Sarah Jeong, its okay to be racist to white people.

[Draconic Aiur]

There are people who find advocating for LGBT+ rights to be just as morally offensive as saying racist things. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, that level of offense still exists and a company has to take that into consideration and, at the end of the day, both situations come down to someone being offended and wanting to ruin someone else's career over it.

The only difference is that we, as a society, have started to agree that racism is bad while LGBT rights are good, though there are many people who have not caught up to that world view. That is the only reason the corporation cares one way or another; it's not about what's "right", it's about what hurts their wallet. So to act like the decisions of a corporation has any relevancy to the morality of an issue is to absurdly imply that corporations should have a voice in what is moral and what isn't.

So it isn't a like for like comparison, but calls for a LGBT+ advocates job and calls for a racists job are much more akin than they are different. It's all rooted at the same thing; someone has deviated so far from societies' norms that they need to be punished for it. Perhaps I am completely missing GSO's point, but that is what I am taking out of it.

You'r a bunch of idiots using your political agenda. Stop it.

[PickelledEggs]

You'r a bunch of idiots using your political agenda. Stop it.

as r u

[pr126]

https://youtu.be/oVruEq-Gupk


https://youtu.be/gAcu0Rsfi6I

[Draconic Aiur]

as r u

No I am not.

I'm using ethics and business ethics.

[Baruch]

No I am not.

I'm using ethics and business ethics.

Leftists don't like business.  They expect government to be Santa Claus.  I am a government contractor, so more of an elf, producing on behalf of the public.  Proper interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal Son explains this.

[GSOgymrat]

https://youtu.be/oVruEq-Gupk


https://youtu.be/gAcu0Rsfi6I

Did anyone else here interpret my defense of free speech, that people shouldn't be fired for posting controversial opinions such as anti-Islam rhetoric, as I hate white people and love Islam?

[SGOS]

Did anyone else here interpret my defense of free speech, that people shouldn't be fired for posting controversial opinions such as anti-Islam rhetoric, as I hate white people and love Islam?

I didn't, but hating white people and loving Islam is the agenda being pushed in this thread.  Hence the redundant nature of the postings here have little to do with discourse, but are more about establishing a meme.

[Munch]

Did anyone else here interpret my defense of free speech, that people shouldn't be fired for posting controversial opinions such as anti-Islam rhetoric, as I hate white people and love Islam?

You've never struck me as someone who would make to make waves on a political belief in a heavy handed way, you've always struck me as a real nice guy just wanting to break even (not being patronizing I mean what I say).
I guess its just that this subject is very polarizing in how its the same examples pressed just on opposite ends of the spectrum, why is one person of a different ethnicity allowed to be racist but its not okay for someone of a different ethnicity, why does social media back up someone like that but wants to burn someone on a pike for doing the exact same thing to another group.

Racism simply isn't something that should be tolerated by a place claiming standards, if a newspaper will a white guy for being racist to black people, then why doesn't it fire an asian person for being racist to white.

Obviously in certain aspects of society say comedy for example showing tongue in cheek racism is fine if its allows for all, take south park for example how they take the piss out of everything, this is okay to me because they do take the piss out of everything.

Its really more of an all or nothing approach. 

[GSOgymrat]

I guess its just that this subject is very polarizing in how its the same examples pressed just on opposite ends of the spectrum, why is one person of a different ethnicity allowed to be racist but its not okay for someone of a different ethnicity, why does social media back up someone like that but wants to burn someone on a pike for doing the exact same thing to another group.

Racism simply isn't something that should be tolerated by a place claiming standards, if a newspaper will a white guy for being racist to black people, then why doesn't it fire an asian person for being racist to white.

I completely understand the hypocrisy of giving an Asian female a pass to make racially charged comments but punishing a white man for doing the same. I also don't want to work in a corporate culture that allows employees to disrespect one another. We want to work in an environment of respect where people are judged based on their performance and not their skin color, sex, religion or preferences.

My employer just changed the appearance policy and now employees are permitted to wear clothing that reveals tattoos. Last year all tattoos had to be covered. Forty years ago people were not allowed to be openly homosexual at work, today they are, forty years from now they might not be. That is what happens when rights are confused with norms, and corporate policies are based on norms. Rights have to be grounded on something sturdier. Freedom of speech is more resilient, though not immune, from the whims of popular culture. I want the decision of who gets to work and who doesn't, who can receive services and who is denied service, to be based on something more than which special interest group can scream the loudest and frighten the company into changing it's policies.

I think I've made my point and I'm not going to comment further. I really wasn't trying to be argumentative and I apologize if I was.

[PickelledEggs]

No I am not.

I'm using ethics and business ethics.

I guess you can tell yourself that, if you want.

[Baruch]

America, then and now ... New England puritanism, a gift that keeps on giving ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ6b06gFmFg

You have admitted being a White male, a fascist, a misogynist, a racist ... You must tell us who the others are ... bwahaha.

This is bipartisan ... but we don't agree on who the witches are ...

[Baruch]

When two women of color get it on ... sell tickets!

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/08/16/detroit-rep-bettie-cook-scott-on-asian-opponent-dont-vote-for-the-ching-chong

This isn't about "mind blown" ... the only thing blown is your ideological stereotypes.  This is politics, its a mud pit.

[SGOS]

When two women of color get it on ... sell tickets!

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/08/16/detroit-rep-bettie-cook-scott-on-asian-opponent-dont-vote-for-the-ching-chong

This isn't about "mind blown" ... the only thing blown is your ideological stereotypes.  This is politics, its a mud pit.

Racial slurs, while covered by free speech, are for the slime balls.  Yes, politics is a mud pit, but slime balls in a mud pit are just as loathsome as they are anywhere else.  There is no reason to tolerate slime in politics on the grounds that, "Well, it's just the mud pit of politics."  Instead, we tolerate it because it's legal.

Politics harms a lot of people.  It might be the biggest source of harm humans must endure.  But instead of harm by the hand of a serial killer, it's the harm of a thousand cuts.  I accept that racial slurs are legal, both in and out of politics, but there's a lot more shit in politics that should be illegal that politicians have passed special laws to protect.  i.e. legalized bribes.  It just so happens that racial slurs are also granted protection for both politicians and ordinary slime balls.  But we suck it up and endure the thousand cuts of slime balls and politicians because it's the law.

[Baruch]

Racial slurs, while covered by free speech, are for the slime balls.  Yes, politics is a mud pit, but slime balls in a mud pit are just as loathsome as they are anywhere else.  There is no reason to tolerate slime in politics on the grounds that, "Well, it's just the mud pit of politics."  Instead, we tolerate it because it's legal.

Politics harms a lot of people.  It might be the biggest source of harm humans must endure.  But instead of harm by the hand of a serial killer, it's the harm of a thousand cuts.  I accept that racial slurs are legal, both in and out of politics, but there's a lot more shit in politics that should be illegal that politicians have passed special laws to protect.  i.e. legalized bribes.  It just so happens that racial slurs are also granted protection for both politicians and ordinary slime balls.  But we suck it up and endure the thousand cuts of slime balls and politicians because it's the law.

I prefer the monarchy of Lilliput ... the PM candidates have to walk a tightrope and open their coddled eggs at the correct end ;-)

[Cavebear]

https://youtu.be/oVruEq-Gupk


https://youtu.be/gAcu0Rsfi6I

"The Left" does not especially love Islam.  In fact, "The Left" is far less religious than "The Right" which certainly DOES love religions (which are all superstitions).

And I would bet that if there was an atheist, a christian, and a moslem locked in a room with knives, the christian and the moslem would team up to kill the atheist.