I guess the take on the pun should be interpreted contextually.
I used to work there, and it was routinely referred to among staff of all ethnicities jokingly as Goldmine Sacks, a superior pun imo. In that context, it was obviously a pun on the name of the particular bank that we worked for sounding like an archetype of profitability, a gold mine. Obviously neither intended nor interpreted as racism, since Goldman is the particular instance (the bank we worked for) and gold is the archetype.
In order to get racism out of it, you have to read the generalization the other way - comparing a gold mine to Goldman where the latter represents the archetype - a typical Jewish name.
Yes, straightforward racial stereotyping there I think.
No quibbles from me - sorry, I had not waded through the thread for full context, I was assuming the prior example was the worst of it.
Did the guy apologize when he said it the first time, and the mods interpreted it badly? Did he try to argue that’s not what it meant? No. Therefore that is what he meant, or was okay with them thinking that’s what he meant, which is basically the same thing. To use it again, after knowing the meaning it would ascribe, shows he intended to communicate that message.
If he meant something else, he would have explained how he meant something else. He hasn’t. We don’t need to be trying to figure out something else that he could have meant.
Not only does the poster have a history of trying to provoke, but he specifically chose a name to indicate this intention. And it’s not being used ironically. He’s not gonna be given the benefit of the doubt.
It’s a poster that, unless his behavior changes, is not long for this board.
I will forever imagine that every male Goldman Sachs employee is on their first day issued an enormous gold-plated codpiece. A “man sack”, if you will.