Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Jack Morris under fire for using Asian accent during Shohei Ohtani at-bat

Tigers announcer and Hall of Fame pitcher Jack Morris was criticizing after using an accent to answer a question about Shohei Ohtani in Detroit’s game against the Angels on Tuesday night.

Morris was asked by Bally Sports play-by-play man Matt Shepard what the Tigers “should do with Shohei Ohtani?” during his at-bat in the sixth inning.

Morris responded by attempting to use an Asian accent and saying, “Be very, very careful.”

The 66-year-old Morris apologized before Ohtani’s next at-bat.

“Well folks, Shohei Ohtani is coming to the plate and it’s been brought to my attention, and I sincerely apologize if I offended anybody, especially anybody in the Asian community for what I said about pitching and being careful to Shohei Ohtani,” Morris said.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 18, 2021 at 11:37 AM | 515 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: jack morris

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. Voodoo Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:09 PM (#6035589)
Did any of the 4 examples I gave in #181 deserve to be fired and/or pressured to resign? Yes or no?


I'll take a stab at this but a simple yes/no won't suffice, there's a lot of context to understand in each case.

In the cases of the IOC, it's clear to me that these two individuals were let go at the 11th hour because the organization was immersed in massive waves of (self-inflicted) bad PR that had nothing to do with "wokeism". In the case of the director, an evidently well-known comedian, it seems he should have been better vetted in the first place (because let's be honest, holocaust jokes weren't acceptable in 1998 either, so there's no "retroactive holding the past to modern standards there"). In the case of the musician, the offending remarks seem even more innocuous, so he may well be the collateral damage you describe. But let's be honest, these people didn't lose their livelihoods, they lost one high-profile gig. Big deal. It's like Kevin Hart ruining his chance to host the Oscars; he subsequently made amends, admitted the errors he made, and he's back to work in high profile gigs now.

The Boeing situation is similar; a company embroiled in lots of controversy uses the situation to deflect on the actual bad #### and their communications director had to be the sacrificial lamb. Yeah, it's silly to fire a guy for something said in 1987, especially when he disavowed the remarks in full. But at the same time this, like the IOC situation, is more of a large, embattled company saving face for PR purposes than it is a case of the "woke mob" demanding their heads. And Mr. Golightly evidently landed on his feet quickly, in a prominent role for a big corporate finance outfit.

The Alexi McCammond at Teen Vouge situation, I'm less certain about. I'm definitely less comfortable holding people to account for bad (and very racist) high school takes, but it seems that the crux of the issue with her continuing is that she had lost the trust and respect of the staff. Maybe that's a sign that said staff is just a "woke mob" or maybe it reflects that McCammond hadn't done enough to build trust and confidence that the remarks truly don't reflect who she is now. This is one where the 'behind the scenes' actions/inactions may have more to do with the final outcome than the initial offense itself. I'm not sure if she's found a new role yet, but she seems to be talented with an impressive CV for someone her age, if she puts in the work to make amends I'm sure she'll land on her feet, too.

As far as the NYT goes, Bari Weiss doesn't really count; she was specifically hired to be an anti-woke provocateur, had four years in that role, obviously was not respected by her peers and it's not even clear she was forced out. She too immediately got another gig doing the same thing. The Donald McNeil situation was unfortunate because it seems he was in the middle of some important work when the scandal hit, but a) his offenses were completely and unambiguously unacceptable (and not that old) and b) even then he seems to have had ample opportunity to save his skin if he had just accepted accountability, fully and sincerely apologized, but he instead decided to play the victim thus sealing his fate.

As :194 alludes to, people - especially in high profile, public facing roles - losing a job is not really an unfair punishment. People are let go of jobs everyday at the whims of corporate overlords. The people who really have lost their careers, been fully "cancelled", like Charlie Rose or Matt Lauer, did so after years/decades of grotesque and thoroughly unacceptable behavior.
   202. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:29 PM (#6035592)
The Donald McNeil situation was unfortunate because it seems he was in the middle of some important work when the scandal hit, but a) his offenses were completely and unambiguously unacceptable (and not that old) and b) even then he seems to have had ample opportunity to save his skin if he had just accepted accountability, fully and sincerely apologized, but he instead decided to play the victim thus sealing his fate.

That's a crude reduction of what went on with McNeil in Peru. Here's just one part of his side of the story:

What happened in the first instance:

A student asked me: “Do you think one of my classmates should have been suspended for using the N-word in a video from two years ago?”

I said: “Well, wait — what exactly happened on this video? Did she actually call someone “n****r”? Or was she just using it in passing, like quoting the title of a book?”

Her: “She was in 8th grade and she was joking with a friend of hers who was black: She said “well you’re a lazy N” or something like that, and she was Jewish, so her friend said “Well, you’re cheap Jew” or something like that. And then two years later, someone who used to be her friend shared the video.”

Me: “This happened when she was in 8th grade? When she was 12 years old? And she was just goofing around with her friend? And the school suspends her for it two years later? I think that’s ridiculous. Everybody knows 12 year olds do dumb things. They’re kids. Somebody from the school should have talked to her, yes, but suspension? I think that’s insane.”
   203. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:32 PM (#6035593)
but you stop short of what he himself admits in the same side of the story and quote
I used the slur itself,” McNeil said in his note to the staff. “I should not have done that. Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinarily bad judgment. For that I apologize.”
if he had not taken so long to finally apologize he probably would never have been forced out. and its like you feel you can defend the context when the person in question feels it is not a defense, not sure who you are trying to argue with now, me or Mcneil?
   204. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:32 PM (#6035594)
More:

On August 6, 2019, I entered a Times conference room where Charlotte and Chris were at the table. Bill Baker, president of our local, Jim Luttrell, the grievance chairman, Barbara Davis, our rep from the New York Guild and Grant Glickson, who was then the Guild president, were with me.

Charlotte opened a folder.

“We’re here to discuss your behavior in Peru,” she said. “We’ve received a number of complaints from students and their parents.”

Our side asked if we could see the complaints and have copies. Charlotte said no.

In retrospect, the Guild should probably have stopped the proceeding right there. But they didn’t.

Charlotte asked if I was surprised that there were complaints from students and parents. I said yes, I was. Some of the students had asked me many political questions and a couple were clearly unhappy with my answers and had turned frosty. But most had seemed friendly enough, and the three lectures I gave had sparked a lot of discussion. So, yes, I said, I was surprised to hear that there were complaints that had actually reached the Times.

Then Charlotte began asking me a series of questions. Some I answered immediately. Some left me totally baffled.

What follows is my memory of the questions and how I answered them. I admit I was not taking notes in that room, so I’m re-creating the conversation. But I wrote lengthy emails to Jan and the union about it soon afterward while the details were fresh in my mind. Also, I’ve been a reporter for a long time and I’m good at remembering conversations.

Charlotte: “Did you say the word “n****r” on this trip?”

I flinched a little as she said it, mostly because Bill, who was sitting next to me, is black.

“Yes, I did,” I said. And I explained the context, which I’ve explained above.

“When you said it, was anyone in the room black?”

“No. No one on the trip was black.”

(I only remember Charlotte using the offending word once, but according to other notes taken during the meeting which I became aware of only this past Saturday, Feb. 27, she used it three times.)

Charlotte: “Did you say there’s no such thing as white privilege?”

Me: “No. That’s ridiculous. Of course there’s such a thing as white privilege. I used to live in South Africa. The whole country’s all about white privilege.”

“So you didn’t say there was no such thing?”

“No. Absolutely not. That doesn’t even make any sense.”

[Despite recent published reports: I don’t remember Charlotte ever asking me if I’d denied the existence of white supremacy. That would have been equally absurd — of course there are white supremacists. The ideas that I denied the existence of white supremacy or that I said “racism is over” both seem to have been invented sometime between 2019 and the present.]

Charlotte: “Did you say there is no such thing as institutional racism?”

Me: “No, I didn’t — but I said it varies. This was during a long discussion of white privilege, crime rates, racism and other issues. The students blamed everything bad that befalls members of minority groups on “the system” or “institutional racism.”

“As I remember the conversation, I said something like: You can’t blame everything on “the system.” Yes, institutional racism exists — but it varies by institution. Racism inside the Los Angeles Police Department is different from racism inside the U.S. Army is different from racism inside The New York Times. You have to look at each case individually: Was it really because of institutional prejudice? Or was it because somebody actually screwed up? That’s why we have courts — they look at each case individually.”

Charlotte: “Did you say something about picking up the white mans’ burden?”

Me: “Yes. And a student got upset. But I explained it to her. I was quoting Kipling. I’m not sure the student had ever heard of Kipling.” [I’ll explain this in the next section.]

Charlotte: “Did you say it was O.K. to wear blackface?”

Me: “No, I didn’t. Not for white people. That came up during a long discussion of “cultural appropriation.” The students were very much against anyone appropriating anything from any other culture ever. They talked about a white teenager who wore a Chinese dress to her prom. I said lots of Asian brides wore white European wedding dresses — so was that wrong? I said that what they were against, I was for — that adopting of other cultures’ inventions and things was how you got civilization. I said nobody ever got to say “We invented fire, so it’s ours,” or “We invented money, so it’s ours.” I talked about domestication of animals and paper and gunpowder — the Chinese invented it, but it wasn’t really useful for anything but fireworks until the Ottomans invented the cannon. They said those were old irrelevant examples. I said “OK, I live in New York and I like eating Chinese food. Is that wrong? I come from San Francisco and we invented blue jeans. Does that mean you can’t wear blue jeans?” I said tomatoes were originally from Peru, where we were. Did that mean Italians couldn’t use them? Or they shouldn’t eat pizza?

One girl got exasperated and said: “Well, are you saying it’s OK to wear blackface? “ And I said “No, not normally. But what do you say to black people who wear blackface?”

She got disgusted and said “Black people don’t wear blackface!”

Actually, they do, I said, and I told her about the Cape Town carnival where mixed-race South Africans dress up in blackface as minstrels and play Dixieland jazz because of an American minstrel show that came through 100 years ago. And it’s got a really offensive name, the Coon Carnival. When American tourists come to South Africa and say they’re offended, the locals say “Buzz off, this is our culture now.” You can’t go around the world as white Americans, I said, telling other people what parts of their culture are acceptable and which aren’t.

OH, THE HUMANITY!
   205. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:44 PM (#6035596)
and yet he still did say the n word to a bunch of school kids and he knows he was wrong to do it, just seems like you dont get it. which is hardly an issue with wokeism it is just your lack of sensitivity i suppose?
   206. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:45 PM (#6035597)
The portrait the Daily Beast paints of a dyspeptic old man abusing students by spouting “wildly racist and offensive comments” is inaccurate. I was trying to engage them in a serious conversation that opened their eyes. Which is what, as a Times Expert, I had been assigned to do.

I did notice that Sophie looked upset during the evening — perhaps close to tears. The next morning, I sought her out after breakfast, and we had a conversation that I remember this way:

I said: “Sophie, I’m sorry things got heated last night. I understand your point of view. A lot of it used to be mine, too. Like I said, I went to U.C. Santa Cruz and Berkeley back in the 1970’s, when everything was about socialism. But 40 years of life and reporting in 60 countries has taught me that life is more nuanced than that. These issues aren’t that simple. They’re more complicated.”

She replied, sounding a little distressed and a little bitter, I thought: “When did you begin thinking like that?”

I said: “Piece by piece, not all at once. Over 40 years. Look, I’d love to talk to you again 40 years from now and see if your thinking has changed at all. But I can’t — I’ll be dead.”

She did laugh ruefully at that. ...

Obviously, I badly misjudged my audience in Peru that year. I thought I was generally arguing in favor of open-mindedness and tolerance — but it clearly didn’t come across that way. And my bristliness makes me an imperfect pedagogue for sensitive teenagers. Although the students liked me in 2018, some of those in 2019 clearly detested me. I do not see why their complaints should have ended my career at the Times two years later. But they did.

And now I’d like to put this behind me. I had hoped to be remembered as a good science reporter whose work saved lives. Not for this.
   207. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:51 PM (#6035598)
and yet he still did say the n word to a bunch of school kids and he knows he was wrong to do it,

And you think he deserved to be forced to resign because he took too long to apologize for something that at worst was an ambiguous situation. I just hope some of those students don't expect that the real world is going to coddle them the way the Times did, because they're going to be in for a rude awakening.

Christ, what's going to happen to them if they happen to be exposed to Huckleberry Finn, or an unsanitized rapper? Will they apply for disability insurance?
   208. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 04:57 PM (#6035600)
I am hoping that most students arent used to their teachers or adult supervisors dropping the n bomb in casual conversation, is that too much to expect? and again this has nothing to do with wokeism, he made a poor choice of words and realized too late that he was defending something that should not be defended. you want to take that up with him I guess? Wouldnt have taken most of us that long to realize that in a leadership role with kids around that we have to hold each other to a higher standard than unsanitized rap or the social norms of 1884.
   209. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:00 PM (#6035602)
The difference between "fired" vs "pressured to resign" (most likely "quit on your own or we'll be forced to let you go") seems like semantics to me, but whatever.

Anyone have an opinion on Obama's comments from various interviews regarding wokeism, cancel culture, etc?
   210. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:10 PM (#6035604)
I am hoping that most students arent used to their teachers or adult supervisors dropping the n bomb in casual conversation, is that too much to expect?

Evidently it's too much to except certain students to be able to tell the difference between a teacher quoting someone else and a teacher meaning to use the word in a derogatory way.

Wouldnt have taken most of us that long to realize that in a leadership role with kids around that we have to hold each other to a higher standard than unsanitized rap or the social norms of 1884.

So should all books and other material that have the n-word or other offensive words in them simply be removed from every school's reading list? Just how thick of a protective wall to you want to put around students?

-----------------------

Anyone have an opinion on Obama's comments from various interviews regarding wokeism, cancel culture, etc?

Well, what do you expect from a man who's half-White? Let's let those students from that Peruvian trip set his Oreo ass straight!
   211. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:27 PM (#6035606)
Again context matters, in the context of being a team leader or teacher to a group of young students avoiding the use of racist terms seems like a pretty low bar to set, its possible to have a discussion with teens about race without having to drop that term, as we are having a discussion about race and neither of us has yet had to use it , so its not that difficult .
As to reading lists, again context, a teacher can easily set the context for how certain terms were used in America's past as long as the local republicans havent banned them from doing so I suppose.
That doesnt seem that thick of a wall at all. your point seems to be kids are going to be exposed to racism so who better to do it than a new york times reporter? and I cant say I agree at all, nor do I see any of this pertaining to wokeism.
   212. Voodoo Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:40 PM (#6035608)
Anyone have an opinion on Obama's comments from various interviews regarding wokeism, cancel culture, etc?


Sure, I'll bite. Obama - like almost all commentariats on woke/cancel culture - doesn't do a very good job of defining precisely what he's referring to with those terms. He certainly doesn't seem to be mounting a defense of any particular person who lost a job or was "cancelled", as has been the general response in this thread.

What he does seem to be doing is sending a message to left-leaning laypeople who fire off angry takes on social media day in day out. He's saying (paraphrasing) "this isn't activism, and it isn't necessary helpful to the cause, real activism requires more than just firing off pithy tweets about whatever the 'story of the day is'". I agree with him on this. But this is commentary on the overall media landscape, not any particular "side" (though it's reasonable for Obama to be speaking largely to a particular side).

It's easy to condemn and lament modern media discourse, outrage culture, etc, but the fallacy that is inferred by attributing this to "wokeism" is where it all falls apart. The implied suggestion that "cancel/outrage culture" is something invented by the left is farcical. Maybe it first popped up there on say, Twitter, first, but if it did it was immediately replicated by the other side, to the point where Fox News is pretty much nothing but 'outrage culture' 24/7. The whole definition of 'wokeism' has been defined by those types, not the original advocates of equality, anti-racism, anti-sexism, etc, (who don't use that term at all anymore, understanding it has been ripped off from black culture - initially from white lib-leaning types and then finally becoming the joke it is today by the right wing media).

Even a cursory glance at modern American history reveals that the truly most egregious examples of "cancel culture" from the Red Scare/McCarthyism all the way up to Colin Kaepernick has been perpetrated by the right, with real, unfair career-ending consequences for the victims.
   213. Voodoo Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:41 PM (#6035609)
Well, what do you expect from a man who's half-White? Let's let those students from that Peruvian trip set his Oreo ass straight!


You should just stop. This is not okay.
   214. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:50 PM (#6035610)
since when is a failed attempt at murder not considered the moral equivalent of a successfully executed murder?


Um...really...?

Attempted (crime) is not the same thing as (crime). Ever. (Of course, with woke-ism, everyone is condemned not for what they actually say or do, but what the wokesters THINK is in their evil, evil hearts.)

Also, the only person was killed at the Jan 6 moron-athon was Ashli Babbitt.
   215. rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Posted: August 22, 2021 at 05:55 PM (#6035611)
Robin, I've got nearly a thousand books on African American history and literature that go back to the early 19th century and go up to today. I was a staff member of SNCC, got arrested half a dozen times in the early civil rights movement, participated in BLM protests, and maintain a Flicker album page on historical African American images. I've read extensively on anti-immigrant racism and have railed against it both here and on Discord. I don't need Robin DiAngelo or Ibram Kendi to tell me about something I've been aware of for about as long as you've been alive. All McWhorter's trying to do is to make the most elementary of distinctions between real racism and invented perceptions of it.


About a year and a half ago, Whoopi Goldberg, who is 65, went off on a young black comedian who was bagging on Biden:

“How do you think Apartheid changed?” Whoopi Goldberg asks. “We did that. That’s what Joe Biden did. Nobody does anything the way you want them to do it. But do not put down the people whose shoulders you’re standing on. You are standing on our shoulders. And we are holding the line. And for people to say– uninspiring? What are you inspiring?”


https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/cltr/whoopi-goldberg-apartheid.html

So this is partly a generational thing, and sure, maybe the new battles around race should give the Boomers who fought the fight back in what was in most, but not all ways, a more dangerous time, more credit than they are given. But the fact that you have read 1000 books doesn't mean you know everything, and that rant is not a great look for a guy who used to own a bookstore and regularly lectures people about "intellectual curiosity."

I deal with a lot of antiracism stuff at work, and it is basically based on three core tenets:

1. That racism/sexism/homo-transphobia etc. are embedded in our culture, economy, institutions, entertainment etc. Rightists ofc generally reject this; Lefties seem mostly to agree with it, but some get mad, like you and Whoopi, when it is not accompanied by comments like, "But things are a lot better now thanks to the giants of the past" and I get why you/they would feel that way.
2. That people should be antiracist and call it out, call attention to it, try to "dismantle" it in our institutions, be aware of it and talk about it, rather than being "passively non-racist."
3. That we need to focus on intersectionality of all sorts of overlapping minority groups and classes, rather than just race, or gender, or whatever.

The 4th prong is of course the dreaded "white privilege" and "white fragility."

As to McWhorter, intersectionality applies directly to him: he is a very privileged guy, who was raised by a college administrator and a professor, and he has spent his entire life associated with private universities on the East Coast and righty think tanks. His positions hold deep emotional appeal to righties and some other people, and while I am sure that he has faced his own challenges as a man of color in academics, he is not, actually, really in a position to evaluate a lot of aspects of racism as people have experienced it since the Civil Rights Movement (McWhorter was born in 1965). Put another way, I am not really down with letting you and McWhorter decide what "real racism" is. I will start with the people who say they are experiencing it now, and go from there.

Also, if you want to continue, I'd rather do it on email, but I decided to post this. I might regret that. Ha.

   216. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 07:08 PM (#6035614)
IMO, we can't just handwave away unjust firings (or pressured resignations, if you prefer) for decades old offenses under the justification of "Eh, some other company picked them up so they'll be fine." They're only going to be fine because a less woke company decided to be reasonable and take a chance on them. If every company was as woke as the ones that fired them - or as woke as some here seem to prefer - then they'd never get a job again.

It reminds me of the BBWAA elitists who agree that someone is a HOFer, just not a "first ballot" HOFer. If all voters had that mindset, deserving players would drop off the ballot after one vote and be ineligible for future consideration until it was time for the VC to have a look. An ideology seems flawed to me if it must rely on others to have a different opinion in order for it to work.
   217. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 07:17 PM (#6035615)
What makes them unjust? the companies arent breaking any laws as far as I can see, since the system allows for the companies to make the decision based on whatever criteria they deem fit there is nothing remotely unjust going on, unless you are proposing that companies have to follow some kind of codified system of employment and that is not exactly how American or any multi national corporation operates.
Companies turfing employees they view are troublesome is nothing new, nothing particularly woke about it, just the criteria for ass canning some people has changed a little, in the end these companies are still looking at the bottom line and not trying to appeal to some twitter mob.
   218. Voodoo Posted: August 22, 2021 at 07:27 PM (#6035616)
They're only going to be fine because a less woke company decided to be reasonable and take a chance on them. If every company was as woke as the ones that fired them - or as woke as some here seem to prefer - then they'd never get a job again.


You keep referring to this idea of "woke companies" as though it is this clearly defined thing, and that thing is clearly demonstrated in these instances where individuals were "fired". It isn't. Do you really think the IOC, Boeing, or even the NYT are "woke companies"? What does that even mean?
   219. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 08:18 PM (#6035624)
#217 - Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Was what happened to Kaepernick "unjust"? A lot of people think it was, but like you said, companies have every right to jettison anyone they feel is more trouble than they're worth.

Let's be honest; everyone born before 1990 or so is secretly happy that Twitter didn't exist when they were in High School. We're lucky that all of our bad takes and dumb jokes from decades past are mostly lost to history and aren't likely to come back to haunt us. But if somehow they did, we'd all feel like we got a raw deal if we - or someone we cared about - lost their job because of something we/they did as a child or because of a joke they told 23 years ago. That's just ridiculous.

#218 - I have no idea if those companies would normally be considered "woke" or not, but they sure caved to the "woke" mob in these instances. They didn't seem to care that the mobs criticisms weren't reasonable.
   220. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 08:54 PM (#6035628)
So this is partly a generational thing, and sure, maybe the new battles around race should give the Boomers who fought the fight back in what was in most, but not all ways, a more dangerous time, more credit than they are given. But the fact that you have read 1000 books doesn't mean you know everything, and that rant is not a great look for a guy who used to own a bookstore and regularly lectures people about "intellectual curiosity."

I'll ignore that silly and patronizing response and concentrate on your more substantive points.

I deal with a lot of antiracism stuff at work, and it is basically based on three core tenets:

1. That racism/sexism/homo-transphobia etc. are embedded in our culture, economy, institutions, entertainment etc.


Of course I agree with that 100%. Does it actually surprise you that I would?

Rightists ofc generally reject this; Lefties seem mostly to agree with it, but some get mad, like you and Whoopi, when it is not accompanied by comments like, "But things are a lot better now thanks to the giants of the past" and I get why you/they would feel that way.

I don't get mad when people don't add that as a qualifier, but I do think that if they pretend that it's not true, they're displaying a massive amount of ignorance----because it's a completely ignorant and ahistorical point of view.

2. That people should be antiracist and call it out, call attention to it, try to "dismantle" it in our institutions, be aware of it and talk about it, rather than being "passively non-racist."

Well, duh. But as we've seen here, the followup question revolves around distinctions between outright racism, especially the institutional variety; clueless casual racism (the world's Jack Morrises); and charges of "racism" that are at the very least just as easily subject to non-racist interpretations (McNeil, etc.). Simply calling someone a "racist" doesn't make it true, no matter how sincerely the person making the charge believes it.

3. That we need to focus on intersectionality of all sorts of overlapping minority groups and classes, rather than just race, or gender, or whatever.

Again, that's fine as a theory, and it's historically based in fact, but as you know it can easily break down when some stubborn members of those groups don't always identify with the others. (See: Many Black ministers on the subject of LGTB; or the views of many second or third generation Latinos on illegal immigration.) And it gets even more problematic when people who are members of two or more of those groups try to one-up another group's member by claiming multiple victim privilege that makes them de facto immune to any sort of criticism from a non-member of that group.

The 4th prong is of course the dreaded "white privilege" and "white fragility."

There's certainly a grain of truth to those cliches, but like all cliches, they get easily abused in practice. My gut reaction to that doesn't come from any personal experience of being called a "racist" (though I was called a "white n#####" on many an occasion), but to the simple strategic thought that it's much better to be looking for allies than enemies.

Call out institutional racism, and call out obvious racists. Obviously. But don't start accusing individuals of being a "racist" when at worst they're simply clueless. That's just stupid and counter-productive. I guarantee you could steer a lot more "racist" Whites to an anti-racist position by having them hang around my weekly pool tournament outside of Baltimore** for a few months or a few years than you ever could by requiring them to attend a "White Fragility" seminar.

As to McWhorter, intersectionality applies directly to him: he is a very privileged guy, who was raised by a college administrator and a professor, and he has spent his entire life associated with private universities on the East Coast and righty think tanks. His positions hold deep emotional appeal to righties and some other people, and while I am sure that he has faced his own challenges as a man of color in academics, he is not, actually, really in a position to evaluate a lot of aspects of racism as people have experienced it since the Civil Rights Movement (McWhorter was born in 1965). Put another way, I am not really down with letting you and McWhorter decide what "real racism" is. I will start with the people who say they are experiencing it now, and go from there.

Now you're just returning to patronizing personal attacks that are about as relevant to McWhorter's experiences with racism as AOC's choice of clothes or purses are to her views on Medicare For All, or the price of Obama's house is to his views on cancel culture. McWhorter doesn't need me to defend him from this sort of BS.

Also, if you want to continue, I'd rather do it on email, but I decided to post this. I might regret that. Ha.

Well, you made your points public, and I've responded in public, so we're even. If you want to shoot me an email to continue our personal conversation, that's fine by me. And don't worry, I won't report you to your employer if you should happen to slip up and agree with me on occasion. Our emails will just be between you and me and the proverbial lamp post. (smile)

** A tournament held in a blue collar pool room / sports bar whose demographic makeup contains more actual racial and gender diversity than any college campus you could ever find, and more working class people than you'd ever find in any 4-year college.
   221. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 08:57 PM (#6035630)
yes and no, three of the four were all adults when they spewed their nonsense, even the musician who bailed on the olympics only got himself into trouble because he was by all accounts bragging about his behavior as a teen when he was a grown adult, which is a bad look, the fourth was working for a teen magazine which is probably why her teenage transgressions carried more weight? I dont think it was good firing but I also think she was probably a lousy hire in the first place.
   222. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:00 PM (#6035632)
#217 - Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Was what happened to Kaepernick "unjust"?

Let's be blunt: What happened to Kaepernick was right wing cancel culture combined with collusion on the part of terrified (and in some cases racist) NFL owners. His numbers had slipped as his supporting cast left, but he was still a hell of a lot more qualified than many of the retread QBs that were hired in his place.
   223. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:05 PM (#6035635)
Even a cursory glance at modern American history reveals that the truly most egregious examples of "cancel culture" from the Red Scare/McCarthyism all the way up to Colin Kaepernick has been perpetrated by the right, with real, unfair career-ending consequences for the victims.

That's absolutely correct, and here's Exhibit A for the prosecution. But that doesn't excuse what the fringe parts of the Left are engaging in today.
   224. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:18 PM (#6035644)
#222 - Agreed. I wasn't defending that in any way, shape, or form. I was using it as a counter example to the "It wasn't illegal so how could it be unjust?" argument in #217.
   225. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:26 PM (#6035646)
It's interesting that right wing cancel culture keeps coming up. Maybe I missed a comment, but I don't think anyone here has defended that either.
   226. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:31 PM (#6035647)
"unjust" means it was morally wrong to fire these people. one of whom quit, one who engaged in off colour humour that was simply never acceptable and the government unilaterally fired him , one was a teenaged racist who was working at a magazine aimed at teens, and one wrote a lengthy article of a misogynistic nature . the fourth you could say was the closest to a moral grey area but the other three reaped fairly well what they sowed. just not seeing the three who were fired as unjust, morally they all crossed the line and were held to account for their actions, the fourth ran away on short notice so he was not unjustly dealt with in the least.
   227. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:33 PM (#6035650)
Booey,

#222 - Agreed. I wasn't defending that in any way, shape, or form. I was using it as a counter example to the "It wasn't illegal so how could it be unjust?" argument in #217.

I know you weren't trying to defend the Kaepernick blackball, and I didn't mean to imply that you were. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

BITD, Mississippi in 1964 to be exact, there was a sign you used to see in some of the Mississippi Freedom Summer offices. Its relevance waxes and wanes, but it never seems to go completely out of date:

There is a street in Itta Bena called Freedom.
There is a town in Mississippi called Liberty.
There is a department in Washington called Justice.
   228. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:47 PM (#6035654)
#226 - They were held accountable for their actions decades after the fact, which is the crux of the entire argument.

People need to be given an opportunity for growth and redemption, and they should be given the benefit of the doubt if they've gone literally decades without another similar transgression.

Edit: Note I'm talking about WORDS only here. Obviously some offenses (Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, etc) shouldn't have a statute of limitations.
   229. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 09:54 PM (#6035655)
They were held accountable for things they did, companies are under no restrictions to say "well only jokes about the holocaust in the last ten years are going to count". This is your belief that there is some magical ten year grace period for offensive behavior, and that is not how the real world operates at all. A teen racist is always going to be a poor choice for a teen magazine, a person who tells off colour jokes about the holocaust is a bad look for an inclusive event like the olympics, a person who writes an article based on his misogynistic beliefs is going to be a poor choice for a pr position. not seeing it as unjust, unfortunate perhaps that we live in a time where ones transgressions have a longer shelf life in some cases. but these people are answering for their own actions.
   230. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 10:14 PM (#6035659)
I'd guess that every one of us could be fired by modern standards for something we said in our teens or twenties. Retroactively doing so would not be advancing social justice or helping marginalized communities in any way. All it does is drive away potential allies and gives the other side shiny objects to distract from the larger issues. You're not gonna convince the far right OAN nutters no matter what you do, but a little bit of empathy and common sense could go a long way towards bringing more of the independents, centrist democrats, and even a few moderate conservatives into the fold. The number of Americans who say they feel like they have to censure themselves constantly for fear that even one poorly phrased comment could get them fired (even decades later, apparently) is disturbing. We don't need to create a culture of fear and intimidation to enact meaningful and lasting change.
   231. Voodoo Posted: August 22, 2021 at 10:31 PM (#6035664)
I'd guess that every one of us could be fired by modern standards for something we said in our teens or twenties.
The number of Americans who say they feel like they have to censure themselves constantly for fear that even one poorly phrased comment could get them fired (even decades later, apparently) is disturbing.


Do you have any source that number of Americans who feel that way? You keep asserting that this small handful of incidents from prominent companies, each of which is at least debatable in its own right, is somehow a threat to everyone over 40 who laughed at a racist joke when they were a teen.

I don't see how those dots connect. If you're trying to become the host of Jeopardy! or work in a public facing role in a massive corporation subject to intense media scrutiny, then yeah maybe you need to do some social media scrubbing, and more importantly make some public gestures that show you have taken advantage of "opportunity for growth and redemption" (ideally before your bullshit is dug up by third parties). For the rest of us, I think we're fine unless we're continuing to act a fool, like say... .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and fired by his car dealership employee.
   232. Brian C Posted: August 22, 2021 at 10:44 PM (#6035667)
A teen racist is always going to be a poor choice for a teen magazine

Why "always"?

Also just a "teen" magazine? Or would other magazines be acceptable? Is there something unique about teen magazines that makes an editor's attitudes as a teen more relevant? Or are you just making this connection because "teen racist" and "teen magazine" both are phrases that contain the word "teen"?
We don't need to create a culture of fear and intimidation to enact meaningful and lasting change.

This seems not just inarguably true, but obvious and intuitive. But the rhetorical slipslide here is just to do what simon bedford and others are already doing - basically saying "oh it's not fear and intimidation, just accountability."
   233. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 10:45 PM (#6035668)
#231 - Well, the Cato Institute poll from 2020 found that 62% of Americans surveyed said they felt the need to self censure, including 77% of republicans, 64% of moderates, 59% of Independents, and even 52% of liberals. A full third of all Americans polled were afraid they would lose their jobs or potential promotions if they made their polical views known. And this number is rising every year compared to previous polls.

(Sorry, I don't know how to post the actual link from my phone)
   234. simon bedford Posted: August 22, 2021 at 11:07 PM (#6035670)
Having to answer for your own actions isn't fear or intimidation, it is in fact accountability , what else would you call it? You think that a teen magazine targeting teenage girls is the right place for someone who has a history of posting racist comments as a teen? seems like the word teen here is all kinds of relevant, not sure how you cannot see the obvious connection here. yes she was a poor choice and as soon as the magazine became aware of her past they moved to rid themselves of her as quickly as possible, you think there should be no correlation between the two? And even if you do think that the company in question did not feel that way and their opinion in this matter as the only one that matters.
   235. Voodoo Posted: August 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM (#6035671)
This seems not just inarguably true, but obvious and intuitive. But the rhetorical slipslide here is just to do what simon bedford and others are already doing - basically saying "oh it's not fear and intimidation, just accountability."


I don't think that's what's happening here, at all. The whole question simon and others are questioning is if a small handful of people losing high-profile gigs equates to a "culture of fear and intimidation" which evidently is just taken as a truism by many on this thread. The leap from 'the editor of teen vogue got canned because of some racist tweets' to 'omg we're all under attack" is a really large one. And even then, the whole crux of this argument is that so called "woke-ism" is to blame for this situation, clearly placing the onus on one part of the political spectrum, as opposed to the larger, more complicated, media landscape wrought by the Facebooks, Twitters, etc.
   236. rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Posted: August 22, 2021 at 11:11 PM (#6035672)
Cato Institute


Yeah, anything funded by the Koch Bros. is my go-to on questions like this.

That aside, it comes back to the same question: if you think that "woke culture" on social media is terrorizing otherwise good people and causing them to live in fear of losing their jobs for minor verbal indiscretions, what do you think should be done about it? One consideration might be strengthening unions, but the people in your examples are pretty high-profile types who do not do the kind of work that might be unionized. Should there be restrictions on what employers can do to doxxed employees? More government regulation of social media and how they are used? Government regulation of employment termination procedures? Should there be legal penalties for doxxing people to their employers, or outing them on social media to their employers? Should there be some consideration of the 1A extending to employment protection?

The discretionary power of capital and the management that is the instrument of capital to fire those in labor for stuff like making the company look bad in public is an article of faith on most of the Right, including Libertarian organizations, like, say, the Cato Institute. So unless you are willing to deal with that (Andy of course did not touch any of it--he just gave his personal opinions on two high-profile media situations involving high-profile people, Tom Cotton and Alice Walker) then you are kind of just saying that this bugs you and that you think "woke culture" is bad. That's fine, but I have a long list of things about Rightist culture that bug me and that I think are bad, but are not really areas for legal redress and government intervention, so mostly I just vote.

   237. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 11:52 PM (#6035680)
Double post. See #239 below.
   238. Booey Posted: August 22, 2021 at 11:53 PM (#6035681)
I have no idea if the Harvard CAPS-Harris poll, NPR/PBS/NewHour/Marist polls, etc are more credible than the CATO one, but it's not hard to Google cancel culture, polical correctness, etc and find that most the articles popping up show an overall negative opinion of the subjects from a large percentage of Americans. Are these ALL from unreliable right wing outlets?

So my question is, what sources tell you that the majority of Americans DON'T have a problem with firing people today for tweets, jokes, comments, etc from decades past?
   239. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 22, 2021 at 11:54 PM (#6035682)
The discretionary power of capital and the management that is the instrument of capital to fire those in labor for stuff like making the company look bad in public is an article of faith on most of the Right, including Libertarian organizations, like, say, the Cato Institute. So unless you are willing to deal with that (Andy of course did not touch any of it--he just gave his personal opinions on two high-profile media situations involving high-profile people, Tom Cotton and Alice Walker) then you are kind of just saying that this bugs you and that you think "woke culture" is bad. That's fine, but I have a long list of things about Rightist culture that bug me and that I think are bad, but are not really areas for legal redress and government intervention, so mostly I just vote.

Robin, when have I ever said that the victims of "woke culture" should have any legal redress from being fired? I'm not sure there's any legal solution to a problem that's cultural / ideological in nature.

I did give my opinion about what should have been done by the editors of the Times op-ed (who okayed Tom Cotton) and the Times Book Review (who okayed Alice Walker), prior to publishing the op-ed and the interview: The insertion of a fact-checking paragraph that the two authors could either have agreed to, or rejected at the cost of not having the op-ed or the interview published. Diametrically opposing ideologies, but the principle should have been applied in both cases.

And do you have any opinions on what should've been done in those two cases, one involving a Right Wing creep, and the other involving a Left Wing apologist for a conspiracy-mongering anti-semite? You ask for "solutions", but what would've been your "solution" regarding those two very concrete examples? It's easy to formulate abstract principles, but it's always going to come down to applying those principles to specific cases like those two. Without actually applying those principles to specific cases and being willing to take the heat for it, lofty-sounding "principles" become little more than meaningless cliches.
   240. rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:07 AM (#6035685)
So my question is, what sources tell you that the majority of Americans DON'T have a problem with firing people today for tweets, jokes, comments, etc from decades past?


The Cato thing is a minor point, which is why I mentioned it as an aside. Also, you are mixing me up with a couple of other guys, simon and Voodoo, who are pushing back against the idea that a majority of people are as worried about Wokesters getting big shots fired as you and Andy appear to be. Given the way most Americans appear to interact with the media world, it may well be that that is the case. I don't really know, and I don't tend to trust polls on issues like this.

But the question for me is still: what do you want to do about it? Andy pretty clearly doesn't know.
   241. Booey Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:25 AM (#6035687)
#240 - I don't know, but companies not caving to hysterical twitter mobs and normal people calling out bullsh!t when they see it - even when it comes from their own side - would be a good start.
   242. rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:30 AM (#6035688)
Andy--replied on email so as not to bore the group. Hahaha.
   243. Voodoo Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:03 AM (#6035696)
but companies not caving to hysterical twitter mobs


You keep repeating this, but you've failed to demonstrate at all how "Twitter mobs" were uniquely responsible for any of the handful of people who lost a job.
   244. Brian C Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:23 AM (#6035698)
Having to answer for your own actions isn't fear or intimidation, it is in fact accountability , what else would you call it? You think that a teen magazine targeting teenage girls is the right place for someone who has a history of posting racist comments as a teen? seems like the word teen here is all kinds of relevant, not sure how you cannot see the obvious connection here. yes she was a poor choice and as soon as the magazine became aware of her past they moved to rid themselves of her as quickly as possible, you think there should be no correlation between the two? And even if you do think that the company in question did not feel that way and their opinion in this matter as the only one that matters.

This is useless. You just answered my questions with a bunch of "hur dur it's so obvious" deflections. If it's so obvious, then explain it! Try it like I was five. Avoid if possible any variation of "...but it says TEEN right there!!" like you just used here.
Yeah, anything funded by the Koch Bros. is my go-to on questions like this.

Can we not do this? This is the exact nonsense bad-faith rhetorical move used by the right to dismiss polling of all sorts, instead of engaging with it. If the Cato polling is meaningfully off base, then there should be plenty of counterexamples to choose from as a response. And "well the polling doesn't fit my argument so I don't trust it" rhetorical move is not going to play well either.
That aside, it comes back to the same question: if you think that "woke culture" on social media is terrorizing otherwise good people and causing them to live in fear of losing their jobs for minor verbal indiscretions, what do you think should be done about it? One consideration might be strengthening unions, but the people in your examples are pretty high-profile types who do not do the kind of work that might be unionized. Should there be restrictions on what employers can do to doxxed employees? More government regulation of social media and how they are used? Government regulation of employment termination procedures? Should there be legal penalties for doxxing people to their employers, or outing them on social media to their employers? Should there be some consideration of the 1A extending to employment protection?

This is a good question and a very real one, and I think there's more at stake here than simply "woke culture" or whatever euphemism is polling well for the right as a substitute for "political correctness" these days. For the sake of argument here, let's say that you work for a company that does a meaningful amount of business in China, and you make a Facebook post about supporting democracy in Hong Kong. Your boss sees it and fires you to avoid embarrassing the company with its Chinese partners.

Is that a just move on their part? Legally, yes - obviously they have the right to do it. But does this sit right with you?

   245. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 23, 2021 at 08:40 AM (#6035716)
Well, the Cato Institute poll from 2020 found that 62% of Americans surveyed said they felt the need to self censure, including 77% of republicans, 64% of moderates, 59% of Independents, and even 52% of liberals.


As someone who has been in the workforce since the 80s, this has always been true. At work you have to be a professional (aka self-censure) because you are at work. And if you have a high profile job, a public facing one, then you can be fired for ... well basically anything that causes bad PR. Since forever.

This is not a new thing. Welcome to the wonders with at will employment. I could be let go at any second for any reason (or no reason at all).

Now the types of things that can get you let go vary from time to time and place to place. The sort of behavior that gets you fired in the deep south in 1970 is a bit different than that which gets you fired in 2021 in San Francisco.

Are people suggesting ...
a) It didn't happen before?
b) It was OK before because it was different things that caused the firing?
c) It used to happen before, but it is more often now? I want to see some proof of that.

   246. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 08:42 AM (#6035720)
I am confused why you are asking questions if you lack the ability to understand the answers? I am not trying to make light of the situation , but do not understand how you get "fear and intimidation" from a few people losing their job for prior bad acts. also the "teen" thing is tripping you up not me. Its a magazine/online presence aimed at teenagers ,its target audience are by and large the most involved in the online world, so hiring a person with a past of posting racist rants is going to absolutely be front and center. Since the company always has the option of hiring non racists , once her past was discovered she was politely shown the door.
so let us just look at this example, the Woman in question posted several racist tweets aimed against one specific group , these series of tweets were brought to the attention of the company through the work of another journalist, once it became more public knowledge ,her fellow writers began pressuring the company to remove her , the parent company demanded an apology regarding her former behavior which she did deliver and then left.
So something this individual did , racist tweets specifically , were brought to the attention of the public which led to her feeling she had to leave. that is her actions in the past leading to her facing a tough situation in the present and feeling she had to leave. This isn't a woke mob run amok , its employees at a company feeling the company had made a mistake hiring someone who did not reflect the magazines strong anti-racist stance and their reasons for feeling this way were the womans own actions.
not sure how much simpler it can be made.
   247. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 23, 2021 at 08:52 AM (#6035721)
it's much better to be looking for allies than enemies

The Left doesn't look for allies, they look for apostates. (The Right is less noxious about this, but only just barely.)

I did give my opinion about what should have been done by the editors of the Times op-ed (who okayed Tom Cotton) and the Times Book Review (who okayed Alice Walker), prior to publishing the op-ed and the interview: The insertion of a fact-checking paragraph that the two authors could either have agreed to, or rejected at the cost of not having the op-ed or the interview published.

"We can either insert a paragraph that basically calls you an idiot (because "balance"), or not publish the thing at all. Your choice."
   248. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 23, 2021 at 09:21 AM (#6035724)
I did give my opinion about what should have been done by the editors of the Times op-ed (who okayed Tom Cotton) and the Times Book Review (who okayed Alice Walker), prior to publishing the op-ed and the interview: The insertion of a fact-checking paragraph that the two authors could either have agreed to, or rejected at the cost of not having the op-ed or the interview published.

"We can either insert a paragraph that basically calls you an idiot (because "balance")


You mean "because we don't want deliberate disinformation or promotion of anti-semitic authors just sitting there unopposed".

, or not publish the thing at all. Your choice."

"Or we can run op-eds / interviews featuring disinformation / promotion of anti-semites, so as to not hurt your feelings." Yeah, that was a great option that the Times took in both cases.
   249. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 23, 2021 at 09:22 AM (#6035726)
Robin,

Got your email. I'll respond to it later today.
   250. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 23, 2021 at 11:32 AM (#6035746)
You mean "because we don't want deliberate disinformation or promotion of anti-semitic authors just sitting there unopposed".

Don't be silly. Walker is Black, and that cancels out "anti-semitic", especially these days.

The problem is, who decides what's "disinformation" or "anti-semitic"? You? The readers? The editors? Look, either publish something or don't. (Running scared is not a good look.)
   251. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:01 PM (#6035762)
This isn't a woke mob run amok , its employees at a company feeling the company had made a mistake hiring someone who did not reflect the magazines strong anti-racist stance and their reasons for feeling this way were the womans own actions.
not sure how much simpler it can be made.


To make it simpler, you could have just conceded that it was a woke mob run amok, because your efforts to distinguish what happened from a woke mob run amok didn't work. "Employees at a company feeling the company had made a mistake hiring someone who did not reflect the magazine's strong anti-racist stance" and then demanding the person's firing is exactly what a woke mob run amok is.

   252. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:12 PM (#6035766)
If it's so obvious, then explain it!


See, that's the thing though, right? For 30-plus years at least, the woke mob types have never really been able to compete in the marketplace of ideas and persuasion, which is why they always resort to the boycott and the hiss and the cancellation and the like.(*) In a not insignificant way, that's because of the religious aspect to wokedom (**) and the fact that the ideology is so tied in with personal fulfillment and salvation.

(*) To which now they've added the entirely fictitious, "Your speech threatens me" gambit. See, e.g., the Cotton op-ed which the not-a-woke-mob-run-amok staffers at the Times actually said put the black Times staffers in danger.

(**) Denied, of course.
   253. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:26 PM (#6035768)
You mean "because we don't want deliberate disinformation or promotion of anti-semitic authors just sitting there unopposed".

Don't be silly. Walker is Black, and that cancels out "anti-semitic", especially these days.


Not that I've ever said that it did, but don't let a little thing like that disturb your autopilot-driven narrative.

As always, you prefer replying to anyone but the person you're addressing. All that's missing is "People are saying...."
   254. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:35 PM (#6035771)
Except it wasnt a woke mob run amok that cost her job, the company big wigs replied to their concerns by
1 writing a terse inter office memo insisting all complaints stay in the company and
2 the employees dont decide who the company hires and fires
3 they were "working" with the employee in question and she was staying.
a few months later the employee and employer released joint statements saying they were parting ways, the woke crowd dont seem to have been remotely the deciding factor.
   255. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:45 PM (#6035774)
Except it wasnt a woke mob run amok that cost her job, the company big wigs replied to their concerns by


Right, but your first gambit was to claim there wasn't a woke mob run amok at all when obviously there was.

they were "working" with the employee in question and she was staying.


They were only "working" with her to begin with because of the woke mob run amok and then of course -- shockingly!! -- the "work" didn't take and she left anyway.
   256. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:49 PM (#6035775)
Great kudos to Andy for drawing lines in the right place on this whole issue and for seeing people like Kendi and the shallow, projecting Jersey suburban chick whatever her name is for who they are, and on the flip side John McWhorter, for who he is.

A good rule of thumb for the wokesters is that if they've lost Andy, they've gone pretty badly off the rails.
   257. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:55 PM (#6035777)
The narrative put forth is that the woke crowd got her fired at least by some in the right, by the reality is the company owners told them to get lost. and then decided on their own to get rid of her, what you and I do not know is what their reasons were, the company certainly never said "we let her go because of the woke crowd" so we are left trying to guess what the ownerships reasons were, since they knew of the issue and kept her on I would guess that the reason was something else that they chose not to share with the public.
you want to suggest they were cowed by the woke employees and waited a few months before letting her go because reasons! I cant really find the logic in that assumption. With so much hidden from view I am not willing to guess. could be almost anything, or they may just have decided she wasnt worth the trouble.
   258. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 12:58 PM (#6035778)
The narrative you put forth was that there wasn't a woke mob run amok, and that narrative was false. I don't give a #### what some dumbshit on the right might be saying about any of this. Some cloddish ####### on QAnon or reddit being wrong doesn't make you right.
   259. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:04 PM (#6035779)
I did not write out the entire quite detailed story, I suppose i was hoping that since you were engaging in the conversation you might actually research on your own what happened. you did not and feel that I should have done a more thorough job of educating you, I have no intention of doing that now or in future. If you want to discuss what happened to someone who was fired from a fairly high profile job that made the news repeatedly , look it up and learn it and dont think someone in a baseball forum is going to do all your homework for you.
the narrative that it was a woke crowd run amok was put forth up the thread by someone else, incorrectly .
   260. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:12 PM (#6035782)
I did not write out the entire quite detailed story, I suppose i was hoping that since you were engaging in the conversation you might actually research on your own what happened. you did not and feel that I should have done a more thorough job of educating you, I have no intention of doing that now or in future.


Actually, I wasn't engaged in the conversation at all until I noticed your kind of odd efforts to distinguish a woke mob run amok from something else, and that something else being ... a salad of different words, but those words still being a woke mob run amok ... and then I chimed in. And now that those feeble distinguishing efforts have been shown to be feeble, you're lashing out and demonstrating anew why I noted the decades-long inability of wokesters to compete in the open marketplace of ideas and persuasion.
   261. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:17 PM (#6035783)
I have no interest in woke mobs one way or another. I only addressed the fact that 4 examples of "wokeness" costing people their jobs in an unjust manner were not really unjust at all, 1 quit and 3 others did things that in only one case directly got someone fired ( the olympic host who was fired by the government for his "joke" the two others there were far more moving parts in play , and the companies didnt bow to external pressures but just decided for internal reasons to part ways with the employees and that other folks developed a narrative of their own to support their ideals on how wokeism is destroying the world. i dont even think anyone has correctly addressed what wokeness is in this thread let alone how it has impacted the work place in any meaningful way.
   262. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:24 PM (#6035786)
i dont even think anyone has correctly addressed what wokeness is in this thread let alone how it has impacted the work place in any meaningful way.


Here's a decent off-the-cuff working definition of wokeness and woke mobs:

"Person X is racist or insufficiently anti-racist, we demand personal sanction against Person X." Turn one person saying that into a group of people saying that and, presto, there's your "woke mob."

If you don't see that, or any of its impact, the only explanations could be willful blindness or stupidity -- or, more likely, support for the woke mob project.
   263. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 01:46 PM (#6035789)
But the question for me is still: what do you want to do about it? Andy pretty clearly doesn't know.


This would be a good start:

1. Make Facebook/Twitter subject to libel/slander/defamation suits for everything they publish, as are outlets like the NY Times, CBS News, etc. Add to current law, to the extent necessary, provisions making it clear that Facebook/Twitter can also be sued as aiders and abetters of those things and other torts.

2. Liberalize and widen invasion of privacy statutes, as well as tortious interference with contracts and business relationship statutes. Make Twitter start paying for its interference with private employment relationships especially, as is virtually always the case, it is publishing falsehoods as part of that interference. That will end a lot of this, possibly even all of it.

3. Mandate that Google and other search engines and Twitter/Facebook purge their searchable database of things pertaining to individuals that are more than, say, two years old. Better yet, give every individual an opt-out from being Google/Twitter/Facebook-searchable.

Moreover, we have direct cultural experience with this phenomenon -- it's textbook McCarthy era stuff. What was "done" then to get the culture away from the blacklists and the like? Well, one thing was to have a social and cultural recognition that politics was a separate sphere from things like jobs.
   264. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 03:26 PM (#6035809)
That seems to be a rather limited idea of what others are pushing forward as "woke" of the four examples of woke firings listed earlier in this discussion
one dealt with the bullying of the disabled
one dealt with misogyny
one dealt with a holocaust joke
so those things are not part of the woke landscape? seems to me woke means whatever the person wants it to mean in the situation.
and no i dont see a change in the landscape as far as companies or groups laying people of due to whatever reasons they like. what I do see is a lack of personal accountability by some folks and support of the lack of needing accountability by those who are stupid enough to be worried more that "wokeness" is some how a real threat while ignoring the more dangerous threats of misogyny discrimination and racism. you have to be pretty willfully blind to be worried more about the side effect than the disease or just you know ok with racism misogyny and discrimination.
   265. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 03:55 PM (#6035817)
so those things are not part of the woke landscape? seems to me woke means whatever the person wants it to mean in the situation.


I used "racist" as a shorthand for "racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/Islamophobic, etc."

worried more that "wokeness" is some how a real threat


Wokeness absolutely is a real threat, under any conceivable measurement. It's illiberal, chilling to free speech and association, and highly unjust.

you have to be pretty willfully blind to be worried more about the side effect than the disease or just you know ok with racism misogyny and discrimination.


Side effects are worse than diseases in all manner of medical circumstances, but no, that's a false dichotomy. There's no connection among serious people between speaking out about the excesses of wokedom, and being ok with racism or misogamy, anymore than there's a connection between wanting both fair criminal trials and bemoaning when the guilty go free. That false dichotomy/reductionist binary is yet another example of wokesters not adequately engaging in the marketplace of ideas and persuasion.





   266. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:03 PM (#6035820)
So "wokeness" is people becoming aware of another individuals racism etc and if more than one person sees it etc theres your mob , but does that mean they are wrong to see someone elses racism as problematic? were the various organizations outraged at the holocaust comment in the wrong? were the writers who did not agree with the hiring of someone with a history of racist and homophobic posts in the wrong for speaking up?
seems to me like you are more worried about the critics than the ones who are actually who engage in the offensive behavior. and honestly I cant follow the logic here at all, are you suggesting that there are levels of racism etc that are acceptable and people just have to shut up and take it? at what point CAN they say something? and free speech isnt attacked by your idea of "wokeness" in the least, these people all said what they said nobody stopped them in the least. they were just held to account after they said it. thats how free speech actually works, it doesnt mean freedom from responsibility.
   267. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:10 PM (#6035824)
It's wrong to pry into someone's personal life and demand that they be fired or suffer some other sanction as a result. It was wrong when the mob wanted to do it to "communists," it's wrong when the mob wants to do it to "racists." To the degree that a wokester thinks people should be "held accountable" for their "racism," the fanatics of the McCarthy era said the exact same thing about "holding people accountable" for their "communism." And we see the same kind of excesses now that were present in the McCarthy era.

honestly I cant follow the logic here at all, are you suggesting that there are levels of racism etc that are acceptable and people just have to shut up and take it? at what point CAN they say something?


In the McCarthy era, people would have been asking you whether you were saying that there are levels of communism that were acceptable and should people have to just shut up and take it.

"Communism" was the stuff of moral panic back then; "racism" and "white supremacy" are the stuff of moral panic now.

To the extent I'm suggesting anything beyond that, it's that people like you and other wokesters aren't capable of judging what is and isn't "racism."(*) It follows obviously from that, that you have no just standing demanding sanction of any kind for said "racism." And it follows that any sanction placed upon someone based on that unjust judgment is itself unjust. It's pretty simple logic, really.

(*) ... sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc., etc.

   268. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:25 PM (#6035836)
How do you know how well I or anyone else can judge what is racism? in the case of the young lady at vogue, it was clearly racist posts that even she admits were racist. it was not a judgement call to make in the least. Would I have fired her personally for 10 year old tweets? nope, I would have found more positive ways to address it, this is not what the company chose to do , they turfed her months after the scandal broke.
And no its isnt implied that its unjust standing . I demanded nothing, in all 4 of these cases who demanded what is a sliding scale and in only one of these cases did the co-workers ask for action and were told to "shut up and take it". so you are complaining about things that didnt happen, by people who had no power or effect on the outcome of events and trying to say "they are the problem".
I think your utter inability to understand the situation or what happened is the problem, and your repeated failure to follow the actual pattern of events leaves you tilting at windmills and comparing private companies firing people with a government investigation which are not remotely the moral equivalent. you are free to keep misrepresenting reality and my position all you like, it is not scoring you any points.
and the twitterverse is sadly for all involved very very public so if you enter into by aware its not remotely private. person number 2 was bragging in interviews which again doesnt pass the laugh test as "private" person number 3 told a joke in a public performance that was filmed so again not remotely private, person number 4 wrote a newspaper article again not private. you are complaining about specifics that are not specific to the examples in question.
   269. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:33 PM (#6035841)
How do you know how well I or anyone else can judge what is racism? i


You can't even define it, much less judge it, and the excesses of the wokesters in the area are abundantly clear. Define "racism," commit to a definition beyond "we know it when we see it," expose that definition to real discussion and peer review, and then maybe some kind of serious conversation could ensue.(*) Until then, the cult is just a bunch of illiberal bullies.

comparing private companies firing people with a government investigation which are not remotely the moral equivalent.


This isn't really true -- private and private/public tyrannies are eminently possible and can be as bad or worse as governmental ones -- but even if it were true, it's factually wrong as private companies were amply involved in the McCarthy era blacklists.

(*) But the wokesters don't want that serious conversation, because deep down they know they aren't equipped for it. So they resort to the hiss, the cancellation, the "your speech threatens me," etc.
   270. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:46 PM (#6035846)
In the case of the teen vogue editor , she has not been blacklisted at all, she came to teenvogue from axios and went right back to NBC after she parted ways with teen vogue.So how was she blacklisted? If there were examples of a blacklist type situation please provide them.
the question before us is really what is "wokeism"? there are no good definitions of it, the one you offered contained a bunch of random words that dont add up to any real meaning, any questions asked as follow up to your weak definition was met with "you cant even tell me what X is". I think we probably could agree on what racism is, we could probably agree on what racist tweets are, we probably would even agree that holocaust "jokes" are beyond the pale. but we are not going to agree on what "woke" means to companies, or that there is even such a thing as a "woke company". I see no evidence of it at all. but i am willing to entertain examples of these things if you can provide them . until then this is just more rigthside groupthink being regurgitated ad nauseum , and that is a crowd who knows a thing or two about bullying. personally I have little patience for twittermobs, and there are examples of them overreaching by many miles and creating issues, but none of that seems to be being discussed here at the moment.
   271. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:51 PM (#6035848)
I think we probably could agree on what racism is,


Define it, then. You've pronounced yourself personally equipped to pass judgment on it, and those you and others adjudge guilty of it, so it should be very easy for you to define.
   272. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 04:58 PM (#6035850)
lets just take a random simple dictionary definition? I am fine with this one
racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   273. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:11 PM (#6035853)
So you haven't even thought of a definition until just now? Not surprising.

The only way something like the Jack Morris thing could fit into the definition would be if the term "antagonism" was stretched far beyond its actual meaning. And the final clause is silly. If Morris would have been on a broadcast in Japan, with a Japanese audience and where Morris and not Ohtani was the minority group, that would change whether the remark was "racist"? That's silly. Not serious.

Basically, this definition reduces to, "White Americans can't say anything bad about anyone who isn't white." And typically we don't aim general principles at only certain ethnic groups or demographics. You don't, for example, see criminal statutes saying "If you're white and do something, it's a crime," or "If you're black and do something, it's a crime." If only a white person can be guilty of racism, then the underlying "problem" being aimed at isn't really "racism," it's white people. (Which in the case of wokedom, is actually what's almost certainly going on.)

There are a multiplicity of races in the world. There are a multiplicity of races in America. Any definition that holds that only certain of them can be "racist" isn't worth anything.(*) Any application of that definition is definitionally unjust.

(*) This principle extends beyond just "racism." Any definition of anything sanctionable that can only be met by members of particular races isn't worth anything and is definitionally unjust and probably racist.
   274. Biscuit_pants Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:14 PM (#6035854)
lets just take a random simple dictionary definition? I am fine with this one
racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.


I had a sociology professor friend of mine say you cannot be a racist if you were are part of the minority or marginalized group. In those cases you can be bigoted but racism comes from a position of power. It is a stance that definitely ruffles feathers but anytime you try and define something you will always come to a point of splitting hairs.

edit: spelling
   275. Hombre Brotani Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:16 PM (#6035855)
Apparently, support for Jack Morris is sneaky big in all sorts of cultural spaces, not just Hall of Fame VC voting.
   276. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:16 PM (#6035856)
That's an oft-heard one, but the definition there was of "racism," not "racist."
   277. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:17 PM (#6035857)
It's a bad definition but even on its own terms, there's no serious sense in which Morris was exhibiting prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism toward Ohtani or Japanese people in general.
   278. Biscuit_pants Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:24 PM (#6035859)
It's a bad definition but even on its own terms, there's no serious sense in which Morris was exhibiting prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism toward Ohtani or Japanese people in general.


With the position that Morris holds what he said was most definitely racially insensitive. You don't need to exhibit prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism toward Ohtani or Japanese people in general to display that. Whether or not it was racist speaks to who he is as a person, which this could be an example of it or it could be a huge foot in the mouth moment.
   279. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:24 PM (#6035860)
So "wokeness" is people becoming aware of another individuals racism etc and if more than one person sees it etc theres your mob , but does that mean they are wrong to see someone elses racism as problematic?

What's wrong is when anyone---one person or a Twitter mob---starts lumping together wildly different degrees of racism and directing equal outrage at all of them, ignoring all context, ignoring all explanations, and often ignoring the timeline of when the alleged racism occurred.

seems to me like you are more worried about the critics than the ones who are actually who engage in the offensive behavior. and honestly I cant follow the logic here at all, are you suggesting that there are levels of racism etc that are acceptable and people just have to shut up and take it? at what point CAN they say something?

That wasn't directed at me, but my response would be: Of course people who are offended have the right to say they're offended. What that doesn't mean, however, is that the offended person gets to have a de facto veto power, goosed up by hundreds or thousands of retweets, over the alleged offender's reputation or employment. What it does mean is that accusations lacking context are dishonest and manipulative. There's a difference between a known serial offender and a first time offender; there's a difference between an unintentionally insensitive comment and a comment that was made with malicious forethought, and when we become incapable of making distinctions like that, then the outcome isn't going to be good for anyone.

the question before us is really what is "wokeism"?

Being "woke" originally meant simply trying to put yourself in another person's shoes,** and trying to understand the world from that other person's perspective. The Old School word for it was "empathy".

But the bastardized version we too often see today makes "woke" into a one-way street, with the power of granting the status of "wokeness" given only to a select few people, who invest upon themselves the power to command virtual show trials where the alleged offender is forced to apologize with promises to repent, regardless of whether the actual alleged offense was anything more than an offhanded insensitive private remark. AFAIC that's way too much power, whether formal or in this case informal, to put in the hands of people who have no interest in ever listening to any sort of explanations. In too many cases all they seem to want is the accused person's head, and they want that head today.

** Specifically a Black person's shoes, but the sentiment behind the principle was, and is, generic.
   280. Hombre Brotani Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:25 PM (#6035861)
It's a bad definition but even on its own terms, there's no serious sense in which Morris was exhibiting prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism toward Ohtani or Japanese people in general.
I've had that stereotype accent directed at me dozens and dozens of times as an adult even though I have no accent myself, and I'm sure not a single one of those people would call themselves racist. They just like to mock my race using hurtful stereotypes, and what's so racist about that?
   281. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:26 PM (#6035863)
pick a good definition then. I picked the first one that came up on google which I felt was fine. provide a better definition if you wish.
as for me worrying about how to describe racism, I live in a very multicultural city that's pretty tolerant most of the time, so yes racism is easy to spot when it rears its ugly head in this case. I think like most people I dont consult the dictionary at all to make sure in these situations that it is or is not racism.
but I cant wait to read your thoughtful insightful definition of what it is.
   282. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:32 PM (#6035867)
pick a good definition then. I picked the first one that came up on google which I felt was fine. provide a better definition if you wish.


You're the one defending sanctioning people, having them fired and whatnot, for being "racist," not me. And then in the face of all that, you can't even define the term? And then you wonder why people kind of raise an eyebrow?

I'm not going to outline a perfect definition, but the core of it would be prejudice -- to quote a great American with whom we're all familiar, judging a person based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. There isn't much to it beyond that, other than mores, taste, manners. A bad, racially awkward ethnic joke is something altogether different and I doubt MLK's expectation would have been that America would never have such things, or that it couldn't be a great place even with them.
   283. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:34 PM (#6035870)
Nick
I think that in this discussion you and I would find much common ground, how woke-ism is applied to corporate big wigs dismissing their underlings is one thing, a crowd of twitter users from various backgrounds coming for Lindsay Ellis is something quite different. My main issue so far is only all the examples listed dont nudge the "woke" meter in the least.
as for their collection of heads the online twittermob have collected, not really sure they have gotten anywhere.
   284. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:38 PM (#6035871)
Not defending anything at all , not sure where you got that ill formed idea. All I am saying is the 4 examples listed earlier in this thread were NOT examples of "wokeism" I did define the term, i tried to choose a neutral one we could agree on, but you seem to want to shift the goalposts on every post so I suggest you give it a rest. since that was never my position in the first place you are basically arguing with someone who is not here.
I am pretty sure you have no clue what the discussion was at all at this point so not sure you are going to get anywhere with your ridiculous and inaccurate assumptions about what is and
is not my position .
   285. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:51 PM (#6035874)
With the position that Morris holds what he said was most definitely racially insensitive. You don't need to exhibit prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism toward Ohtani or Japanese people in general to display that. Whether or not it was racist speaks to who he is as a person, which this could be an example of it or it could be a huge foot in the mouth moment.

What Morris did was both (1) stupidly insensitive, given the context, and (2) non-racist in intent. This IMO is the key distinction. As I wrote in the early part of this thread, he should've been told in no uncertain terms that what he did was unacceptable, but that since it was a first offense then an apology and a promise to joke no more should've been enough to save his job.

But a second offense: Bye-bye.

------------------

Nick
I think that in this discussion you and I would find much common ground, how woke-ism is applied to corporate big wigs dismissing their underlings is one thing, a crowd of twitter users from various backgrounds coming for Lindsay Ellis is something quite different. My main issue so far is only all the examples listed dont nudge the "woke" meter in the least.
as for their collection of heads the online twittermob have collected, not really sure they have gotten anywhere.


Simon,
Here's what I think we all need to understand: No matter how hard we try to draw up "rules", formal or informal, we're still going to have to make judgments about "racism" or "racists" that many times are inherently subjective. And at some point the non-racists are going to have to learn to unite and recognize that the enemy isn't unintentional microaggressions** by clueless dudes, but rather it's the much more deliberate macroaggressions conducted by people who have nobody's interests at heart but their own.

** Which can be pointed out and corrected with varying degrees of humor or exasperation, but not equated with much more serious offenses.

   286. . Posted: August 23, 2021 at 05:52 PM (#6035875)
Not defending anything at all , not sure where you got that ill formed idea.


You're defending the idea of taking away people's jobs for so-called "racist" tweets and other statements, are you not? Sure seemed like you were. There's still time to reflect and change your mind.
   287. WokeeRedneck(WR) Posted: August 23, 2021 at 06:09 PM (#6035880)
I really think you pumpkins are entirely unequipped for a discussion of this nature.
   288. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 06:10 PM (#6035881)
Read up thread I said i was against the idea of taking away the teenvogue editors job based on some ten year old tweets. if you arent going to read the thread why are you commenting on it? either pay attention to the conversation or shut the hell up about it, you are wrong, you double down on being wrong and now you triple down on it .
What I object to is the classification by some other poster that this was an example of "wokeism " costing someone their job the reason for that position is simple and based on the facts we have before us.

1: the past tweets of a newly hired editor are discovered and other workers at teenvogue complain about her hiring
2: teen vogue tells them its not their decision who is hired and who is not the editor is staying and the editor and the higher ups are working things out
3: several months pass
4: joint statements are released by the company and the departing editor that they are "parting ways"

did the 20 coworkers who complained get her fired? doesnt seem so. did other factors play a part in her firing? seems likely . but did she deserve to be fired for her posts at age 17? I never believed she did.
   289. Hombre Brotani Posted: August 23, 2021 at 06:26 PM (#6035887)
I really think you pumpkins are entirely unequipped for a discussion of this nature.
Speaking for my people, it's clearly our fault for not being able to take a joke.
   290. Brian C Posted: August 23, 2021 at 07:05 PM (#6035894)
I live in a very multicultural city that's pretty tolerant most of the time, so yes racism is easy to spot when it rears its ugly head in this case

This is hilariously daft. You could get 10 random black people and there'd inevitably be a lot of disagreement over what racism looks like, aside from the obvious hoods-and-nooses type of stuff. Especially so if they're of different ages and backgrounds. But you live in a multicultural city so you've got it all figured out, yay for you!

In fact, some might say that this lack of humility on your part might come across as ... nah. I'll just say instead that you really give yourself away here, announcing to the world how insular and limited your perspective is.
   291. Brian C Posted: August 23, 2021 at 07:12 PM (#6035895)
I'll add too that this little skirmish today over defining "racism" sort of unwittingly brings up a profound problem - is there really a useful way to define "racism"? Or is it a term that has become so stretched and contorted that it's outlived whatever (possibly dubious) use it once had?

Maybe what's needed here is to fundamentally reconsider how we think about and act upon people's prejudices.
   292. Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc Posted: August 23, 2021 at 07:23 PM (#6035901)
Don't be silly. Walker is Black, and that cancels out "anti-semitic", especially these days.

Not that I've ever said that it did, but don't let a little thing like that disturb your autopilot-driven narrative.


Chill, bruh. Left off the "/s" tag is all. (Funny how it's always the other side that's on auto-pilot, eh?)

A bad, racially awkward ethnic joke is something altogether different and I doubt MLK's expectation would have been that America would never have such things, or that it couldn't be a great place even with them.

If Martin Luther King were alive today, he'd say..."Stop quoting me, you idiots! I swear to God, most of you have no f#$ing idea what what I'm talking about, you're just using me in your stupid Twitter memes! (Also, what the hell is Twitter...?!)"
   293. Brian C Posted: August 23, 2021 at 07:23 PM (#6035902)
And finally, one more post while I'm available to do this:
Read up thread I said i was against the idea of taking away the teenvogue editors job based on some ten year old tweets. if you arent going to read the thread why are you commenting on it? either pay attention to the conversation or shut the hell up about it, you are wrong, you double down on being wrong and now you triple down on it.

This seems like a disingenuous summation of your own posts here. Going all the way back to post #229, you were stating outright that racist tweets by a teenager were fundamentally disqualifying for an editor of a teen-oriented magazine for the rest of their lives ("A teen racist is always going to be a poor choice for a teen magazine") and then you got really mad when I asked you to elaborate on why that was the case. You affirmed after that that she was a "poor choice" for the job because of those long-ago tweets and repeatedly described her exit from the magazine as a demonstration of "accountability".

So, yes, you gave lip service to how you wouldn't have fired her. But, uh ... you also said a lot of stuff that sort of undermined that claim.
   294. simon bedford Posted: August 23, 2021 at 07:50 PM (#6035906)
not what I said, i said it was always going to be troubling and it was. it was something that they had to address and would always have to address and they did try to address it but clearly something went wrong. so troubling does not mean not disqualifying but would obviously create problems and require some handling to make sure they could minimize the damage.
I dont know that I would have hired her in the first place, there is a scrutiny that comes with taking a job with a bit of a higher profile, and yes the company did end up dropping her after making a ton of positive noise about how they did not have an issue with her posts and that she was working with them to make sure things move forward. her removal from the company involves quite a bit of information that we do not know, is she ultimately accountable for her words and actions, yes. do I think that should have led to her being fired outright. no. but not my decision to make and I do not have all the information her bosses at teenvogue had . was the sole reason she was fired her tweets from when she was 17? since the company who hired her were well aware of these tweets and stated so it seems that more than just this was going on.
as far as my perspective on racism based on where I live, its a huge city filled with folks from all over the planet , I worked in pre pc times for years so got a good look up close and personal at what unchecked racism looked like. your idea of what my experience is is based on your own insular and small world view I take it. not sure where you live or what your experience is, but racism takes on many forms beyond what your ten random make believe black people may define it as , the fact you could type that at all shows me how little you have thought or know about the subject.
   295. Brian C Posted: August 23, 2021 at 09:57 PM (#6035923)
your idea of what my experience is is based on your own insular and small world view I take it.

Well, it comes from taking what you said about yourself at face value.
not sure where you live or what your experience is, but racism takes on many forms beyond what your ten random make believe black people may define it as , the fact you could type that at all shows me how little you have thought or know about the subject.

No kidding? What exactly do you think was my point about the 10 theoretical (not "make believe") black people? Do you imagine that I was saying that the number of forms racism can take is exactly 10?

Are you even trying to make thoughtful responses at this point? Or are you content with childish "I know you are but what am I" games like this?
   296. Hombre Brotani Posted: August 23, 2021 at 10:09 PM (#6035926)
not sure where you live or what your experience is, but racism takes on many forms beyond what your ten random make believe black people may define it as , the fact you could type that at all shows me how little you have thought or know about the subject.
Way too sensitive. Learn to take a joke, why don't you.
   297. a 57i66135 with a grenade still has a grenade Posted: August 23, 2021 at 10:42 PM (#6035931)
this whole page reads like a schizophrenic break.*


*i have not read any of it.
   298. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 23, 2021 at 11:37 PM (#6035940)
To be clear: the Jan 6 rioters were morons who belong in jail, period. But calling it an "insurrection" is nutty, because these idiots couldn't organize a two-car parade, let alone the overthrow of the federal government.
That they were the underpants gnomes of insurrectionists doesn't make them any less insurrectionists. A half-assed plot is still a plot.
And it was nothing compared to the night-after-night outrages perpetuated by the (ahem) "peaceful protesters". (Hell, in terms of property damage and injuries, the Capitol probably wasn't even the worst riot on January 6th itself!)
Nothing except that random people destroying stuff is just random people destroying stuff, rather than an attempt to overthrow the government.
   299. nick swisher hygiene Posted: August 23, 2021 at 11:39 PM (#6035941)
OK, time to make a few enemies (as if anyone gave a ####)—297 was probably a wiser path….

Booey, I like your stuff on the bball thread, but…..you seem like you’re trusting a very limited number of pretty entry-level sources? Ask yourself some questions about media and wealth and power: “speech” in American is dominated by money and the far left do not have very much of that. Andy, I wonder…are you really a 60s left guy, or are you just an American free speech absolutist? I mean, the First Amendment is OK and all, but the idiosyncrasies of American jurisprudence, which in practice have basically equated speech with money and done very little to fight white supremacy, are really not the only way to work toward a more just/equal society. So much liberalism, so little taking institutional power seriously. Maybe read a little critical race theory? Don’t worry, it’s not a required course! And stop caping so much for Black conservatives; it’s just not a good look for white folks, regardless of how significant their library holdings….

“Wokeism” is about power, not about principles; not everybody can afford to value principles over outcomes. If I can stop Milo from speaking at my university, I will do so regardless of liberal concerns about free speech, because I regard stopping* him as a step on the way to producing a more just/equal society.

Ask yourself, are you living in a hypothetical society when you attack “wokeism” & “cancel culture” / defend free speech in this weird reflexive way? Is the precise American instantiation of the principle just a means to an end, or are you taking it as an end in itself?

*other steps might also be effective—ymmv….
   300. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 23, 2021 at 11:41 PM (#6035942)
No. I'm just saying it was a riot. The talk of "insurrection" should be permanently retired.
Pro tip: "If this law enforcement leakspin is accurate, only some of the people trying to overthrow the government were part of an organized attempt to overthrow the government" was not the winning point you thought it was.
Page 3 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for Monday, June 27, 2022
(34 - 11:01pm, Jun 27)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel
(261 - 10:55pm, Jun 27)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Newsblog2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(3398 - 10:23pm, Jun 27)
Last: Der-K's tired of these fruits from poisoned trees

Sox TherapyNow That's A Road Trip
(44 - 10:18pm, Jun 27)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogSeattle Mariners acquire first baseman Carlos Santana from Kansas City Royals in exchange for RHPs Wyatt Mills, William Fleming
(13 - 9:35pm, Jun 27)
Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome

NewsblogMinnesota Twins pitching coach Wes Johnson exiting, reportedly for same position with LSU Tigers
(17 - 9:25pm, Jun 27)
Last: Cris E

NewsblogPeacock to stream Royals-Tigers game without announcers
(15 - 8:28pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogEight ejected after wild brawl between Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels
(11 - 7:50pm, Jun 27)
Last: pthomas

NewsblogRosenthal: MLB’s expanded playoffs not yet boosting competition and the risk of trading with the Guardians [$]
(5 - 5:24pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogManny, Pedro and Papi's kids are on the same team?! Meet 'The Sons' of the Brockton Rox
(5 - 5:22pm, Jun 27)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Newsblog[Medium] Baseball’s Next Defining Innovation is Hiding in Plain Sight: Why Tracking the Path of Every Swing is a Must for MLB Teams
(3 - 4:48pm, Jun 27)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritHall of Merit Book Club
(5 - 12:59pm, Jun 27)
Last: progrockfan

NewsblogAstros Combine to No Hit Yankees
(10 - 12:10pm, Jun 27)
Last: Ithaca2323

NewsblogCole Hamels Targeting 2023 Comeback
(13 - 8:53am, Jun 27)
Last: bachslunch

Newsblog“Music makes the people come together”
(8 - 8:49am, Jun 27)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Page rendered in 1.2243 seconds
45 querie(s) executed