(title edited by Frazzled for grammer to comport to topic because Frazzled Mod is best Mod)
I'm a bit at odds today...actually,Im fething PO'd.
Today at work,a co-workers and myself overheard our "boss" unleash a flood of racial slurs over our managers radio,his statements were directed against a group of African American customers who were waiting on service who he felt were being "impatient".
The "N-word" was used several times,along with several other colorful slurs.
My co-worker,who is African American, is furious, I myself,while not African American,do have an African American girlfriend with whom I have two children...so I'm having a hard time not knocking this mans teeth out.
The problem is,we are unsure as to how to proceed,of course violence (while terribly satisfying) whould be a bad idea,so...what to do?
While legal entanglements are often "cut and dry" in the fantasy world of movies and T.V,in the real world,things don't always work that way,and we (my co-workers and I) have familys to support.
I am honestly enraged,but short of kicking this racist creatins face in, I am stuck on my next course of action.
Any ideas might help,especialy from any Dakkites with a background in labor law.
Thanks for allowing me to vent.
No,the customers didn't hear anything,the "radios" are personal "walkie talkies" that all the managers carry.
The boss obviously thought he was speaking privately,my co-worker and I just happen to over hear what he was saying.
Any reason why he did it? Was he having a bad day?sometimes people who are very stressed get to far and mean things they dont. If he wasnt you should look up labor laws in your area or the person higher then him. not hear on an internet forum. maybe get a paralegal and see if you got a case.
Wow. I don't think I've heard anyone actually say that word in real life for years (rap songs and films don't count!) - I can imagine it would be quite shocking, especially given your family situation. Kudos to you for keeping your cool, man. I don't think I would be able to stop myself from chinning the prick if I was in your shoes.
As far as recourse to legal action goes...well, I'm no lawyer. Or American. Or American lawyer.
However, it doesn't seem like there's much you can do, unfortunately. I mean, he didn't say it to you and by the sound of it he didn't say it to the customers, he didn't actively discriminate against them and even if he did, it would be difficult to know what to do about it. You crazy Americans with your 'free speech' and your 'horseless carriages'! What will you think of next?
I imagine labour laws are a lot looser over there than they are here. If you were African-American yourself you could perhaps argue that you felt victimised by your employer's overt racism, but other than that.... I'm drawing a blank. Sorry, mate.
How's the puppy, BTW? Destroyed all your furniture yet?
garret wrote:Any reason why he did it? Was he having a bad day?sometimes people who are very stressed get to far and mean things they dont. If he wasnt you should look up labor laws in your area or the person higher then him. not hear on an internet forum. maybe get a paralegal and see if you got a case.
I'm not sure what his "reasons" might be,nor do I particularly care.
As far as "people higher up than him",he owns the shop...so,no one higher on the "chain of command".
I am however considering looking into legal action...just not sure how it will play out,based on the "evidence"
garret wrote:Any reason why he did it? Was he having a bad day?sometimes people who are very stressed get to far and mean things they dont. If he wasnt you should look up labor laws in your area or the person higher then him. not hear on an internet forum. maybe get a paralegal and see if you got a case.
I'm not sure what his "reasons" might be,nor do I particularly care.
Well, exactly. Give a feth for his reasons. You don't say that word. It should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
garret wrote:Any reason why he did it? Was he having a bad day?sometimes people who are very stressed get to far and mean things they dont. If he wasnt you should look up labor laws in your area or the person higher then him. not hear on an internet forum. maybe get a paralegal and see if you got a case.
I'm not sure what his "reasons" might be,nor do I particularly care.
As far as "people higher up than him",he owns the shop...so,no one higher on the "chain of command".
I am however considering looking into legal action...just not sure how it will play out,based on the "evidence"
I think you should atleast hear out what his reasons are.
Honestly i think your best course of action is to forget about it. If you do bring legal action alot of things could happen. he could lose the shop because of legal fees or get mad and make your time there miserable. Or if you arenot careful fire you.
garret wrote:Any reason why he did it? Was he having a bad day?sometimes people who are very stressed get to far and mean things they dont. If he wasnt you should look up labor laws in your area or the person higher then him. not hear on an internet forum. maybe get a paralegal and see if you got a case.
I'm not sure what his "reasons" might be,nor do I particularly care.
As far as "people higher up than him",he owns the shop...so,no one higher on the "chain of command".
I am however considering looking into legal action...just not sure how it will play out,based on the "evidence"
I think you should atleast hear out what his reasons are.
Or else... well
So if someone made a racial slur based on your ethnicity and you heard it, you would give that person the benefit of the doubt? You would just say 'oh well, he must have just been having a bad day!'
Albatross wrote:Wow. I don't think I've heard anyone actually say that word in real life for years (rap songs and films don't count!) - I can imagine it would be quite shocking, especially given your family situation. Kudos to you for keeping your cool, man. I don't think I would be able to stop myself from chinning the prick if I was in your shoes.
As far as recourse to legal action goes...well, I'm no lawyer. Or American. Or American lawyer.
However, it doesn't seem like there's much you can do, unfortunately. I mean, he didn't say it to you and by the sound of it he didn't say it to the customers, he didn't actively discriminate against them and even if he did, it would be difficult to know what to do about it. You crazy Americans with your 'free speech' and your 'horseless carriages'! What will you think of next?
I imagine labour laws are a lot looser over there than they are here. If you were African-American yourself you could perhaps argue that you felt victimised by your employer's overt racism, but other than that.... I'm drawing a blank. Sorry, mate.
How's the puppy, BTW? Destroyed all your furniture yet?
Yeah Bro. it was extreamly difficult not "flying off the handle."
I'm currently looking into "hostile work enviorment" laws to see if they may be aplilied...but still unsure...you know us zany Americans and our "vauge laws"
And the puppy is doing just great,he has eaten about half the stuff I own in the past few months.
Albatross wrote:Wow. I don't think I've heard anyone actually say that word in real life for years (rap songs and films don't count!) - I can imagine it would be quite shocking, especially given your family situation. Kudos to you for keeping your cool, man. I don't think I would be able to stop myself from chinning the prick if I was in your shoes.
As far as recourse to legal action goes...well, I'm no lawyer. Or American. Or American lawyer.
However, it doesn't seem like there's much you can do, unfortunately. I mean, he didn't say it to you and by the sound of it he didn't say it to the customers, he didn't actively discriminate against them and even if he did, it would be difficult to know what to do about it. You crazy Americans with your 'free speech' and your 'horseless carriages'! What will you think of next?
I imagine labour laws are a lot looser over there than they are here. If you were African-American yourself you could perhaps argue that you felt victimised by your employer's overt racism, but other than that.... I'm drawing a blank. Sorry, mate.
How's the puppy, BTW? Destroyed all your furniture yet?
Yeah Bro. it was extreamly difficult not "flying of the handle."
I'm currently looking into "hostile work enviorment" laws to see if they may be aplilied...but still unsure...you know us zany Americans and our "vauge laws"
And the puppy is doing just great,he has eaten about half the stuff I own in the past few months.
Well, just be careful with leaving your minis lying around. As the old saying (that I've just made up) goes:
Albatross wrote:So if someone made a racial slur based on your ethnicity and you heard it, you would give that person the benefit of the doubt? You would just say 'oh well, he must have just been having a bad day!'Yeah. Right. Good one.
Actually i would still ask what happened first.
Im sorry that you and i behave differently , but thats no reason to say i wouldnt?
garret wrote:Honestly i think your best course of action is to forget about it. If you do bring legal action alot of things could happen. he could lose the shop because of legal fees or get mad and make your time there miserable. Or if you arenot careful fire you.
Not quite sure if I would care if he lost his shop or not,other than the fact it would put alot of good people out of work.
As for him getting angry...well shame on me for not pasively accepting that sort of racist gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
Albatross wrote:So if someone made a racial slur based on your ethnicity and you heard it, you would give that person the benefit of the doubt? You would just say 'oh well, he must have just been having a bad day!'Yeah. Right. Good one.
Actually i would still ask what happened first.
Im sorry that you and i behave differently , but thats no reason to say i wouldnt?
Actually Luna,there is no great mystery as to why he said what he said,I live in the American South,where racism is alive and well (just hidden),the man was speaking in a manner that many people do when they belive "no one is listening".
* Not saying that all Southeners are racist (I'm a Southener myself) *
That is what i am talking about. In this economy you have to make sure you dont lose your job. what he said it was wrong but you dont want to lose your job and not be able to support your kids you mentioned.
Albatross wrote:So if someone made a racial slur based on your ethnicity and you heard it, you would give that person the benefit of the doubt? You would just say 'oh well, he must have just been having a bad day!'Yeah. Right. Good one.
Actually i would still ask what happened first.
Im sorry that you and i behave differently , but thats no reason to say i wouldnt?
If someone made a racist remark about Asian people right in front of you, you'd just give that person the benefit of the doubt? I find that difficult to believe given the number of internet arguments you seem to get into. You never seem to assume Shuma is having 'a bad day', and he's never done anything to you that is remotely close to being as bad as using racist language in front of you.
Checking into the hostile work environment laws is a good start. Do you work for a store chain? You may be able to get him promoted to customer and have somebody else take his place. Most companies have policies to prevent people from getting away with this. If he owns the business the worst you could do is get proof and force him to pay unemployment for creating a hostile work environment. Unless you can get a lot of proof then you can sue him and live easy while you find a new job.
garret wrote:That is what i am talking about. In this economy you have to make sure you dont lose your job. what he said it was wrong but you dont want to lose your job and not be able to support your kids you mentioned.
I understand how piss poor the economy is,especialy here in the south,and my need to support my family is my main reason for not going absolutely berzerk today.
However,when I look at my kids...and think about this mans comments,it makes me sick that I work for,and indeed line the pockets of,such a piece of gak.
Albatross wrote:So if someone made a racial slur based on your ethnicity and you heard it, you would give that person the benefit of the doubt? You would just say 'oh well, he must have just been having a bad day!'Yeah. Right. Good one.
Actually i would still ask what happened first.
Im sorry that you and i behave differently , but thats no reason to say i wouldnt?
If someone made a racist remark about Asian people right in front of you, you'd just give that person the benefit of the doubt?
See thats where we differ. You assume that i have no issue with someone racist , but thats all it is assumptions.
Now you see , i dont bunch the 2 issues together as one atleast not yet, i treat them separately.
Whether the guy is racist or not is irrelevant to me when im curious to what happend . and the "impatience" OP first mentioned have contributed how much to the degree of his boss's action.
THEN after that i can determine the degree of how much his boss is a ******** .
I guess its safe to say... You just want to nail the racist guy. and im interested in finding out what happened , nailing the racist guy
can wait after i find out. Anymore questions?
I find that difficult to believe given the number of internet arguments you seem to get into. You never seem to assume Shuma is having 'a bad day', and he's never done anything to you that is remotely close to being as bad as using racist language in front of you.
rocklord2004 wrote:Checking into the hostile work environment laws is a good start. Do you work for a store chain? You may be able to get him promoted to customer and have somebody else take his place. Most companies have policies to prevent people from getting away with this. If he owns the business the worst you could do is get proof and force him to pay unemployment for creating a hostile work environment. Unless you can get a lot of proof then you can sue him and live easy while you find a new job.
He owns the company,and while in the past he has been very abusive of his position (verbally hostile,etc),this is the first time I have heard him speak the way he did today...of course,he knows my family "situation",so I doubt he would say what he did if he knew I could hear him.
As for "proof" 3 employes heard his comments...so I guess it would be a case of "we say...he says",if it comes to that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Luna
We deal with "impatient" customers every minute of the day,our clients are all very wealthy and want what they want ten minutes ago...so dealing with "impaitents" is a daily situation.
IMO, he had no reason to say what he said ,other than holding those views.
Albatross wrote:So if someone made a racial slur based on your ethnicity and you heard it, you would give that person the benefit of the doubt? You would just say 'oh well, he must have just been having a bad day!'Yeah. Right. Good one.
Actually i would still ask what happened first.
Im sorry that you and i behave differently , but thats no reason to say i wouldnt?
If someone made a racist remark about Asian people right in front of you, you'd just give that person the benefit of the doubt? I find that difficult to believe given the number of internet arguments you seem to get into. You never seem to assume Shuma is having 'a bad day', and he's never done anything to you that is remotely close to being as bad as using racist language in front of you.
See thats where we differ. You assume that i have no issue with someone racist , but thats all it is assumptions.
Now you see , i dont bunch the 2 issues together as one atleast not yet, i treat them separately.
Whether the guy is racist or not is irrelevant to me when im curious to what happend . and the "impatience" OP first mentioned have contributed how much to the degree of his boss's action.
THEN after that i can determine the degree of how much his boss is a ******** .
Yeah, it's the internet la-la-la everything is a rhetorical exercise, a for-the-sake-of-argument paintball game, where nothing really matters but everything counts.....
Meanwhile, back in the real world... We're talking about a guy whose wife is African-American, and whose kids are mixed-race. We're also talking about an employer who said vile things about African-American customers. What on earth gives you the right to act all superior and say stuff like 'I think you should hear what his reasons are'? Reasons? What possible reasons can you think of that would make such behaviour acceptable?
Mistress of minis wrote:Talk to some of your local News outfits. Some reporters can be pretty helpful with stuff like this.
My co-worker ( one who heard the bosses comments) was thinking along these exact lines,along with going to his church group,who in the past have organized protest against "racist establishments".
We deal with "impatient" customers every minute of the day,our clients are all very wealthy and want what they want ten minutes ago...so dealing with "impaitents" is a daily situation.
IMO, he had no reason to say what he said ,other than holding those views.
Make no mistake Fitzz , that im reacting different than you because I dont know your boss.
You work with him everyday, and i only know from what i see in this thread. By all means he probably deserves all the reactions
you are having if not more , but alas I dont know him , so i cant just judge him right away?
So if i have lack of enthusiasm to want to burn the racist guy to the stakes i apologize to you and albatross now.
And because impatience from different people have different actions , some are just minor inconvenience while some are full blown trouble.
Because i have no idea what exactly happened to your boss , i dont want to burn him yet , is that fair?
Albatross wrote:
Meanwhile, back in the real world... We're talking about a guy whose wife is African-American, and whose kids are mixed-race. We're also talking about an employer who said vile things about African-American customers. What on earth gives you the right to act all superior and say stuff like 'I think you should hear what his reasons are'? Reasons? What possible reasons can you think of that would make such behaviour acceptable?
I'm all ears.
Well, eyes.
Albatross , im not sure if you know this or not... Im not caucasian. If anyone know racist , i have experience it myself first hand.
Im not acting superior , you are very stubborn or ignorant to say that. I have say it earlier , and i will say it again.
I simply go through different steps and in different order before going insane compared to you.
Maybe you go through A B C D E
maybe i go through A C B ( wow shorter temper than you! ) but never the less , its different thinking process.
We deal with "impatient" customers every minute of the day,our clients are all very wealthy and want what they want ten minutes ago...so dealing with "impaitents" is a daily situation.
IMO, he had no reason to say what he said ,other than holding those views.
Make no mistake Fitzz , that im reacting different than you because I dont know your boss.
You work with him everyday, and i only know from what i see in this thread. By all means he probably deserves all the reactions
you are having if not more , but alas I dont know him , so i cant just judge him right away?
So if i have lack of enthusiasm to want to burn the racist guy to the stakes i apologize to you and albatross now.
And because impatience from different people have different actions , some are just minor inconvenience while some are full blown trouble.
Because i have no idea what exactly happened to your boss , i dont want to burn him yet , is that fair?
I'm personally waiting for you to enlighten me as to when the use of the N-word by a white man to describe people of colour is acceptable.
It's got nothing to do with a 'hair-trigger' reaction to percieved racism - I have no particular desire to 'nail' anyone, racist or otherwise. All I'm saying is that if I was in FITTZ's shoes I would be SUPER pissed off. In the real world people don't encounter that situation and think to themselves 'perhaps he's just having a bad day'.
We deal with "impatient" customers every minute of the day,our clients are all very wealthy and want what they want ten minutes ago...so dealing with "impaitents" is a daily situation.
IMO, he had no reason to say what he said ,other than holding those views.
Make no mistake Fitzz , that im reacting different than you because I dont know your boss.
You work with him everyday, and i only know from what i see in this thread. By all means he probably deserves all the reactions
you are having if not more , but alas I dont know him , so i cant just judge him right away?
So if i have lack of enthusiasm to want to burn the racist guy to the stakes i apologize to you and albatross now.
And because impatience from different people have different actions , some are just minor inconvenience while some are full blown trouble.
Because i have no idea what exactly happened to your boss , i dont want to burn him yet , is that fair?
While I understand what your saying Luna,there is an array of "curses" that he could have chosen to use...
" These damn pain in the *** Mother ****** keep complaining about the wait,Get these Mother**** out of here as quick as you can.",if he had said that...I'd have no problem.
It is the words he chose to use,hateful words I have no tolerance for,that I am angry about.
So,while I understand that you would want to "get all the facts" before passing judgement,I find his use of those words inexcusable.
garret wrote:If he actually insulted workers or customer i doupt the news would give it the time of day.
There are quite a few journalists and news reporters who love smashing rich people and business owners for racist statements and activities, even in the south. I say go ahead and let them know. If things work out well enough then your boss will have to make a public apology and be fearful of firing anybody who isn't white. Due to your situation you should be safe as well Fitzz because of your girlfriend and children.
In my experience, there are many people I know, friends or people around me who are fine with using the N word. (not me though) Their reasoning goes, the time in which those words were really used badly is gone and they have (relatively) no connection to the events of those times so it is all in the past. The words aren't symbols of oppression anymore but just another word to call someone you know. Like saying hey man, you suck. While they may also use slurs of many sorts it is jokingly and in the atmosphere around them (being teenagers and all) acceptable and not taken offensively. They do however take offense to actual racism. When the words take on the meanings they had in the past it is no longer acceptable. I don't know if what I wrote made too much sense so to recap, words are cheap, they mean nothing, actual racist mentalities and attitudes are very bad.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... We're talking about a guy whose wife is African-American, and whose kids are mixed-race. We're also talking about an employer who said vile things about African-American customers. What on earth gives you the right to act all superior and say stuff like 'I think you should hear what his reasons are'? Reasons? What possible reasons can you think of that would make such behaviour acceptable?
I'm all ears.
Well, eyes.
Albatross , im not sure if you know this or not... Im not caucasian. If anyone know racist , i have experience it myself first hand.
Im not acting superior , you are very stubborn or ignorant to say that. I have say it earlier , and i will say it again.
Yes, of course I know you're not caucasian - that's why I said if some made asian racial slurs in front of you, you probably wouldn't accept 'I'm having a bad day' as an excuse.
And you ARE acting superior, you're portraying an image of Christ-like even-handedness that no real human possesses. It's false. But hey, on the internet everyone is ten feet tall. Calling me ignorant for simply disagreeing is further evidence of your superior attitude.
Albatross wrote:I'm personally waiting for you to enlighten me as to when the use of the N-word by a white man to describe people of colour is acceptable.
It's got nothing to do with a 'hair-trigger' reaction to percieved racism - I have no particular desire to 'nail' anyone, racist or otherwise. All I'm saying is that if I was in FITTZ's shoes I would be SUPER pissed off. In the real world people don't encounter that situation and think to themselves 'perhaps he's just having a bad day'.
feth his bad day. You don't say that word.
Wow , you arnt reading what i said at all albatross.
1) Have i ever said Fitzz shouldnt be this mad? Nope , so stop blabbing about that
2) Have i ever said someone having a bad day can warrant the usage of racism? Nope
3) What i HAVE said many times which i will repeat again. If i want to go insane on someone , i'll atleast find out what happened first.
This has NOTHING to do with me been goodie good good , has NOTHING to do with me wanting to be superior ( w/e that means )
What it DOES mean to me is , when i want to hate someone , i want to hate them for what they deserve.
I feel like if i just go all out just because im "justified" to , then that makes me a bad person as well.
I can beat it: I reported my boss for selling the company's secrets to it's competitors.
I was fired for violating the chain of command. All complaints about this person were to go through this person.
I now read in the papers that my ex employer is suing my former boss, who, it turns out, was stealing from the company for months before I reported it, and for months after, before she was forced to resign.
Albatross wrote:I'm personally waiting for you to enlighten me as to when the use of the N-word by a white man to describe people of colour is acceptable.
It's got nothing to do with a 'hair-trigger' reaction to percieved racism - I have no particular desire to 'nail' anyone, racist or otherwise. All I'm saying is that if I was in FITTZ's shoes I would be SUPER pissed off. In the real world people don't encounter that situation and think to themselves 'perhaps he's just having a bad day'.
feth his bad day. You don't say that word.
Wow , you arnt reading what i said at all albatross.
1) Have i ever said Fitzz shouldnt be this mad? Nope , so stop blabbing about that
2) Have i ever said someone having a bad day can warrant the usage of racism? Nope
3) What i HAVE said many times which i will repeat again. If i want to go insane on someone , i'll atleast find out what happened first.
This has NOTHING to do with me been goodie good good , has NOTHING to do with me wanting to be superior ( w/e that means )
What it DOES mean to me is , when i want to hate someone , i want to hate them for what they deserve.
I feel like if i just go all out just because im "justified" to , then that makes me a bad person as well.
Backtrack all you like. What you said was:
I think you should atleast hear out what his reasons are.
It's there in black and white. Unambiguous. You want to know his reasons for using racist language to describe black customers. Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to an adult? That you would want to know his reasons directly implies that there are circumstances under which his use of that language would be acceptable - otherwise you wouldn't care what his reasons are. That is the most basic of basic reasoning. Even a child could understand that.
Now, it is my belief that there is nothing that the guy could say which would excuse his behaviour, nothing that had happened to him that was so bad that he would get away with speaking like that. You can equivocate if you like, but all you're really doing is enabling racists if you do so.
Albatross wrote:Backtrack all you like. What you said was:
I think you should atleast hear out what his reasons are.
You still dont get it do you , hearing his reason have nothing to do with his boss.
I'll paste what i said to fitzz with some edit with better grammar.
" I agree , rage and hate against your boss is warranted.
However , im just concerned because We as human beings have the habit of going all out "because we can"
and sometimes that makes us the bad guys when we over do it.
Attempting to understand the situation was never about defending your boss.
Is to defend ourselves to not be consumed by hate and rage. "
Hence i told you over and over again albatross , my lack of rage has NOTHING to do with the situation.
As far as we know i might rage more than fitzz after i know the info.
But until i know the details , i rather not rage.
Now you can try to interpret I think you should atleast hear out what his reasons are. all you want ,
but its not going to help you. Because like i said since the beginning , im not you. I dont behave like you ,
i dont process my thoughts in the same order you do. This doesnt make me superior , it just makes me "me"
which is not " you "
Albatross wrote:
It's there in black and white. Unambiguous. You want to know his reasons for using racist language to describe black customers. Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to an adult? That you would want to know his reasons directly implies that there are circumstances under which his use of that language would be acceptable - otherwise you wouldn't care what his reasons are. That is the most basic of basic reasoning. Even a child could understand that.
Now, it is my belief that there is nothing that the guy could say which would excuse his behaviour, nothing that had happened to him that was so bad that he would get away with speaking like that. You can equivocate if you like, but all you're really doing is enabling racists if you do so.
I know people who i know for a fact are not racist a single bit. But when they got pushed to far by a person of a single race lost it. It is not right but i know that is not him. He could very well been at his wits end today.
Is he really racist is what we should be wondering. If he hired an african american like fitzz said could he really be racist?
Now, it is my belief that there is nothing that the guy could say which would excuse his behaviour, nothing that had happened to him that was so bad that he would get away with speaking like that. You can equivocate if you like, but all you're really doing is enabling racists if you do so.
And this is my thoughts as well, it's the bosses choice of words that are at the root of my anger,nothing...no reason whatsoever justifies him saying what he said.
While I can commend Luna for her "wanting to understand the whole situation" view,it's just not aplicable in this situation.
...And BTW Albby,my Missus says if you are ever in the U.S. the first round is on her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
garret wrote:
Albatross wrote:
It's there in black and white. Unambiguous. You want to know his reasons for using racist language to describe black customers. Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to an adult? That you would want to know his reasons directly implies that there are circumstances under which his use of that language would be acceptable - otherwise you wouldn't care what his reasons are. That is the most basic of basic reasoning. Even a child could understand that.
Now, it is my belief that there is nothing that the guy could say which would excuse his behaviour, nothing that had happened to him that was so bad that he would get away with speaking like that. You can equivocate if you like, but all you're really doing is enabling racists if you do so.
I know people who i know for a fact are not racist a single bit. But when they got pushed to far by a person of a single race lost it. It is not right but i know that is not him. He could very well been at his wits end today.
Is he really racist is what we should be wondering. If he hired an african american like fitzz said could he really be racist?
In a shop of 120+ employees ,there are exactly 2 (two) African American employees-one of wich was standing next to me and heard the bosses rant.
Shaman wrote:Man legal action for saying something nasty.. OMG.
Maybe key his car or superglue the locks on his car or paint 'racist' on it if you are that upset.. legal action? man I can't believe it.
Also have you never said a racial slur in your life I'm just curious?
In my much younger,and I mean MUCH younger years ( 12,13...14) of course I used racial slurs,why...becuase I was a stupid kid raised in the south,however,I am now a grown man of 40 and have experinced a great deal in life and have learned that such things are stupid.
Also,this took place in a business,one that serves the public....if my boss wants to sit his home and yell "N-word this!! N-word that!!!" until his fething head explodes...that's not my problem.
However,I (nor anyone else) should have to hear that at our workplace.
This man owns a business,has controll over peoples livelyhood,decides who gets promoted or doesn't...so if he's a racist scumbag...it matters.
I guess its a cultural thing, Australians (that I know atleast) aren't really into the who sue him thing..
Thinking about it, here I'd probably report it to the discrimination workplace watchdog thing.. You got one of those in the states? Maybe do both. But you realize if he finds out you dobbed him in you'll never get promoted or get reduced hours or even get fired..
I guess its a cultural thing, Australians (that I know atleast) aren't really into the who sue him thing..
Thinking about it, here I'd probably report it to the discrimination workplace watchdog thing.. You got one of those in the states? Maybe do both. But you realize if he finds out you dobbed him in you'll never get promoted or get reduced hours or even get fired..
Yes,I definatly realize that turning the "legal dogs" loose will most likely cost me my job.
And in a way I'd much rather beat his face in man to man...however that would most likely meen jail.
My personal dilemma is one in wich I have told my children repeatedly about how vile racism is,yet I have to walk into a shop and put money into the pockets of a man who would consider my children "lesser individules" ,in order to support my children.
And yes,we do have "anti discrimination" groups here in the states,many of wich focus on "work related issues".
Have you actually confronted the man about it? Because the way I see it, there are a few roads and all of them end up in you not working there (or losing your job).
You can:
1.) Quit, because you can't stand to work for someone you don't respect and couldn't imagine supporting someone's lifestyle that you don't agree with.
2.) Bring legal action into it, where if he is found guilty, he could lose his shop and you lose your job.
3.) Bring legal action into it, where if he is found not guilty, he fires you for bringing legal action against him.
Like Luna, I don't know the man, but if someone said something like that that offended me so, I would ask him if I could speak to him privately and tell him how offended I was. About my ties to the race that he was insulting and how that inherently insults me. Maybe even go so far as to ask for an apology.
If he doesn't care enough to do that, then he respects you about as much as he respects the people he was talking about and it's time to start looking for another job. Maybe take an audio recorder into the conversation as well, in case you want to press charges once you actually do leave (which is what I would wait to do, if you really are thinking of pursuing this course.)
Now, it is my belief that there is nothing that the guy could say which would excuse his behaviour, nothing that had happened to him that was so bad that he would get away with speaking like that. You can equivocate if you like, but all you're really doing is enabling racists if you do so.
And while I understand your anger toward the situation - it is just a word. How is it any different than calling them something else? Is it somehow more insulting because it is directed at a minority? I used to work in a restaurant where I would get consistently bad tips from this same minority after walking in 15 minutes until close. And it's not a service thing - it is very clearly a race thing. I don't know why, but they are notoriously bad tippers (in the fine-dining south, anyway) and they notoriously come in to eat late. It is poor etiquette, but they could care less. We're here to serve them and I would. I would stay an extra hour or two, I would have to pay 3.5% of my money to my support staff and then I would be left with just enough to cover taxes. Believe me, I wanted to use some choice words and while my coworkers would call them the word we're referring to, it had no less bite and no less intent than any of the words I was contemplating. And this goes for people no matter their race.
A word has as much power as you give it, pure and simple. I could've said the N-word, as you're referring to it, but instead I would choose mother*. And this is somehow less offensive? It serves the same purpose for me (venting at a racial group because of the way that they consitently treat me and others in my profession) and it is directed at the same group of people. How is it any different? Why am I excused for saying that word with the same intent?
And let's be clear - I'm not defending this guy. I agree with the OP that it is a business setting and that if you're going to be running a business, you should watch your mouth, especially when customers are involved. What I am trying to get to the root of is giving a word so much weight when it can be easily replaced with another word that packs as much hatred and as much malice, but is more accepted. Why wouldn't that cause you (or the OP) to fly off the handle?
Basicly my take on why "that word" is worse to call an African American than say perhaps...Mother****.
When the Klan was hanging African Americans...they called them (N-word).
When People were being taken from their native land and sold,they were called (N-word)
When African Americans wanted decent schools,jobs and basic human rights,they were called (N-word)
When my children deal with the children raised by racist they get called (N-word.)
So yeah,calling someone Mother**** can convey hate and malice.
But IMO...it doesn't have quite the same impact as "That word".
I understand. But what I was getting at is that they could just as easily cover it up with another word and convey the same hatred, but you and Albatross would let that slide. In my example above, I probably meant all the malice that that word carries, but I chose not to use that word, but I'm somehow morally superior to your boss. I think hatred gets thrown around in everyone's direction and some people are better at covering it up than others. I guess what I'm trying to say is I think you should be more pissed off at the kind of person he is and the fact that you're in the position that is forcing you to make a tough decision about your future and your job, rather than giving a word all manners of power over you, your loved ones and your life. You know that your loved ones are not n*s. Because he said that does not make them so.
I think you should have a conversation with him. Explain how offended you are and ask or demand for an apology. Either way, it sounds like you need to get out of that job (unless he does sincerely apologize. But the way you've described him, it doesn't sound like he will.)
As a side note: when people were being taken from their native land and sold, it was other africans that were doing that to them and/or putting them in that position.
Fittz the only advice i can offer to you now is to not carry around hatred. It will hurt you. Hatred is nothing but a disease. Be careful not to carry it. And if you can confront him and tell him how you feel. If he aplogizes accept it. if he doesnt it is up to you.
You can always let him loose on your opponents side and say he "counts as" a rampaging squiggoth.
Were I you, I would start looking for another job, and then just quit. Let the bastard have to find someone to replace you, and maybe have to get his hands dirty with work. I'm kinda bigotted against bigots, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who doesn't do alot of work, amiright?
Alright, I suppose the central question that should be directed at FITZZ is: what are you hoping to accomplish? What end result are you hoping to bring about?
There are a lot of different reasons to do something about the incident; personal insult, making sure that others in the workplace don't end up being insulted in the same manner, not wanting to do associate with someone who you think is so wrong (or such a jackass about it), wanting to stand by your coworker, and so forth. However, it's probably better to separate the different reasons and see how you feel about them individually than it is to just know that you're mad and combine every possible reason together.
The biggest thing seems to be: do you care if he's racist? Or just whether or not he expresses his racism while at work? You said that you wouldn't care if he shouted "[see forum posting rules]" in his own house, which seems to make me think it's the second issue. If this is the case, then you should be able to keep working with him if he apologizes keeps his racism to himself.
I'm not a legal expert in this area, but I really don't think trying to go down a legal route is a good move. It would be, frankly, quite a pain in the ass, for you and any other employees engaging in it, and I don't know that it will get you the result you desire. You would get your revenge on him, but only at a lot of personal expense yourself. The amount of stress you'd be putting him through, not to mention putting yourself through, doesn't really seem to match up with him having insulted you by accident, even if the insult was fairly grave. It would almost certainly be enough to get him to watch his mouth, which would be nice, but the process could turn out very bad for his present employees, to the point where they still might end up behind.
Going to a news station seems like it would have many of the same problems, only with even less predictability. Both ideas would also likely end up with him even more entrenched in his beliefs, despite his refusal to express them, because of a feeling of persecution, and having no recourse or ability to defend himself.
I think the best option, if you were really pissed at him, would be to get the church involved. They're probably going to do be more likely to succeed than the lawsuit or news story, and it's generally easier to deal with regular people than it is to deal with lawyers and reporters. They're going to carry a lot of weight, both social and moral, and being part of the local community - without the power of the police or broadcasting towers - will better force him to come to terms with his own opinions.
However, like puma said, I think that first and foremost you owe the guy an upfront discussion. I mean, as far as he knows you don't even have a reason to be upset with him, right? I advice would be to get him to apologize, and promise to be more careful. Will his apology be sincere? Probably not, but I actually don't think that's very important; what matters is that he retreats from his position, and doesn't come back. He takes back the insult, he won't insult anyone else there, he doesn't suffer nearly as much grief as he could have, and neither do you. It seems like the best outcome.
If you confront him, I think the way you do it is going to be important. Make sure that the black coworker is backing you up on everything, both talk to the guy sometime when he's alone (you don't want him to try and save face in front of a third party), be fairly calm and polite but show conviction, and make him see that you're mad and you think that you have good reason to be if he tries to make light of the situation or shrug it off as no big deal. He may try to weasel out of the situation; that's probably not a bad thing, as it means he's trying to distance himself from the comment, and probably won't want a confrontation to arise again. If he gets really mad, be willing to give him some space, and try and judge whether he's actually looking to escalate things with you or just covering for his own embarrassment. In the latter case you can probably leave him be after you've said your peace. You really don't want him to feel backed into a corner, he'll lash out and you'll both wind up hurt (remember Sun Tzu!).
If despite trying to handle things like a gentleman he tries to feth you over anyways, then you may have no choice but to break off employment with him and ask the church to help you get him to issue a public apology to the rest of the store/community. That would probably hurt, but hey, if you're can't handle your own mistakes then someone's going to force you to own up to them. It would be a bad place to be, employment-wise though, so I wouldn't recommend trying for it. On the plus side, you may get some sympathy (or prove some ethical clout) from prospective employers if you explain your situation, especially if the other coworker can back up your story. And it's probably a good idea to keep him close by to whatever your thoughts on the matter are. After all, he probably has even more reason to be offended, and you'd probably feel bad if you got him in way deeper than he ever wanted to go.
My ex boss (in the job I had before the job I have now) was that kind of big mouth. Not about racist stuff, but speaking at someone's back, being rude when unnecessary and acting all day like if we was surrounded by useless people. "Luckily" his management was so lame that the enterprise lost the customer we worked for. The workers were reasigned in other projects, and he was fired.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright, I suppose the central question that should be directed at FITZZ is: what are you hoping to accomplish? What end result are you hoping to bring about?
There are a lot of different reasons to do something about the incident; personal insult, making sure that others in the workplace don't end up being insulted in the same manner, not wanting to do associate with someone who you think is so wrong (or such a jackass about it), wanting to stand by your coworker, and so forth. However, it's probably better to separate the different reasons and see how you feel about them individually than it is to just know that you're mad and combine every possible reason together.
The biggest thing seems to be: do you care if he's racist? Or just whether or not he expresses his racism while at work? You said that you wouldn't care if he shouted "[see forum posting rules]" in his own house, which seems to make me think it's the second issue. If this is the case, then you should be able to keep working with him if he apologizes keeps his racism to himself.
I'm not a legal expert in this area, but I really don't think trying to go down a legal route is a good move. It would be, frankly, quite a pain in the ass, for you and any other employees engaging in it, and I don't know that it will get you the result you desire. You would get your revenge on him, but only at a lot of personal expense yourself. The amount of stress you'd be putting him through, not to mention putting yourself through, doesn't really seem to match up with him having insulted you by accident, even if the insult was fairly grave. It would almost certainly be enough to get him to watch his mouth, which would be nice, but the process could turn out very bad for his present employees, to the point where they still might end up behind.
Going to a news station seems like it would have many of the same problems, only with even less predictability. Both ideas would also likely end up with him even more entrenched in his beliefs, despite his refusal to express them, because of a feeling of persecution, and having no recourse or ability to defend himself.
I think the best option, if you were really pissed at him, would be to get the church involved. They're probably going to do be more likely to succeed than the lawsuit or news story, and it's generally easier to deal with regular people than it is to deal with lawyers and reporters. They're going to carry a lot of weight, both social and moral, and being part of the local community - without the power of the police or broadcasting towers - will better force him to come to terms with his own opinions.
However, like puma said, I think that first and foremost you owe the guy an upfront discussion. I mean, as far as he knows you don't even have a reason to be upset with him, right? I advice would be to get him to apologize, and promise to be more careful. Will his apology be sincere? Probably not, but I actually don't think that's very important; what matters is that he retreats from his position, and doesn't come back. He takes back the insult, he won't insult anyone else there, he doesn't suffer nearly as much grief as he could have, and neither do you. It seems like the best outcome.
If you confront him, I think the way you do it is going to be important. Make sure that the black coworker is backing you up on everything, both talk to the guy sometime when he's alone (you don't want him to try and save face in front of a third party), be fairly calm and polite but show conviction, and make him see that you're mad and you think that you have good reason to be if he tries to make light of the situation or shrug it off as no big deal. He may try to weasel out of the situation; that's probably not a bad thing, as it means he's trying to distance himself from the comment, and probably won't want a confrontation to arise again. If he gets really mad, be willing to give him some space, and try and judge whether he's actually looking to escalate things with you or just covering for his own embarrassment. In the latter case you can probably leave him be after you've said your peace. You really don't want him to feel backed into a corner, he'll lash out and you'll both wind up hurt (remember Sun Tzu!).
If despite trying to handle things like a gentleman he tries to feth you over anyways, then you may have no choice but to break off employment with him and ask the church to help you get him to issue a public apology to the rest of the store/community. That would probably hurt, but hey, if you're can't handle your own mistakes then someone's going to force you to own up to them. It would be a bad place to be, employment-wise though, so I wouldn't recommend trying for it. On the plus side, you may get some sympathy (or prove some ethical clout) from prospective employers if you explain your situation, especially if the other coworker can back up your story. And it's probably a good idea to keep him close by to whatever your thoughts on the matter are. After all, he probably has even more reason to be offended, and you'd probably feel bad if you got him in way deeper than he ever wanted to go.
+1
You can't 'police' his thoughts, but you can try to police his actions. As I said earlier, legally there is probably little you can do - so Orkeo is right: you and other employees should confront him about it (once you've calmed down) and let him know that what he said wasn't right.
Karon wrote:Those who are saying "Get his side of the story" are wrong. He said racist bs in the workplace, in the south no less, and should be punished.
I agree, he said some really stupid things and I really don't think you should just let it slide, FITZZ (though it's a difficult situation to be in, I would be pretty fething pissed off too, but I couldn't afford to lose my job either so I know what you mean), but why does the fact that this happened in the south really matter again? Would it somehow be less wrong if this happened in Maine?
That said, I'm Cuacasian and me and my Punjab/Indian/Canadian Friend (Yeah fethed up ancestry ) call each other '[see forum posting rules]' all the time. It's just an inside joke between us, since one of the girls in class thought he was full blown African American and asked if he knew Tupac.
I'm guessing this wasn't a case of that. How is you business organized, FITZZ? Is there someone you can report this to, preferably not within business, or is it just him?
@ FITZZ: If I had been in your shoes I would probably have lost my cool a bit, but looking at this from the outisde it seems like there isn't much you can do. In theory, labour laws protect employees from unfair treatment, but in practice there's nothing much we can do except grin and bear it. He'll get his own eventually.
Karon wrote:Those who are saying "Get his side of the story" are wrong. He said racist bs in the workplace, in the south no less, and should be punished.
I respectufully disagree. People can say things they dont mean when pushed to far. I still say talk to the boss about it. See if he really meant it. He will say he didnt no matter what he really thought. But you should just let him know that you are all workers and you will there together and hear what he said. you should forgive him and then keep a keen eye on him. If he repeats it again knowingly then you get more serious and file a greivance.
BaronIveagh wrote:I can beat it: I reported my boss for selling the company's secrets to it's competitors.
I was fired for violating the chain of command. All complaints about this person were to go through this person.
I now read in the papers that my ex employer is suing my former boss, who, it turns out, was stealing from the company for months before I reported it, and for months after, before she was forced to resign.
Here's your problem:
You can just quit.
Or, you can blow the whistle on him. This will NOT end well for you. Not in the least. You're going to not look trustworthy and so on and so forth.
Or as much as I hate to say this, you can try and deal with the racist fether for a little while longer while you go and try and find another job. I know in a perfect world you could get another job fast, but of course if it was perfect you wouldn't have to deal with racist fethheads.
:edit: Garret- I'm sorry, but sure you can forgive but you can't forget. That's the problem there. It's like someone robbing your house, letting them off the hook, and then they come back to rob it again. The damage has been done. Now it's time for damage control. None of the options are pretty. Unless Fitzz of course can figure something out!
:edit2: Apparently the censor didn't censor out feth when I combined it with another word. Fix'd
Go directly into his face, tell him what he said was wrong, and that you thought he was a bigger man than that. end with a look that is mostly pity. It works for me.
I wouldn't lack trust in your fellow employee if you have no reason, but it does seem a tad reactionary to bring a lawsuit that could easily cost your job.
Take it easy though; I don't know your boss, but simply having a conversation about it, seems a better option. The main point here is that you're being put in a position of responsibility, for an act you did not directly witness (hear, see, etc...). Don't risk your job in this economy, you WILL regret it.
I dunno... it just seems unnecessary to much of anything, especially if this is the very first time anything has happened. As to it just being a word, that is fine until it becomes a habit, in which case I would definitely consider doing something. Mainly I would suggest documenting it in some fashion, unless that means filing a complaint through the person accused. If your boss is the one that will read the complaint, it would likely be unwise to file it.
My co-worker and myself have decided to speak to our boss concerning the incident.
We planned to do so today,however he had left the shop to begin a brief vacation over Memorial day weekend,so we were unable to do so,however,he returns Tuesday of next week,at wich time we hope to speak to him.
Basicly we plan to be as "non confrontational" as possible,but to let him know we are both offended by the launguge he chose to use.
At that point the balls in his court,and his reactions,I suppose,will decide where we go from that point.
In all honesty, I belive he will offer a totally insincer "damage control" appology and attempt to sweep the whole thing under the rug.
Kanluwen wasn't suggesting that FITZZ call the boss a 'Dirty Asian' or anything, he was saying that it works both ways, and that there's very little to legally stop it unless it's advocating racial violence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, if FITZZ does go through with that, I would at least like a picture of the guy's reaction.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Kanluwen wasn't suggesting that FITZZ call the boss a 'Dirty Asian' or anything, he was saying that it works both ways, and that there's very little to legally stop it unless it's advocating racial violence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, if FITZZ does go through with that, I would at least like a picture of the guy's reaction.
I wouldn't call my boss that...first because I wouldn't call anyone that,and second...my boss isn't Asian.
Also,my co-worker and myself,along with our manager all heard the bosses "rant".
As a side note (even more to this story),a few years back a manager was fired for stating to several employes tha he (the boss) doesn't like "Black people",at the time no one thought much of it,but after hearing the bosses own words...it seems that the manager who was fired was indeed correct.
The guy is obviously a pig headed assclown. But to be totally honest with you, I think you and your co worker should just get over it. I think at the most, you should tell the BBB and have it on file. That way if the guy does it again its at least been reported, and can cover your ass from getting fired for telling him you didnt like how he talks. Other wise its your word against his.
This could go either way. You could tell him about it, and get canned, or he will say sorry. Thats not very good odds if you ask me
Karon wrote:Your boss is a complete piece of gak, Fitzz. With your background, I realize how you feel.
Those who are saying "Get his side of the story" are wrong. He said racist bs in the workplace, in the south no less, and should be punished.
Not sure, Fitzz, just not sure.
So what about blacks who say honky, cracker, etc at the workplace? Or how about anyone using Asian slurs?
That's racist crap too.
You can't punish people for saying words. Really. You can't.
The only time it even remotely comes close to being a punishable offense is if it's being used to start riots or to defame someone's character.
Normally i dont agree with you for anything , but i expected more from you than this...
Two wrongs doesnt make a right , and certainly not this.
Three lefts do, though. Why is there racist comments here? What does race have to do with anything? I treat people from different races better than one race; or rather retards for many races; 'the owners', the people /sarcasm/ who have the right to own people and call them ugly, nerdy, scary, gangbangers, 'lesser'. /sarcasm/ Why the hell do the 'owners' hate the Nazies if they are so close to them? (NOTE: I am not calling one race Nazies, 'the owners' as I call them, are the people who think a race is less than they are. In fact, I'm not calling anyone Nazies.)
I hear it all the time being out here in the sticks, and actually got kicked out of an apartments because the neighbors kept complaining to my landlord when I had my '[see forum posting rules]' over. It's some BS but you simply cannot prove intent or wrongdoing by the use of a word. If a word can hurt people then I could kill you all. So your boss is a dick? Most people's bosses are dicks. Mine usually are I have only had a couple that weren't. Getting legal about his personal feeling when he's just frustrated and overstressed because people are waiting in line just turns a temper tantrum into an extremely complex law suit that will essentially lead nowhere. There's a lot of racist donkey-caves around here, and trying to call them on their choice of words is just pointless because the chances are the the judge hearing your complaint may be a racist donkey-cave too.
welcome to America. you keep it up and people will say you are playing the race card. You can't be fired for voicing what you think is wrong. That is unless your company wants a big lawsuit. Using the N word is juat as wrong as calling a female worker "Sweet ass honey bun Mc Junk in da trunk" BLack people who use offensive language get fired as well.
If he said the comments to you or in front of you I would say you had a case, overhearing something thought to be a private conversation though? Yes you get a glimpse into his head, but did you have a right to be there?
If you don't like your boss because of this development, fine totally understandable. Quit.
Suing him for saying it? I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Seems like sueing someone for their beliefs to me.
sexiest_hero wrote: Using the N word is juat as wrong as calling a female worker "Sweet ass honey bun Mc Junk in da trunk".
I agree with you that saying "Sweet ass honey bun Mc Junk in da trunk" is just as inappropriate as using the N word, but mainly becuase I find the grammar of that sentence to be absolutely atrocious.
FITZZ wrote:
Any ideas might help,especialy from any Dakkites with a background in labor law.
While i agree that what the manager said was abhorent and has no place in the workplace, i really do not think a few mispoken words that were not directed at you or your friend are cause for bringing a case against the man.
I would say the best thing to do would be take him aside and talk to him privately, and let him know how offended you were.
But seriously, if said said (insert racial slur/expletive here), i would be really put out if some bystander were to bring me to court for it.
Action needs to be taken, yes, but bloody hell tone it down a little.
Edit: To add a little, i'm Irish working in the netherlands for 6 months, and i have noticed that there is a strong undertone of racism here. I and other "buitenlanders" (outsiders, foreigners) are routinely given worse work than dutch of equal seniority, called "undermensen" (sub-humans, lower-class) to our faces, but you don't see me sueing people. People often are not nice dude. if you spend your life getting mortally offended at everyone for anything they say, you'll end up an emotionally emanciated wreck by the time you hit 50.....
CruelCoin wrote:To add a little, i'm Irish working in the netherlands for 6 months, and i have noticed that there is a strong undertone of racism here. I and other "buitenlanders" (outsiders, foreigners) are routinely given worse work than dutch of equal seniority, called "undermensen" (sub-humans, lower-class) to our faces, but you don't see me sueing people. People often are not nice dude. if you spend your life getting mortally offended at everyone for anything they say, you'll end up an emotionally emanciated wreck by the time you hit 50.....
It's not an overreaction to be offended by the 'N' word. He's well within his rights to be angry. Just because Holland is quite racist (and I must admit to being shocked at how racist the Dutch people I've met were - I thought they were supposed to be liberal...), doesn't mean that you should just accept it. I would hope that if you overheard someone saying 'fething stupid Mick bastards' you would pull them on it. I certainly fething would.
CruelCoin wrote:To add a little, i'm Irish working in the netherlands for 6 months, and i have noticed that there is a strong undertone of racism here. I and other "buitenlanders" (outsiders, foreigners) are routinely given worse work than dutch of equal seniority, called "undermensen" (sub-humans, lower-class) to our faces, but you don't see me sueing people. People often are not nice dude. if you spend your life getting mortally offended at everyone for anything they say, you'll end up an emotionally emanciated wreck by the time you hit 50.....
It's not an overreaction to be offended by the 'N' word. He's well within his rights to be angry. Just because Holland is quite racist (and I must admit to being shocked at how racist the Dutch people I've met were - I thought they were supposed to be liberal...), doesn't mean that you should just accept it. I would hope that if you overheard someone saying 'fething stupid Mick bastards' you would pull them on it. I certainly fething would.
Nope, i wouldn't be angry at that. We irish are naturally thick skinned, and we don't sue people for saying "boo" to us..... Thats just taking it way to far.
CruelCoin wrote:To add a little, i'm Irish working in the netherlands for 6 months, and i have noticed that there is a strong undertone of racism here. I and other "buitenlanders" (outsiders, foreigners) are routinely given worse work than dutch of equal seniority, called "undermensen" (sub-humans, lower-class) to our faces, but you don't see me sueing people. People often are not nice dude. if you spend your life getting mortally offended at everyone for anything they say, you'll end up an emotionally emanciated wreck by the time you hit 50.....
It's not an overreaction to be offended by the 'N' word. He's well within his rights to be angry. Just because Holland is quite racist (and I must admit to being shocked at how racist the Dutch people I've met were - I thought they were supposed to be liberal...), doesn't mean that you should just accept it. I would hope that if you overheard someone saying 'fething stupid Mick bastards' you would pull them on it. I certainly fething would.
Nope, i wouldn't be angry at that. We irish are naturally thick skinned, and we don't sue people for saying "boo" to us..... Thats just taking it way to far.
I'm not talking about suing people, just being angry. If someone said that near me I would get fairly angry, fairly quickly. That's not unreasonable.
By law, that manager *is* the company, and legally represents the company. His words carry a lot more weight than some random clerk, and the company can be screwed *hard* for it.
The easiest way to do this is to have a person of color take this to their nearest NAACP group, put it on the local news, and demand that the company apologize after firing the manager.
If you don't want to go that route, go to HR, place a complaint, and demand that your boss be replaced.
By law, that manager *is* the company, and legally represents the company. His words carry a lot more weight than some random clerk, and the company can be screwed *hard* for it.
The easiest way to do this is to have a person of color take this to their nearest NAACP group, put it on the local news, and demand that the company apologize after firing the manager.
If you don't want to go that route, go to HR, place a complaint, and demand that your boss be replaced.
The man who made the comments is not a manager,he is the owner of the company,he is the highest step on the "ladder of command",so there,in all honesty, is no HR to go to...the way things are set up,the boss has no one to "answer to" (other than possible share holders,if any exist).
I think fittz is handeling it correctly for the first time he kew it happened. If he is racist then he wil be more tightl lipped. If he was not and was stressed out then he will watch his mouth more closly.
By law, that manager *is* the company, and legally represents the company. His words carry a lot more weight than some random clerk, and the company can be screwed *hard* for it.
The easiest way to do this is to have a person of color take this to their nearest NAACP group, put it on the local news, and demand that the company apologize after firing the manager.
If you don't want to go that route, go to HR, place a complaint, and demand that your boss be replaced.
The man who made the comments is not a manager,he is the owner of the company,he is the highest step on the "ladder of command",so there,in all honesty, is no HR to go to...the way things are set up,the boss has no one to "answer to" (other than possible share holders,if any exist).
Wow. That's brutal. Not sure how to help then. Because even if you succeed, it will be a Pyrrhic victory at the very least.
It sounds like it's a franchised endeavor, honestly.
If it is, don't bother talking to anyone involved in your specific franchise. Go to the company itself and complain there. They'll start quietly investigating him, and then revoke his franchise if they find anything at all on him.
Kanluwen wrote:It sounds like it's a franchised endeavor, honestly.
If it is, don't bother talking to anyone involved in your specific franchise. Go to the company itself and complain there. They'll start quietly investigating him, and then revoke his franchise if they find anything at all on him.
No, it's not a franchise either.
Basicly,the boss/owner built his business from the ground up,starting 20 years ago with a half dozen employes and building it into a company that now employes 120 + people.
Honestly,until I heard all the racist BS,I admired the guy for his acomplishments.
Say nothing !
Take a small recording device to work with you, if he does this again tape him (covertly).
And give to people who challenge that sort of behavior.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't see why the guy making racist remarks takes away from his accomplishments of building a successful business from the ground up.
I don't think Fittz was saying that it detracts from the guys accomplishments, only that it detracts from his admiration of them.
Exactly,his business accomplishments are not in question here,his character,at least as far as I'm concerned is.
Also,a quick comment concerning "PC" comment.
I'm not the type of guy who comes unglued over "political correctness", I don't gasp and write letters to the network over South Park episodes or tsk tsk at comidiens for not being "PC" (George Carlin is sort of a hero to me,if that gives you any idea.)
However,in the context that this man used that word...it did anger me,and I belive rightfully so.
One thing nobody has mentioned: People love to be specific in their insults. If somebody is mad, they want to get off a really pointed, biting flow of hate. Just cause the guy said some racial slurs, that doesn't mean he actually hates that race. He may just have wanted to use the most specific, negative word possible.
On the PC issue: While I agree that it's not "political correctness" to be offended by specific, directed racial slurs, the problem with the "PC movement" is that it makes people feel offended above and beyond what is helpful to them. "The N word" is a major example of something that people get ridiculously overagitated about. Bottom line, people say racial slurs all the time, and quite often, they mean nothing major by it. If you didn't have all this societal backup to be outraged, you might have been able to just blow this thing off... And honestly, isn't that the best thing for you? Isn't it best to just be able to do your job, collect money to support your kids, and not worry?
The PC movement is telling you that you SHOULD feel all upset, get up in arms, yell and scream, beat the guy up. Problem is, it's only going to hurt you in the end. There's no room for self-righteous prattling when kids need to get fed.
It really doesn't help you to be angry here. Consider the irony: If you lose your job, your kids, which are half-black, now have an enemployed dad. How is that furthering racial equality? Now it's just two more kids with black parantage in a worse situation.
Put it this way:
If this guy isn't really racist, then he just makes bad choices in language, and it doesn't really matter. You're fine.
If this guy IS a racist, and he's paying you, then you're using his money to support a black woman, and raise two half black kids. Laugh to yourself that you're working him, and keep an eye out for a better job.
At the end of the day, negative emotions are just an impediment. That's why I hate the PC movement. It teachs you that anger, frustration and resentment are positive feelings to have, and that you should be glad ot have them. BS. If it's at all possible, you should do nothing but spend your time happy with your girl and your kids. If you simply CAN'T control the anger, and have to address it (and despite the preaching, I rarely can control my own negative emotions), then at least handle it professionally and calmly (which seems to be your plan).
I will have to ask something, what did the customers look like?
I personally refrain from use of the N-word because it really isn't a nice word to say, although its origins were less offensive.
I went to a highschool where the majority of students were black and noticed a trend, a lot of the degenerate looking kids were calling each other said word. So whenever I think of that word I think of a degenerate, I call these people "ghetto". In other words I call them trash. Although my use of the word "ghetto" doesn't only apply to blacks it denotes someone who looks like they live in the ghetto.
If these people looked like this, then maybe that is why he chose that word.
Look at it this way, you work with a black guy so that means the black guy was hired right?
If the boss hasn't called him that word, then maybe he isn't a rascist. If the guy you work for is old, then he's kind of stuck in a rascist mind set. Here's a way you can gauge his rascism: Ask him what he's going to be for halloween and put a cross and a lighter in front of him.
If he says he's going to be a ghost and sets the cross on fire then he's a rascist.
Fitzz, dude, I'm sorry about your situation. Working for an donkey-cave sucks, so if I were you I'd begin looking for a job elsewhere. Your ability to do that that depends on your own situation, but there shouldn't be much that justifies working for an donkey-cave.
I wouldn't undertake legal action, though. I know a few people who've put in worker's comp claims, and one lady who put in a sexual harrassment claim. Around half the worker's comp claims seemed legitimate to me and the sexual harrassment claim certainly was, but legit or not that stuff haunted them. It became noticeably harder for each of them to find employment.
I don't think it'd be worth pursuing legal action, no matter how the guy deserves it. It'd be nice if this was a better world, where a person looking to create a better workplace environment is seen as a good guy, not a lazy guy trying to score a payout. But you've read this thread, this more or less represents a significant portion of opinions in the real world. People will bend over backwards to defend employers, or anyone deemed successful. He might not really be racist, he hired a black guy therefore he can't be! People assume the complainant is militant, or lying. All this means you will likely suffer for any formal action you take.
I see you've decided to confront him over it, to be perfectly honest I'd think long and hard about what kind of guy he is before going ahead with that. There are people who can take something like that well, improve their behaviour and move on. There are people who will see it as an attack on their authority, marking you as a threat to be removed. It's a judgement call.
puma713 wrote:A word has as much power as you give it, pure and simple.
This is a very easy thing to believe when no-one from your ethnic group has been sold into slavery or lynched because of their skin colour. Segregation is within living memory.
I'm not black. I haven't grown up as part of a minority, so it really isn't my place to tell black people how much certain words should offend people.
Kanluwen wrote:So what about blacks who say honky, cracker, etc at the workplace? Or how about anyone using Asian slurs?
None of which would be appropriate when an employer was referring to an employee, or using it to refer to customers negatively while within earshot of employees.
You can't punish people for saying words. Really. You can't.
You really can. There are many different fields of human life, and the same speach isn't allowed in all of them. The expectations in the workplace are very different to the expectations of political debate. A person's right to hold offensive racial views needs to be balanced against a person's right to work in a place without being called racial slurs.
Phryxis wrote:The PC movement is telling you that you SHOULD feel all upset, get up in arms, yell and scream, beat the guy up. Problem is, it's only going to hurt you in the end. There's no room for self-righteous prattling when kids need to get fed.
The PC movement is what? That two letter acronym really has come to mean whatever the hell the angry right-winger wants it to mean at that particular point in time, hasn’t it?
I think we’ve pretty much reached the point where ‘PC’ has taken on so many definitions that it’s use is almost guaranteed to make any point it’s part of completely useless.
I've said rascist things before, and I've been called a bigot before. Although it changes a persons mind when you show family photos. I myself have 3 black cousins, 1 black uncle, 1 black aunt, 1 mexican grandfather, a couple of mexican aunts, and of course white people. I'm related to most of them through marriage, but I still love most of them (I only have one mexican uncle I love, the others are just pricks) and it also helps when your mom babysits 2 black girls most of the day and has been babysitting them since they were born. They're like my little sisters, love them to death.
But yeah, I just don't care enough about a person's race to change my vocabulary and attitude. I will change depending on age/status though (no swearing in front of adults or kids for example).
Ooh, another example: I am a real-life troll and one day was yelling about the japanese being nazi druids along with my friend who likes to do the same(he's black), well along the line we ticked off a jewish kid who told us that he wasn't happy about our nazi jokes and asked us to stop; I promptly called him a nazi druid who was trying to keep us from telling the truth. I said that I had freedom of speech and he told me to express it elsewhere and I said "No, I'm taking a stand here! I'm like the Rosa Parks of Anti-Nazi Druidism." at which point my friend lost it.
In the end I had a black guy actually come up to us and he defended my right to say whatever I want.
I think that is what america is all about, maybe he's just so comfortable around your black friend that he doesn't watch what he says.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PC= Political Correctness a.k.a watch what you say around people who are different.
This is a very easy thing to believe when no-one from your ethnic group has been sold into slavery or lynched because of their skin colour.
Yeah, well, I'm Jewish, and the Holocaust is a much, MUCH more recent memory than slavery in the US. And guess what? I hear people say "don't be a Jew" to one another from time to time, and it doesn't bother me. It's just something people say, it means nothing.
That two letter acronym really has come to mean whatever the hell the angry right-winger wants it to mean at that particular point in time, hasn’t it?
And what does "right-winger" mean? Made enough sense to you that you used it, right?
The fact is, you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.
But I'll give you more background what it means to me, just so you can't so easily pidgeon-hole me...
It's an excuse. It's a worthless bone that was thrown to black people so they wouldn't notice that the people who claim to help them aren't helping them. American Democrats have prattled for years how they're the friends of black folks... How's that going for you, black folks? How much are your Democrat pals hooking you up? Oh, every once in a while they railroad some chump like Don Imus, pat themselves on the back for helping you, and in a couple months he's back to making millions.
I'm not against protecting black people. I'm against using them as political pawns, giving them JUST enough of my money so that they can live in projects and show up on voting day, but never REALLY get a better life.
It's a tactic to create anger, to motivate people, to get them behind the political candidate that (falsely) claims he'll do something about it. It's the same "us vs. them" trick we used during the cold war, only turned inwards, and directed at a largely fictional and vanishing population of American racists.
It's race baiting mind control BS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personally, I'm still trying to find this contiguous PC movement which is so often referenced.
I think you're above rhetorical strawmen.
We all know that tactics exist, and can be used in a relatively uniform fashion, by a given group.
If you must have a concrete group, I'll point to the American Democratic Party. They are fully and cynically aware of the tactics they use in this arena.
Phryxis wrote:
I think you're above rhetorical strawmen.
We all know that tactics exist, and can be used in a relatively uniform fashion, by a given group.
Sure, but if the only thing defining the group is the tactic its hardly appropriate to call it a movement.
Phryxis wrote:
If you must have a concrete group, I'll point to the American Democratic Party. They are fully and cynically aware of the tactics they use in this arena.
So is the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party. I mean, if we're talking about political correctness in general, then there are far more things to consider than racial issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:
Sometimes, to comfort myself, I assume it's the meat of all political action, rather than a failing specific to Americans.
I pretty well assume that to be the case at this point.
Phryxis wrote:
But then your post made me wonder if you weren't just trying to create a strawman hall-of-mirrors, which would be a valid use of the interwebs.
I don't really know where you got the idea that I constructed a strawman. The word contiguous maybe? That's a quality I almost always apply to any group characterized as a 'movement'. Outside of that one word, all I did was make an offhand remark about something I felt was out of place in a comment you made.
halonachos wrote:Ooh, another example: I am a real-life troll and one day was yelling about the japanese being nazi druids along with my friend who likes to do the same(he's black), well along the line we ticked off a jewish kid who told us that he wasn't happy about our nazi jokes and asked us to stop; I promptly called him a nazi druid who was trying to keep us from telling the truth. I said that I had freedom of speech and he told me to express it elsewhere and I said "No, I'm taking a stand here! I'm like the Rosa Parks of Anti-Nazi Druidism." at which point my friend lost it.
I remember being a teenager. I used to do stuff like to, nonsense that touched on vaguely offensive categories. It was good fun, but really very different to the relationship between a boss and his employees.
I think that is what america is all about, maybe he's just so comfortable around your black friend that he doesn't watch what he says.
Or maybe he isn't racist, but is completely blind to the idea of priviledge so that he simply doesn't get why a racist word might have more power than an equivalent word might to a member of his own majority.
PC= Political Correctness a.k.a watch what you say around people who are different.
Not really, no. The term was used in the 70s for a very period to mean a person who is in line with correct political thinking, meaning conventional left wing orthodoxy of the time. This lasted a few years at best, before the term was turned into a pejorative, criticising people attempting to maintain left wing orthodoxy. It remained an obscure term.
Use of the term by the right wing began in the late 80s and early 90s, as an effort to criticise the perception that too much consideration was being given to the sensibilities of minorities. On one level there was a serious, albeit generally fairly stupid, concern that genuine study was being ignored to meet political sensibilities, there was no allowance for the possibility that differences in IQ scores might have genetic causes, for instance. Mostly, though, the term existed in popular culture in comedy routines, making fun of the fad of re-naming things to remove gender references – (they want to change walkman to walkperson teeheehee).
People came to declare themselves ‘politically incorrect’, declaring themselves brave resistors of an obscure academic group that had petered out of existence two decades before. In time the term PC has come to mean anything and everything that might be opposed by the right wing. Here in this thread it’s being extended to the idea that an employer shouldn’t create a workplace that’s hostile to minorities.
Because it’s used by people to describe so many diverse situations, and used to frame one side as brave resistors against some nefarious movement that seeks to control their words, it actively harms people’s ability to understand the situation. It’s value as a political rallying call is undoubted, but it makes the people who use it stupider, and it needs to go away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Yeah, well, I'm Jewish, and the Holocaust is a much, MUCH more recent memory than slavery in the US. And guess what? I hear people say "don't be a Jew" to one another from time to time, and it doesn't bother me. It's just something people say, it means nothing.
Mentioning my ethnicity as a slur doesn't bother me, therefore it shouldn't bother people of other ethnicities. That's pretty narcissistic, don't you think?
And what does "right-winger" mean? Made enough sense to you that you used it, right?
Are you equating voluntary affiliation with a political ideology with ethnicity? Really?
It's an excuse. It's a worthless bone that was thrown to black people so they wouldn't notice that the people who claim to help them aren't helping them. American Democrats have prattled for years how they're the friends of black folks... How's that going for you, black folks? How much are your Democrat pals hooking you up? Oh, every once in a while they railroad some chump like Don Imus, pat themselves on the back for helping you, and in a couple months he's back to making millions.
Yeah, the Democrats really haven't done that much, because the simple reality is that it doesn't hurt the Democrats to black people down, as the other party is the Republicans and it's better to vote for a party that says they'll help and generally fails to do so, than to vote for a party that doesn't even promise that much.
But I have no idea, absolutely none what-so-ever, what any of that has to do with the idea that it isn't cool that the boss abuses someone with a racial epithet.
It's a tactic to create anger, to motivate people, to get them behind the political candidate that (falsely) claims he'll do something about it. It's the same "us vs. them" trick we used during the cold war, only turned inwards, and directed at a largely fictional and vanishing population of American racists.
There is this idea that there are overt racists and regular folk, and that that is the entirely of race politics is an idea that needs to go away. Privilege and the connection between socio-economic status and ethnicity is really important.
think you're above rhetorical strawmen.
We all know that tactics exist, and can be used in a relatively uniform fashion, by a given group.
If you must have a concrete group, I'll point to the American Democratic Party. They are fully and cynically aware of the tactics they use in this arena.
So you just mean any and all race politics? That's the problem. Ask someone else and their version of the PC movement will be something entirely different. Because the term exists as nothing but a pejorative, it has to be used to attack whatever the user doesn't like. You don't like race politics, therefore race politics is PC.
sebster wrote:On one level there was a serious, albeit generally fairly stupid, concern that genuine study was being ignored to meet political sensibilities, there was no allowance for the possibility that differences in IQ scores might have genetic causes, for instance.
I don't think its really all that stupid. All you have to do is watch an exchange between 2nd and 3rd wave feminists to see the ramifications political correctness in academia, where it seems to have the most weight. It gets even worse if you mention the word 'choice' in the context of a debate about the nature of homosexuality.
dogma wrote:I don't think its really all that stupid. All you have to do is watch an exchange between 2nd and 3rd wave feminists to see the ramifications political correctness in academia, where it seems to have the most weight. It gets even worse if you mention the word 'choice' in the context of a debate about the nature of homosexuality.
Yeah, when I read through my post before submitting I added 'generally' for just that reason. There certainly is decent study shut down due to political orthodoxy, but for every such piece there are dozens of people who claimed their research was shut down over political correctness, when it was actually just poor work. Look at the number of wangrods complaining their research disproving global warming is dismissed because of the pc global warming mainstream, and not just because their research is bunk.
Sure, but if the only thing defining the group is the tactic its hardly appropriate to call it a movement.
You're right, "movement" is a bad word. I think "tactic" or "ploy" is more appropriate.
The reason I chose "movement" is because there's a cultlike adherence to the use of this tactic.
I mean, if we're talking about political correctness in general, then there are far more things to consider than racial issues.
There are, but they are all issues the Democrats feel they've got the "high ground" on.
To be clear, in no way do I think that the Republicans are more rhetorically honest than the Democrats. For example, they played the rhetorical game of demonizing the word "liberal." It's one of the "wins" the Republicans have had, and the language of "political correctness" is one that the Democrats have had.
Mentioning my ethnicity as a slur doesn't bother me, therefore it shouldn't bother people of other ethnicities. That's pretty narcissistic, don't you think?
No, it's meant to show consistency. You seem to feel that the distant history of slavery gives black people an experience that other people can't understand. I don't feel that's a legitimate argument. I have seen the concentration camp tattoos on my family members. It doesn't give me some special right to freak out. And I don't.
There's a real double standard on this that I object to. There's a constant appeal to the "you don't know what it's like to be black" argument. It's bogus. Nobody knows what it's like to be anybody except themselves. I get the impression that some black folks think whites can just show up and get a job, no problem. But at the end of the day, blacks don't know what it's like to be white any more than the reverse is true. Nobody gets to use this ploy.
Are you equating voluntary affiliation with a political ideology with ethnicity? Really?
Not even remotely. You said "political correctness" was a vague, poorly understood word. I said the same thing about "right wing." Both are vague shorthands that we're relying on one another to parse.
Please punch yourself in the eye for making me explain that, when you could have just read it the first time I said it.
But I have no idea, absolutely none what-so-ever, what any of that has to do with the idea that it isn't cool that the boss abuses someone with a racial epithet.
Because I think that without the constant drumbeat of race-baiting, without the constant training Americans get on how evil racism is, the OP wouldn't be as offended by what his boss said. If not for that, he might have just said "man, that's lame, but whatever." And, as I said earlier, wouldn't that make his life better? Instead, he's got this frustration to deal with.
The fact is, we take cues on what's right and wrong from society in general. We know racism is bad. We also know that sexism is bad. But we're trained to think one is worse than the other. Most of us here are male. How often do we hear negative comments about women, and generally absorb them without much thought? If the OP's boss was angry at a group of women, called them "whores" or "bitches" or whatever, would the OP have been so outraged? I'd speculate not... And why? His girlfriend is both black and female.
The OP will have to correct me if I'm wrong...
But I certainly know that in my experience, men are perfectly happy to talk badly about women, but TERRIFIED of being thought a racist. I know that at my job, I've seen people make jokes in meetings about how silly women (or men) are, and everyone laughs. I recall a guy saying that women have a certain quota for how many words they have to say per day, that's why they say so much useless crap. Everyone laughed, male and female. What would have happend if he made a fried chicken joke about blacks?
Where's the moral logic in any of that garbage?
Nowhere.
Because, ultimately, political correctness is about denying people access to truth.
Phryxis wrote:
There are, but they are all issues the Democrats feel they've got the "high ground" on.
Really? What about teaching evolution in schools, or the nominal requirement to profess faith during a political campaign?
Phryxis wrote:
To be clear, in no way do I think that the Republicans are more rhetorically honest than the Democrats. For example, they played the rhetorical game of demonizing the word "liberal." It's one of the "wins" the Republicans have had, and the language of "political correctness" is one that the Democrats have had.
I think you interpret PC more narrowly than I do. To me the demonization of the word 'liberal' is just another facit of political correctness; ie. establishing what is 'correct', with respect to valuation, in the political arena.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Yeah, when I read through my post before submitting I added 'generally' for just that reason. There certainly is decent study shut down due to political orthodoxy, but for every such piece there are dozens of people who claimed their research was shut down over political correctness, when it was actually just poor work. Look at the number of wangrods complaining their research disproving global warming is dismissed because of the pc global warming mainstream, and not just because their research is bunk.
Oh, its gets much worse than that...I can't finish that sentence without baiting Biblical literalists.
Really? What about teaching evolution in schools, or the nominal requirement to profess faith during a political campaign?
I think we're missing each other here.
What I was saying is that all the issues that people label "PC" are issues that the Democrats feel they have the high ground on.
No question, it's odd that you can't admit to being an atheist in American politics. I mean, REALLY is Nancy Pelosi a Catholic? A pro-choice Catholic? No such thing. There are rules to Catholicism, and if you don't agree with them, you're not a Catholic. It's why we have Anglicanism.
I think you interpret PC more narrowly than I do.
Yeah, it seems like we're not at all on the same page re: this.
And, honestly, I shouldn't say "PC" cause there's other parts of it, even in my definition, that don't apply. For example, in my definition, you have to call slowed people "differently abled" or something. Which, while ridiculous and mind-control-ish, is not at all related to race.
A better term for what I'm talking about is the "race industry."
Look at the number of wangrods complaining their research disproving global warming is dismissed because of the pc global warming mainstream, and not just because their research is bunk.
I think this is because they've defined "political correctness" to mean the generally omnipresent liberal mind control machine. There's a sustained assault on any view that doesn't coincide with the liberal dogma, that the right simply can't equal (though they would love to).
Score another point for your "PC no longer has any meaning" argument. I guess I'll have to concede that at this point.
Phryxis wrote:No, it's meant to show consistency. You seem to feel that the distant history of slavery gives black people an experience that other people can't understand. I don't feel that's a legitimate argument. I have seen the concentration camp tattoos on my family members. It doesn't give me some special right to freak out. And I don't.
Your own indifference to attacks on your ethnicity don’t automatically mean other people aren’t allowed to be offended by attacks on theirs.
There's a real double standard on this that I object to. There's a constant appeal to the "you don't know what it's like to be black" argument. It's bogus. Nobody knows what it's like to be anybody except themselves. I get the impression that some black folks think whites can just show up and get a job, no problem. But at the end of the day, blacks don't know what it's like to be white any more than the reverse is true. Nobody gets to use this ploy.
Sure, which is why it is good to give everyone a little leeway. Which includes not attacking their ethnicity.
Not even remotely. You said "political correctness" was a vague, poorly understood word. I said the same thing about "right wing." Both are vague shorthands that we're relying on one another to parse.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were equating ethnicity and politics, I didn’t see you were equating political correctness and the right wing. My mistake.
That’s a more apt analogy, though I’d say they’re still different as right wing is a term people accept for themselves, while PC is a term used by people to assign to others, almost always to discredit them. It is fair to say a movement exists as long as people are willing to call themselves part of it. It is much less likely to exist when the term is being assigned to third parties.
Please punch yourself in the eye for making me explain that, when you could have just read it the first time I said it.
Huh, that’s a bit aggressive, don’t you think?
The fact is, we take cues on what's right and wrong from society in general. We know racism is bad. We also know that sexism is bad. But we're trained to think one is worse than the other. Most of us here are male. How often do we hear negative comments about women, and generally absorb them without much thought? If the OP's boss was angry at a group of women, called them "whores" or "bitches" or whatever, would the OP have been so outraged? I'd speculate not... And why? His girlfriend is both black and female.
I would hope he would be exactly as offended. I find it bizarre you assume he wouldn’t. Really very bizarre.
Because, ultimately, political correctness is about denying people access to truth.
Political correctness is a term used to dismiss a range of movements, some valid, some not. It can be hard to figure out which are valid and which aren’t, requiring one to learn about each and build an informed opinion. Putting them all under the political correctness banner is much simpler, but very problematic.
I read recently on slacktivist that most people recognise the link between stupidity and bigotry, but few realise the cause of that link. It isn’t that being stupid makes one a bigot, it’s that being a bigot makes one stupid. The author went on to extend this to ideologues, arguing that committing to a political ideology involves turning away from the world as it is, instead looking at the world only in terms of how it supports one’s ideology.
Railing about political correctness is doing just that, it will stop people seeing ideas as they really are, it will make them stupid.
Also, ideological views tend to make one view other as ideologues. The ideological conservative will see any liberal, self-identified or otherwise, as an ideological liberal because that is all his frame of reference will allow. It is a terrible chamber of echos.
Your own indifference to attacks on your ethnicity don’t automatically mean other people aren’t allowed to be offended by attacks on theirs.
No, people are allowed to experience whatever they wish. Not only do I have no desire to tell people what they can think, I have no ability to do so.
And, in turn, I'm allowed to judge the legitimacy of their reaction, and state my conclusion.
You made the argument that we can't judge people's reaction, given the history of slavery/segregation. I don't agree, and I gave an example of a similar "victim cred" that my family has to show that I'm not simply making up rules.
Having been proven wrong, you resorted to twisting my meaning, and trying to reshuffle the victim card deck, so that I was being a thought policeman, when all I was doing was disagreeing with a thought. Honestly, I think you're being willfully obtuse here.
Huh, that’s a bit aggressive, don’t you think?
No. I'm leaving the punching entirely up to you. If you feel it's excessive, feel free not to punch yourself. If you'd like, you could go with an open handed slap. I want to be fair here, but I also want to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.
I find it bizarre you assume he wouldn’t. Really very bizarre.
Well, technically I've never been to Australia, but I have known many Australians, and all of them struck me as being extremely culturally similar to all the Americans I know. So, either you're being willfully obtuse again, or the Australians in Australia are very different from the ones I've met.
Given your track record, I'm going with "willfully obtuse."
It isn’t that being stupid makes one a bigot, it’s that being a bigot makes one stupid.
This is cute, but I don't agree. I think stupid people tend to be bigots because stupidity is barrier to things like empathy, perspective taking, etc. It's also often the case that stupid people know they're stupid, so they like to find cateogrizations that put enough people "below" them, stupid or not, that they feel elevated. "I may be stupid, but at least I ain't black!"
You really need to stop this sort of thing. Unless you're going on 'internet proof' instead of actual proof, none of which is present in this thread.
Phryxis wrote:
Well, technically I've never been to Australia, but I have known many Australians, and all of them struck me as being extremely culturally similar to all the Americans I know. So, either you're being willfully obtuse again, or the Australians in Australia are very different from the ones I've met.
Given your track record, I'm going with "willfully obtuse."
Don't project assumptions and then defend them as fact.
Unless you're going on 'internet proof' instead of actual proof, none of which is present in this thread.
What I'm going for is "this guy is clearly just twisting words, and not reading what I write, so I'm going to stop showing his viewpoints any respect either."
Don't project assumptions and then defend them as fact.
I presented my perceptions on a subject, I supported them with my experiences, and the response was to dismiss with no counter argument, anecdote, anything.
I don't think my perceptions or experiences constitute factual proof of anything... However I do think that when somebody is reduced to twisting my words, ignoring my points without refutation, and generally failing to respond in a compelling way, my perceptions and experiences are being supported, rather than challenged.
And, to be clear, I'm talking about sebster's responses, not yours.
Phryxis wrote:No, people are allowed to experience whatever they wish. Not only do I have no desire to tell people what they can think, I have no ability to do so.
And, in turn, I'm allowed to judge the legitimacy of their reaction, and state my conclusion.
So you have no desire to tell people what they can think, but you will judge their reaction and tell people about it. That’s gibberish.
Judging their reaction and giving an opinion on it is the primary means of controlling people’s reactions.
You made the argument that we can't judge people's reaction, given the history of slavery/segregation. I don't agree, and I gave an example of a similar "victim cred" that my family has to show that I'm not simply making up rules.
No, you’re really failing to get it. Your personal experience and indifference to racial abuse doesn’t invalidate other people’s reactions. It is just that simple.
Having been proven wrong, you resorted to twisting my meaning, and trying to reshuffle the victim card deck, so that I was being a thought policeman, when all I was doing was disagreeing with a thought. Honestly, I think you're being willfully obtuse here.
You need to take a deep breath, and settle down before you post. You’re not a stupid guy, but you seem to be getting excited or something, causing you to make silly claims like the above. Mischaracterising the other person’s argument and declaring your rebuttal obvious proof it was wrong is really, really poor and makes you look a bit silly.
No. I'm leaving the punching entirely up to you. If you feel it's excessive, feel free not to punch yourself. If you'd like, you could go with an open handed slap. I want to be fair here, but I also want to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself.
Wit is a difficult thing. Keep practicing.
Well, technically I've never been to Australia, but I have known many Australians, and all of them struck me as being extremely culturally similar to all the Americans I know. So, either you're being willfully obtuse again, or the Australians in Australia are very different from the ones I've met.
Given your track record, I'm going with "willfully obtuse."
“I think you’re like us and we do this therefore you’re a hypocrite.”
Good job, Phryxis. Really, really good job.
I’ll tell you right now in any workplace I’ve ever been in, if the boss was overheard saying ‘we just had trouble from these two bitches at the front counter’ there’d be the exact same reaction as the one given by the OP. If anything, given the casual racism prevalent in Australia, the racial epithet would be less likely to cause trouble.
If the US different, and it is more acceptable to be misogynist than to be racist, then I’d think the best thing is to make misogyny less acceptable, not make racism more acceptable.
This is cute, but I don't agree. I think stupid people tend to be bigots because stupidity is barrier to things like empathy, perspective taking, etc. It's also often the case that stupid people know they're stupid, so they like to find cateogrizations that put enough people "below" them, stupid or not, that they feel elevated. "I may be stupid, but at least I ain't black!"
That’s the commonly held opinion that my argument was challenging. If you start to think about the development of empathy and perspective, you might start to see where the argument is coming from. We aren’t born with empathy and perspective, we develop these things with experience and time. When we build a worldview that doesn’t allow for those sources of knowledge, we shut them off and become stupider. Whe
If you’ve ever spent any time talking to racists, you’ll have quickly realised the stereotype of the idiot redneck doesn’t hold for all racists, or for even more than a small portion. Many are reasonably smart, and a fair portion are very bright. The problem isn’t that they can’t understand, it’s that they choose not to, because they choose ideology over reality. It’s an issue that goes way beyond racism, all manner of ideologies do much the same thing.
Phryxis wrote:
What I'm going for is "this guy is clearly just twisting words, and not reading what I write, so I'm going to stop showing his viewpoints any respect either."
You're going for a thing, and not on a thing?
Be certain that you aren't inserting concepts into your language that are not necessarily evident from base text.
Phryxis wrote:
I don't think my perceptions or experiences constitute factual proof of anything... However I do think that when somebody is reduced to twisting my words, ignoring my points without refutation, and generally failing to respond in a compelling way, my perceptions and experiences are being supported, rather than challenged.
That's a poor assumption. At best you should assume that your ideas are being attacked in an oblique manner.
Phryxis wrote:
And, to be clear, I'm talking about sebster's responses, not yours.
So you have no desire to tell people what they can think, but you will judge their reaction and tell people about it. That’s gibberish.
Seriously? The only reason I would ever voice an opinion on a subject is to control people?
How am I supposed to even communicate with you when you make up your own rules, ignore what I say, deliberately misinterpret, and generally refuse to act in good faith?
Your personal experience and indifference to racial abuse doesn’t invalidate other people’s reactions. It is just that simple.
It's hard to know how to respond, when I've already done so, numerous times. You don't like to read, you just like to say what you think.
As I said, people are entitled to their own emotions. I am neither interested in, nor capable of, controlling their emotions. I've already said this, but you elected to ignore it.
What I do feel entitled to, is an opinion on the appropriateness of people's emotions. I'm sure we can agree that some reactions are appropriate, and some are not. We both make those judgements based on whatever criteria we deem best.
You need to take a deep breath, and settle down before you post.
Wow. HOW DARE YOU try to control my thoughts? I read your incredibly thoughtful posts, and I was OUTRAGED by how frustratingly super-cool they were, and now you're trying to OPPRESS my reaction.
Or maybe not. It's sorta awesome that you managed to manufacture a false reality, and then STILL be a hypocrite in your own false reality.
When I wrote that post, I was not upset. I was thinking, as I am now, that you're simply unwilling to hear anything that undermines you argument, so I just decided to be as flip and unhelpful as you are. I was mirroring your debate style. I see you enjoy it just as much as I do.
Good job, Phryxis. Really, really good job.
Dude, what in the WORLD has given you the impression that you're even slightly credible? You're getting all put off that I don't take you seriously, when all you've done for a half dozen or more posts, is ignore what I'm saying, deliberately misread what I'm saying, and fabricate false viewpoints for me.
Now you're going to act shocked and offended that I think you're full of it?
Don't demand respect, earn it. Read ONE thing I say and respond as if you actually understood it, and see if you don't find my posts more respectful.
I’ll tell you right now in any workplace I’ve ever been in, if the boss was overheard saying ‘we just had trouble from these two bitches at the front counter’ there’d be the exact same reaction as the one given by the OP.
It's funny, I gave a recounting of EXACTLY the comparison I'm talking about, and you elected to ignore it, and instead find some other piece of the argument to pay attention to.
I described a situation at my workplace where men and women good naturedly mocked each other based on the common stereotypes of men and women.
I then asked the reader to consider what would have happened if a joke was made about black people eating fried chicken, or some other similarly banal racism.
I gave the context of my comparison, and you feigned confusion with what I could even mean. I repeated myself, and you decided to go back to an earlier post and talk about that.
But, because it's really not at all hard, I'll tailor things JUST for you:
Imagine your boss is on the phone with a difficult customer. He mutes the phone and says "hey, Sebster, I've got this bitch on the phone giving me problems, can you go make sure the warehouse is stocked up on strawmen?"
Compared to: "hey, sebster, I've got this n-word* on the phone giving me problems, can you go practice up on not reading what people post?"
Are you telling me that you'd be equally offended by both? Are you further telling me that you think the average Australian citizen would be equally offended by both?
* Please note that this was meant to be the actual n-word, but it gets filtered.
Listen, Einstein once said that the only cure for rascism is knowledge.
You can't just sue people to get them to correct their rascist ways.
I had an uncle in Milwaukee who was a rascist, well back in the 70s he say two black guys walking across a bridge in the opposite direction than he was. He said to them "Oh snowball, who gakked on you?" at which the two black guys threw him off of the bridge, this was during the winter, but the ice was thin enough to break when he hit it. He got hypothermia and guess what, he's still a rascist.
You can't fix this guy by suing him, bu suing him, you will prove a point in his mind about black people.
Another example in a vice wersa circumstance.
A white friend of mine was riding a public bus and trying to sleep while a black guy was watching "The Boondocks" on a portable dvd player at a high volume. Now, if you've ever seen or read this cartoon you know how often they do say the n word and this offended my friend who hates that word as well as me.
He asked him to turn it down and the guy began to get angry and called him a "white devil". The bus driver who was also white kicked off the bus.
This didn't fix the rasicsm this guy had, it only worsened it as he now has confirmation that "white devils" will kick him off of the bus.
And don't you dare bring up that slavery thing against me, my family dates back to the revolutionary war and lived in the north. My ancestors fought and died to free this country and later the slaves while slavery is practiced in other countries in africa where it originated.
The romans enslaved the greeks, the aztec enslaved the mayans, african tribes enslaved other african tribes, don't you dare use that whole "well your race wasn't enslaved so you couldn't understand" thing. For all I know my ancestors were at one point in time enslaved.
halonachos wrote:
The romans enslaved the greeks, the aztec enslaved the mayans, african tribes enslaved other african tribes, don't you dare use that whole "well your race wasn't enslaved so you couldn't understand" thing. For all I know my ancestors were at one point in time enslaved.
This is nonsense. Seriously, what are you thinking?
Don't you dare bring up the Holocaust, for all I know my ancestors may have been Jewish!
Be certain that you aren't inserting concepts into your language that are not necessarily evident from base text.
I feel confident that I am not.
Consider it from my viewpoint. I post things, repeatedly, sebster never once responds as if he actually read them.
You just posted something. You know what you meant. If I responded "so you're saying it's ok to kill black people!?!?!?" What would you take from that?
Would you HONESTLY say "wow, I must not have communicated my thoughts clearly..."
Or would you say "yeah, that dude's an idiot."
Cause I wouldn't blame you for assuming the latter. Sometimes peope just don't read what you write. And I'm not sure why you think anything sebster is saying has any basis in anything I've said.
That's a poor assumption. At best you should assume that your ideas are being attacked in an oblique manner.
You have a habit of saying things that are interesting, perhaps even thought provoking, but not overwhelmingly true.
If you're debating somebody, and they're floundering, it's a pretty good indicator that you're correct.
Certainly, it's PROOF of nothing. But it's a pretty good indicator.
It might be that you're just so damn annoying, they've lost their composure. It might be that they're distracted by a frustrating argument they had with their parrot, and can't concentrate on the debate. It might be, as I believe you're suggesting, that they're simply attacking your argument at a point you didn't anticipate...
But more likely, they just don't have an answer. For all the flaws in his reading and debate styles, sebster doesn't strike me as being stupid. I think that if a decent argument was available, he'd have found it by now. The fact that he hasn't implies that there isn't one.
Notice that's "implies" not "proves." But don't tell sebster. We're still telling him I've proven him wrong.
Don't you dare bring up the Holocaust, for all I know my ancestors may have been Jewish!
Well, are you involved with any international banking conspiracies? That's how I found out. I was attending a Bilderberger function, sipping a martini and laughing about my manipulation of the Greek financial crisis, when I said to myself, "in the name of Abraham, I must be Jewish!" Everyone laughed and patted me on the back. Even Mel Gibson.
Dogma, you missed the point I was trying tomake entirely. I never used the holocaust to invoke sympathy!
But seriously, I'm tired of that argument. A enslaved B so A owes B compensation even though its actually A's descendents who never enslaved anything.
The past is the past and I'm not sorry for slavery or the holocaust because I never owned a slave or ordered the mass extinction of a race of people.
I remember these events and I don't praise them or worship them, they fall under my "that sucks" catagory but I'm not going to apologize to someone who never suffered what they want to be compensated for. Its the same way I will never congratulate anyone who's ancestor did some amazing feat, I'll apologize for slavery when someone thanks me for freeing the slaves and fighting off the english.
That's the point I'm trying to get at, I thank a veteran for fighting in a war and I hate the criminal who murdered someone. I don't thank the vet's kid and I don't hate the criminal's kid. After all they didn't do anything.
Phryxis wrote:Seriously? The only reason I would ever voice an opinion on a subject is to control people?
How am I supposed to even communicate with you when you make up your own rules, ignore what I say, deliberately misinterpret, and generally refuse to act in good faith?
No, there are lots of reasons to voice opinions that are not in order to control people. You’ve gotten confused. I said the primary method of controlling people’s reactions is our judgement of their reactions. You misread this as me saying the primary goal of voicing opinions is to control others.
Go get a piece of paper and draw some Venn diagrams. It’ll become clear to you in short order.
What I do feel entitled to, is an opinion on the appropriateness of people's emotions. I'm sure we can agree that some reactions are appropriate, and some are not. We both make those judgements based on whatever criteria we deem best.
Yes, and saying that you don’t react the same therefore they shouldn’t, even though your family has a history of suffering racial bigotry, is a poor criteria.
Wow. HOW DARE YOU try to control my thoughts? I read your incredibly thoughtful posts, and I was OUTRAGED by how frustratingly super-cool they were, and now you're trying to OPPRESS my reaction.
No, the problem is you were presuming my post meant something it didn’t, then leaping three steps ahead and declaring my point obviously wrong. It’s something people tend to do when they get overly excited by a thread. Typing in capitals is another symptom of the same thing.
Look, I’ve done it before. We all have. It isn’t the end of the world, and it’s no discredit to you that you have. What you want to do is up to you, if you want to keep going, we’ll keep going. If you want to take a step back and post again tomorrow, then that’s cool. If you want to can it, that’s cool.
But if you weren’t angry, and you made that argument with a clear mind, then we might have a problem.
I described a situation at my workplace where men and women good naturedly mocked each other based on the common stereotypes of men and women.
I ignored it because it was a pointless comparison. Employees making good natured jokes towards each other is a wholly different situation to an employer using a racial epithet while angry.
When I was in local government they had this team building exercise, it was a finger painting thing, very lame but Planning Days always are. Everyone had to contribute, and a black co-worker, Jason, lined up and the lady doling out the paint smeared black paint over his hand. My mate asked how come Jason didn’t have any paint on his hand, he couldn’t see any paint on his hand. We all had a good laugh, especially Jason.
A joke, in jest, between two employees, is very different to a boss, in anger, calling someone a [see forum posting rules]. Do you understand the difference?
But, because it's really not at all hard, I'll tailor things JUST for you:
Imagine your boss is on the phone with a difficult customer. He mutes the phone and says "hey, Sebster, I've got this bitch on the phone giving me problems, can you go make sure the warehouse is stocked up on strawmen?"
Compared to: "hey, sebster, I've got this n-word* on the phone giving me problems, can you go practice up on not reading what people post?"
Are you telling me that you'd be equally offended by both? Are you further telling me that you think the average Australian citizen would be equally offended by both?
* Please note that this was meant to be the actual n-word, but it gets filtered.
In both cases I’d tell him right there and then not to use that language. In both cases, if someone else heard, was offended and wanted to take the matter further, I would be happy to sign a stat dec or testify that such language had been used, and was overheard such that it created a hostile work environment.
I expect the average Australian reaction would be about the same for both. That is, in most office environments in the city neither would be accepted. In a lot of country environments both would be accepted.
Again, though, because in amongst all the worrying that I was ignoring your post you seem to have missed my final reply to this line of argument, are you saying that because in your opinion it is more acceptable in society to say ‘bitch’ than it is to say ‘[see forum posting rules]’, that the answer is to make ‘[see forum posting rules]’ more acceptable? Surely the answer is that neither should be tolerated?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:You can't just sue people to get them to correct their rascist ways.
Sure. And you can't stop people's desire to murder by making it illegal. But you can discourage them from acting on their murderous desires, which has the real, practical effect of making life more pleasant for the rest of us.
Actually, while the N-word is mainly meant as derogatory it is derived from the latin word for black. It's just that it was a popular word to describe black people at the time of slavery similarly to the way "negro" is used. Both of them derive from old languages (negro is black in spanish and niger is black in latin). They started out as definitions for black people, but the n-word later became negative.
Both are inappropriate in a professional setting, but may not necessarily indicate a hostile work environment. If an employer knows an employee very well then they may be more open in terms of their vocabulary.
Would you be offended if a person said "Man, I have this bitch who needs a sire." to you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sebster, the point is instead of a rascist he'll just be a closeted rascist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the fact that people still commit murder doesn't say too much. The people who really want to committ murder are going to do it no matter what the law says and everyone who doesn't is going to obey the law. Laws don't necessarily do too much in this case.
Phryxis wrote:
Cause I wouldn't blame you for assuming the latter. Sometimes peope just don't read what you write. And I'm not sure why you think anything sebster is saying has any basis in anything I've said.
I think you're both talking past each other, and that you're both being needlessly aggressive. And that's coming from a drunk dude, because THE HAWKS WON!!!!
Phryxis wrote:
You have a habit of saying things that are interesting, perhaps even thought provoking, but not overwhelmingly true.
Things can't be overwhelmingly true. They are true, or they aren't.
Phryxis wrote:
If you're debating somebody, and they're floundering, it's a pretty good indicator that you're correct.
Certainly, it's PROOF of nothing. But it's a pretty good indicator.
Of victory, sure, but it does not indicate truth.
Phryxis wrote:
It might be that you're just so damn annoying, they've lost their composure. It might be that they're distracted by a frustrating argument they had with their parrot, and can't concentrate on the debate. It might be, as I believe you're suggesting, that they're simply attacking your argument at a point you didn't anticipate...
But more likely, they just don't have an answer.
Why are you dealing in probability when confronted with a specific instance? Why not just ask a question?
Phryxis wrote:
Well, are you involved with any international banking conspiracies? That's how I found out. I was attending a Bilderberger function, sipping a martini and laughing about my manipulation of the Greek financial crisis, when I said to myself, "in the name of Abraham, I must be Jewish!" Everyone laughed and patted me on the back. Even Mel Gibson.
Dog, don't get me started. After being made an honorary Jew by my Jewish roommate I was forced to suffer through many travails; ie. I suddenly became popular amongst the IA set.
So you have no desire to tell people what they can think, but you will judge their reaction and tell people about it. That’s gibberish.
Then you said:
No, there are lots of reasons to voice opinions that are not in order to control people. You’ve gotten confused.
Wow. You're so clear, how could I possibly have gotten confused?
Your first post implies it's gibberish to voice an opinion if you don't mean to control. Your next post says there are many reasons to voice an opinion besides control.
I'll have to appeal to dogma, drunk as he may be, to confirm that you make no sense.
Yes, and saying that you don’t react the same therefore they shouldn’t, even though your family has a history of suffering racial bigotry, is a poor criteria.
Allow me to repeat myself, as I so often do when talking with you. It was not presented a criterion, it's a demonstration of consistency.
I don't believe, for various reasons, that somebody many generatios removed from an event should feel traumatized by that event. To demonstrate that I hold myself to that same standard, I cited an example.
But, as I write this, and stop to consider it as a criterion, it's also not a poor criterion. It's actually a primary criterion. How should somebody feel in a given situation? Step one is to ask "How would I feel?" That's how empathy works. Perspective taking.
What criteria would you suggest that are better?
I ignored it because it was a pointless comparison.
The reason I framed it that way is to calm the situation down. When somebody is angry at a customer on a phone, they're already fairly far out of line. When they're using charged, aggressive language, they're already fairly far out of line. It's hard to calibrate when things are already so charged.
It's like asking if it's more out of line to stab a woman and say "bitch" or to stab a woman and say "take that!" Which is worse? I don't know, both?
So there's a reason I did it, and it's precicesly because I do understand the difference between jest and anger.
But then you say this:
My mate asked how come Jason didn’t have any paint on his hand, he couldn’t see any paint on his hand. We all had a good laugh, especially Jason.
I'll have to concede to your genuine Australian experience. Perhaps things there just aren't like they are here.
But I can tell you that this would probably not fly in the US. 9 out of 10 people would laugh it off, but there's always that 1 in 10 who REALLY took the programming, and they'll be off to the management to complain about the racism, and management, terrified of the race police, would probably do something to punish or "train" the "offending" speaker.
There's no question, Americans are flying rodent gak crazy about race. I just thought we'd imposed that insanity on the rest of the first world, especially those ideologically closest to us, which (I'm sure it offends you to say) would be the Australians.
Surely the answer is that neither should be tolerated?
My only goal to this point has been to establish that racist comments, especially against blacks, are held as far "naughtier" than sexist comments. I will have to defer to you on the Australian attitude on this. I'm surprised at your conclusions, but I can certainly assure you that the situation is different in the US.
From there, I would say that the level of tolerance, whatever it is, should be similar.
When it comes to setting that level of tolerance, I will defer to society in general, both because I have no say, and I don't really care.
Personally, I tend to like to leave people alone as much as possible, so if people want to say racist or sexist things, I tolerate it without too much concern. If I find the person irritating to listen to, I just won't spend much time talking to them.
Oh, I do love a good scuffle. Neither of you have been especially illogical, but you have both depended on aesthetics, which explains the entirety of your dispute.
dogma wrote:Oh, I do love a good scuffle. Neither of you have been especially illogical, but you have both depended on aesthetics, which explains the entirety of your dispute.
Dogma, this is the internet, and this way of debating should not be allowed on the internet.
halonachos wrote:Actually, while the N-word is mainly meant as derogatory it is derived from the latin word for black. It's just that it was a popular word to describe black people at the time of slavery similarly to the way "negro" is used. Both of them derive from old languages (negro is black in spanish and niger is black in latin). They started out as definitions for black people, but the n-word later became negative.
The journey of language is a strange one. While words have strange and often fascinating origins, it is a mistake to assume those origins have any relevance to their use in modern times. What matters is the context and shared meaning of the word in the environment in which it is used.
It would be ridiculous for a black American to take a job at a paint store in Spain and tell other staff they can’t call black paint by its Spanish name, negro. It would also be similarly ridiculous for a man in the US to call his black employee a negro, then explain that it isn’t offensive because the word derives from the Spanish word for black.
Both are inappropriate in a professional setting, but may not necessarily indicate a hostile work environment. If an employer knows an employee very well then they may be more open in terms of their vocabulary.
Given the level of distress of the OP, would you agree that the language in that situation was not appropriate?
Would you be offended if a person said "Man, I have this bitch who needs a sire." to you?
I would take it in the context of a person attempting to use obviously archaic language to gain some kind of reaction. I wouldn’t be offended. That has nothing to do with the language used by the OP’s employer.
Sebster, the point is instead of a rascist he'll just be a closeted rascist.
Which is a better state of affairs.
Also, the fact that people still commit murder doesn't say too much. The people who really want to committ murder are going to do it no matter what the law says and everyone who doesn't is going to obey the law. Laws don't necessarily do too much in this case.
You don’t think the law against murder reduces the murder rate at all? Even just a little bit?
Phryxis wrote:Wow. You're so clear, how could I possibly have gotten confused?
Your first post implies it's gibberish to voice an opinion if you don't mean to control. Your next post says there are many reasons to voice an opinion besides control.
No, my first post doesn’t imply that it’s gibberish to voice an opinion unless you mean to control someone else’s. My point was that it makes no sense to say you don’t wish to control something, then say you simply want to use the primary means for controlling it.
Especially when use of that thing exerts a control whether you want to or not.
I'll have to appeal to dogma, drunk as he may be, to confirm that you make no sense.
If you’ve got trouble figuring my posts out then good luck with Dogma’s.
I don't believe, for various reasons, that somebody many generatios removed from an event should feel traumatized by that event. To demonstrate that I hold myself to that same standard, I cited an example.
As I alluded to, though, it isn’t enough to reduce it down to simply those specific events, generations ago. You have to look at everything since, and look at the socio-economic conditions of the different groups today. An ethnic group that still has very high levels of unemployment and much lower average incomes is obviously going to be more sensitive to racist comments than a person from a socio-economic with high employment and high incomes.
But, as I write this, and stop to consider it as a criterion, it's also not a poor criterion. It's actually a primary criterion. How should somebody feel in a given situation? Step one is to ask "How would I feel?" That's how empathy works. Perspective taking.
What criteria would you suggest that are better?
No, empathy involves understanding their emotion, and taking on part of that. It doesn’t matter what you’d feel in that situation, what matters is what they actually feel.
It isn’t empathy to say ‘if I were him I wouldn’t feel hurt, therefore he should not’. It is empathy to say ‘he feels hurt’.
Now, I agree that there are situations where one can comment that a person who feels hurt really needs to suck it up and move on, not every emotion needs to treated as legitimate. But in determining what emotions are legitimate and what aren’t, it isn’t very useful to simply think if you’d have that emotion in their situation, and then decide if it is valid or not.
Are you actually saying that the OP was wrong for feeling the way he did?
So there's a reason I did it, and it's precicesly because I do understand the difference between jest and anger.
Then you understand that a sexist or racist joke is very different to a boss calling a troublesome customer a sexist or racist epithet, while staff can overhear him?
I'll have to concede to your genuine Australian experience. Perhaps things there just aren't like they are here.
But I can tell you that this would probably not fly in the US. 9 out of 10 people would laugh it off, but there's always that 1 in 10 who REALLY took the programming, and they'll be off to the management to complain about the racism, and management, terrified of the race police, would probably do something to punish or "train" the "offending" speaker.
There is a chance a thing won’t fly. You have to know your audience, and your audience needs to be comfortable that the comment was in jest. In that situation it was a small council, everyone knew everyone very well. I wouldn’t recommend the same thing in a larger workplace, because someone might not take it well.
Personally, I think it is a good thing that people limit risqué jokes in the workplace to groups they know well.
There's no question, Americans are flying rodent gak crazy about race. I just thought we'd imposed that insanity on the rest of the first world, especially those ideologically closest to us, which (I'm sure it offends you to say) would be the Australians.
I’d also like to point out we’re flying rodent gak crazy about race as well. In different ways than yourself, but we are absolutely crazy. Did you read the thread where I pointed out Australia was spending around $600 million a year on border protection, to stop what ends up around 200 or 300 illegal entrants, we spend more than 2 million a pop on making sure people don’t enter Australia. Well, actually, we don’t stop them, we stop them off the coast, sinking their boat and bringing them into detention camps, verify 95% as legitimate refugees and freak out about the remaining 2 or 300.
The recent Federal budget kicked this amount up by a hundred odd million a year. We are crazy too.
When it comes to setting that level of tolerance, I will defer to society in general, both because I have no say, and I don't really care.
Society, by your perception, appears to have set the level of tolerance as different for the two. If you have no opinion then this won’t bother you.
But it clearly does bother you, so in effect you’re saying that you have a strong desire that the tolerance for racism and sexism to be equal, but have no interest in the actual level of tolerance for them. That seems like it’s a bit contrived.
Actually sebster I do not believe that the laws reduce the murder rate, it just means we attempt to punish those that do. The whole reason I haven't murdered someone is because I don't care to, it just isn't in me.
I would say that this is similar to making firearm possession illegal, all of the law abiding citizens would listen, but not any criminals. The doesn't prevent anything, it just makes sure we punish those that do.
Actually, that language is in no way archaic. If you want a pedigree dog they will often look at the bitch and the sire, both being the accepted terms for dog breeding in this day and age. Dame is also another word used in place of bitch sometimes.
And no a closeted rascist is NOT a better state of affairs. Keep anything hidden long enough and it will erupt, the employer may end up feeling actual hatred not only to the race, but to his employees which can end up with them all losing their jobs.
Also, the first amendment right is an amazing thing in the united states. You are free to say anything you want(unless inciting a riot), and here's the catch, anyone can verbally respond in any way back.
Americans are guaranteed the right of speech and threatening the employer because he was expressing this right is unconstitutional. Now, if the black employee responded in kind, then that is also allowed. However, if the black employee struck physically that would be crossing another line.
Seeing as though he did not call the black employee that word specifically nor did he provoke violence, he was well within his first amendment rights of speech.
The employer was also speaking only to his managers, if another employee overheard then it can almost become an invasion of privacy issue.
There is one thing I would like to question though, what is the response of the black employee when a black person says the same word.
I am genuinely appalled by its use no matter who says it and anybody who says it is a moron in my books, but that is one thing I hate; just because someone else is saying the word doesn't change the meaning of the word.
The n-word is still rascist if a black person calls another black person that word and its still rascist if a white person calls a black person that word.
To say that the last statement is not true means that you may be just a bit rascist yourself. Just because the color of a person's skin changes doesn't mean the definition of the words they say change.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You are saying that we are not given this right? Or are you just saying that he has no rights in this case?
If I recall, it is a privately owned business in which case PC is mostly thrown out the window. Now, if this is a chain store then he can be in trouble, but most smaller businesses are unfazed by this kind of thing. I would say that this is similar to the case of the boyscouts of america and their ban on homosexual leaders.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dogma, no "wall of text" please a simple explanation of your thought will do just fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, it's well past my bedtime and I need to go to sleep because I have work tomorrow. I'll pick up on whatever you post and reply tomorrow.
halonachos wrote:Actually sebster I do not believe that the laws reduce the murder rate, it just means we attempt to punish those that do. The whole reason I haven't murdered someone is because I don't care to, it just isn't in me.
Really, do you think that applies to all crime or just to murder? Is there no disincentive for punishment at all?
I find your claim very puzzling when just above that you said laws against racism just make people quiet about their racism, so it has some effect in those cases, but not with murder?
Actually, that language is in no way archaic. If you want a pedigree dog they will often look at the bitch and the sire, both being the accepted terms for dog breeding in this day and age. Dame is also another word used in place of bitch sometimes.
In dog breeding it isn't archaic. In terms of people it is. Because context matters. Which we both know. Come on, dude.
And no a closeted rascist is NOT a better state of affairs. Keep anything hidden long enough and it will erupt, the employer may end up feeling actual hatred not only to the race, but to his employees which can end up with them all losing their jobs.
So we should let people be overtly racist, because that way they won't erupt and hate someone of a race they're bigoted against. Oh for the simple pleasures of apartheid South Africa, where people where free to be overtly racist and no-one let racism boil up inside them until they hated the race they were bigoted against.
Also, the first amendment right is an amazing thing in the united states. You are free to say anything you want(unless inciting a riot), and here's the catch, anyone can verbally respond in any way back.
If he'd responded back however he pleased he'd get fired. Your desire for absolute free speach completely ignores the very obvious power differences that exist in society, and it is why the law doesn't actually work like you're pretending it does.
I am genuinely appalled by its use no matter who says it and anybody who says it is a moron in my books, but that is one thing I hate; just because someone else is saying the word doesn't change the meaning of the word.
As has been mentioned countless times in this thread, context matters. You earlier noted that the word derives from the Spanish word for black, and I pointed out it isn't this which gives the word its meaning, it's the context in which it is used. Similarly, if the word is used in the context of an angry boss complaining about a troublesome customer, it is very different to two fellow employees using the word in a friendly sense towards each other, whether both, one or neither are black.
Context. Context. Context. It's a big thing that people like to ignore to make political points, but it really is the core of the issue.
To say that the last statement is not true means that you may be just a bit rascist yourself. Just because the color of a person's skin changes doesn't mean the definition of the words they say change.
No, and if you think about the importance of context you'll quickly realise how silly the above point is. The word can be used by one black person to another, and it may not be racist in the right context (for instance, two friends making a point to a nearby member of the KKK, using the word in describing each other, to take power away from the KKK dude). The word may be racist, if an ambitious young black girl is studying hard, and a jealous black friend says she'll fail because she's 'that word', that's racist.
The word doesn't become racist when used by white people. It certainly becomes more problematic in it's use, though.
No, my first post doesn’t imply that it’s gibberish to voice an opinion unless you mean to control someone else’s. My point was that it makes no sense to say you don’t wish to control something, then say you simply want to use the primary means for controlling it.
Nope. Still not making sense. I think your karmic balance would be best served by just admitting you were talking nonsense on this particular point.
No, empathy involves understanding their emotion, and taking on part of that. It doesn’t matter what you’d feel in that situation, what matters is what they actually feel.
"Ability to imagine oneself in another's place and understand the other's feelings, desires, ideas, and actions."
There's elemnts of what we're both saying here. The act of perspective taking is key to empathy. It's not simply a matter of observing a person's emotional state, it'sa matter of imagining yourself in that person's emotional state.
That said, I understand your point, it's not empathic to imagine yourself in somebody's emotional state, and then decide it's a stupid, invalid emotional state.
But that's really not the point. I wasn't saying that I WAS being empathetic. I was saying that I was ATTEMPTING to be empathetic, and because I wasn't having all that much luck, I was judging the reaction to be invalid. One way to determine if a person's emotional response is "valid" is to put yourself in that person's shoes, attempt to empathize with them. If it's difficult to do so, and you don't feel that the issue is with your own emotional/intellectual makeup, then it's perfectly reasonable to use that as one of your criteria in judging the observed response.
Then you understand that a sexist or racist joke is very different to a boss calling a troublesome customer a sexist or racist epithet, while staff can overhear him?
Absolutely. But, as I said, my goal was to remove all the other baggage from the situation, the yelling, the aggression towards a customer, and reduce the situation down to the key elements I wanted to focus on: comparing reaction to sexist comments vs reaction to racist comments.
Society, by your perception, appears to have set the level of tolerance as different for the two. If you have no opinion then this won’t bother you.
Meh. Go reread it. I've whined enough about how you don't really read what I write, I'm starting to humiliate myself with it.
Americans are guaranteed the right of speech and threatening the employer because he was expressing this right is unconstitutional.
In our precedent based legal system, dogma is correct, there are already laws on the books that allow speech to be silenced. That doesn't change the fact that the laws restricting speech in this way SHOULD have been ruled unconstitutional, but it does mean that in our country, the law says dogma is right.
So, I agree with you in spirit, but in practice, you're wrong.
It's actually fairly interesting, because the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law," which doesn't actually prevent state and local governments from making the law.
I believe the fourteenth amendment is usually interpreted as prohibiting any state or local government from infringing upon the bill of rights, although I would guess that the courts do give local jurisdictions a little more leeway.
Also, I've read through the last few pages and I still have no idea what it is you guys are supposed to be arguing about...
Sebster, the word is rascist period, I don't give a flying baboon's arse about the context. That's what the word means, then that's what the word means. This is similar to how I call my friend a "cigarette" whenever we meet up, the word IS derogatory, but in between my friend and I we use it as a greeting. This doesn't change the definiton or context of the word, it just means we are more tolerant of calling each other said word.
Just because a black person calls another black person that word doesn't change the word at all, it just means that the other person is more tolerant of being called said word by another black person which in itself is rascism.
In terms of your context, if I called my black friend the n-word(I am white) in greeting, is that the right context?
I will tell you it is most certainly not because if I said that and any other black guys were around I would get my arse lynched simply for using "their" word. Again, just because the word is used by people of different skin colors doesn't mean the meaning of the word changes, nor the context, just the tolerance of whoever is saying it. The word is derogatory no matter what context you use and to say that context magically changes the derogatory manner of the word is foolish.
I would deign to argue the fact that the black employee and fitzz are also rascist subconciously(spelling) due to the fact that they both got mad that a white person used that word. I don't care about the context, the n word is and always was a derogatory term, its just that it originated from the latin word "niger".
However, the word "negro" is a lot less upsetting than the n-word because it was hardly used as a derogatory term, the word means black and when you use it to describe a person it means that the person is a black person, that is plain and simple.
Context does affect most of the language, but it doesn't affect racial slurs. No matter how you use them, people know what they mean.
halonachos wrote:You are saying that we are not given this right? Or are you just saying that he has no rights in this case?
If I recall, it is a privately owned business in which case PC is mostly thrown out the window. Now, if this is a chain store then he can be in trouble, but most smaller businesses are unfazed by this kind of thing. I would say that this is similar to the case of the boyscouts of america and their ban on homosexual leaders.
Its not unconstitutional for a private citizen to bring suit against an employer if he feels that his work environment is needlessly hostile.
Phryxis wrote:Nope. Still not making sense. I think your karmic balance would be best served by just admitting you were talking nonsense on this particular point.
You haven’t actually advanced your argument there, and I really can’t be bothered repeating my point again. You either get it or you don’t.
But that's really not the point. I wasn't saying that I WAS being empathetic. I was saying that I was ATTEMPTING to be empathetic, and because I wasn't having all that much luck, I was judging the reaction to be invalid. One way to determine if a person's emotional response is "valid" is to put yourself in that person's shoes, attempt to empathize with them. If it's difficult to do so, and you don't feel that the issue is with your own emotional/intellectual makeup, then it's perfectly reasonable to use that as one of your criteria in judging the observed response.
Fair enough. I disagree, but am happy to concede that there’s no clear method to decide what is and what isn’t a reasonable method for considering a rejecting someone else’s emotional state as valid or not.
The issue was always more about whether bigotry in one’s own past was sufficient for someone to reject someone else’s feeling of persecution, and I believe my point there still stands.
Meh. Go reread it. I've whined enough about how you don't really read what I write, I'm starting to humiliate myself with it.
I think we’ve made our points. Fair enough that you want a level of consistency between sexism and racism, but I’ll repeat that is an odd claim that you have no opinion on what that level should be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Sebster, the word is rascist period, I don't give a flying baboon's arse about the context.
If you refurse to consider context and declare words to have absolute meanings you’ll likely struggle to understand a lot of things about language over your life.
And the word is spelt ‘racist’.
In terms of your context, if I called my black friend the n-word(I am white) in greeting, is that the right context?
It would depend on your intent, of course. Even if there was no racist intent, it could be insensitive, depending on the tolerance of your friend and anyone else who overheard it.
I think you might be confusing insensitive use of the word with racist use.
Context does affect most of the language, but it doesn't affect racial slurs. No matter how you use them, people know what they mean.
That’s a ridiculous claim. A word is just a collection of sounds, given a meaning by the speakers of that language. That meaning is not fixed, nor is it absolute for all situations. The final meaning of the word in any situation can only be understood in terms of the context of the surrounding language.
halonachos wrote:Sebster, the word is rascist period, I don't give a flying baboon's arse about the context. That's what the word means, then that's what the word means.
That's not how the English language works.
What do you infer from the statement "Let's have a gay old time."?
Well it could mean that they are going to have a blast or that they are indeed going to engage in homosexual activities.
I would also like to see another definition for the n word if you have one dogma. Because "gay" has multiple meanings in the dictionary it does have context. so far I've only seen one definiton for the n word.
In African-American parlance it seems to be equivalent to 'dude' or 'bro', and in that context it isn't offensive.
The point I'm attempting to make here is that context is always relevant to meaning, even if all conceivable contexts point towards a singular definition.
It "seems" dogma, that is the operative word here. "Seems" does not mean "is", and while it may be used in a way similar to 'dude' or 'bro' does not change the meaning of the word. It's still a racial slur and it only has one recognized definition so context really does not affect it.
I was making the point that it is only "acceptable" if a black person calls another black person that word while it is "unacceptable" for a white person to call a black person that word. While in truth it is unacceptable for anyone to call anybody that word.
halonachos wrote:It "seems" dogma, that is the operative word here. "Seems" does not mean "is", and while it may be used in a way similar to 'dude' or 'bro' does not change the meaning of the word. It's still a racial slur and it only has one recognized definition so context really does not affect it.
Seeming is the thing which allows us to determine 'is'. If something seems one way on a consistent basis, then its likely that it 'is' that way.
Also, context does not require more than one definition for pertinence. If I slap my best friend on the back, and call him 'Sally', the meaning of my actions is distinct from the same set of actions carried out with respect to a stranger.
halonachos wrote:
I was making the point that it is only "acceptable" if a black person calls another black person that word while it is "unacceptable" for a white person to call a black person that word. While in truth it is unacceptable for anyone to call anybody that word.
Bill Cosby agrees with you, so that's good company, but I don't agree. I see it as a sensitive word which carries a great deal of baggage, but I don't think there are hard rules that govern its acceptable use.
Not if the people overhearing it take offense. Its the sort of thing you don't say simply because it is so charged. The lack of governing rules is actually detrimental in this sense.
halonachos wrote:If there are no hard rules that govern its use, then shouldn't it be okay for the boss the use it to define the customers?
No. "Context" doesn't mean the user gets to make up whatever definition after the fact. It means that we as humans have the ability to determine the meaning based on the situation surrounding the use of the word.
For instance, a person asks you if you'd like coffee.
If you're at a coffee house and a waitress is asking, it means she asking if you'd like a free cup of coffee.
If you're at their house watching a movie it means they're offering you a free cup of coffee.
If a friend is giving away all the junk in their house before they move to another country, it means they're about to give you their pot of coffee for you to use at home.
If you're on a date with a young lady, and you've about to drop her off at her house, it means you're about to have some fun.
I don't understand why you're being deliberately dense about this. I really don't. It's very basic thing.
halonachos wrote:
I was making the point that it is only "acceptable" if a black person calls another black person that word while it is "unacceptable" for a white person to call a black person that word. While in truth it is unacceptable for anyone to call anybody that word.
Bill Cosby agrees with you, so that's good company, but I don't agree. I see it as a sensitive word which carries a great deal of baggage, but I don't think there are hard rules that govern its acceptable use.
I just don't use the term. It is derogatory in many situations, and acceptable in very few.
Words are very powerful tools, and they can be used in a lot of different ways. If anything, acknowledging the complicated history of such a term, is a substantial place to start. You could likely fill an entire section of a library, with nothing besides information regarding the term in question. You're also likely to find a lot of different opinions, many of which are simply not based in logic; instead entrenched within specific philosophies regarding race relations. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does bring a certain tone to the discussion.
At any rate, I wouldn't want to be around someone who flippantly regarded customers as "insert term in question". It is unprofessional, and stupid; which would make me uncomfortable as an employee. Just to be clear, again, that having income is a very important thing.
Sebster, I'm not saying that all words have no context, I am simply saying that this word has no difference in context.
In a way of greeting each other, some people jokingly put the other down and that is what the "black person saying it to another black person" scenario alludes to.
The word is still derogatory even though the context has changed, its just that it is an accepted greeting. The same way the "sally" example would be used. He is insulting you but you are okay with it because you are friends. Although, you cannot define "Sally" it is typically a name given to girls and he is therefor calling you a girl which for most men is an insult. Due to your relationship you accept this as an acceptable greeting. It is still an insult you just react to it differently.
halonachos wrote:There may be a presence of difference only due to a difference in tolerance of the person.
Person A doesn't like person B? Could you clarify, I am not entirely clear what you mean by that.
The difference has not affected the meaning of the word itself, only its acceptance.
Isn't this what has been discussed for pages now? The definition of the term (unless you mean something different by 'meaning') is not as clear as you are making it out to be. I recall you referencing it's origins as the Spanish term for 'black', modified for use as a derogatory label. Going back to the 'actual' term, without looking at the history in between... is rather poor analysis, to say the least.
There's an article I wanted to site, but it has the word in the link sooo...
article wrote:But for non-blacks using the word “[see forum posting rules],” one can expect a certain level of backlash regardless of the contexts. Ironically though, elements of our popular culture are bombarded with the word “[see forum posting rules]” everyday and there is no doubt that the word has not escaped the vocabulary of blacks, young and old, from the inner cities to the ivory towers, among the underclass and elite. In what context do blacks use this word today, and do their justifications of the use of the word create a double standard where non-blacks are vilified when the word “slips” from their mouths? How and why has the word become socially acceptable among blacks? Brandi Polk, undergraduate at California State University, Los Angeles said, “blacks should be the only ones that can say that word,” and this view, extremely popular among blacks, has created for others a double standard. If the word is highly distasteful and unpleasant, some believe (mostly non-blacks); the word should not be used by anyone, especially in public settings. Let’s examine the popular uses of the word “” among blacks today.
I felt it only fair to give a bit of an update concerning the situation.
My co-worker and I had decided to attempt to talk to our boss in the hopes resolving the issue,or at least voicing our displeasure concerning his "choice" of words.
As of yet,he has been "unavailable to speak with us".
It is our oppinion that he is aware of what we heard,and is...
A) Hoping we will just drop the whole subject.
B) Attempting to figure out how to "justify" his comments.
C) Trying to figure out how to fire both of us without reprocussion.
halonachos wrote:There may be a presence of difference only due to a difference in tolerance of the person.
The difference has not affected the meaning of the word itself, only its acceptance.
The meaning behind the word has changed. There is no magic to words, no underlying true meaning. Just what is intended and what is understood by their use.
@ Wrex, I said that "negro" comes from spanish. The n word comes from latin "niger". Africans were often considered an inferior race. In fact, I do believe that it was the arabs to first tell the eurpoeans of the african inferiority and to justufy their slavery. So, the word "niger" influenced the naming of these "inferior" peoples as most european nations had languages based off of the latin language. As they thought that africans were inferior the word began to resemble that meaning, when it became english the spelling most likely changed to include two g's instead of just one.
@ Sebster, I still argue that the meaning does not change. Both know it is an insult, however they are comfortable enough to accept the insult. I will point out a previous example;
When I meet my friend I will usually call him gay(actually the slang for a homosexual, but that gets edited to "cigarette"), the word is still an insult but because I am good friends with my friend he responds by calling me a fat arse. I am comfortable by this because even though he just insulted me, I know that he meant nothing by it.
Also, if you have seen "Gran Torino" there is a scene where Clint Eastwood explains this to the asian kid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @fitzz
I really do hope that you talk to him about this and all ends well. If he is hostile when you confront him, then take further action, if he apologizes just remember this incident.
If he fires you, look into your state's employment laws because some states allow companies to fire employees without reason. I think its classified as a "Right to Work" state if that's the case.
halonachos wrote:@ Sebster, I still argue that the meaning does not change. Both know it is an insult, however they are comfortable enough to accept the insult. I will point out a previous example;
When I meet my friend I will usually call him gay(actually the slang for a homosexual, but that gets edited to "cigarette"), the word is still an insult but because I am good friends with my friend he responds by calling me a fat arse. I am comfortable by this because even though he just insulted me, I know that he meant nothing by it.
Thing is, when you say something and it isn't meant to be insulting and isn't taken as an insult, I think 'not an insult' is a good descriptor. Your argument that 'it is an insult but no-one considered it as such but it is still an insult' isn't all that useful.
Oh, and Fitzz, if your boss is avoiding talking you about its unlikely the discussion will achieve much. It requires goodwill on both sides.
I'd still advise against taking any formal action - just start polishing up the resume.
halonachos wrote:No, it's still considered an insult, but one made in good humor. A roast is another good example of this. They're insults used to great one another.
So you'd agree that despite being the same word, the understood meaning is very different?
No, the meaning is still exactly the same. The harshness of the meaning itself has lowered though. I still take it as an insult, but am able to cope with it if it comes from a friend.
Not necessarily. The meaning is still the same as the harshness is still the same. It would be up to the receiver of this insult to determine if it is just a friend greeting them as they allow their friend to greet them in such a manner. So it the harshness may not be altered, but the receiver may only allow certain people to call them such a word.
Person A: What up "insult"?
Person B: Nothing much my "insult #2"
compared to
Person A: What up "insult"?
Person C: WTF dude?
compared to
Person B: What up"insult #2"?
Person C: Not much, but that Person A guy ticked me off today.
The meaning is still the same as the word retains it's harshness, but the "verbal security clearance" of the person may be high enough to allow a person to call another person any insult. Also, the tone used can also be the same as I doubt Fitzz's boss yelled the n-word but it still retained its harshness.
Dogma, I don't know what qualities you put into a word to define it's meaning, but I can probably find a way to counter each one.
The n-word is a bad word and will always be negative and derogatory no matter who uses it.
If you say it in a soft voice or yell it aloud.
Whether you say it alone or in a crowd.
To a friend or to a stranger.
In a joke or in anger.
No matter the color of skin.
Either sober or drunk off gin.
Never let the n-word leave your mouth.
Especially if you're from the south.
halonachos wrote:Not necessarily. The meaning is still the same as the harshness is still the same. It would be up to the receiver of this insult to determine if it is just a friend greeting them as they allow their friend to greet them in such a manner. So it the harshness may not be altered, but the receiver may only allow certain people to call them such a word.
Didn't you just say that the harshness was reduced by the context? The word itself cannot have emotive properties, those only exist in the people who use or hear the word. Pejorative status is not a semantic quality.
halonachos wrote:
The meaning is still the same as the word retains it's harshness, but the "verbal security clearance" of the person may be high enough to allow a person to call another person any insult. Also, the tone used can also be the same as I doubt Fitzz's boss yelled the n-word but it still retained its harshness.
I think you're confusing meaning with definition. The meaning of a word varies contextually, and includes things like tone and intent. The definition (which can also be thought of as objectified, or abstracted meaning) of a word can also vary contextually, but does not contain things like tone or intent.
This is actually fairly advanced linguistics that we're getting in to at this point.
halonachos wrote:
Dogma, I don't know what qualities you put into a word to define it's meaning, but I can probably find a way to counter each one.
I don't know about that. I've had formal education in linguistics, philosophy of language, and logic; which combine to make me pretty knowledgeable in this area. As I said earlier, it seems your getting caught up on the distinction between meaning as it relates to words in use (pragmatics) and meaning as it relates to the relationships between words and the objects to which they refer (semantics).
The n-word is a bad word and will always be negative and derogatory no matter who uses it.
As I said before, the tone doesn't change how the n-word is used. No matter which tone it is said in, it will be negative, just sound negative in different noise levels.
Also, the intent is to insult the other person or the persons you are talking about. Again, some people greet others with insults. So, if you are complaining about customers you insult them with this word, if you greet a friend you insult them with this word.
Now, if the other person has agreed that the insult is okay to use as a greeting then they have reached a mutual belief that it is okay to insult the other person with this insult in order to greet them. The word still retains its original meaning, but the common belief allows its use. I do not believe that they think that it is no longer an insult, but they think that it is okay to use said insult.
Also, if you say that the word cannot be emotional itself, but relies only on the emotional response of the individuals either speaking or listening, then wouldn't that suggest that the context may change, but the meaning of the word itself would not. Even though the word still retains its meaning, harshness, derogatory status, tone, etc, the context itself changes allowing it to only seem that the meaning and/or use of the word has changed while in fact it has not.
Even when two friends use the word to greet each other it is being used to greet by way of being used to insult the other. The root of the word's use is to insult so any use beyond that will inherently be tainted by its use as an insult.
The n-word has a limited definition, usually being defined as a derogatory word for a black person. Even in its use among friends, you will hardly ever see a black person call a white person the n-word so even in a friendly context the word is still most likely going to retain its original definition of referring to a black person.
Now, I have argued that the tone doesn't do too much to change the word's meaning and I have argued with the "intent" of the word.
My argument has been that it is the intent of the word to insult the other. However, if it is intended to greet a familiar it is first and foremost intended to offend said familiar.
When the familiar hears the insult it is up to him to either allow or deny the use of the insult as a greeting. Some good friends greet one another by insulting them in which case they are still greeting another by way of insulting them.
In terms of the word's harshness, I do not believe that context changes the word's harshness, merely the response of the listener is changed.
I don't really know what the deal is, even though what your boss said is one of the most offensive things possible. I mean, I was walking to the subway station on the way to a Bruins game, and two African-American men were talking to each other. They multiple times called themselves *******s super-calmly. Anywho....
How is you business organized, FITZZ? Is there someone you can report this to, preferably not within business, or is it just him?
