Racism and internet vigilantism

CheezePavilion wrote:
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.

By visiting GWJ, our answer is implicitly "yes."

Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
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.

By visiting GWJ, our answer is implicitly "yes."

And now the question is explicit ; D

Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
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.

By visiting GWJ, our answer is implicitly "yes."

And now the question is explicit ; D

Then, "yes."

Actually, "maybe" because it's more than just the semantics you're talking about: if you're not aware of what's at stake, you're not actually wagering. You're just oblivious to the risks.

Any boss who doesn't appreciate the difference between something that could damage the reputation of the company and something that could at worse be considered a minor factor working against productivity is an idiot.

There are plenty of bosses who are idiots yet still fire people all the time, but what I'm referring to are the substance of the statements people make as opposed to just spending time on the forum. I'm sure we've all made quite a few statements we wouldn't want being taken out of context.

jdzappa wrote:

But I'm not really seeing the connection between a gross violation of company policy and a minor infraction. Remember, replacing workers cost companies lots of money, and if you're a solid performer than it's highly unlikely they're going to fire you for something as frivolous as posting on a gaming forum. Futhermore, just up and firing someone like that opens them up to a lawsuit, so most companies will require remedial action before ousting an employee.

We crossed in our comments: not for the act of posting itself, but for the substance of what you post. What is okay in the flow of a conversation on here might not look so good taken out of context.

Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
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.

By visiting GWJ, our answer is implicitly "yes."

And now the question is explicit ; D

Then, "yes."

Any boss who doesn't appreciate the difference between something that could damage the reputation of the company and something that could at worse be considered a minor factor working against productivity is an idiot.

Well, I guess I'm in a completely different boat than most goodjers because my work has pretty strict filters and I can't view anything that's remotely gaming or entertainment related (no gawker, reddit, facebook, etc). So I do what I'm sure a lot of people do - surf the interwebz from my smartphone at lunch.

But I'm not really seeing the connection between a gross violation of company policy and a minor infraction. Remember, replacing workers cost companies lots of money, and if you're a solid performer than it's highly unlikely they're going to fire you for something as frivolous as posting on a gaming forum. Futhermore, just up and firing someone like that opens them up to a lawsuit, so most companies will require remedial action before ousting an employee.

What's funny about all of this is despite being reported to their bosses, it sounds like quite a few of the raging racists still have their jobs. That leads me to believe that maybe the number of people who lose their jobs over questionable FaceBook posts is relatively small, and we just think people are losing their jobs left and right because of the cases we do hear about.

PS - Life's way too short to work at a company that sucks your soul and where you're at risk of losing your job over any stupid thing. Yes, I get there's a recession, but you should be creating your escape plan if things are getting that bad.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
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.

By visiting GWJ, our answer is implicitly "yes."

And now the question is explicit ; D

Then, "yes."

Any boss who doesn't appreciate the difference between something that could damage the reputation of the company and something that could at worst be considered a minor factor working against productivity is an idiot.

Edit: I don't spell well on gaming forums. I suppose THAT could get me fired.

CheezePavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

But I'm not really seeing the connection between a gross violation of company policy and a minor infraction. Remember, replacing workers cost companies lots of money, and if you're a solid performer than it's highly unlikely they're going to fire you for something as frivolous as posting on a gaming forum. Futhermore, just up and firing someone like that opens them up to a lawsuit, so most companies will require remedial action before ousting an employee.

We crossed in our comments: not for the act of posting itself, but for the substance of what you post. What is okay in the flow of a conversation on here might not look so good taken out of context.

Do you realize how much time your employer would have to spend combing through forums looking for questionable material? And then there's the difficulty of tracing back your online handle to your actual real-life identity (yes I recognize that it's doable but it would be time consuming and a big hassle). The only way I'd be really scared of everything I write is if I worked for the CIA, and even then it took them months to figure out their director was playing hide the salami with someone besides Mrs Petraeus.

Now, FaceBook is a different story because your real-life identity is blatantly obvious and your boss, coworkers, and neighbors can easily see what you've been up to depending on your privacy settings. Furthermore, doing something incredibly stupid like flipping off the TOTUS or calling for a cross burning on the White House front lawn will get you noticed by complete strangers and the resulting firestorm is what will likely get you in trouble.

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

jdzappa wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

But I'm not really seeing the connection between a gross violation of company policy and a minor infraction. Remember, replacing workers cost companies lots of money, and if you're a solid performer than it's highly unlikely they're going to fire you for something as frivolous as posting on a gaming forum. Futhermore, just up and firing someone like that opens them up to a lawsuit, so most companies will require remedial action before ousting an employee.

We crossed in our comments: not for the act of posting itself, but for the substance of what you post. What is okay in the flow of a conversation on here might not look so good taken out of context.

Do you realize how much time your employer would have to spend combing through forums looking for questionable material? And then there's the difficulty of tracing back your online handle to your actual real-life identity (yes I recognize that it's doable but it would be time consuming and a big hassle). The only way I'd be really scared of everything I write is if I worked for the CIA, and even then it took them months to figure out their director was playing hide the salami with someone besides Mrs Petraeus.

Now, FaceBook is a different story because your real-life identity is blatantly obvious and your boss, coworkers, and neighbors can easily see what you've been up to depending on your privacy settings. Furthermore, doing something incredibly stupid like flipping off the TOTUS or calling for a cross burning on the White House front lawn will get you noticed by complete strangers and the resulting firestorm is what will likely get you in trouble.

Well that's the thing: she didn't flip off the TOTUS. She flipped off a sign at the TOTUS. What seems like one thing to the person doing it can lose all context and rationality once it gets out there.

Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but eh, what's shocking to me is how half-blind perception became reality in this case.

Grubber788 wrote:

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

Agreed. But then again as a PC gaming snob, I'm going to fire anyone who doesn't bow down to the obvious superiority of PCs versus consoles.

Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but eh, what's shocking to me is how half-blind perception became reality in this case.

Ok, reviewing more about the case, I agree this was more a prank than a conscious attempt to be offensive. That doesn't change the fact that she was doing this on an official business trip, and that her actions were incredibly unprofessional and immature. Also, some jobs have more scrutiny than others. Military officers can get in a lot of trouble if they badmouth politicians on FaceBook. Teachers can get in a lot of trouble for doing things that make them look unfit to teach kids. Former child stars can find themselves almost out of a job for making fun of the TV show that pays them an ungodly amount of money per episode.

jdzappa wrote:
Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but eh, what's shocking to me is how half-blind perception became reality in this case.

Ok, reviewing more about the case, I agree this was more a prank than a conscious attempt to be offensive. That doesn't change the fact that she was doing this on an official business trip, and that her actions were incredibly unprofessional and immature. Also, some jobs have more scrutiny than others. Military officers can get in a lot of trouble if they badmouth politicians on FaceBook. Teachers can get in a lot of trouble for doing things that make them look unfit to teach kids. Former child stars can find themselves almost out of a job for making fun of the TV show that pays them an ungodly amount of money per episode.

I don't think working at a nonprofit that houses adults with learning disabilities is that kind of situation though. All those scenarios you mentioned, there's a connection between the job and the scrutiny. I don't see the connection between that kind of lack of professionalism and immaturity and her job. The best I can come up with is that she's not very good at reading comprehension for ignoring the importance of the words in the outer ring.

Grubber788 wrote:

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

Why? By the time you're a boss the SONY brand will be such a laughing stock that you'll probably just feel sorry for the losers!

Duoae wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

Why? By the time you're a boss the SONY brand will be such a laughing stock that you'll probably just feel sorry for the losers!

;)

I plan on being Sony's CEO!

Spoiler:

By then we will be selling pagers and pager accessories.

Grubber788 wrote:

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

Well it's not that--in her case, they didn't comb through her photos at work. Instead, something she did blew up on the internet and then they figured out from the timeline she must have done this during a work trip, right? It wouldn't take much to figure out if those Tweets and Facebook posts collected in the HelloThereRacists Tumblr were made during work hours, just like it wouldn't take much to figure out if a post on here was during work hours.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

Well it's not that--in her case, they didn't comb through her photos at work. Instead, something she did blew up on the internet and then they figured out from the timeline she must have done this during a work trip, right? It wouldn't take much to figure out if those Tweets and Facebook posts collected in the HelloThereRacists Tumblr were made during work hours, just like it wouldn't take much to figure out if a post on here was during work hours.

I'm still not making the connection between posting on GWJ and posting a picture of yourself flipping off the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Grubber788 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

When I'm boss, I'm going to comb through forums to see if my employees are Sony fanboys, and then I'm going to fire them if they are.

Well it's not that--in her case, they didn't comb through her photos at work. Instead, something she did blew up on the internet and then they figured out from the timeline she must have done this during a work trip, right? It wouldn't take much to figure out if those Tweets and Facebook posts collected in the HelloThereRacists Tumblr were made during work hours, just like it wouldn't take much to figure out if a post on here was during work hours.

I'm still not making the connection between posting on GWJ and posting a picture of yourself flipping off the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

It's the things we post. Even earlier in this conversation, someone said Mengele's grave deserves respect. That might not go over big with many bosses. Of course, in context we all know what was meant and the point that was being made, but then again, look at how her picture was taken out of context and has become her flipping off the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

There's a right place and a wrong place to flip the bird.

Arlington National Cemetery : A wrong place.

I think a message conveyed via images is much less ambiguous (regardless of author intent or reader interpretation), and the generation currently growing into their adult accountabilities is having some difficulty separating the ease of creating and publishing statements such as these from the repercussions of broadcasting them to a potentially global audience.

The cliche "a picture says a thousand words" also holds true in this situation.

A football player at the University of North Alabama posted a racist tweet about the President's speech pre-empting the football game tonight (link - many many instances of the n-word, including the url). He's already been kicked of the team because people brought the tweet to the athletic departments attention.

I understand the impulse to be able to say what you want... but the internet is not private. Facebook is not private. Twitter is especially not private. Twitter is almost the opposite of private.

I have a job in the media. I have a twitter account. I make clear on my Twitter account that my opinions are not those of my employer, even though I go out of my way not to name my employer or give any information as to who it is, and I understand that what I tweet from my account is a reflection of me not just as a internet person, but as a professional, and treat my account accordingly. (Hell, I've filled out a few job apps that asked SPECIFICALLY about my Twitter account.)

All of this is to say, you have the freedom to call someone a n*gger on the internet, but if you do it from your own, personal, non-anonymous Twitter account, don't act surprised if it blows up in your face.

I mean, if you can't vent anger at Barack without calling him a n*gger, it's your problem. About 10,000 other lazy fake insulting names have already been created. Obummer. Barack OFrauda. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If you're going to be racist in public, be creative. Then people might not notice you being horrendously racist.

Sidenote: Can I express how hard it makes me want to facepalm when I see people claiming that you can use ethnic slurs to describe a person in a manner that isn't racist as long as "you weren't intending to be racist".

No seriously. I've seen people use ethnic slurs to describe a person, and say that they're not being racist when they do it, or worse, that they're being accurate because the target is a "bad" version of that race, therefore the slur applies. This is known as the Chris Rock Corollary, as the "Black People vs. Niggas" bit is probably the one he regrets the most in his entire career.

Prederick wrote:

Sidenote: Can I express how hard it makes me want to facepalm when I see people claiming that you can use ethnic slurs to describe a person in a manner that isn't racist as long as "you weren't intending to be racist".

No seriously. I've seen people use ethnic slurs to describe a person, and say that they're not being racist when they do it, or worse, that they're being accurate because the target is a "bad" version of that race, therefore the slur applies. This is known as the Chris Rock Corollary, as the "Black People vs. Niggas" bit is probably the one he regrets the most in his entire career.

I did not know this was a thing... I guess people will try and get their "old habits" through into the new ones by any means necessary...

Prederick wrote:

No seriously. I've seen people use ethnic slurs to describe a person, and say that they're not being racist when they do it, or worse, that they're being accurate because the target is a "bad" version of that race, therefore the slur applies. This is known as the Chris Rock Corollary, as the "Black People vs. Niggas" bit is probably the one he regrets the most in his entire career.

Thank you for clearing up that question I had.

And: "You can't have no vam-pire friend and take them to the beach..."

Prederick wrote:

All of this is to say, you have the freedom to call someone a n*gger on the internet, but if you do it from your own, personal, non-anonymous Twitter account, don't act surprised if it blows up in your face.

Hence why 4chan exists.

4chan: When You Absolutely, Positively Have To Call Someone a N***er on the Internet But Don't Want To Lose Your Job.

Prederick wrote:

Sidenote: Can I express how hard it makes me want to facepalm when I see people claiming that you can use ethnic slurs to describe a person in a manner that isn't racist as long as "you weren't intending to be racist".

No seriously. I've seen people use ethnic slurs to describe a person, and say that they're not being racist when they do it, or worse, that they're being accurate because the target is a "bad" version of that race, therefore the slur applies. This is known as the Chris Rock Corollary, as the "Black People vs. Niggas" bit is probably the one he regrets the most in his entire career.

I see this a lot. And I think 95% of the time (pure, total science, there) people are just using it in a fake Psych 101 attempt to deflect criticism of their legitimately racist behavior. But I think there's also 5% of the time when people just say it and it means absolutely nothing in the context of that particular conversation. I do it infrequently. But as someone who does that, I will never fault someone from outside the context/conversation from having an impulse to punch me in my damn face.

So, with that in mind, the idea you could just broadcast that on Twitter or Facebook and feel like someone else is being the idiot and/or needs to get their crap straight is really hilarious to me.

*Legion* wrote:
Prederick wrote:

All of this is to say, you have the freedom to call someone a n*gger on the internet, but if you do it from your own, personal, non-anonymous Twitter account, don't act surprised if it blows up in your face.

Hence why 4chan exists.

4chan: When You Absolutely, Positively Have To Call Someone a N***er on the Internet But Don't Want To Lose Your Job.

I laughed rather loud at this.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I see this a lot. And I think 95% of the time (pure, total science, there) people are just using it in a fake Psych 101 attempt to deflect criticism of their legitimately racist behavior. But I think there's also 5% of the time when people just say it and it means absolutely nothing in the context of that particular conversation. I do it infrequently. But as someone who does that, I will never fault someone from outside the context/conversation from having an impulse to punch me in my damn face.

This is something else I see a lot. I have conversations with friends, where we have a level of easy-going banter and knowledge of statements made in an ironic tone or designed to be so over the top, we can make the joke with each other. It's our personal conversation, and I wouldn't attempt to police other people's personal relationships and the conversations that happen within them. What I don't get is why so many people seem to believe that because they "have one X friend" who laughs at an offensive joke, that therefore they can make that joke in a public sphere to people who are not inside of that relationship, and get indignant when other people get offended.

My thought was basically this. Let's say my best friend calls his wife a pet name. And it's fine for them to use those names for each other, within the bounds of their own relationship. However, if I wandered in and started calling his wife said pet name, it'd be weird and kind of a violation, at best. Alternatively, it's like listening to parents bitch about their children or children bitch about their parents. They can do it, but if you butt in with a "yeah, your kid's a f**king moron", don't be surprised if it doesn't go over well.