JT keeps sponser $, or at least part of it.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

The problem here isn’t a donation.  It’s that it’s a PR power move by citi.    They are taking credit for any donation preemptively by bullying JT into making one. 
 

I’m a firm believer that I’ll give you the shirt off my back if you ASK for it.  But if you come to TAKE  it. You better be ready for a days work.  
 

this is them publicly taking it. Not privately asking him to do so.  

 

CITI are definitely trying to get ahead of the publicity here. It's comic that a bank with their, err, reputation, is doing it.

 

And I agree that they're forcing him to make a donation and trying to reap the publicity benefits themselves. That's a good take.

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

I would assume the decision to donate was something that Citi and JTs side probably agreed upon.  Coming out to the open with the news as a chance to portray advocacy, is nothing shocking.  

Maybe on paper. But the quotes use of the word “ required” means it was without real  choice . Other than the obvious one , to not sell your self worth for $. 
 

 

I get how it would look to decline their offer to continue business. But I promise you I’d do it.  I could have been a rich man 10x over it or taken every nickel I’d been offered for my dignity.  Once or twice ive taken it.  And it’s a horrible feeling.  Standing on principle. Even if alone.  Is worth it in the long run.  
 

this idea that a word directed at no one , is somehow worth all the hand wringing that’s been shown is a made up construct.  It’s literally manufactured drama.  

[bubbagump]

1 minute ago, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

The fact that he used the word as an insult--even against himself--shows that being gay, or LGBTQ (isn't there a + or ? symbol as well?) is sort of wrong. That's why it's become an issue.

That said, there's a lot of BS going on here. As as been pointed out, CITI are certainly not paragons of virtue. I am pretty sure that the bank's decision was driven more by financial concerns than ethical concerns. 

However, as to the point you raised in your first paragraph...the word he used is offensive to people who are mostly equal in the eyes of the law. As to the others you mentioned in your example, the mother***ers, while certain websites might beg to differ, I don't think they enjoy the same protections or approbation from society.

 

Really good post here. 

 

I think most people are fatigued by cancel culture etc, but its just the times we live in now and agree or not, what he said just isn't something the same as other cuss words.  Ignoring the difference, or acting as if there is none between those kinds of words and sh*t/f*ck etc is just being obtuse.  Jt has handled this as "great" as one could, and in doing so recognizes it wasn't cool of him to do so. 

 

Sponsors are going to do what they have to do, to protect their image/$.  In other news, the sky is blue.