

Anyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong but entirely wrong...you’re this logic is much better or solid

Cleveland browns head coach wrote:

Looks like I'm coming back to Nike products now! Which is awesome, as i really missed the Pegasus.

Not me. I’m never buying anything Nike ever again, due to the Kaepernick thing. But am on their side on this Cain thing. I don’t believe Mary.

solid thinking wrote:

yeah real solid there wrote:

Oh come on, you are excusing silence about sweat shops from these employees by suggesting 'you can't protest everything' and you know it.

And I never said anything about negating, it isn't negating, it is ignoring. The idea here is that people are walking out over AS but nobody is walking out in protest of sweat shops. So like I said, the implication is obvious. Only first world problems are worth protesting over apparently.

It is absurd to say that one can't protest Salazar unless they protest sweat shops. That's illogical. How can you argue otherwise?

"And I never said anything about negating"

...

"Let’s protest the abuse of middle class white women and negate the poor brown one who is making the shoes."

Well then good thing I never said one cannot protest X without protesting Y but good try. People can protest whatever they want. In this case, these employees chose to protest a building dedication to AS. They did NOT now or ever in the past walk out over the use of sweat shops (essentially slavery) ergo they are ignoring, not negating, ignoring that issue entirely and only taking issue with AL, a completely first world problem. Do you require further explanation? Its really quite simple.

PS you probably should look up the definition of negating. You are not using it correctly.

PS you should probably look up the definition of negating because I was pointing out that someone else used it wrong. Or you could just read the string above and see that as well. But solid thinking appears to escape you.

I added bold text to try to help you out this time. I can hold your hand next if you still don't see it.

Here is the Oregonian article on the matter:https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/12/i-believe-mary-nike-workers-protest-as-company-unveils-renovated-alberto-salazar-building.html I was scanning the comments below and found the following post to be interesting.

a reader wrote:

I think there is legitimate debate about whether Salazar's name should be on a building. I'm not sure it should be, and I'm generally a Salazar supporter.

The whole "We Believe Mary" thing though, to me, comes off as a bit much. For the most part, I think everyone generally believes Mary. However, there are a lot of factors that went into her experience, what information was conveyed and how, etc. and the push to turn this into a 100% abuser vs. victim situation, I think over simplifies the situation and paints everything Alberto did in the worst light possible

Business as usual wrote:

I work at the Beaverton campus. This is being overplayed. Yes, some people walked out, but the vast majority of us are just fine with the building. Alberto’s a good person. The situation is not as simplistic as people want to make it seem.

^- This

*Thousands* of people work there. A tiny percentage participated in the protest and the media makes it seem like the largest event ever

Also there is much evidence showing Mary wasn't being truthful or fair and the situation is more nuanced and complex.

Time to start a "I don't believe Mary" protest

facts facts facts facts wrote:

rojo wrote:

Is that true? Do we know it was unanimous? I know at points in there was some language implying disagreement on a few topics.

Salazar got banned for three violations, two of them (forbidden method and testo traficking) in an unanimous decision , the third (tampering) by panel majority (of three arbitrators). But even without the third, it would have been a four year ban.

There was a fourth vote too:

A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes

Now if CAS votes 2:1 instead of 1:2 on this one, the ban will at least get doubled.

The ban will be doubled if CAS upholds the decision by majority vote? You sure?

Rupp Fan Boy wrote:

Also there is much evidence showing Mary wasn't being truthful or fair and the situation is more nuanced and complex.

Time to start a "I don't believe Mary" protest

Go right ahead and start it then, coward.

Fects? wrote:

The ban will be doubled if CAS upholds the decision by majority vote? You sure?

No - that's not what I meant. If CAS votes the other way than AAA on this accusation, meaning CAS unlike AAA finds Salazar also guilty of trying to dope his athletes:

A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes

then the ban will at least get doubled.

Business as usual wrote:

I work at the Beaverton campus. This is being overplayed. Yes, some people walked out, but the vast majority of us are just fine with the building. Alberto’s a good person. The situation is not as simplistic as people want to make it seem.

Of course its simple.

Its always simple. Did he do what he was accused of?

If yes then he should be done. And people like you shouldn't be making excuses.

AS is now a yes no answer

solid thinking wrote:

"Let’s protest the abuse of middle class white women and negate the poor brown one who is making the shoes."

Yellow ones, not brown. China (36%), Vietnam (36%), Indonesia (22%), Thailand (6%). So, while, your point about white female entitlement is on point, you fell into black/brown skin entitlement by default.

Hayduke wrote:

FFF wrote:

Weird.

It took them literally 72 hours to remove all traces of Lance Armstrong-ness following his fall (I don't recall which part), so a re-dedication is bizarre. Like many of you, I am never buying anything Nike again. I'm not fast enough for Cheaterfly shoes, so there's zero temptation.

How noble! After decades of slave labor you finally are boycotting Nike because a 1st world girl had her feelings hurt by a company paying her hundreds of thousands dollars to play a kids game!

+1

Democrats Are the Privileged Ones wrote:

solid thinking wrote:

"Let’s protest the abuse of middle class white women and negate the poor brown one who is making the shoes."

Yellow ones, not brown. China (36%), Vietnam (36%), Indonesia (22%), Thailand (6%). So, while, your point about white female entitlement is on point, you fell into black/brown skin entitlement by default.

Not surprisingly, you were unable to respond to the correct post.

Nike should only hire/sponsor trans females from now on.

crumpet wrote:

Business as usual wrote:

I work at the Beaverton campus. This is being overplayed. Yes, some people walked out, but the vast majority of us are just fine with the building. Alberto’s a good person. The situation is not as simplistic as people want to make it seem.

Of course its simple.

Its always simple. Did he do what he was accused of?

If yes then he should be done. And people like you shouldn't be making excuses.

AS is now a yes no answer

Lol. Its funny how so many people fail to see the big picture. The whole point of anti doping rules is to prevent any unfair advantages for athletes over other athletes. Coaches do not run the races, athletes do. The crux of the matter is that people wanted to try to accuse Galen, but they couldnt because....wait for it.....he didnt dope. He did not cheat. He won fair and square. Instead, they take out their anger on an old white male because it is socially acceptable to do so. You want to know another simple explanation? The report itself said there is INSUFFICIENT evidence that any of the athletes doped.

#AlbertoHero