…did you see an “And those were the only people who were offended” tacked on there? I didn’t.
Like I said earlier - he wasn’t fired for saying “nigger” in a professional context, one time. He was fired for being shit at his job.
It was for Netflix.
Yes, it is my “privilege” … not my White privilege though; it’s my privilege as a human in this country.
As for the specific some people (and we have no idea of how many out of how many and how many disagreed) at Netflix … in this country at this time with the issues that BLM highlights and many others still so endemic, getting upset that a White person who has been working hard to help assure the success of programing that highlights Black talent at all points in production and that aims for a diverse demographic, used the word “nigger” in a discussion that was clearly about the use of the word in programming and not in a hateful manner (and there has been NO accusation that he used it hatefully and there is no reason to suspect he was not otherwise excellent at his job) seems awfully privileged to me. And stupid.
Meanwhile … I have been on the record many times as believing that “political correctness” is a good thing that usually just means having some basic human decency, don’t be rude, don’t be a jerk.
But it is this sort of rule by the most eager to take offense of any group that results in the bad name that the good common sense of PC has. It gets wide swaths of people willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. It is why a clear majority of Americans, 59%, feel that “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use” inclusive of 68% of independents and even 37% of Democrats.
It is of course true that we all should be careful about the language we use and avoid causing offense to those of other backgrounds needlessly.
AND it is true that some are way too eager to take offense and then loudly claim to speak for others of their demographic who usually have more serious issues to worry about.
Unfortunately the more front and center visible the latter is, like this case seems to be, the harder it is to make the case for the former.
Whoa. Whiplash.
Which is it that you believe happened?
Was he fired for being shit at his job (facts not in evidence but sure imagine it), and not the discussion about the word using the word, or because some people at Netflix were offended by his saying the words in a discussion about the words and their use?
No, that’s exactly what the guy who fired him said - he displayed a lack of sensitivity in his usage of the word. For a “top communications executive” at an inclusive company, that equates to being shit at his job.
He wasn’t fired after the first offense. He was fired for doing it again, and being perceived as trying to sweep both incidents under the carpet. i.e. being a shit executive.
So that’s a “No” on the “civilized discussion” from you, at least.
Why can’t you accept that some people just were honestly straight-up offended, without strongly implying they were looking for an excuse to be so?
I would think black Netflix employees have inclusivity at work as a fairly serious issue to worry about.
Or were they not who you meant?
I can. Any civilized person will consider whether they are causing offense through their words or actions, of course. But offense per se does not set civilized standards. A religious fundamentalist may be deeply, sincerely offended by the sight of two men kissing. That person can take their offense and stick it up their ass. And we’ve agreed that a black person who is sincerely offended by the use of the word “black hole” should be mocked as an idiot.
So in the Netflix case, the fact that people were offended is not irrelevant, but it’s not the determinant of whether the firing was appropriate. I’m more interested in what he actually said. And we don’t know that. The facts I have seen are consistent with (for example) something like this:
First Offense.
Well-respected pro-diversity Netflix exec is chairing a meeting. He is discussing the use of offensive language in a period drama. He says:
“In the latest draft script for our Civil War drama, the Confederate general refers to ‘nigger soldiers’ four times. Some staff writers feel that it is appropriate to use language authentic to the era; others feel that it is gratuitous and unnecessary to include such an offensive phrase so many times. I’d like to solicit your opinions on this…” [discussion follows]
Second Offense.
A few days later, exec is called to HR.
Black HR staff member: “Several people were offended that you, as a white person, spoke the word ‘nigger’ aloud in a meeting. And I have to tell you violated company policy in doing so.”
Exec: “You do realize that when I referred to ‘nigger soldiers’ in that meeting, I was quoting the usage in a script, in order to discuss the script? Are you saying that even in that referential context I should not have said the word aloud? But that it would have been okay for a black staff member to do so? That seems like a strange policy, and I’m surprised that my colleagues were offended. But okay, in future I will censor my speech regardless of context and say ‘n-word’.”
[And exec does indeed abide by the policy from this point on.]
If something similar to this hypothetical is what happened, should he have been fired?
On the other hand, the conversation with HR could have been:
Exec: “You guys are morons and your policy is idiotic. Nigger nigger nigger. See, nobody died.”
In which case - yes, of course he should have been fired.
We don’t know what actually happened. But in either case, the decision should be based on what he actually said in the context of widely held social norms, not on the lowest common denominator of offense.
No.
His job was managing the brand to the outside world, how it appears to potential customers.
His apparent insufficient sensitivity when discussing the subject of “sensitive words” (stating one of the words out loud) with members of the PR staff (once), and in a discussion about that having happened (once), does not equal “being shit at” that job. There is no indication that in any way he was performing the task of managing the brand, including its brand identification as a service with original content aimed at diverse audiences, in any unsatisfactory manner.
Sigh.
“Civilized discussion” does not mean having the same thoughts and opinions as you have.
To make my positions, uncivilized as they may be, very clear.
If what happened at Netflix is as it seems, of the sort as Riemann’s first read of it goes, then yes, I think taking such offense at that is stupid. I do not believe it is dishonest but I believe that taking offense at something that is clearly not intended to cause offense and which does not occur again after a discussion about what had happened (a discussion that also included use of the offending word in a manner that we have no reason to believe was meant with offensive intent), is most consistent with someone honestly looking to be offended.
I believe that characterizing what happened, if that is indeed what happened, as a threat to inclusivity is at best disingenuous.
Of course if what actually happened was Riemann’s latter scenario then I agree with Riemann: offense and his dismissal were both reasonable.
I also believe that these sorts of episodes, highly publicized, give PC a bad name, one that it does not in general deserve.
…why?
No seriously: why?
Netflix is a private company and they made an employment decision. You don’t know exactly what he said. You will probably never know exactly what he said. Friedland has said:
He accepts that he wasn’t beyond reproach and feels awful about the distress his lapse caused. He seems to accept the decision that was made and is moving on.
So why can’t you simply accept Friedland’s word that he fucked up?
No , this timeline is missing something. The executive was told he was offending people and apologized immediately after the first meeting. Then he has the HR meeting, a meeting he went into already knowing his use of the word was offensive to some employees.
I think he was also in charge of internal communications - that’s how I would read “Head of Communications”
As communications head, he’s more than just a spokesperson. He also manages the diverse staff. And he did not have their trust, due to his insensitivity. That’s the part he was shit at - not being a spokesperson, being a manager.
There’s a smiley for that - look, here it is: :rolleyes:
Didn’t say you had to - but you do have to not put all the blame on people just for being offended.
Policing oppressed peoples’ emotional responses is what’s stupid.
:dubious: Then you may want to relook at your earlier posts and reword them, then…
And you’re the judge of whether Black people are genuine or not in their offense because…?
Still with the weasel words…
And *obviously *it was a threat to inclusivity - “Top white executive can’t stop himself from saying nigger a second time, after already apologizing for doing so the first time- and CEO lets him” is not a story that is going to make Black creatives line up to work somewhere. You think the Obamas would continue to have an exclusive deal with a company that lets this kind of thing slide?
On the other hand, I think a story like this, highly publicized, will make other white media executives think twice about which way the world is moving, and I’m all for it.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall if that Exec was in a meeting with Quentin Tarantino discussing adding The Hateful Eight to Netflix. Tarantino loves to throw that word around way too much. Even if it’s contextual, or historical to the plot, he still goes overboard. Wonder why no one is calling to pull that movie off?
On Realtime With Bill Maher, Ice Cube said that blacks use the “N” word because it was used so long by whites to degrade blacks, so the blacks took that word away from the whites and use it because they now “own” it.
Not sure if that justifies anything or even makes sense, but at least I heard an answer as to why blacks use it. I have never called any of my white friends, crackers or honkies. Don’t feel the need to “own” them.
Maybe these black Netflix employees are a bunch of whiny bitch-assed pussies who need to toughen the fuck up for their own good?
I am just going to say that is this unlikely. Thanks for your contribution.
If context matters, doesn’t it matter that he was using it in a non-racist context?
It may matter. It doesn’t matter enough to override the other things that also matter, like race.
One could, with more cause, say the same for all the entitled wypipo whining about not getting to spout racist words without social judgement.
With all the heat in this thread, most posters, at least, are sticking to actual arguments.
Tossing in a bit of insulting name-calling is not moving the discussion forward. If you would like to make nasty comments about “some” people, take them to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Whether a word is racist depends on context. If I say “The word nigger is a disgusting racial slur that has no place in civilised society”, and then someone complains that I said the word nigger, that person is (a) stupid (b) whiny (c) a bitch, and (d) too thin skinned to survive in the modern world and should probably be culled for the good of the herd.
Why the scare quotes around some? What are you trying to imply?
Your use of the word ‘wypipo’ implies that you’re not interested in fighting oppression so much as you are interested in being the oppressor.
You should work on that.
I don’t like you using that term, it has negative connotations towards people who are White and is a gross generalisation, please refrain from further use in the future.