Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[Adder]

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.

[Adder]

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Is this "cancel culture"?

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

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!"