Netflix exec fired for "using" N-word

Great Debates
121

And the rest of us are allowed to point out how dumb they are.

The policy, created after the fact apparently, basically says that a non-Black person must not say n-word and should say n-word instead. Reading a script a non-Black person (how non-Black is not specified in this mixed race world) must edit out the word written and replace it with a euphemism.

When engaging in a discussion putatively aimed at helping an employee develop a better understanding of the issue demonstrating that such help was indeed needed is inexcusable and a fireable offense.

I’m am all for PC as PC usually means just being polite and not rude, but this is the sort of stuff that gives PC a bad name.

Dumb dumb dumb.

122

Agree with you about Tarantino.
We also agree that context matters. From what I read the context was talking about words. So in that context it matters because he would have to be clear whether he was talking the"n- word" or talking about the n-word.

123

Mr. Dibble, are you black? I am just curious as you use the n-word (uncensored) several times in this thread. Do you feel any non-black posters are in the wrong to use the uncensored version of the word on this forum, given that there are almost certainly black people reading this thread? If it’s OK to mention an uncensored version of the word in this context, why is it wrong to mention the uncensored version in other contexts?

124

This is confusing, and appears to be an attempt at goalpost moving. You alleged “racism of low expectations.” You have not backed this claim up, but seemingly changed your accusation to a “lazy assumption” and “patronising.”

“Racism of low expectations” means that one party is having lower expectations of a race due to unintentional bias against that race. You are claiming that the assumption that black people find the n-word offensive even when only mentioned (not used) is racist. For that to be racist, black people must, by and large, not consider such usage offensive.

This, I argue, is not shown by the facts. The memo doesn’t state directly that the people Friendland offended were black, but it is suggested. Furthermore, he was brought in to HR. And then he was brought before the African American contingent of Netflix. Furthermore, the CEO talks as someone who initially did not care about the situation, but was forced to care, and wound up doing what he would prefer not to do: fire his communications director. All of this suggests that black people in his company got upset.

I do understand how you could try to argue that it was all some PC white people freaking out, and that the black people didn’t care. So I added an additional piece of evidence: the lack of there being some black group crying out that Hastings’s decision is racist. If there is this “racism of low expectations,” black people of all groups should be crying out about it.

As for your new claim of a “lazy assumption,” I argue that, if the majority assume something to be true in the social arena, then it is true. If the majority of people are making this “lazy assumption,” then it becomes true. In this specific instance: if the majority of black people find the mere mention of the n-word to be offensive, then it is. White people, as the ones who came up with the slur, cannot tell the aggrieved party that they should not find it offensive, so we must abstain, leaving only black people to decide. Such is why the n-word was decided to be offensive in the first place–just like all other slurs.

As for patronizing: I can only see it as such if you are alleging that black people do not find mentions of the n-word offensive. Based on my argument above and the fact that I have encountered black people who do find it offensive, I do not believe this is the case.

In short, Hastings simply codified an unwritten rule that has become the norm in society, particularly in the subset in places trying to be more inclusive. And likely did so after extensive talks with the black people in his company.

125

It’s just hypocrisy and an excuse to weaponize faux outrage at this point. If this word were so evil entertainers wouldn’t be using it every 5th word in rap or comedy to make millions and the public wouldn’t be buying said music or comedy.

126

It’s only hypocrisy for the entertainers who use the word but support this action. I imagine some of them would support this firing and some might not.

I wouldn’t agree with those who think it would be less offensive for a PoC to mention this term than for a European-American. But I think a more appropriate term is “double standard” than hypocrisy since hypocrisy seems less blatant to me: a misapplying of a facially-moral rule, rather than an incorrect rule strictly adhered to.

127

I think it is all of the above, and it is by both sides and aimed at both sides.

not necessary bias but certainly prejudice based on race. (but again, it is exhibited by both sides)

not at all. The racism comes from assuming that just because someone is of x race then they must be predisposed to acting, responding, thinking or speaking in a certain way.

“by and large” doesn’t come into it. It is enough that even a small number of a group do not conform to your expectations.

e.g. for my point not to hold water you’d have to be claiming that all black people definitely all have the same opinion on the matter and respond in the same way.

I don’t think you believe that.

128

As I recall, Mr. Dibble is some kind of Cape Coloured. Neither Black nor White, but “black” by USA standards.

129

Possibly of interest, because possibly related -

This on a day when the markets are generally up.

Regards,
Shodan

130

This sounds like “whitesplaining.”

There’s nothing “magical” about it. The word is a weapon armed by centuries of use as one of the bricks in the structure of white supremacy in this country.

It is white people who created whiteness. It is white people who created white supremacy based on the concept of whiteness. It is white people who used a word like “nigger,” as one of many tools to maintain and protect the white supremacist system.

And that weapon, that tool, only has any utility in the mouth of a white person. That’s a power that a white person can’t discard and a non-white person can never have. It’s one of the privileges of being white that is like a loaded gun, except you can’t get rid of it. It goes along with whiteness.

And the speaker being white is such a strong element of the context that any subtler factors are almost always dwarfed.

131

I don’t know about all that. Howard Stern did a song called “My Niggas” and I don’t recall any controversy. Now that social media has amplified hysterical voices I think that companies just don’t want to deal with the headache.

132

(emphasis mine)

This is America.

133

NWA put out the hit “Fuck Tha Police” - white folk held congressional hearings.

134

MrDibble’s Profile

He’s from the Cape. He’s Coloured. The Internet reaches South Africa.

135

Those were squares though. NWA isn’t that bad but I could see how it would scare those born in the 30s.

136

I’m going by the memo and the reaction.

Again - this is what the memo says.

Do you appreciate that there’s a difference between “person of colour” and “non-white”?

lmgtfy

Yes, obviously, that’s why I highlighted the difference.

Nope. You’re claiming all context is one continuum: “It is a cloud diagram, a Venn diagram, an atmosphere, a swamp!” I’m saying no, there are discrete kinds of contexts.

Err, you seem to be assuming, by this, that in my flow diagram, the fork labelled “white” leads to a block labelled “No” rather than something more complex.

You’re stepping up to me in a discussion ultimately about racism and you don’t know what the Protocols are? :rolleyes:

I’m saying PoC would have a different interpretation of the inclusiveness and tranformative nature of a company culture that gives its “top communications executive” a pass to say nigger. Even if not Black, they still share a vested interest in that claim being more than window-dressing.

So do the White employees, but vide this thread, and you should be able to see why I’m less optimistic that they’d see it.

:rolleyes: is all that deserved.

I’m not responsible for your lack of understanding. I’ve made clear who I think qualifies as Black.

For *my *reaction to use of the word? Sure, it has to be *my *approval, who else mediates my responses? Overall, i’ll leave approval up to Black society, which seems split on Tarantino specifically.

Nope. The standard for Black people is: if it’s used to insult someone, it’s offensive. But it can be used affectionately or neutrally.

If a White person uses it, and hasn’t earned the right, it’s offensive from the get-go.

I’m not going to agree with you on this.

You do understand these kinds of social rules are put in place for White people’s protection, right?

I did all my thinking about it, just ahead of time. That and lived experience of the kind of White person who is super-keen to say “nigger”

Where have I said anything about skin colour? I’ve use Black as ethnicity here.

That makes no sense. The ones I judge are the ones who voice the right to say it. I don’t judge all white people by those - I know plenty who would never say the word and wouldn’t want to if they could.

That’s clear.

No.

…and? Are you *trying *to say I haven’t earned the right?

While “nigger” wasn’t the Afrikaner epithet of choice for my people, the English used it often enough.

No, this is an anonymous internet discussion group - not a meeting at a major media company trying to be inclusive.

I already know this place is racist-friendly, I’ve been told by the mods that isn’t going to change. So I don’t come here with any expectation of it being a woke environment. I doubt many African-American posters feel much different.

Because contexts differ?

Why is this so fucking hard for people to grasp when it’s the crux of their own argument in favour of saying the word, too? We differ in which contexts are OK, not on the existence of different context at all

137

This is so well-put.

138

:confused: I haven’t studied this thread and want to tread carefully to avoid breaking SDMB diction rules outside the Pit, but …

Anyone who suggests that black people calling each other the N-word means that whites should also be allowed to use the N-word does not completely exhibit human-level intelligence.

139

Clearly not, it is a criticism of your argument, whereas…

…is.

Bonus marks to you also for using the delightful imagery of a gun in the hands of each and every white person whether they like it or not, a delightful twist on original sin, inescapable and unavoidable eh? …bravo. Just what racial harmony needs, a council of despair.

How does one get the authority to speak on behalf of a whole ethnic group?

It *can *be, you’ll get no disagreement from me there. I’m fully aware of the history of the word and how it has been used.
The word should be used with care and judgement (as should all offensive words) but it is your own personal choice whether to pay attention to those more subtle nuances.
To purposefully allow the speaker’s ethnicity to dwarf those subtle factors is racist, prejudicial, short-sighted, divisive, unhelpful and lazy.
If you think that either white people are unable to use it a thoughtful way or black people are unable to understand such usage then that is exactly my point regarding the racism of low expectations.

140

I suggest you do read the thread, quote the arguments that anyone has made for that position and join in the discussion with that poster, it’s fun and informative (though we are starting to circle back round, as is often the case)