Yeah. What I think is particularly sad in this case is that the whole thing could have been a total non-issue from the get-go if the remarks had been addressed and repudiated at the time. I would expect a typical piece of “cringeworthiness” among well-meaning people to go more like this:
McCammond: … stupid asian TA
[friend]: omg alexi why r u using “asian” like it’s an insult?? would u say that in front of [mutual Asian friend]
McCammond: no ur right that was stupid n racist of me, Im sorry!
(Let’s just pause for a moment here to admire my impressive fluency in the textspeak of the young people. )
Angry snoops ten years later could have dragged an exchange like that into the public eye as much as they wanted and nobody would really have given a shit about it. Because that’s what happens when a well-meaning person impulsively “says shit they regret” and then takes it back and apologizes for it, the way genuinely well-meaning people do.
I think that it is lazy thinking that that is what is going on here.
It’s not that we don’t associate or talk to evil, it’s that we do not reward evil, we do not give them lucrative positions of power to influence others.
So that means she can’t have ever, even once or twice in her life, expressed anything that could be perceived as racist or bigoted. I guess you can’t ever be an AA counselor if you’ve ever gotten buzzed.
I think following the James Gunn path is the way to go. Take your lumps, be humble, don’t disparage your former employer. Then later get hired again and be fabulous.
I’m not sure that it’s better if she was so casually racist that she would say such things and then forget about them.
It’s not representing the whole of her person. For instance, I cannot tell at all how good a piano player she is from those tweets.
What I can tell is that she had some pretty racist thoughts considering asians.
But he appealed to racists who wanted to say those sorts of things. He appalled those who were not racist, and didn’t want to say those things.
I suppose that it is appealing to get away with saying hateful things without consequence. I disagree that reasonable, less racist people would find it to be so.
Sure, everybody understands why it’s appealing to refuse to admit to being in the wrong and give the “You can’t make me!!” middle finger to anyone demanding an apology for what you did.
But of course, reasonable and non-racist people don’t actually try to get away with that kind of childish bullshit or support politicians who flaunt that kind of childish bullshit.
Man, that is some octopus-level argument and reasoning right there.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said – anyone who has ever expressed anything that could be perceived as racist or bigoted shall never find employment, forever and ever, amen.
I think your AA reference is something like, hey, only someone who has been racist can really understand the mind of a racist, and so should be employed by Teen Vogue? Because otherwise, I have no idea what your point is. I think former alcoholics are AA counselors all the time, maybe most of the time? Should magazines that want to appeal to non-racists mostly employ former racists? Honestly, I have no idea what you were driving at.
Good point, whether they would do so anyway or not, from the Conde Nast perspective they really had to be visibly tough on something like this at this point. They are extra aware that they risk alienating more segments of their market than they can afford.
At least octopus level thinking doesn’t lead to emulation of the inquisition, the reign of terror, or Maoism/Stalinism. Octopus level thinking believes in due process and promotion of fundamental liberties not the exploitation of so-called victim hood for power.
I have to say, you’re really getting less and less coherent over time. Your posts look like you have a big hat with various buzzwords on slips of paper that you just pull out randomly and string together.
“Reign of terror woke mobs with hatchets will burn your books and leave you Maoist.”
And fuck you with your accusations of book-burning, you Nazi fuck.
“octopus level thinking” ignores violence, terror, and censorship when it comes from the right, and cares about nothing more than trying to score points on liberals and progressives. At least, by the posts of the poster called octopus.
A teacher once told me about something called ‘The Socratic Method’ of teaching. Supposedly, in ancient Greece, when you were taught something, you were slapped once. If the student forgot it, he would be told the correct answer and slapped again harder. This would continue until they took their education seriously and stopped making foolish thoughtless mistakes.
There was no inquisition, there was no reign of terror, there were no concentration camps.
As it so happened, there were no ‘whiny little bitches’ either, but Trump’s another story…
My point, in short, is that a past mistake or two shouldn’t be used years later to determine someone’s character or employment. See it for what it was, offer that person a chance to denounce it, and be satisfied with that.
It also involves repeating false narratives being spread across the right-wing media…and then accusing everyone else of being a “hivemind”.
It involves making grossly exaggerated or manufactured claims of persecution over and over again in order to claim victimhood…and then accusing everyone else of playing the victim card.
And it of course involves accusing everyone else of hypocrisy.
Funny little turn of a phrase there. That is the EXACT mindset behind things like “War on Christmas” - the exploitation of “Happy Holidays” to make us true Christians into the victim.
That is probably also the mindset that created McCammond’s initial tweets. There is the stereotype of Asians, especially immigrants (maybe 1st generation) of being overly studious, at least compared to us WASPy 'Merikans. You’re not doing as well in school as others? Blame their OVER-work ethic instead of your sloppy work ethic. And the lazy mind immediately lets that slip into racism.
Which is why someone who repudiates their ideas should be forgiven and welcomed. Derek Black certainly said some pretty hateful and bigoted things when he was 17. But, now that he has seen the error of his ways, he’s a very persuasive anti-racist. And maybe it does take an ex-racist to get through to a racist.
If she had pointed out her previous remarks, and said how she regretted them, how she had learned that they were wrong and that she was wrong to say them, then maybe she’d have a place like that.
Since when has due process had anything to do with employment decisions? Since when have fundamental liberties had anything to do with telling a private company who they have to hire?
)