» Site Navigation |
|
» Online Users: 259 |
0 members and 259 guests |
No Members online |
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM. |
|
 |
|
07-29-2020, 11:24 PM
|
#2776
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Right. But this was Wrong. This guy was acting entirely in good faith, and simply attempting to offer advice. This boss elevated moral grandstanding to broadcast corporate wokeness over the interests of a guy who was actually doing something useful for the movement his boss is more interested in being seen as extremely supportive of rather than actually and effectively supporting.
This is a social media conundrum. It elevates the awareness crowd above the effective crowd. Saying is of more value than doing.
There's also a critique of corporate marketing and corporate "values" to be raised, but that's a long conversation for another day.
|
Most of the time if a board or CEO comes to me to talk about terminating someone senior in their operation I spend a lot of time asking them what they want and getting them to think through the pros and cons and I weigh in on legal pros and cons. I try to be dispassionate about it.
If their CEO had brought this one to me, I would have been "come on, X, don't be an ass, this is stupid."
__________________
A wee dram a day!
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 02:12 AM
|
#2777
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,057
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Right. But this was Wrong. This guy was acting entirely in good faith, and simply attempting to offer advice. This boss elevated moral grandstanding to broadcast corporate wokeness over the interests of a guy who was actually doing something useful for the movement his boss is more interested in being seen as extremely supportive of rather than actually and effectively supporting.
This is a social media conundrum. It elevates the awareness crowd above the effective crowd. Saying is of more value than doing.
There's also a critique of corporate marketing and corporate "values" to be raised, but that's a long conversation for another day.
|
I think the boss was just worried about losing lefty clients.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 02:13 AM
|
#2778
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,057
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think he'll take that approach. Schor was being helpful. He was shouted down by people who didn't like his advice.
He's in a no man's land. An anti-racist branded racist by anti-racists who aren't terribly smart.
I believe he plays the role of a Danton in this moral panic.
|
I thought that by Adder's reasoning, intent is irrelevant: If you say or do things that tend to perpetuate systemic racism, you're a racist.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 08:26 AM
|
#2779
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,211
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought that by Adder's reasoning, intent is irrelevant: If you say or do things that tend to perpetuate systemic racism, you're a racist.
|
Schor is not perpetuating racism. He's assisting antiracism by advising antiracists to avoid counterproductive action.
Hence the Danton reference. Danton (I believe... it's been a while) was insufficiently supportive of extreme actions against the aristocracy. He viewed the Terror as a thing which would eat itself. Robespierre thought otherwise. Neither ultimately did well.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 10:32 AM
|
#2780
|
I am beyond a rank!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,162
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably Adder thinks it was OK to fire Shor, since what he said was "racist" in the broad sense of being arguably unhelpful to the struggle to combat structural racism in this country. But maybe I have misread Adder's posts on the subject and he will explain to me why I'm wrong.
|
I haven’t followed it closely, because, again, there is no more tedious topic, but that tweet is not racist.
ETA: It was sent in the middle of a storm of disingenuous concern trolling and got swept up in the backlash. A little tone-deaf (oh, I bet that’s unPC these days) but not a firing offense on my view. But hey, it’s an at-will world we’ve created so it’s not my call.
Last edited by Adder; 07-30-2020 at 10:36 AM..
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 10:41 AM
|
#2781
|
I am beyond a rank!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,162
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought that by Adder's reasoning, intent is irrelevant: If you say or do things that tend to perpetuate systemic racism, you're a racist.
|
I think you’ll find I very rarely say a person “is a racist”. People do and say racist things and support racist policies. Intent does not generally matter to whether actions or statements support racist policies or systems and pointing that out is not inherently a critique of the person.
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 11:01 AM
|
#2782
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
I haven’t followed it closely, because, again, there is no more tedious topic, but that tweet is not racist.
ETA: It was sent in the middle of a storm of disingenuous concern trolling and got swept up in the backlash. A little tone-deaf (oh, I bet that’s unPC these days) but not a firing offense on my view. But hey, it’s an at-will world we’ve created so it’s not my call.
|
If he was concern trolling Bernie Bros he was doing God's good work.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 11:49 AM
|
#2783
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,132
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
I think you’ll find I very rarely say a person “is a racist”. People do and say racist things and support racist policies. Intent does not generally matter to whether actions or statements support racist policies or systems and pointing that out is not inherently a critique of the person.
|
Have you read the criticisms of White Fragility from black people (I assume they are not the usual R suspects?)? Are those critics doing a racist thing?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 01:54 PM
|
#2784
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,057
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Schor is not perpetuating racism. He's assisting antiracism by advising antiracists to avoid counterproductive action.
|
But wouldn't Taibbi say the same?
eta: Also what Hank said.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 02:11 PM
|
#2785
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,211
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But wouldn't Taibbi say the same?
eta: Also what Hank said.
|
I think Adder's argument that Taibbi was racist was based on Taibbi's dismissive, mocking tone toward White Fragility. By mocking the book, Taibbi harmed the cause of antiracism. Had Taibbi written a piece merely critiquing some of the flaws in WF and pointing out how DiAngelo could have made better arguments, as Schor did in criticizing violent protest, I don't think under Adder's definition of racism Taibbi could be deemed a racist.*
The criticisms of WF authored by black people would fall into the same analysis. If it denigrates WF and thus harms the cause of antiracism, it's racist. If it's mere criticism offered to assist the cause of antiracism, it is not racist.
_____
ETA: * Taibbi did offer several sober critical points, but he mixed them with several comedic jabs and a few unfair critiques.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 07-30-2020 at 02:14 PM..
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 02:14 PM
|
#2786
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,057
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Is this "cancel culture"?
Quote:
Thirteen Black and Jewish elected officials and community leaders called Tuesday for Minister Rodney Muhammad, the leader of the NAACP in Philadelphia, to apologize for an anti-Semitic image he posted on his Facebook page last week.
Some demanded that Muhammad resign or be removed from his post.
State Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat, said he would no longer work with the local NAACP if Muhammad remains in charge.
“I cannot accept anything less ... than an apology and, frankly, stepping out of the way,” Williams said in a conference call hosted by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.
....
|
Philly Inquirer
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 02:16 PM
|
#2787
|
Moderasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33,057
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think Adder's argument that Taibbi was racist was based on Taibbi's dismissive, mocking tone toward White Fragility. By mocking the book, Taibbi harmed the cause of antiracism. Had Taibbi written a piece merely critiquing some of the flaws in WF and pointing out how DiAngelo could have made better arguments, as Schor did in criticizing violent protest, I don't think under Adder's definition of racism Taibbi could be deemed a racist.*
The criticisms of WF authored by black people would fall into the same analysis. If it denigrates WF and thus harms the cause of antiracism, it's racist. If it's mere criticism offered to assist the cause of antiracism, it is not racist.
_____
ETA: * Taibbi did offer several sober critical points, but he mixed them with several comedic jabs and a few unfair critiques.
|
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't recall Adder ever saying that a mocking tone makes something racist. I think his point is that you need to look to the effects on systemic racism, not intent, and a mocking tone goes to intent.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 02:26 PM
|
#2788
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,211
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is this "cancel culture"?
Philly Inquirer
|
No. If he merely argued that Cannon got a raw deal, a point with which I agree, I'd say this was cancel culture at its worst.
But putting up what sounds like a Nazi cartoon of Jews is beyond the pale. Clearly within the sphere of deviancy.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 04:15 PM
|
#2789
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,211
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't recall Adder ever saying that a mocking tone makes something racist. I think his point is that you need to look to the effects on systemic racism, not intent, and a mocking tone goes to intent.
|
I see your point. But I think it’s the mocking that denigrates the antiracist effort, which is the adverse impact that makes Taibbi’s piece racist. (I am reading Adder’s mind, so I could be dead wrong.) In Schor’s case, he doesn’t denigrate. He merely states that violence is not as helpful as nonviolent protest. Had he denigrated those engaged in violence, he may have achieved the necessary adverse impact. But he was respectful and understanding of the violence. Killer Mike took a similar position. So did I believe John Lewis.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 07-30-2020 at 04:19 PM..
|
|
|
07-30-2020, 04:25 PM
|
#2790
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,132
|
Re: Objectively intelligent.
Right Winger Facebook fun!!!
"Wash your mask. Wake up!!!
A caller to a radio talk show recently shared that his wife was hospitalized and told she had COVID and only a couple of days left to live. A doctor friend suggested she be tested for legionnaires disease because she wore the same mask every day all day long. Turns out it WAS legionnaires disease from the moisture and bacteria in her mask. She was given antibiotics and within two days was better. WHAT IF these "spikes" in COVID are really something else due to improper mask wearing?? COPIED!"
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|