Racial Tension in the U.S.

[David.]

What would even compel that guy to tweet that out? How would it not occur to him that he would immediately be fired for it?

His reasoning is that our guys fought against the Japanese that bombed the shit out of us and we're recongizing a Japanese person on memorial day in a sport that's remarkably American.

I can understand it, it's just not particularly persuasive or rational. And it's a symptom of collectivism.

 

[DJTJ]

His reasoning is that our guys fought against the Japanese that bombed the shit out of us and we're recongizing a Japanese person on memorial day in a sport that's remarkably American .

I can understand it, it's just not particularly persuasive or rational.

To further; his dad and his football teammates fought alongside someone who he's written extensively about who died during WW2.

I can understand where he's coming from, but it was fucking awful.

 

[The Oi]

His reasoning is that our guys fought against the Japanese that bombed the shit out of us and we're recongizing a Japanese person on memorial day in a sport that's remarkably American .

I can understand it, it's just not particularly persuasive or rational.

I also understand the reasoning. I just can't fathom why he'd tweet that idiocy out to millions of people.

He also made it about himself, which is horrible journalism.

 

[David.]

I also understand the reasoning. I just can't fathom why he'd tweet that idiocy out to millions of people.

He also made it about himself, which is horrible journalism.

His tweets aren't journalism, they're tweets.

But interesting question. Should he keep his opinion to himself?, who does that benefit?

Doesn't this set the precedent that you better agree with everyone or you lose your job? So shut the fuck up and get in line?

That's going to have a terrible outcome. It makes sense to punish people for saying dumb shit, but only parochially. You have to consider what that does long term. What you're encouraging, what you're penalizing. We're talking tautology, not subjectivity. You don't have principle with subjectivity, you have chaos and hope you end up on the right side of it.

 

[DJTJ]

His tweets aren't journalism, they're tweets.

But interesting question. Should he keep his opinion to himself?, who does that benefit?

Doesn't this set the precedent that you better agree with everyone or you lose your job? So shut the fuck up and get in line?

That's going to have a terrible outcome. It makes sense to punish people for saying dumb shit, but only parochially. You have to consider what that does long term. What you're encouraging, what you're penalizing. We're talking tautology, not subjectivity. You don't have principle with subjectivity, you have chaos and hope you end up on the right side of it.

IMO, the second you put you company in your bio, and you're verified because of your job, you know longer are operating a personal opinion Twitter page.

You now represent the company.

 

[The Oi]

His tweets aren't journalism, they're tweets.

But interesting question. Should he keep his opinion to himself?, who does that benefit?

Doesn't this set the precedent that you better agree with everyone or you lose your job? So shut the fuck up and get in line?

That's going to have a terrible outcome. It makes sense to punish people for saying dumb shit, but only parochially. You have to consider what that does long term. What you're encouraging, what you're penalizing. We're talking tautology, not subjectivity. You don't have principle with subjectivity, you have chaos and hope you end up on the right side of it.

No.

I don't think firing your employee for saying to thousands (and ultimately millions) of people that you're uncomfortable with a Japanese person winning a race sets a standard that you have to agree with everyone.

That is racist. He literally said that he didn't want someone to win a race because of the country they're from on a public forum.

Canning him was an obvious decision. He doesn't have to keep that opinion to himself, but he certainly should. More importantly, he should have a conversation with someone who explains to him that he made some irrational and racist comments. Maybe he really doesn't feel that way about Japanese people in general and it was just for Memorial Day. Who knows...

Hopefully that teachable moment comes as a result of the comments he made. But if the paper feels obligated to fire him as the result of the racist comments he made, then doubled down on...they should.

 

[David.]

IMO, the second you put you company in your bio, and you're verified because of your job, you know longer are operating a personal opinion Twitter page.

You now represent the company.

And that's the problem. It absolutely makes sense. And it makes sense for the company to fire them. They'll get protested into bankruptcy.

What I'm advocating is the public turns outrage culture into dialectic culture. Not to legislate people can say things without societal sanction, but that everyone understands that we need to have these conversations for the betterment of our society. Sure seems counterproductive initially, but if you think about it more holistically..

 

[David.]

No.

I don't think firing your employee for saying to thousands (and ultimately millions) of people that you're uncomfortable with a Japanese person winning a race sets a standard that you have to agree with everyone.

That is racist. He literally said that he didn't want someone to win a race because of the country they're from on a public forum.

Canning him was an obvious decision.

Yea but we're talking about establishing first principle.

Take away the concept of racism and what you have is "let's fire the guy for saying something we disagree with". And, "reward the mob".

You get more of what you reward. We need less mobs.

Ask Bret weinstein, the obviously not racist racist.

 

[Jack Brickman]

IMO, the second you put you company in your bio, and you're verified because of your job, you know longer are operating a personal opinion Twitter page.

You now represent the company.

Yup. When I used to work for Duke Energy, one of our required e-classes was on how, whenever you have an opportunity to speak publicly, you should always be conscious that your opinions can be construed as the opinions of the company, especially if you are introduced as a Duke employee. And that there could be consequences if you made the company or yourself look bad with the opinions you expressed.

This isn't a new concept. If you work for a prominent company or are a prominent public figure, your words carry weight, and those companies aren't going to sit there and put up with people saying stupid shit and making them look bad. This has always been the case. The main difference is that social media has made it much easier for idiots to accidentally say stupid shit and get themselves in trouble because every idiotic statement is just a quick tweet away.

 

[gourimoko]

Private citizens can act how they want, I never alluded to anything else. I'm the one advocating exactly that, others are not.

You can disagree with what someone says and youre free to fire them as well.

I'm not sure who is arguing the bolded.

Seems like private citizens were the only parties involved, so not sure how this is a freedom of speech issue?

 

[gourimoko]

So I purposely didn't put anything w/ the article other than the link, as I didn't want to poison the well with my opinion.

I get where he's coming from, I do, in the context he provided, I can be sympathetic to the emotions felt. It's rather similar to the Confederate Flag issue, in that sense.

I hate it ends in firing, because I don't think he was trying to be hateful, but he spoke with a context many can understandably relate to, given the history. With that said, I'd rather have seen it turn into a point of dialogue for learning rather than another mob rule takedown.

In the end, historical context isn't grounds for inequality today. No matter who wields said context.

Can you explain how you're sympathetic with how he felt?

I honestly have no idea how you could possibly feel that way and not acknowledge his personal bigotry simultaneously - which would entail his firing, no?

Am I missing something?

 

[gourimoko]

Yea but we're talking about establishing first principle.

Take away the concept of racism and what you have is "let's fire the guy for saying something we disagree with". And, "reward the mob".

You get more of what you reward. We need less mobs.

Ask Bret weinstein, the obviously not racist racist.

I'm not sure I understand why you're calling this "mob" rule. We as a society reject racism, do we not? So, this is an example of that...

I'm really having a hard time understanding your argument either from a pragmatic standpoint or a philosophical one. I see no harm done in this man losing his job....

Again, I have to ask, what am I missing?

 

[Tornicade]

I would never post in off topic if I had to use my real name.

 

[Wrathe]

Can you explain how you're sympathetic with how he felt?

I honestly have no idea how you could possibly feel that way and not acknowledge his personal bigotry simultaneously - which would entail his firing, no?

Am I missing something?

Sure. So his father fought against the Japanese in WWII. So you know there's going to be strong opinions in his upbringing there. It's hard to battle an enemy and NOT have that sentiment in the end.

I think the irony just struck him that on a day we remember those lost in the line of duty, his mind goes to his father's service. WWI. Pearl Harbor. The emotions that stirs. And on that day, much of America was cheering for a Japanese driver.

I can understand how he got there, and maybe sympathize isn't the right word, perhaps empathize? I oft use those interchangeably mistakenly so. I'm not saying it's OK. I'm not justifying it, I just understand how he can get there.

I think it's something he needs to let go and move on. WWII is over. With that said, and as you well know, some people just have trouble with being told to "let it go, and move on". Unfortunately, we all gotta do it if we're gonna move forward, IMO.

However, that's what I meant by that, hope it clears up where I'm coming from, even if you don't agree w/ me.

 

[Wrathe]

I would never post in off topic if I had to use my real name.

Ya, I hear ya. I'm sure with minor poking someone could find out my real name, I'm not totally secretive over it. Maybe I should be?

It's sad though but in a time where so many want rid of anonymity, it's needed more than ever due to "attack and ruin" mentality of the mob vs. "attack the idea and disagree".