Updated: “Racism is unacceptable” – Trek-Segafredo reacts to rider’s pro-Trump tweet

Go read a book and ask a relevant question. He has been suspended because his post can be interpreted as racist (by the use of the black/brown hand), you know that, which is why you are using the line questioning you have, to deflect from the issue. This isn't about his support of a political party and you know that. If I didn't know better I'd think you are trolling.

I see you've neatly avoided answering the question or clarifying your position.

Please answer the questions.

What did you mean when you talked about Quinn's responsibilities?

Do you think people should have their job prospects harmed because they support a legal political party?

The use of any colour emoji can be considered racist. Read up about it, it's quite interesting.

Quote:

 The use of any colour emoji can be considered racist. Read up about it, it's quite interesting.

I did this morning when I saw this blow up and wondered if the emoji was maybe the reason.  It is interesting and many connotations could have caused issues anyway , but the majority is you don't use one that doesn't represent yourself. And has he has always used a specific skin tone before, to deliberately change this for the tweet does seem deliberate. (For info, On the iphone the default is yellow and you have to hold then and choose the other required colour. It does default to that colour then so when and why did he use it last if not specifically chosen). 

So you are trolling. So the statement is, "this isn't about his support of a political party". Does that help? Your comments about the coloured emoji are the type that I hear from most of the racists that I have ever known.

And here come the subtle ad hominems...

Just Google the ethical debate about emoji skin tone and you will see arguments against white people using white skinned emojis, arguments against white people using the default emoji and arguments against white people using emojis with different akin tones to their own.

You will also see some people describing situations in which a white person should definitely use a different skin tone emoji and should never use their own skin tone or the default emoji.

If you think this is unrelated to politics then ask yourself if using that emoji in a different context would have produced the same reaction?

If someone had asked all Biden supporters to unfollow them and Quinn had posted the exact same reply would the reaction have been the same?

Try to answer the questions this time...

So I don't have to read all your garbage posts, have you written anything that isn't designed to detract from the fact that he is rested due to a post with racist overtones, rather than the twisted statement you made that it is due to his support for Trump or the Republican party? Asking for a friend.

I'm done with this discussion.

The fact you've failed to answer a single question speaks volumes.

You've pretty much single handedly proved the point I was making.

Thanks for that.

Pleasure; I wasn't here to be questioned by somone I don't know and who clearly has chosen to misinterpret my posts.

Rich_cb wrote:

Do you think people should have their job prospects harmed because they support a legal political party?

Simmonds hasn't been benched by the Trek-Segafredo team (which is not the same as Trek Bicycle Co.) merely because he supports Donald Trump. If you think that's the then you ought to read more widely.

He's representing the team when he's on social media. The team, his employer, took exception to it. Tough shit if you or I think that's not fair.

They've only pulled him from some races, not sacked him or sent him to work in a nickel mine for the rest of his life.
 

The team's actions have harmed his career prospects and reduced his earning potential.

People have claimed to be offended based on their own interpretation of an emoji and a man's career has been harmed as a result. Personally I doubt that explanation.

It would be interesting to see the wording of his contract regarding social media.

Surely his actions have harmed his career prospects and reduced his earning potential. He replied when he didn't have to. He decided to use an emoji of a specific colour he has no previous form of choosing in the past that could easily be interpreted in a certain way, especially with the highly racist issues this week that prompted Jose's original tweet.  

I see on the main blog he has issued an statement that he didn't mean to cause offence and apologised if any was caused with the emoji colour. I do wonder that now he does accept that it could have been misconstrued, WHY IS IT STILL UP? Also I wonder if it had crossed his or Treks minds that Jose might have been hounded off twitter over this as well. She apologised about her role in this before she deleted her account. And I doubt journalists would delete an account of almost 10 years at a whim. So just shame there was nothing in there to state for anyone blaming her, please stop. 

Nobody knows why he chose that particular emoji, as many people have pointed out it's not exactly a widely known fact that incorrect emoji use has been added to the 'Big List of Offensive Things'®.

I do feel sorry for the journalist involved but she decided to get political on Twitter and it ended the way it usually does.

She posted when she didn't have to...

Quote:

I do feel sorry for the journalist involved but she decided to get political on Twitter and it ended the way it usually does.

Yes with people probably aiming death and rape threats at her and her family. Still, never mind, the 19 yo can carry on racing and leaving a post up which he himself has admitted could be seen as racial. 
 

That's Twitter for you.

Would be amazed if Simmons hadn't also received death threats.

Suprised after such a robust defence of apparent racism that you couldn't see how or why it could be construed that way, you don't have a heart to offer up more then "Thats twitter for you"

Are you ignoring my previous comment then?

Twitter is an absolute mess when it comes to threats and harassment. That's been well known for years.

I don't personally believe this has anything to do with racism, if Simmons had used a different emoji he'd still be condemned and attacked.

He's said it was not used in a racist way and Trek have said it was nothing to do with politics so I guess we're both wrong.

'Probably' is good enough for me to be actual fact... or, are you being a bit sensational there with the death and rape threats? 

Personally, the guy's clearly been a douche, and on whatever level, his choice of Emoji was deliberate... the obvious connection being that its a racial reference. 

So far so good, but I do feel very uncomfortable that Emoji / gif colour selection should be accepted as a possible race crime. Clearly from comments on here, there is still a lack of clarity and therefore common knowledge around this, so its a stretch for me to be accepting that people should be losing their jobs due to emoji / gif selection.

It's not something I have ever considered, and I'm sure it's not something my kids have considered or being instructed on... for me this is treading on dangerous ground.

I'm making educational guesses due to it being Twitter (Rich CB and I agree it is toxic) and these other points. She was fine answering back to items and then even posting the apology out. She is a self employed cycling journalist and her company name was changed to match the specific Twitter account which she has had for 10 or so years. Now the twitter account doesn't mention Private, it mentioned deleted. Maybe there is a setting that shows that, or maybe Twitter has banned her (for what?) but to me she has deleted it. I couldn't see someone undoing that much hard work without a reason more then being embarassed over the trouble caused. I'm sure the truth might come out at some point. 

This is a video Sky released about the abuse people of both sexes get on Twitter because they report on Sport. 

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/12086883/sky-sports-unites-against...

Yes, cycling is horribly hypocritical and assists in the sportwashing of some unpleasant regimes and companies, but that is not a justification for an individual or team imitating the behaviour of other offenders. Remember the "other people dope, so why pick on me" defence...

AllegedlyAnthony wrote:

Yes, cycling is horribly hypocritical and assists in the sportwashing of some unpleasant regimes and companies, but that is not a justification for an individual or team imitating the behaviour of other offenders. Remember the "other people dope, so why pick on me" defence...

True that but I don't see anyone calling for "those" teams to be sanctioned in anyway.

Rich_cb wrote:

He has a right to vote for whoever he wants.

Your employer should not be able to fire or punish you for stating your support for a legal political party.

That's absolute insanity.

Depends on the job.

If you're one of the public faces of a company, then there's a high expectation of not bringing the brand into disrepute. I think in this case there's the problem that being a Trump supporter is seen as being more than just a political belief and is tied up with racism and white supremacism which is not really a good look.

He can still vote for whoever he wants, but he may have trouble with his chosen career if he's vocal about it.

The problem with that view is that it is incompatible with democracy.

You can't have a 2 party system where support for one party will see you lose your livelihood.

That's insane.

Rich_cb wrote:

The problem with that view is that it is incompatible with democracy.

You can't have a 2 party system where support for one party will see you lose your livelihood.

That's insane.

That's not what's happening here, though. He's publicly supporting one specific person rather than a party and I doubt there'd be any reaction if he'd just put across pro-republican views. The problem is that he's supporting Trump and arguably racist and divisive politics. If he'd communicated some non-Trump based racist or sexist public comments, then he'd be in a similar position, so it's not just a partisan view that's causing the problem.

Trump is the republican party nomination for president and the de facto leader of that party.

If you're not allowed to profess support for Trump then you're, by definition, also banned from supporting the Republican party in the presidential election.

In a democracy you must be free to express your (legal) political allegiance.

Anything other approach, particularly when it is only applied to one group, is a serious threat to democracy.

Nonsense. Votes are private (certainly in this country - I haven't voted in the states). He can cast his vote as he wishes

Rich_cb wrote:

Trump is the republican party nomination for president and the de facto leader of that party.

If you're not allowed to profess support for Trump then you're, by definition, also banned from supporting the Republican party in the presidential election.

In a democracy you must be free to express your (legal) political allegiance.

Anything other approach, particularly when it is only applied to one group, is a serious threat to democracy.

You can most definitely be a Republican and yet not support Trump. Similarly, you can be a Conservative and think that Boris is a poor leader. You're over-simplifying this and exaggerating what is a marketing decision rather than any infringement of free speech or voting rights. There can be consequences for what you publicly say when you're seen as part of a brand (and wearing sponsorship logos).