Sal Siino (former WWE executive) Fired Because Wife

[Solid Snake]

According to Huffpost, Salvatore Siino landed the WWE VP gig in early 2017 after his startup went out of business. In his position, WWE says Siino would’ve been negotiating TV deals in the United Arab Emirates. Virtually the entire population is Muslim.

WWE reportedly knew about the @AmyMek account, according to former family friend who talked with Huffpost, and told Siino to keep his connection to his wife quiet.

When HuffPost first questioned WWE about the account, a corporate spokesperson told them, “this is the first time we’re hearing about Amy Mekelburg.” As the story approached publication, Huffpost reached out to WWE a second time to see if anyone was aware of @AmyMek before Siino was hired.

“No,” said the WWE spokesperson . “Now that it has come to our attention, Sal Siino is no longer an employee.” Mekelburg has since blamed O’Brien for the firing — tweeting, “O’Brien went so far as to contact my husband’s employer and had him fired because of MY OPINIONS and my fight for Jews to exist.”

SOURCE

My guess is he was fired because of the Middle East and India deals. If they caught wind of WWE hiring someone who's wife acts like this, they likely would want nothing to do with the company.

It is pretty crappy to fire the dude over the actions of his wife but I can see why they did.

Also they are receiving countless death threats now too and the dude from Huffpost was threatening to leak private information. I guess a lot of anti-Semitic things, talks about acid baths, bombs, etc. are being sent to her and her family.

Humans... are just wonderful.

 

[Redboy123@]

What did his wife even do though? Other then express her believes. Seems unfair to fire the guy.

WWE and the Middle East hasn't been a match made in heaven so far

 

[Solid Snake]

What did his wife even do though? Other then express her believes. Seems unfair to fire the guy.

WWE and the Middle East hasn't been a match made in heaven so far

Yeah I know. Everyone else does it online. They did a 10 year deal and they would likely pull out because of WWE's association with a man who is associated with a woman who is anti-everything they believe in. This is their way of avoiding people calling the entire company racist too, cause you know it would happen. Just like all Starbucks' everywhere and every person who worked at one was suddenly racist because of one woman. Have to love people's mindsets... "Let's get rid of racism and group profiling!"... One person at a company says something or does something they don't like.. "___ IS A RACIST COMPANY!"

 

[Zany Clowny]

wtf i love Islam now

 

[Solid Snake]

wtf i love Islam now

 

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

I love it whenever a journalist doxes people for posting mean tweets. I especially love it whenever a person loses his job because his lover posts mean tweets since Mr. Siino quite clearly is playing an active role in the private account of a different individual.

the dude from Huffpost was threatening to leak private information.

Posting the life story of someone that (seemingly) deliberately kept their personal life off the Internet seems a bit like leaking private information to me. The motive behind this piece looks more malicious than informative to me. The author didn't need this woman's life story for the article and certainly didn't need to contact WWE asking about her husband. I can't imagine how any editor that graduated middle school looked at this thing and thought it was fit for being published.

Then again, it's Huffington Post, so expecting a degree of intelligence is a mistake.

Article cited by Pro Wrestling Sheet: Trump's Loudest Anti-Muslim Twitter Troll Is A Shady Vegan Married To An (Ousted) WWE Exec | HuffPost

 

[Solid Snake]

I love it whenever a journalist doxes people for posting mean tweets. I especially love it whenever a person loses his job because his lover posts mean tweets since Mr. Siino quite clearly is playing an active role in the private account of a different individual.


Posting the life story of someone that (seemingly) deliberately kept their personal life off the Internet seems a bit like leaking private information to me. The motive behind this piece looks more malicious than informative to me. The author didn't need this woman's life story for the article and certainly didn't need to contact WWE asking about her husband. I can't imagine how any editor that graduated middle school looked at this thing and thought it was fit for being published.

Then again, it's Huffington Post, so expecting a degree of intelligence is a mistake.

Article cited by Pro Wrestling Sheet: Trump's Loudest Anti-Muslim Twitter Troll Is A Shady Vegan Married To An (Ousted) WWE Exec | HuffPost

I am just at a loss for words. It just seems like this guy intentionally wanted to ruin their lives.

 

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

I am just at a loss for words. It just seems like this guy intentionally wanted to ruin their lives.

Some people don't have journalistic integrity, sadly. This author is one of them.

 

[collim1]

Islam isn’t a race. Not liking Islam doesn’t make you a racist.

 

[Solid Snake]

Islam isn’t a race. Not liking Islam doesn’t make you a racist.

Shh, don't say that too loud.

 

[collim1]

Shh, don't say that too loud.

The appropriate term would be religious sectarianism.

 

[Solid Snake]

The appropriate term would be religious sectarianism.

Every religion or belief system doesn't like or at the very least doesn't agree with any other religion or belief system than their own. That is how things go.
There is a HUGE difference between saying you don't like or agree with a religion/belief and disliking/hating a person because of said religion/belief.

People tend take everything in literal context so if you say you don't agree with Islam, you are Islamophobic. Some then slap on a racist label because if you say you don't agree with their religion, you obviously hate all Muslims. And yet in the same breath they will then say not all Muslims share the same faith/beliefs or standards. I don't think people even know what they are saying anymore nor what they believe. They are just echoing things because the majority feels it is the right thing to do. Oh well. People tend to do this thing where they genuinely suck. Some do it occasionally, some do it every day.

 

[Redboy@]

Some people don't have journalistic integrity, sadly. This author is one of them.

Yes. What a loser.

 

[MildlyUpsetGerbil]

It just seems like this guy intentionally wanted to ruin their lives.

I had another look at the article. Its subheading is "@AmyMek anonymously spread hate online for years. She can’t hide anymore."

This is a pretty clear admission that Mr. O'Brien's article was specifically created with the intent to dox this woman. Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to the following line from the article:

"As this story neared publication, she kept tweeting hate, even when her husband’s job was in jeopardy."

This sounds as if the author reached out to Mrs. Mek to demand she cease tweeting or else he'd cost her husband his job. What really puts the icing on the cake is that idiot fanboys of Mrs. Mek send him death threats, which he then immediately uses to portray himself as an innocent victim of online abuse. Way to advance your cause, geniuses!

Islamophobic.

The only use of the term that makes sense is when describing someone that starts to sweat whenever he/she sees someone in a burka. If there is no fear of the Muslim, then to use that word to describe someone makes no sense. Same goes for homophobia. Compare those two words to anti-Semitism. What does that word mean? It means someone is against Semites. It makes sense for that to be used as a catch-all term for people afraid of Jews, hateful towards Jews, etc. Hate and fear are not the same thing; hating burritos does not equate to being afraid of burritos.

I get that it's all semantics, but c'mon, can't we fill our vocabularies with words that don't sound like utter drivel?

Some then slap on a racist label because if you say you don't agree with their religion, you obviously hate all Muslims.

"If a person who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent used a piece of equipment at the gym before Mekelburg did, she’d 'either clean it excessively, complain it was gross or refuse to use the machine,' [a former friend of Mrs. Sek] said. “She was cruel in every form.'"

If this quotation is indeed correct - which I consider likely - then I'd say describing her as racist would be correct.

I get what you're referring to, though, and that's to people lobbing around the term racist towards people criticizing Islami. I believe the racist label is added because the first image that pops into our minds when we think Muslim is a darker-than-white person in the Middle East. This label draws upon the assumption that Muslims aren't white, despite that being false. Most Muslims aren't white, but white Muslims do, in fact, exist. People that act this way like to justify it in their heads as protecting a minority while humorously stereotyping said minority. Either way, I presume it's plausible people that throw around the R word also assume that the people they're accusing harbor ill will towards blacks and other racial minorities, so racism functions as a catch-all word for anti-minority.

People that use such language carelessly trivialize these words to the point where people stop caring. Racist, Nazi, fascist, communist, why bother taking notes of such allegations whenever so many people are falsely labelled as such?

To bring this back to the article we're supposed to focus on, I'd like everyone to focus on the author's language. His article is littered with buzzwords like fascist, white supremacist, far-right, and racist in every paragraph. Every time he introduces a new individual whom he ideologically opposes he will preface their name with a derogatory label. Anyone this woman likes is an evil Nazi wanting to kill Muslims and birth an ethnostate. Associating with her reinforces how evil they are. Remember her husband? What price did he pay for associating with her again?

What a splendid man you are, Mr. O'Brien. You're a modern day Sophie Scholl!

 

[Solid Snake]

I had another look at the article. Its subheading is "@AmyMek anonymously spread hate online for years. She can’t hide anymore."

This is a pretty clear admission that Mr. O'Brien's article was specifically created with the intent to dox this woman. Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to the following line from the article:

"As this story neared publication, she kept tweeting hate, even when her husband’s job was in jeopardy."

This sounds as if the author reached out to Mrs. Mek to demand she cease tweeting or else he'd cost her husband his job. What really puts the icing on the cake is that idiot fanboys of Mrs. Mek send him death threats, which he then immediately uses to portray himself as an innocent victim of online abuse. Way to advance your cause, geniuses!


The only use of the term that makes sense is when describing someone that starts to sweat whenever he/she sees someone in a burka. If there is no fear of the Muslim, then to use that word to describe someone makes no sense. Same goes for homophobia. Compare those two words to anti-Semitism. What does that word mean? It means someone is against Semites. It makes sense for that to be used as a catch-all term for people afraid of Jews, hateful towards Jews, etc. Hate and fear are not the same thing; hating burritos does not equate to being afraid of burritos.

I get that it's all semantics, but c'mon, can't we fill our vocabularies with words that don't sound like utter drivel?


"If a person who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent used a piece of equipment at the gym before Mekelburg did, she’d 'either clean it excessively, complain it was gross or refuse to use the machine,' [a former friend of Mrs. Sek] said. “She was cruel in every form.'"

If this quotation is indeed correct - which I consider likely - then I'd say describing her as racist would be correct.

I get what you're referring to, though, and that's to people lobbing around the term racist towards people criticizing Islami. I believe the racist label is added because the first image that pops into our minds when we think Muslim is a darker-than-white person in the Middle East. This label draws upon the assumption that Muslims aren't white, despite that being false. Most Muslims aren't white, but white Muslims do, in fact, exist. People that act this way like to justify it in their heads as protecting a minority while humorously stereotyping said minority. Either way, I presume it's plausible people that throw around the R word also assume that the people they're accusing harbor ill will towards blacks and other racial minorities, so racism functions as a catch-all word for anti-minority.

People that use such language carelessly trivialize these words to the point where people stop caring. Racist, Nazi, fascist, communist, why bother taking notes of such allegations whenever so many people are falsely labelled as such?

To bring this back to the article we're supposed to focus on, I'd like everyone to focus on the author's language. His article is littered with buzzwords like fascist, white supremacist, far-right, and racist in every paragraph. Every time he introduces a new individual whom he ideologically opposes he will preface their name with a derogatory label. Anyone this woman likes is an evil Nazi wanting to kill Muslims and birth an ethnostate. Associating with her reinforces how evil they are. Remember her husband? What price did he pay for associating with her again?

What a splendid man you are, Mr. O'Brien. You're a modern day Sophie Scholl!

Oh I get this. I am in no way saying the woman isn't being racist, I hardly know who she is but the way this was handled was poor and if anything will only make views of certain people from other people worse. There is a huge issue with journalism today. That is clear here. It is almost like certain ones purposely target people in the same way the people they target others do, sometimes even worse than that.

Who really wins here? The person for being crappy or the person calling out the other person for being crappy while being crappy themselves? I could use quite a few other words in the place of "crappy" but I will let you all fill that in.

I just find myself dumbfounded by how ignorant people can be. What is that old saying? You catch more bees with honey than with manure? Or "treat others how you wish to be treated yourself"... I mean you know where I am going with this. There is a right way and a wrong way to bring attention to something and it seems like the media is focusing on the wrong way most of the time which only works like a double edged sword. It furthers racism, hate, violence, and a general divide among people.

Every single religion or belief system faces prejudice, this is the same for every culture, lifestyle, and skin color. Some more than others, many equal to others. We humans have an issue with judgement and judging other people, that is no big surprise.

There is an issue though. When people (specially in the media or those who have great influence of the general public) put focus on only one group as if they are the only group to have bad things happen to them, what kind of message does that send to other people?