Racism and internet vigilantism

KingGorilla wrote:

EDIT: Actually Hypatian, Political affiliation is grounds to bring a discriminatory firing suit. And the EEOC has held that sexual orientation and gender identity is covered under prohibitions on sex discrimination.

Nope. Look closer. The political affiliation protection is for federal employees only, and is not handled by the EEOC. It doesn't apply to employees of businesses covered by EEOC laws.

I am happy about the gender expression and identity protection under sex discrimination, which is new as of April. I think sexual orientation is still up in the air a little bit--I'm not sure there's been a test of handling that as sexual stereotyping yet, although it should reasonably be protected by the same principles that gender expression is protected. (That is: If you discriminate based on the idea that someone is not acting in a way that conforms with your expectations of how a member of their sex should act, you are discriminating based on sex.)

And of course, these protections don't apply at all to employees of businesses that don't have many permanent employees.

Yeah, that is just CRSA it seems. Given the present climate, I suspect more than a few people might need it.

The LGBT provision is new under Obama actually. EEOC revised its regulatory interpretations last year to little fanfare, which shocks me.

Sexual orientation has been protected for awhile in some states. I know it's been illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in Maine since 2005.

KingGorilla wrote:

If your actions outside of work in turn come back with consequences for your employer, they just need to shrug and keep you employed? The employer gets no say in whether they can determine that this is something that will blow over, or if it is an event that may lead to lost contracts, or in the case of a charity losing community support and donors?

The problem with that is that virtually any action - even ones deemed permissible in your current society/social sphere - can result in unforeseen consequences for your employer. If I accidentally offend some religious sensibilities then they might come after me and my employer or if someone takes offence at something I do - say crossing the road at the wrong time - and manages to get up enough anti-"me" publicity then they can end up in the same situation. The employer's bottom line will be affected and none of those "crazy" things are "legitimate" reasons for any of that happening but there are a lot of crazy and self-important people in the world who believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong on [Insert X here]...

Are we really to the point in society when any flimsy excuse can make you potentially unemployable for the foreseeable future? Because that's just pathetic and I really don't ever want to be involved with anyone who thinks that way...

'Everything sacred in our society'? Who appointed you the arbiter of what's sacred and what isn't?

I wouldn't have done what she did, but maybe it's an assault on the idea of mandated piety.

EDIT

In fairness to jd he did say in his opinion. But I'm going to leave that quote as is, because I think it represents the assumption of importance in other people commenting. (Like me.)

jdzappa wrote:

In the case of the lady flicking off the tomb of the unknown soldier, I definitely think she needs to lose her job. Maybe she has a problem with the current wars, but that tomb also represents plenty of poor sobs who died to free America from despotic England, Nazi Germany and slavery. IMHO she's giving the finger to everything sacred in our society, and the level of outrage is appropriate. In that way she's very much like a lot of the exposed racists. But taking things one step further, she took those photos while on a business trip to DC. I can't think of any employer out there who wouldnt punish employees for putting on their Captian Douche capes while on the clock.

I don't really agree - though I think that's obvious by now so this'll be my last post until there's something else I can comment on without being too repetitive!

Thing is, there would have been people (and probably still are) who disagree with all those actions taken by all those soldiers in all those conflicts.... Why is only one opinion correct? (I actually disagree that the ToTUS [is it offensive to abbreviate it like that?] has anything to do with slavery. You only have to read about its origins to determine that.) Conflicts are not like discrimination (of which racism is a part of) because there is usually never a complete right or wrong and never a clean way to partake in them or challenge them.

Not to mention that America was never "freed" from Nazi Germany... but that's just nitpicking.

Duoae wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

The error for Lindsay Stone -- and, incidentally, every person originally aggregated onto the tumblr page this thread started -- was not in the action committed. It was in publicizing it to a world audience.

It's obvious that we as a species are not yet used to having the ability to reach an audience 100 times greater than Walter Cronkite did, with just a few clicks of their phone. Those behind the curve will get punished for it, apparently.

I wonder if it took our species this long to deal with the camera.

I don't think it's comparable to the camera much. In the case of the camera, people initially were very careful because it was a permanent record was made where they could be held accountable. Here, the problem seems to be that people believe it shouldn't count or be considered for some reason.

I think primarily the difference here is what people think "accountability" means. Are you accountable for your actions? Of course! Does this incident of stupidity mean you should possibly lose the respect (if you had any) of random strangers and people you know? Yes. Does this incident of stupidity mean you should possibly lose your job? No.

There are levels of responsibility and response to events.

In the case of the lady flicking off the tomb of the unknown soldier, I definitely think she needs to lose her job. Maybe she has a problem with the current wars, but that tomb also represents plenty of poor sobs who died to free America from despotic England, defeat Nazi Germany and end slavery. IMHO she's giving the finger to everything sacred in our society, and the level of outrage is appropriate. In that way she's very much like a lot of the exposed racists. But taking things one step further, she took those photos while on a business trip to DC. I can't think of any employer out there who wouldnt punish employees for putting on their Captian Douche capes while on the clock.

Duoae wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

In the case of the lady flicking off the tomb of the unknown soldier, I definitely think she needs to lose her job. Maybe she has a problem with the current wars, but that tomb also represents plenty of poor sobs who died to free America from despotic England, Nazi Germany and slavery. IMHO she's giving the finger to everything sacred in our society, and the level of outrage is appropriate. In that way she's very much like a lot of the exposed racists. But taking things one step further, she took those photos while on a business trip to DC. I can't think of any employer out there who wouldnt punish employees for putting on their Captian Douche capes while on the clock.

I don't really agree - though I think that's obvious by now so this'll be my last post until there's something else I can comment on without being too repetitive!

Thing is, there would have been people (and probably still are) who disagree with all those actions taken by all those soldiers in all those conflicts.... Why is only one opinion correct? (I actually disagree that the ToTUS [is it offensive to abbreviate it like that?] has anything to do with slavery. You only have to read about its origins to determine that.) Conflicts are not like discrimination (of which racism is a part of) because there is usually never a complete right or wrong and never a clean way to partake in them or challenge them.

Not to mention that America was never "freed" from Nazi Germany... but that's just nitpicking.

Yeah that was just clunky writing on my part - I know very well that Germany never conquered America, but Britian would totally have taken over Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for Chuck Norris.

I recognize that my earlier comments are causing some stir, and I need to clarify that I certainly don't think that the American military has always acted like noble knights in some fairy tale. Even in necessary wars we've done some nasty things. But on the whole I see the tomb as a symbol of ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. The fact that Stone can go do what she did and not a few days later get a visit from the secret police is in large part to the efforts of those men and women who are honored at Arlington. I think what bothers me the most as a vet is this woman probably has no idea how insulting to those of us who have put our lives on the line. To me, her actions are just as revolting as the teens throwing around the n word for the lulz.

I suppose (and I promise this isn't me rehashing my previous posts! I promise!) that I'd like to ask what you would feel if a vet came back to their home town and was ostracised for their military career? They couldn't get any place of employment and none of their friends and family stood by their decisions?

Both cases are where you chose to exercise your right of free speech*/free action... but are the consequences justified?

*Free speech, not consequence-free speech as lots of people are wont to remind us!

[edit]

I think we, as a worldwide society, have a long way to go in terms of accepting "other thought".

Duoae wrote:

I suppose (and I promise this isn't me rehashing my previous posts! I promise!) that I'd like to ask what you would feel if a vet came back to their home town and was ostracised for their military career? They couldn't get any place of employment and none of their friends and family stood by their decisions?

Both cases are where you chose to exercise your right of free speech*/free action... but are the consequences justified?

*Free speech, not consequence-free speech as lots of people are wont to remind us!

[edit]

I think we, as a worldwide society, have a long way to go in terms of accepting "other thought".

Danggit Duoae - you are purposely engaging me so I don't start cleaning the house for Thanksgiving aren't you? I see what you're doing - but I'm powerless to resist!!

I see your point but I think tone is as important as message. It's one thing to criticize the military - and I'm completely ok with that because war is too important to be left to the generals. It's another to jump and down on military graves while flipping the free bird. In the same way, it's one thing to say you're unhappy with Obama being reelected, quite another to start throwing out terms like porch monkeys.

Having a debate is good. Being nasty and completely disrepectful is not. If in the scenario you mentioned about the vet being denied a job in his town, that doesn't seem to be his fault. However, I'd still support the employer's decision though because the employer has the right to fire and hire anyone for any reason, except for cases where the law protects against discrimination.

BTW, I agree with your earlier comments that employers in America are far too quick to take the side of the customer even when the customer is bat guano crazy. I've traveled to Europe several times and respect and even envy the ability that Parisian or Londoner wait staff can tell customers to go stuff themselves if they get out of line. But in the case of the woman being fired over the tomb photo, she showed extremely poor judgement on an official business trip. Not only would I not want the bad publicity if I were her employer, but I'd seriously question her maturity and ability to take care of disabled patients.

This points up another issue with your employer and public perception. We can't even keep the filthy skimmers from reading the whole thread and considering that they've got the wrong idea about what she was doing let alone expect the general public to exercise any subtlety in their reactions.

What happens when you lose your job because your employer says "it's not that you did anything wrong, it's that people THINK you did something wrong, and that's hurting my bottom line"?

jdzappa wrote:

Danggit Duoae - you are purposely engaging me so I don't start cleaning the house for Thanksgiving aren't you? I see what you're doing - but I'm powerless to resist!!

Yeah, take that! That'll teach you colonialists to try and escape from oppression and taxes!

I see your point but I think tone is as important as message. It's one thing to criticize the military - and I'm completely ok with that because war is too important to be left to the generals. It's another to jump and down on military graves while flipping the free bird. In the same way, it's one thing to say you're unhappy with Obama being reelected, quite another to start throwing out terms like porch monkeys.

Having a debate is good. Being nasty and completely disrepectful is not. If in the scenario you mentioned about the vet being denied a job in his town, that doesn't seem to be his fault. However, I'd still support the employer's decision though because the employer has the right to fire and hire anyone for any reason, except for cases where the law protects against discrimination.

I kind of agree with these points but like I was trying to point out up-thread. People can get offended at anything they want to try and get offended at. E.g. me and pretty much everything Bioware has done over the last four years!

I kinda disagree because I don't think it was reported she was "jumping up and down on the graves" that's emotional exaggeration and it comes from your feeling offended. "Flipping the bird" is not disrespectful for me. It's stupid and juvenile but those people are dead and gone. They did what they wanted or had to do and we live in the world they created. Is it disrespectful to dress as a Nazi in a Heroes and Villains costume party? A lot of people think it is. I don't, but then, hey, should I be punished if I did? I also kinda disagree with the part about the employer too. "Discrimination" shouldn't be what is mandated and defined strictly as legal matters.... That defeats the point and spirit of that legislation and speaks to "jobsworth" mentalities and paying lip-service to things you don't abide by or agree with: things that rile me up a lot. At the end of the day, discrimination is discrimination - whether that's for political views, -isms or because of your life choices.

Some interesting developments across the nation regarding not only monitoring of web presence, but the rising practice of employers or schools demanding passwords and usernames.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...

I believe the woman's explanation of what she was doing. Notice that she wasn't aiming her finger or mock-screaming at the tomb, but at the sign telling her not to. She was incredibly stupid for not realizing that people would think she was doing it at the tomb or dead soldiers in general, but I don't think she was intending to disrespect either.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Follow-up for what it's worth: Herr Meatstick is still employed, probably by a contractor or subsidiary of the power company (who deny that he is or has ever been an employee).

This is posted on the site:

On a separate note, this blog had to be taken down because of threats made to the subjects. Most people are doing the right thing, but for those who aren’t, if I get credible reports of threats, I will have to take down this blog. So if you want racists to be exposed, do not be threatening or intimidating.They deserve to lose their jobs and scholarships, but not threats of any kind.

“I hope he gets shot” is not an explicit threat, but it’s still unacceptable.

"I'm not threatening you, I'll just take away your livelihood and means of education if you express an opinion I don't agree with (this statement not actually a threat)." Ugh. For those of you claiming earlier that the underlying sentiment is anything other than "racists don't deserve jobs", at least it's clearly spelled out here.

Are you saying that their opinion is not valid Norman?

As a general stement? Yes, of course.

I'm not saying racists don't deserve jobs. They just don't deserve a certain spectrum of jobs. There are opportunities--including entrepreneurial ones--for those who won't be employed by certain employers. Plenty of racists work back-of-house in restaurants, for instance, or open their own establishments to cater to other racists. Speech is free; they could serve their own people by placing racist music on a radio station, supported by advertising by racist-owned businesses that let racist-Americans know where they can mingle among their own people. Racist publications, racist churches--really, the racist-American community can be very self-supporting.

Not taking that bait, if you're going to use history as a justification for the way you treat racists, just lynch them.

I was just watching a TED Talk about lying and it made me think of this thread.

At about 11:30 the presenter points out while we began communicating with each other between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, there's essentially never been a written record of what we've said until very, very recently. He makes the point that human communication evolved around the idea that there'd never be any permanent record of what the average person said, but that that has radically changed in the age of social media. Now a great deal of our communication is through the written word and--short of deleting posts and accounts--there's permanent record of it.

That made me think about this thread because what we're seeing is the clash between how our species has learned to communicate and this new digital world. The racist Obama stuff is a perfect example. If those people had said the same thing in front of their friends, nothing much would have happened. It's only because there's a written record of their comments--and people other than their friends can read them--that their statements have become controversial.

The short of it is that it's going to take us quite a while to figure out how we live in a social media world and there's going to be a lot of these types of incidents until our society adapts.

Totally agree, OG.

I liken it to an imaginary situation where the whole of humanity was suddenly psychic and able to read/hear anyone's thoughts around them. You're going to hear a lot of crazy sh*t that shocks and offends you but until you learn to filter that stuff out and find the person you would have known before things are going to be really weird...

In 30-40 years, we're going to have presidential candidates who have had social media profiles since they were in high school. I am really looking forward to that sh*t storm. Remember when Romney was accused of shaving a gay kid's head in high school? That stuff is the bread and butter of social media.

Grubber788 wrote:

In 30-40 years, we're going to have presidential candidates who have had social media profiles since they were in high school. I am really looking forward to that sh*t storm. Remember when Romney was accused of shaving a gay kid's head in high school? That stuff is the bread and butter of social media.

In 30-40 years time most of us here will be too senile to vote properly anyway, so...

In 30-40 years, we will be looking at ads about stupid stuff people posted on facebook/twitter/tumblr/myspace/whatever and going "meh, social media stupidness" for the overwhelming majority of it.

I disagree with one of the points being made above in that, if not for military service as exemplified by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then you would inevitably be living under jackbooted thugs and secret police.

There are dozens of such monuments around the world especially in countries that have a long history of secret police and their preferred footwear. They also believe their military service was part of what allowed their state to be so awesome with their great patriotism etc. Is there version wrong?

If she had surreptitiously done the same thing to the Iraqi version of the TotUS or the one in Bucharest under Ceauşescu would she be vilified or praised?

From my perspective, yes, I think she would have done something wrong. She was being disrespectful to the dead. Whether I agree with what they did/were in life, or any of the rest of it is irrelevant to me. I would still say that if she acted like at Megele's grave.

There is a time and a place to act like a jerk if you are so inclined. In a graveyard on company time is simply not it.

Bruce wrote:

I disagree with one of the points being made above in that, if not for military service as exemplified by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then you would inevitably be living under jackbooted thugs and secret police.

There are dozens of such monuments around the world especially in countries that have a long history of secret police and their preferred footwear. They also believe their military service was part of what allowed their state to be so awesome with their great patriotism etc. Is there version wrong?

If she had surreptitiously done the same thing to the Iraqi version of the TotUS or the one in Bucharest under Ceauşescu would she be vilified or praised?

I'd totally forgotten about this thread but since this question was aimed at my earlier post, I figured I should resurrect it. Growing up in the American South, I saw the Confederacy glorified. While I don't share the same sentiment for the "glorious cause," I have some sympathy for the Confederate soldiers who lost their lives. Since most of the fighting happened in the South, many of the soldiers saw themselves not fighting for slavery but to defend their homes and families. And then there's the question of in a totalitarian society if the poor SOB grunts have a choice in the fighting. In the Confederacy you had the home guard who would hang any deserters or dissenters. Hitler and Stalin would punish your entire family for refusing to fight. So while I have no respect for Hitler, Stalin, or Bedford Forrest, I do have basic sympathy for the average soldier and wouldn't think it's appropriate to dishonor the dead.

At any rate, Momgamer nailed it. Being a total idiot on the clock is definitely a good reason to lose your job.

jdzappa wrote:

At any rate, Momgamer nailed it. Being a total idiot on the clock is definitely a good reason to lose your job.

Considering this site we're on is called Gamers With Jobs and most of the posts seem to come during the workweek during working hours, I'm not sure how much any of us should think that's a good idea.

CheezePavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

At any rate, Momgamer nailed it. Being a total idiot on the clock is definitely a good reason to lose your job.

Considering this site we're on is called Gamers With Jobs and most of the posts seem to come during the workweek during working hours, I'm not sure how much any of us should think that's a good idea.

There's a big difference between flipping the bird at a national monument (Where you're almost sure to have *someone* see you do it.), and screwing around on the internet while you're waiting for something.

Kannon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

At any rate, Momgamer nailed it. Being a total idiot on the clock is definitely a good reason to lose your job.

Considering this site we're on is called Gamers With Jobs and most of the posts seem to come during the workweek during working hours, I'm not sure how much any of us should think that's a good idea.

There's a big difference between flipping the bird at a national monument (Where you're almost sure to have *someone* see you do it.), and screwing around on the internet while you're waiting for something.

The question is whether you're ready to wager your job on being able to explain that big difference to your boss.