packgrad said:More utter nonsense. AIG did not have an image problem with Schilling. That is just plain stupidity. Nobody even knew he had insurance with them until they canceled his. Additionally, you really don't want to go down that ridiculous road of "image problem" determining who can buy your services. Your duplicity will be quite apparent.Civilized said:packgrad said:It's remarkable how you justify this based on absolutely nothing regarding insurance. Lol. Literally nothing you said has anything to do with insurance. A lot of words to try and smear him because you are fine with him losing his insurance, but nothing that has an iota to do with insuranceCivilized said:griff17matt said:What the **** does that have to do with insurance coverage?Civilized said:IseWolf22 said:packgrad said:
Liberalism now means you can cancel your customer's insurance if you disagree with them politically. Yay, Democrats!
What type of insurance was it and was it personal or his business (he said "we").
In general, this one concerns me far more tham social media as certain types of insurance are critical. But I don't know enough specifics about this situation. I didnt even know he was a media personality now
He's been really outspoken in the past, in an intentionally inflammatory way, about both political and sports stuff.
Calling MLB baseball players "dumbasses" and "*******s," picking fights with people about political stuff, etc.
This wasn't just about him saying he supported the rioters last week. There's a history.
AIG doesn't want to do business with his (presumably) business anymore because they don't align with his public image.
Again, this seemed to be the straw or at least branch that broke the camel's back.
He tweeted transphobic remarks and got suspended from his job as commentator. Then he tweeted anti-Muslim rhetoric and got fired completely from ESPN. Then he has profane rants directed towards current MLB players about trivial sports matters. Then he tweets support for the rioters. It's on and on with him.
The man walks around with a flame thrower looking for gas cans to ignite.
It's dumb and disingenuous to do that and then be all "What, poor little old conservative MEEE? What did I do?"
He didn't get dropped for a thoughtful, eloquently penned essay in support of the Second Amendment, or of a strong military.
He got dropped for having a very visible, very trashy, very inflammatory online persona.
There are thoughtful ways to express conservative views that would never in a million years get you you canceled. Conservatives do themselves no favors by picking trashy, inflammatory ass-hats like Trump and Schilling to cry foul about "censorship" of conservative views.
Just like with a scientific study, you've got to control for the multi variable situation. If people getting canceled are trashy, inflammatory, and conservative, roll some dudes out there that are just plain conservative and see if they get cancelled too. That way you're controlling for whether the others got canceled for being trashy and inflammatory or for being conservative.
I've been consistent on here saying the same thing about the Republican nomination in 2024. Nikki Haley will get treated completely different than Trump. Why is that? She's conservative too. Granted, she's conservative without being a trashy, inflammatory, petulant child. Maybe that will make a difference?
Can rational people imagine your health insurance being able to drop you from coverage because they don't like your tweets? That is sheer lunacy. Not that health insurance happened here, but why not? Apparently the threshold is if they think you make a (as determined by their online police force) visible, trashy, and inflammatory online posts, they can drop your insurance at any time.
It doesn't have anything to do with insurance. It has to do with image. This isn't news.
And yes, service providers of all types have terms of service addressing client conduct in their client agreements. I would bet my life that Schilling violated the terms of service of his contract with AIG with his conduct.
In the Service Agreement I have for a real estate service we provide a group of clients, we have the following clause in the Termination section:
"We may immediately terminate this Agreement by giving you written notice in the event...your conduct or the conduct of your employees or guests become incompatible with ordinary [service use] or is otherwise detrimental to [our business] or our reputation..."
The relevancy of client misconduct to the business service we're providing them is discussed but there's an additional clause that gives us broad latitude to address their conduct if we think it may impair our reputation. Most companies have similar terms.
AIG had an image problem with Schilling, not an insurance problem.
It doesn't matter if you don't think that AIG has an image problem with Schilling. That's their call to make, not yours or mine.
Personally I don't care how AIG runs their business as long as they're doing it legally.
Also, we're getting one side of the story, the flamethrower's. We'll never know AIG's side.