That’s not what happened. He spoke the word the word the first time in a meeting, in the context of words that should not be used. He spoke the word the second time a few days later in a meeting with HR discussing the first usage. No doubt in the meeting with HR he was expressing his disagreement with the censorship policy. But in any event, he never used the word again after that.
How does one cover up a meeting with HR at Netflix, and what was the evidence that convinced you that this was “probably” what he did?
Regards,
Shodan
Eh. “Nigger” moved from being “just a word” in many eyes, into being a socially charged word, and then a super-bad dirty word over a matter of decades. Over a human lifetime, perhaps, depending on what part of the country you were from. And some of this evolution happened on television, so there’s a record of it. It is comical to see.
It seems better to drop the term from our language, if the term is dehumanizing. The implications “nigger” had in the mouths of the dominant culture seemed about a step above “stupid monkey,” if that. But it was a nasty thing to call someone if it was bad to be black, because it was bad to be black. Changing the word is a means to an end, which is changing the thinking.
But as it has gained a different sense in slang, we find that the word has not disappeared, but changed. This age, of it being the worst word we all know, too shall pass.
Sure. And it appears that the executive at Netflix was fired for saying something just like what you wrote here.
Err, no? This is not murder we’re talking about.
Entirely dependent on how it’s done, but in general, I’d prefer white people not do so. I’m more OK with it if said white person were writing biographical stuff where it was verbatim quotes. But otherwise? See my reference to Tarantino.
I’d say no. Not when “the N word” is an adequate substitute in the conversation. * Especially if talking to an audience of PoCs.*
They could use it if they were doing an actual script readthrough, though.
Well, I’m not happy to say it. So what do you need clarified?
:rolleyes: Are you fucking kidding me?
This is bullshit. Some contexts matter, some don’t.
I’d allow for some leeway, like biographical quoting, but otherwise? How the hell do you know if the White writer is not using the word transgressively, or getting a visceral thrill out of it? You cant - or rather, for any individual writer non-Black writer, it’s a privilege they’d have to earn. (not just White - not down with a Japanese writer making free with it either)
When it comes to who can say “nigger”? You fucking bet their ethnicity matters most. Did you think this was something I’d try and deny?
Let me make my stance crystal clear then - I think Black people can say it as and whenever the fuck the feel like, and white people really, *really *need a *damn *good reason to say the actual word and not use a substitution. That goes double for professional contexts.
And defenses of White people’s right to say “nigger” just seem :rolleyes: to me.
This in no way disagrees with what I said. So how is that “not what happened”? What are you disagreeing with?
By not mentioning it at all when talking to a Black employee’s group on a related subject 3 months later, apparently.
You might want to relook at what the word “probably” was qualifying in that sentence.
And my evidence is that he was fired.
Is **foolsguinea **a “top communications executive” at a media company trying to project an image of progressiveness and inclusivity? Or just some shmoe on the internet (sorry, foolsguinea, but you are :D)
Heh. Well, it’s a pretty ugly word, a lot of the time. But I kind of grew up on George Carlin. Tell me I can’t use a word, and I may use it just to spite you.
Your claim was:
What actually happened is that the “second offense” occurred a few days later during the HR meeting in which he was being reprimanded for the first offense. That’s quite different from what you said.
As I mentioned earlier, there are many ways that HR meeting conversation could have gone. He might have expressed polite disagreement with the censorship policy, and referenced the word in an uncensored fashion in doing so. Or he could have been a total dick about it. We don’t know. But in any event, it’s clear that he refrained from using the word after the HR meeting. So after he was “told that that was not cool” in the HR meeting he did stop using it, whether or not he agreed with the policy.
Okay. But before addressing whether it would be appropriate for an executive in that position to say what foolsguinea wrote, the facts of what happened and why he was fired still seem to be somewhat confused. Do you agree that the facts are consistent with:
(a) The executive says something similar to what foolsguinea wrote there (with “nigger” uncensored);
(b) He is reprimanded a few days later in an HR meeting, in which he repeats his views on referencing the word explicitly in that context, again speaking the word without censoring to “n-word”;
(c) He never speaks the word again, or apologizes for using it;
(d) Several months he is fired.
No, it isn’t. The sentence “and then did the very same thing again a couple days later.” refers to that meeting with the 2 Black HR guys.
He’d already been told it was offensive before then, according to the memo: “Several people afterwards told him how inappropriate and hurtful his use of the N-word was”
He was told it was not OK before the HR meeting. Then he continued to use it in the HR meeting with two Black staffers.
Perhaps, but it’s a moot point whether their personal view is a reasonable standard that we should all adopt. He was fired for violating company policy. It was presumably the HR meeting in which he was formally reprimanded for violating company policy on the matter. In most matters it would not be the case that:
(1) Employee violates company policy;
(2) Employee is formally warned by HR about the violation*;
(3) Employee commits no subsequent violation;
(4) Months later employee is fired for the violation.
*Albeit, another violation occurred during the meeting. Again, we don’t know exactly how that conversation went. It could have been “I said this… is that really against company policy?”. Or he could have been a total dick about it.
Let’s see:
I don’t get that he was “reprimanded” from:
" this time Jonathan said the N-word again to two of our Black employees in HR who were trying to help him deal with the original offense."
…to 2 Black HR employees.
I see no mention of an apology.
…after not addressing the subject* in a meeting with a Black employee’s group*, yes. Which “was understood by many in the meeting to mean he didn’t care and didn’t accept accountability for his words.”
No, he was fired for lack of judgement and sensitivity, so essentially for incompetence. The memo talks about norms, not policy.
I see nothing that say he was “formally warned” for anything.
That’s not why his boss says he was fired.
I was wrong about this, he did apologise after being confronted after the first meeting. Which makes the second incident worse, not better.
OK, so now we need an agreement of some kind to give advice to people on how and when the word should be used.
I’m assuming you’ve already clarified how “white” and “black” are to be defined yes?
More OK? what does that mean? Tarantino’s take on MLK would be OK but Django - Unchained is beyond the pale?
OK, so now we need clarity on what that means. what does the term PoC refer to? Doesn’t that mean simply “not white” so who does that include…Mexican? Tunisian? Arabian? how many need to be in the audience before it is an issue.
If it is a mixed-race performer with a 1/8th black heritage (but no outward signs) and speaking to a 25% black, 25% Jewish, 25% Swedish and 25% Peruvian audience, how many instances of it can they use in the full form?
That’s big of you.
Wrong, there aren’t multiple contexts for the utterance of a word that can be neatly packaged and defined. There is only the single totality of context for the example you experience and you have to consider it in it’s entirety to make a judgement.
Understanding context is not a flow diagram. You don’t start at the top with “is the person white or black” and work on from there. It is a cloud diagram, a Venn diagram, an atmosphere, a swamp! It is messy and ill-defined and uncertain and I wish you’d admit it rather than digging yourself deeper.
Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my! Imagine a writer trying to provoke a reaction and an emotion through the use of words. It’ll never catch on.
Hang on, isn’t a Japanese writer a PoC? are you moving the goalposts again?
I was rather hoping that you’d admit that what you really mean is “context is everything” and that, though ethnicity may play some part in it, it isn’t a magic bullet when it comes to giving people a pass. but…
I don’t think that is any clearer at all. You haven’t defined what you mean by “black” and “white” (you aren’t using PoC any more…I don’t know if that is a step forward or not) and you aren’t able to say what a “damn good reason” is for a white person (definition TBD). Even worse seems to be the implication that a black person can’t use the word in an offensive way at all.
Now I’m sure you are annoyed at me for being picky and pedantic but this is what you get when you start to lay down rules on who can and can’t say what. It is especially troubling when you set up one rule(undefined) for one (undefined) ethnicity and another for another (undefined) ethnicity. Kafka and Orwell would have a field day.
I don’t trust you (or anyone) to tell me in advance what words I can or can’t use and to prejudge what you think I might mean. If that means you hear the would “nigger” from my lips then you’ll just have take it in, restrain your knee, engage your brain and understand what I’ve said and why I said it. I’m fully aware of the power of that word and many others and you should trust me to say it with good reason.
I’m not the one advocating a language policy based on skin colour. I’m all for letting people say, write or sing whatever the hell they want without trying to prejudge whether it’ll be too offensive to bear. I think both you and I are capable of making a grown-up decision based on the context as a whole.
It may shock you know that even some black people will be totally fine with white people using the word in situations where you aren’t. It’s almost like they have a mind of their own.
IMO it is much *worse *than “stupid monkey.” It conveys contempt. It can variously be interpreted as “subhuman,” “wish you were still a slave,” and “you don’t deserve to live.” “Stupid monkey” is merely dismissive, and kind of endearing.
I don’t think there is dispute that it’s a name that nobody should ever call another person.
It’s just silly for adults to say “N-word”. Like Voldemort (oops, sorry – the “V-word”).
It’s an ugly word, but it’s a word just the same.
Is that sarcasm?
I have no desire to see Tarantino’s take on MLK, thanks. But yes, quoting historical figures is better than pure fiction.
It means “not White”, but not “simply”, no.
It would still be problematic if he was giving a talk to the damn UDC.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Bigger of me than his ex-boss, even…
*For non-Black people, the word should not be spoken as there is almost no context in which it is appropriate or constructive (even when singing a song or reading a script). There is not a way to neutralize the emotion and history behind the word in any context. *
Bullshit. And a lovely example of the continuum fallacy.
For using the word “nigger”, I very much can and do.
…said the reviewer of The Protocols…
You can, perhaps, quote where I previously said it’s OK for any PoC to say “nigger”, right?
…here we are.
:rolleyes: Does this bullshit tactic ever work for you? “Oh, no, what about this guy? He’s 1/64th Black, is he black enough to say nigger” is a stupid argument. Blacks are people who both self-identify as Black and are accepted as such by other Blacks.
If you’ve been following along, you’d have noticed that I used Black to refer to specific individuals and groups, or to reference who I feel can use the word without any question being raised.
I’ve already given a good reason - verbatim quotes in an artistic, not professional, context. Court testimony would be another good reason.
They can be as offensive as they like with it, is my point, not that all their usages of it are inoffensive.
I’m so sorry the existence of ambiguity is so troubling for you. However are you going to know when it’s OK for white folks to say nigger? My heart breaks :rolleyes:
Naah, I’m going to go with “you just like saying the word” as an initial response, thanks.
Neither am I. I’m advocating one based on specific past oppression of a ethnicity or ethnicities.
Oh, I make decisions about white people who desperately want the right to say “nigger”, alright.
Nothing shocks me - some Blacks are Republicans, too.
You have a rather expansive definition of “cover up”.
This is tautological. ‘He was probably fired for X, and my evidence is that he was fired’. With no more evidence than that, X is no more probable than anything else.
Regards,
Shodan
Hey, you are the one setting the racial rules not me
Ok, so if not “simply” then what?
.
a reference lost on me
So you disagree with that position?
Just saying it doesn’t make it so. The continuum fallacy has absolutely no relevance here, in fact what I imply is the very opposite of it.
No you don’t and you admit as much elsewhere in your other posts. Sure you’d like to posture that you do but if that were the case then you’d never accept it being said by any “white” person under any circumstance and from your own words we know that isn’t the case.
another reference lost on me
never claimed you did, but your reference of PoC in an audience suggests they (as a group) have a different relationship with that word so I’m wondering what that is and how to navigate it
So don’t answer if it is too difficult for you but don’t blame me, I’m not the one making the rules along racial lines. you are, as such it falls to you to define it.
which is no clearer than the first time you said it
Artistic context that you approve of though? not Tarantino?
And if they use it in an offensive way they should held to exactly the same standard as a white person…correct? I really hope so because that would be a little glimmer of agreement
Unlike you, I’ll make that judgement *after *it has happened when I’m able to consider the full context.
of course you are, so much easier than taking the time to think about it.
that little dodge fools nobody, as evidenced by your very own in words in this very post you are making rules on speech based on skin colour
Oh I know you do, even before they’ve used it and even if they never want to use it. I really don’t think it is me having trouble ambiguity.