[Moderating]
Alright, point made. That’s enough of that now.
[/Moderating]
Maybe it was on a gut feeling, which is looking pretty reasonable to me after those posts.
Logic tells me that in those cases the people were working already and were dismissed when in the course of working for x company they showed its workers or all people that they were unapologetic racists and the corporation then acted on the controversial words. Point here is that your argument is not following the timeline of other firings. Fairness indeed should to allow the new worker to show how far she will leave her past behind.
The way I see it, I do think that Jeong, like Roseane and others, has a “sanitary clause” in their contracts. Not much for telling their workers to be sane, but to require them not to show any more dirty or offensive language or tweets regarding racist speech or behaviour. And I think that is good.
As with the case of Roseanne and others, we will see if Jeong really means it when she said that she will not show more of that past behaviour. If tweets like the ones she made before show up now she will be canned just like the others. And that will be fair IMHO. The point here is that, like Roseanne, she has been given a chance to show that she will not take the low road.
You may want to wait to blow your troll load a case where someone actually calls you a racist.
You are claiming to not see it. I think that it is obvious. It’s not an approach to be agreed upon or disagreed, it is a fact to be acknowledged or ignored.
I was not aware that either of them worked for NYT. In any case, Papa John was on the way out for many public problematic comments that he had made, if anything this was an excuse for the investors to give him the boot.
Friedland, they had specifically asked him not to use a word, and he went and used the word. It was not as if it were something that he could not have anticipated people being upset over.
Both of these cases were investors not being comfortable with people in leadership positions who were unable to not say racist things.
This has very little to do with an employee that has done stuff int eh past that they have apologized for.
I did not say that you are implying that HR does such a thing, you are demanding that HR should do such a thing.
Jeong made those jokes a long time ago, so the anger is more than a bit misplaced. It almost seems as if you are looking for something to be angry about, rather than being angry about something that has any sort of effect on you.
No, as I have never made a claim that there is any sort of general discourse that determines people’s fate. You have made that claim. I disagree with your claim that there is such thing, and am asking you to make any sort of citation that such exists.
Right, white people who made unprovoked racist comments towards or about minorities, vs a minority who responded to racial comments with racial comments of her own.
Sure, they did different things, you say, but that is irrelevant, you say they should be treated the same.
So, her comments slurring gay people were “exactly” the same as Jeong’s replies to racists. I don’t that word means what you think it does.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Yes it is.
Actually, yeah it does. If you are offended only because someone brings up something that you would have never have heard or known about, something that has been accounted for and apologized for, and you are only now, years later, finding out about it because someone is bringing it to your attention with the intent and hope that you find it offensive, I personally find the person who brought it to my attention more offensive than the person who replied to racists using some unwise words.
Yes, probably. If I were the one saying #cancelwhitepoeple, then as a white person myself, it would require some pretty serious fragility to take offense.
And that one company treated a person differently than a different company treated a person who did something different seems to you to be inconsistent, then I don’t think that you understand what consistency is.
If the CEO of Apple embezzles money, should that be treated the same as if a McDonald’s employee talks back to his supervisor?
I do not say that they cannot look to each other for examples of best practices going forward, but you are the one that is demanding that they all have just one policy that they must all follow.
He’s going to keep ramping up the language until eventually someone does (or, based on the mod note, he gets banned).
Oh I know, I responded because I knew it would be a good example of fragility in action to other readers.
It is a challenge to realize our own ignorance (yes me too) so it can be useful to have an example.
No he didn’t, you were rambling on about Monty Python and post Utopian race theory and ascribing it to people who disagree with you, he then mentioned he was married to a black woman and had done more than what you’d done in terms of race relations in a tongue in cheek manner, then you went off on a tangent describing all the wonderful actions you had done in the name of equality and implied he married his wife because he has a fetish for black women.
Fine, don’t think point was got though.
True, I quoted Monty Python.
Please provide a quote for this “post Utopian race theory” claim. The dream that people will never say something stupid in some post-racial society is more akin to that line of thinking.
Note he challenged me to what I had done, so I responded to his request.
Feel free to have an adult like conversation with me and i will fully be willing to engage.
I learn more from this site then I offer.
I’m not claiming to not see it, I’m directly challenging your assertion that due to power imbalances within society, one group gets to make racist jokes at the expense of another group and that this is somehow equitable. It isn’t.
If you’d bothered to read my posts, I’ve said the general discourse was white people being fired for being racist irrespective of the context, which they were, so again, why does Jeong get a pass, context has mattered very little for previous firings whether it being a joke or otherwise, so why does she stay?
I’m not demanding anything, I’m saying don’t be surprised when alot of people get angry at the double standard enacted when we all know too well if a white equivalent had done the same thing, they’d be out on their ass, apology or no apology, if you want to be defensive about that, be my guest.
Rosanne Barr, Papa John, Johnathan Friedland, Quinn Norton all white, all fired for racism in the last 12 months.
I’ve made that claim because there’s evidence to back it up, and it’s the main reason as to why people were piling on Jeong like they did, because of this perceived double standard.
Oh right, so by that definition it’s ok to make racist comments whilst provoked. Got it.
Why not, all the white people who got fired for racism weren’t able to defend themselves using context as a defence, so by example, why should she?
All of it? Is that ok?
No it isn’t
It’s not years later, and I read about it on BBC News. I didn’t need someone to formulate an opinion for me, I came to the conclusion all by myself, like a big boy should.
Haha, that’s pretty disingenious, you knew what I meant, I was implying along with the racial joke that if the Jeong situation was inverted and that a white author had said that about a minority, would they have kept their job. You know that wouldn’t happen.
Again, disingenious, if a CEO of Apple embezzles money, and a McDonalds employee is stealing from the cash register, they’re both stealing money. That’s the correct definition.
It’s not a demand, it’s an ideal is ascribe too. I promote it where I can.
Im not claiming that you can’t be taken out of context. I’m asking for the proof that she was being taken oy off context.
I’ve been asking that for several pages now and the closest I’ve gotten is that someone was mean to her on the internet at some point in time.
If I wrote #cancelwhitepeople on THIS board I would get banned and rightly so.
In your own words;
None of us who are challenging you have this utopian fantasy, get off your high horse.
Yet you haven’t actually looked at the conversation under the tweet that is supposedly the source of our outrage?
Note how I was mentioning that the frustration about ‘white fragility’ is that white people won’t listen, or what the context was?
https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/534826243389423617
I believe in you, how about going and reading it in context instead of expecting people to do this work for you.
Note her tweet before the tweet in quesiton.
No. No it’s not. White fragility is when a white person gets defensive and uncomfortable when people bring up racism. Being offended by #cancelwhitepeople is NOT white fragility.
This is more of an exercise in pointing out liberal hypocrisy than insisting that Netflix have the same standards as the NYT. The reaction to Jeong’s racism should not be so different than the reaction to the Netflix exec. But for some people ity matters that it eased conservatives that brought it to light.
For reasonable rational people the source of ther revelation of Jeong’s racism is no more relevant than the source of the emails showing that the DNC was playing favorites or that Hillary got the debate questions.
Of choose they do.
The belief in some post racial utopia is believing in a world where bias doesn’t exist. That is the standard that you are holding, where you refuse to address racial inequity until these marginalized populations quit being ‘uppity’, even if you have to dig into old tweets to disqualify them yet again from moving forward.
I hate to break this to you but you will never get rid of implicit bias. Sure you may be able to adjust it when it comes to skin color. But you will still have other biases even if that is just people who drive mini vans or who wear purple shorts.
If you can’t figure out why withholding work on the very real inequities we have today based on some requirement for everyone to be perfect is also feeding systemic racism I don’t know how I can get you to understand my point.
When people are treated like shit they will occasional get mad, but the problem we have with racism is not people disliking each other it is the inequities that are based off this dislike.
Maybe humor will help get this concept across, this video will piss you off but try to keep an open mind.
White fragility doesn’t mean shsat you think it means
No
Wow. You think this?
In what way we’re whites any less moral than the Japanese, Aztecs, etc. They had guns. A soldier with 3 months training could defeat a samurai or eagle warrior with lifetime of back breaking training with the pull of a trigger.
If the ghengis Khan had guns, if attila had gunsif the aztecs or Indians had guns. Storyof history would be different