Racism: A recent story brings up a good question:

[MineralMan]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027233091

At this link we learn of a guy and some of his Facebook friends getting fired for posting racist comments about the child of a co-worker of one of those fired.

So, I like this idea. Say racist stuff about people around you and lose your job. Seems to be justice to me. So, what do you think? If someone posts nasty racist stuff on Facebook, should they be reported to their employer? I haven't seen any such thing on my Facebook page from anyone, but it's a good question. What do you think?

18 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, if you know their employer, report it.
	7 (39%)
	No, it's none of your business.
	7 (39%)
	It depends on how egregious the racist comment is.
	2 (11%)
	I'd only do it anonymously.
	0 (0%)
	I'd never report anything like this.
	0 (0%)
	Only if I disliked the person.
	0 (0%)
	Don't be a tattle-tale.
	0 (0%)
	I hate this poll.
	2 (11%)
	I refuse to answer, on the grounds that it might incriminate me.
	0 (0%)
	Other (Explanation?)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Shandris]

1. No, I don't think it's a good thing.

I don't think 'none of your business' is probably the best wording, though. I had considered 'other', but I doubt people read the thread when they see that.

I don't think mass shaming is good. There can't be one 'approved way'. All it takes to realize how terrible of an idea this is is to realize what would have happened if this had been popular 20 years ago. Think we'd still have marriage equality? No, because you'd be silenced, shut down, shut out, and shouting hopelessly into the void because your opinion didn't pass 'societal muster'.

Our government lies to people every single day. It directs people to attack shadow enemies. It is frightfully effective at its job. And you want me to support giving power to the very people who buy into the propaganda? Are you mad?!

[MineralMan]

2. So, if you encounter blatant racism, you do nothing?

I don't buy that. How will people learn that racism is unacceptable unless we show them by action?

Shaming works. I think we need more of it used when racism is public.

[Shandris]

3. Yes, it 'works'. So does a lobotomy.

Furthermore, I never said I 'did nothing'. I simply said I don't need to make a public spectacle out of it. I don't need to let others know how good of a person I am to feel better about myself.

Also, it's idiotic to think that you 'show them' by putting their livelihood, and that of their family, at risk. That's what authoritarians do. And authoritarians are, universally, EVIL. Period. On all sides.

[MineralMan]

4. Racism puts many people's livelihoods and families at risk.

Were you not aware of that? Racism also lets cops get away with killing unarmed people of color. Why not fight back and make racism unacceptable.

Authoritarian? No. Racists are authoritarians. Let's put an end to racism.

[Shandris]

8. Okay.

Well since I'm not going to get into the conflation game and my wrists aren't strong enough to have an extended typing conversation about it, I'll simply say 'k' and back out. You win.

We should get every single person fired if they don't agree with us completely. Totally. 100%. On every issue. And remember, everything they type can also be used in the future, so if something we support now becomes 'bad' later, well screw you you had your chance. Shame works, baby! YEAH!

Have fun.

[MineralMan]

9. There is a difference between disagreement and racism.

A significant difference.

[randys1]

54. I wonder if white people and Black people would answer this question differently

hmmmm....

i.e. those unaffected vs those affected

[Boudica the Lyoness]

59. As a mother who raised a black child I voted no.

I knew I was working with people who had very different opinions than mine, but I'd never wanted to to see them lose their jobs over it.

I was treated very well, even by those who were racist. My son, now in his 40's was also treated well - still is.

We don't win anyone over by trying to get them fired. You cannot force people to change their mind by punishing them. I always found by living a good life and raising a good son did no end of good. Set a good example.

[MineralMan]

60. Apparently, yes.

So it seems from the replies.

[qwlauren35]

67. I think so.

I'm a black person and I said "Tell". No question in my mind. I was very surprised by the number of people who said it wasn't their business.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. I'm really torn about this...

On the face of it, I'm all for shaming racists, bigots and bullies.

On the other hand, what if it's a one-off and the person was drunk, or posting sarcastically but those who don't know them wouldn't know that they don't have a racist/bigoted bone in their body?

I've seen how online mobs have ruined lives -- for one, stupid mistake posted on twitter or FB or instagram. There needs to be a way to shift what is acceptable in society, to truly teach lessons, without destroying lives for what may be one ridiculously stupid and, yes, hurtful comment. If it's habitual hurtful racist, bigoted stupidity, that's different, and if the person is in the public eye, I think they have to be extra mindful of not being stupid.

But for the average person? I don't know...just look at some of the things beloved DUers have written over the years -- one-offs, not their typical posts -- when they're being sarcastic, or when they're frustrated, or when they're upset.

Here's a good article about the aftermath of some of these public shamings: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

Also, I don't want the real racists and bigots to go underground. I want them to show the world how they really think and feel. I say give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Like I said, I'm torn.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: I wish there were a way to call out each and every stupid post without it necessarily resulting in losing jobs and relationships. Call it out in a way that gives the poster a chance to recant.

But then I guess that REALLY becomes the PC police. Still, I'd like to see more of that type of approach on social media...an approach that fosters thoughtfulness and civil discussion about why such statements are so hurtful and dangerous.

[MissB]

24. Thank you for linking to that article.

It's thought provoking.

[Nye Bevan]

45. You witnessed blatant racism not so long ago and did nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6866662

[R.A. Ganoush]

101. Exactly, like if you experience it first hand

At the auto repair shop, you're supposed to call them on it, right?

Oh, wait.

[MineralMan]

102. Not even close to the same thing.

Truly.

[R.A. Ganoush]

103. Hey, I just call them like I see them

nt

[MineralMan]

104. OK. But the situations weren't the same at all.

People getting up and moving in a waiting room is not the same as posting racial slurs on Facebook about the child of a co-worker.

Heck, I've had a woman get up and move in a waiting room after I sat next to her, because I'm a man. She moved and sat next to another woman. Maybe she had been mistreated by some man and didn't like sitting next to strange men. I felt mildly insulted, but just shrugged mentally.

People sit where they want. Sometimes it has a racial reason. I think that's incredibly stupid, but it's not the same as using racial epithets on public forums or in public places. It's still racism, but more subtle. I'm not sure what one would say to someone who did that, really. So, I said nothing.

Maybe you have a retort ready if something like that happens. I have some when people use racist language in public, but not for someone getting up and moving to another seat. It's rude, but doesn't rise to the seriousness that would cause me to comment verbally. You might do something different. I don't know.

[bettyellen]

25. how is abhorring racism in any way "buying into propaganda"? do you really think that is a value

judgement that is likely to change due to prevailing winds? I sure as hell don't buy it.
RW assholes have already been trying to name and shame liberals, LGBT and put ugly shit on POC for years. It's awesome that society is finally saying NO to this bullshit.

The government doesn't actually have anything to do with it.

[Shandris]

27. No, not that particular value judgement. I'd wager it's self-evident enough to...

...last forever. However, once you have unleashed this weapon, it won't just be used against the things you want it to be used for. This is the part everyone seems to keep overlooking. If you really think you'll always agree with the mainstream, then go ahead, cheer for this.

But remember, like I said before...you only get to mess up once. There is NO forgiveness and the mob doesn't relent.

It's like there's no foresight or anything. Or, perhaps that people think they can turn it off at any time. Silly, but people never learn until its too late.

[bettyellen]

31. I hate to break it to you- but "the mob" has been at it forever- and their victims were largely POC

and women. The media has vilified and shamed POC and women for "stepping out of line" ever since there was a media.
It's not like this "ruining lives" things only happened to men in the 21st century.

[Shandris]

37. I couldn't care less if it happened to men, women, or ferrets.

That it happened is the problem. "But it was done before!" is RW talk. That you think it has any bearing if it was men, women, children, harpies, erinyes, or kappas is more than enough to make me leery of both your intentions and your beliefs.

I think I'm done with this. Do what you want.

[bettyellen]

43. YOU SAID this was a new phenomenon "unleashed", so was just explaining how wrong you are.

There's nothing RW about giving you a reality check, but - nice try!
Interesting people think this is NEW and suddenly care- when it happens to bigots with good jobs. HA.

[Shandris]

44. Sure thing, that's nice, mhm, have fun, yes run along now.

Or, you know, you could go back several years in my posts and find that I've ALWAYS been against this kind of thing. But that might require some, you know, integrity and honesty. Rather, it's more fun to accuse me of stuff, even if you're not only dead wrong but intentionally dead wrong.

It's reminiscent to how shills post, really. If I thought you were smarter, I might think you were one. Fortunately, you're safe there! Whew!

[bettyellen]

93. I don't need to look a few years back to know you're mistaken now. But thanks!

[JI7]

91. just so you know this person used support for the anti gay bigot Ben Carson

as an example of republicans not being bigots.

[bettyellen]

92. LOL, the excuse people make around here for looking the other way- sad.

[B2G]

5. For those answering 'yes', a question

If you work for a right wing employer, and you were fired for your postings, would you still agree with this?

[MineralMan]

6. I don't post racist comments on Facebook,

and I don't work for a right wing or any other sort of employer. So, neither thing would apply.

[Shandris]

10. "It's okay because it doesn't have to apply to me."

Yeah, I've heard that logic somewhere before. Can't seem to remember where...

[MineralMan]

11. You know, being an open racist isn't the same as simply

disagreeing with someone. It's truly not. I disagree with many people, and I say so. I do that more or less politely, though. Racists aren't just disagreeing with ideas. They're attacking a group of people without any reason at all.

Bigotry isn't just disagreeing with other people.

I'm specifically talking about Racism. That's the subject here.

[Shandris]

13. You explain that to the people who are hurt when someone loses...

...their job for saying something you didn't like. (Don't get me wrong; I don't like it either - it's vile and odious. However, it doesn't mean we get to ruin their life.)

[bettyellen]

32. We didn't ruin their life. They were stupid and very cruel in a very public way. It's on them.

[underahedgerow]

95. Right, it's about personal responsibility. A company has the right to employ whom they choose.If

they learn that their employee has low personal standards, they have the right to fire them because it could absolutely impact their standing in the business community. The company is also obligated to protect their other employees from such hatred in the work place, think 'hostile work environment' = huge lawsuits... Not to mention morale and generally decent behavior towards other human beings.

This moron made a devastatingly poor personal choice in attacking and condoning attacks on his co-worker's child. Therefore his lack of good judgement comes into play also. If he's making such negative choices in his personal life, how will he behave in work related issues? His judgement and character cannot be trusted.

[B2G]

12. Eactly. nt

[qwlauren35]

70. If I worked for a RW employer

I would definitely be careful about what I posted anywhere. And I absolutely would NOT post ANYTHING about CO-WORKERS.

That's the kicker for me. It was about a co-worker's child. To me, that's like harrassment.

I think in general, I would live a very different life if I worked for a RW employer.

[countingbluecars]

14. I say yes.

If someone is racist enough to post nasty stuff on Facebook, then I question how they will treat people on the job. I wouldn't want a racist teacher, cop, nurse, etc.

[Hortensis]

15. "Other": I might report it if it were MY employer too and I felt it impacted the company.

Like this guy, in fact. If I worked there I would report him in the hope that the behavior would be stopped and the child's family/coworker never heard about it.

[Shandris]

17. Now see, I'm with this.

If this is somebody I'm personally working WITH, someone I know? Yeah, I'm saying something. It's the online mob thing I'm against.

[Hortensis]

46. I'm with you too. No "online mob thing" ever, or offline.

Now that I recall, I did have an incident -- much worse than this -- long before online social media, in which troublemakers were trying to get a shy, masculine-looking female coworker fired. In that case I confronted one directly and promised to go straight to HR if I heard any more. They would have been fired for sure, as I explained to them (a publishing company in Beverly Hills). I'm not sure I'd be so forbearing now, though they reflected a common, stupid sort of worked-up "righteousness" at the time. I've never been a "tattler" sort, but I'm a lot more hard-nosed about malicious troublemaking some decades later.

[Egnever]

16. No

Facebook should not be used against people in their employment imho it sets a bad precedent and a dangerous one.

I might agree with racism but what if it becomes support for planned parenthood? Or for the poor or health care.

[Brickbat]

18. In most cases, I would say no.

I'm not interested in helping corporations keep tabs on their employees after hours. If they find out about it and the employees are at-will, then of course there's little recourse.

Employers don't have that kind of time, though, anyway, to go chasing after "tips" about their employees. IME, many of them would really rather not know, since they simply don't have the bandwidth to go sniffing around what people think and say off work -- replacing fired employees costs a lot of time and money. It's only when they can't ignore it that they take action, as in this case.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I think it depends, and it's a thorny issue.

One, people have the right under the 1st Amendment to express their opinion, even if their opinion is obnoxious, bigoted or even hateful.

But conversely, people ALSO have the right to express their indignation with that opinion, presumably to the point of bringing that indignation to the attention of the employer.

I guess for me the question would be how egregious are the statements (i.e. "i dont like #####" vs "we should send all ##### to the gas chamber", etc) combined with how much of a public presence does this person's job have and is it related or potentially impacted by their views.

In that vein i suspect an employer would be more likely to take action if this person were a public face of the company.

So i suppose much depends on the specifics of the situation.

[Throd]

20. The internet lynch mob mentality worries me.

And why limit it to racism? There are plenty of other topics that will fire up the mob and demand to burn the witch.

[bettyellen]

26. "will fire up the mob" and "burn the witch" ? Funny! Because there already IS a war on women

who have opinions on the net. How'd you miss it?

[rollin74]

21. No. I'm not a fan of employers punishing people for...

actvities that people engage in off-site and on their own time, even if I don't like it and don't agree with it

especially when no laws were even broken

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Having read the situation in question, that dude DEFINITELY deserved to be fired.

[salin]

28. Agreed. He was ridiculing a coworker's child. Invited racist spew to be directed at this child.

He brought his racism into the workplace via social media.

[geek tragedy]

23. it depends on what kind of job or power the person has,

if they're someone whose job would enable them to harm a single minority via their bigotry, yes I'd report.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. Oh my ... DU does it again! ...

a majority of those responding say racism that they witness is none of their business.

When will I stop being shocked?

[rbrnmw]

39. Probably never

[Brickbat]

57. Calling out racism I witness? My business.

Finding that person's employer and informing on them? Generally not my business.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Okay. n/t

[kwassa]

82. It should be your business. This is why racists persist.

Because people like you don't report them.

[bettyellen]

89. oh look down thread- someone seems to think this thread is about income equality......

and somehow that is supposed to explain that a whistleblower reporting racial issues would be considered "an asshole" to this person. SAY WHAT? Apparently their issues are the only "adult" ones. WTFingF?

You cannot make this shit up.

[Brickbat]

97. I'm wondering if the hypotheticals I'm imagining are the same as the ones others imagine.

If I'm on Facebook and a friend of mine shares something from Page A, and when I click on the original graphic and there are a thousand comments and some of them are shitty, as happens on the internet, and one of them is straight-up racist, it's my business to call it out. It's not my business to click through on the person's name in an effort to identify who they are so I can call their employer and tell the employer that their employee is being a racist dick on the Internet.

If I'm at a football game and some drunk racist ass is sitting three rows behind me and yells a racial slur at the opposing quarterback, it's my business to say, "Sit down and shut your racist ass up," but it is not my business to ask the fan where s/he works so I can tell his/her employer.

If I'm getting coffee and I hear two baristas conversing and one of them says something racist, then absolutely I tell the manager. As a customer, I just saw two employees represent their employer in a racist way.

[MineralMan]

64. It's interesting, which is why I posted the poll.

I voted yes, as anyone can see. I based that on the instance at the link I provided. Perhaps some did not read the link. I don't know. But it is our business. We have to think about the particular racist comment, of course, but it is everyone's business, I think.

This thread is interesting, I think. I did not expect the replies to go as they went. I need to think about this. It's puzzling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Unfortunately, I am finding it less puzzling and more disappointing of those ...

that constantly insist they are/want to be my "allies", if only I would let them.

[qwlauren35]

73. Yeah, it shocked me too.

And the reasons make me uncomfortable. Guess we'd better run back to AA Group... it's hard to see hate tolerated... so that someone doesn't lose their job. Spewing racial hate on Facebook... about a CO-WORKER'S child... is not a justification for firing someone...

And the If your employer was RW... what that says to me is that some people want the right to spew hate for RW individuals without being fired, so let racism be tolerated.

If a company can order a drug test, then they can monitor Facebook. The employee just has to know about it up front. Employees should probably have to sign a statement that they know that racial hate AGAINST CO-WORKERS on Facebook can get them fired.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Yeah ...

And the If your employer was RW... what that says to me is that some people want the right to spew hate for RW individuals without being fired, so let racism be tolerated.

Because I guess it never affects them ... until it might.

[ancianita]

30. The nets can be hackable setups for hurting people.

It's true there's a big difference between disagreement and racism. It's action, not speech.

Racists have 1st Amendment rights to talk it, simply because the power structure uses their prejudice for its own ends. But their rights stop when they make threatening gestures or act on their spoken prejudice. Then some 'due force' defensive action should be taken.

All put-downs over genetic inheritance are hurtful, but they say everything about the message sender and nothing about the target. The big difference is acting against a target.

It's our business to change hearts and minds toward kinder public discourse, but your suggested punishment doesn't fit the crime, which is just talk, really.

It's interesting that you'd take DU's temperature about this idea about "justice" that you have. Usually you don''t really seem like the authoritarian type, either.

Think you might change your mind on this idea?

[bettyellen]

33. "which is just talk,really" . you want to protect those who racially insult coworkers? and minimize

what it is as "just talk". No.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. He stepped over a whole bunch of lines, starting with posting a picture of someone else's kid w/o

permission and creating a hostile environment for his co-worker.

Right there, grounds for termination. Even without the rest of it.

[bettyellen]

38. and his waitress friend- referring to the kid as "a slave", does not deserve to work with the public

and the other guy, working with some IT company too, probably has to interact with a diverse group of other people.
unless you work alone at a light house or something, this kind of hateful shit should be untenable. it does effect their interactions with others in a very negative way, even if it is not obvious.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Certainly if you take a big poop in public

you can't be too upset when people start going "Hey, there's the public pooper"

[bettyellen]

49. No, I think that if someone reveals a hateful ideology, you can fairly assume it taints their

work if they need to interact with others, like ever. They don't have to be in PR, they;re just that much stupider if they are.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I meant taking a poop in public rhetorically, not literally.

as in, "reveals a hateful ideology".

unfortunately some of the worst haters think they're justified in their hate and don't even recognize themselves as such.

[ancianita]

63. Yep. But I don't know a thing about "the story." I'm talking generalities here. In good faith.

[ancianita]

35. The OP wrote about racism on Facebook. The talk standard doesn't apply in the workplace, obviously.

[bettyellen]

41. so, you'd keep an employee who was marching with the KKK because that was on his time off?

I sure as fuck wouldn't. Racist attitudes don't disappear when you walk into the office, why would I pretend otherwise?

[ancianita]

48. Here are the boundaries for firing.

If you are an actual employee of Facebook, you can be fired. It creates a hostile work place and product.

If you work for a company that by policy allows Facebook in the workplace, you can be fired for the same reason.

If you work for a company that doesn't allow social media at all in the workplace, then your prejudicial rants are on your own time UNLESS
1. you ACT on those words, the company can fire you, since your public behavior negatively reflects on the company; and
2. you indirectly hurt someone in the company by publishing rants about that person on Facebook; that hurts the company, too, which the prejudiced poster should be fired for.


If you work for a company that doesn't allow social media at all in the workplace, and you post about no one in your company but about others in general, or about current events that you use as a platform for venting your prejudicial rants, then no, the company cannot fire you unless they have explicit employee ethics terms of employment about prejudicial statements toward people of color, terms which you signed on to. Then they'd have to prove that YOU actually posted the rant, by accessing your computer address and passwords; and that what you posted broke company ethics policy. It would be a costly slog but a company can do this. But not by simple hearsay reports from some anonymous source.

If you are verifiably a member of a hate group, this would likely violate any company's general ethics code; thus, the employee could be fired, given incontrovertible proof.

Character is everything. In the workplace, reputation is everything. People can be stupid, evil, etc. and still have some constitutional rights that give them space and time to change.

People can be victims of identity theft. They can be ethical professionals who have their lives ruined by a hacker who poses as them and goes on a racist rant -- for whatever the motive -- and then, what legal recourse does that person have to preserve his/her good reputation?

Because this kind of behavior is in the realm of the possible doesn't make it probable. Prejudice online can only be proven as a pattern of posting. One-offs, bad days, or a negative encounter might bring out the ignorant need to scapegoat or blame or flame, but a one-off never defines one as prejudiced, nevermind racist. People can have bad experiences with any race and therefore form negative stereotypes; people can have good experiences or no experiences with any race and just go with the flow of their family and social context. Are WE to interfere with their ability to make a living?

If I were the average employer or employee, I certainly wouldn't spend my time outing people to bosses just because there is prejudiced speech floating around. If people have time to call out others character flaws, my first thought is that they're not doing the job I hired them for, and they themselves are assholes for wasting my time and money. They can be assholes on their personal time, but I wouldn't as a boss, care to get embroiled in character policing in my business, except that it affects morale, process and profit. But firing an employee on hearsay without my having proof wouldn't happen.

[bettyellen]

51. So prejudice speech "floating around" in the workplace is no big deal- for you. Love the

euphemism for the bile bigots spew- "floating around"- as if no one actually is responsible, right? LOL.
And, you'd think a POC was an "asshole for reporting it- good to know! Maybe you can write up that in your "company ethics" policy handbook, so people could stay far far away.



"I certainly wouldn't spend my time outing people to bosses just because there is prejudiced speech floating around."

"If people have time to call out others character flaws, my first thought is that they're not doing the job I hired them for, and they themselves are assholes for wasting my time and money."

[ancianita]

56. The OP doesn't get to be vague on details and then everyone argue what he means. I'm answering

YOUR hypothetical. I gave you MY definition of employer/employee/ societal boundaries.

We swim in prejudice in this country, in case you haven't noticed. Whether I like it or not is immaterial, since I've gotten occasional zingers about my sex, height, age, and race. etc., all my life. I've done my job, anyway, and usually succeeded in not taking any of it personally.

What I've spent my life's work doing is helping people learn. That includes understanding thinking, writing, study and conceptual skills. If I encountered people's prejudices, or any of what the OP calls "blatant" racism, I dealt with it effectively.

People are responsible for their character. Some of that character is just baggage from childhood internalizings, maybe things they've not given much adult thought to. You don't get to assume "character police" in the name of a prejudice-free world.

Don't engage in personally snarking me. You make yourself look bad.

[bettyellen]

58. I'm happy to judge the character of people who spew bigotry @ work, and get, you're more forgiving....

by writing it off as "childhood internalizing" or "one offs".
And I think that grownups with jobs should know better, period. They make the world an ugly hostile place, and I'm happy to clean up a small corner of it for more mature and less hateful people. I know a lot of people can't be bothered- it's pretty obvious from the poll, it's not "their problem".

[ancianita]

62. Have at it. I ain't got time for cheap attacks on some wording in my effort-posts.

What people think is "not their problem" really isn't yours or my business, either. This poll, as worded, developed a map that you have no right to judge a group of respondents by. At all. You can wonder about them, but you don't know a damned thing about any one of them. Nor does this poll reflect anything negative about the "character" of DU, for that matter. People just responded to a question.

If you want to assume the right to judge them, you're just being stereotyping and prejudiced.

[bettyellen]

65. I was obviously responding to your thoughts. I have been in the actual position of having an

employee let me know that there was some ugly racial undercurrents to how a valued employee was being treated, and I was grateful for it. I dealt with it. I was their manager, and so it was my business to stop it, and I did. The workplace was better because I cared enough not to look the other way.

You're the one making light of people's bigoted behavior, I just pointed it out.

[ancianita]

69. I told you. I don't know "the story." I don't make light of workplace hostility. Ever. If you think

so, it's because you didn't read with much effort anything I posted.

You did your job. Great. I've done the same. Now, if we're through with all the character comparisons, there's a bigger world of trouble out there.

Sometimes, as Martin Luther King came to see, it's better to move forward in unity to solve larger common problems of mankind -- I grant you that racism is one of them, but not the only one of them -- than to get bogged down how to police each other's character. It diverts and drains.

Moving forward, we need not need uniformity of character to support being united in big, common causes -- we can sort out character issues later -- if we unite toward some goals that structurally make the environmental, economic and social lives better. Not all racist character issues interfere with every big group goal. When they do, we deal, like the governor of California deals with police racial bias.

Otherwise, we do the adult job of doing the job.

Just my opinion, of course.

[bettyellen]

71. Ah, using MLK to try and persuade people to back burner their racial concerns, thank you....

but no thanks. Not in my "character" to thinks civil rights are a drain, diversion or something the bogs us down.

[ancianita]

74. There really ARE a lot of ways to solve problems of racism, and they don't all involve niggling

comparisons of character flaws on DU. We can't all sit around validating each other's lives day in and day out.

There are bigger goals than individual character uniformity to address here as adults try to reach the goal of structural fairness in this country.

We can set large priorities. One of them is to win elections within a framework that can dismantle structural unfairness. I'm all for that, if it's possible.

[bettyellen]

87. " adults trying to reach the goal of structural fairness"- what a patronizing bit of tripe.

Adult? You'd look the other way at racist shit the workplace- and blame the whistleblower. (But I bet you loved Snowden!!)
You try to persuade civil rights concerns on the back burner by invoking MLK and insinuating others struggles are somehow childish. HA.

This thread wasn't about income equality at all, but you had to come in and downgrade the issue because.... you want to explain, or should I guess? LOL.

No matter, it's nakedly selfish and deliberately patronizing. So grossed out. Hope you're not knocking on doors and talking to voters like this. Seriously. Way to make ANY topic all about you.

[ancianita]

52. k & r

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Question ...

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Which part of the freedoms granted in the actual 1st Amendment was Mr. Facebook exercising?

[melman]

81. granted?

The Bill of Rights does not grant anything. It guarantees that the government will not infringe upon the rights we are assumed to already have.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Yes GRANTED ...

unless you subscribe to the "natural rights" stuff that are codified in documents of rights.

[bettyellen]

90. Look above for an interesting rationalization for looking the other way.....

My head is spinning.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. Yes ... I Know. n/t

[bettyellen]

99. no thread is too off topic to be about the 99% vs the oligarchy, WOW.

[WillowTree]

36. I saw that earlier & understand this: If I ever ran into any of those people.......

......and they were to burst into flames at my feet, I wouldn't bother to spit on them to put the fire out. They're racist scum.

But I wouldn't go to their employer. Not my place. He or she may come across this stuff or something similar and then s/he will deal with it or not. If they do, they might put the offender on probation and/or make him confess and apologize to the kid's parent, which would put him on notice, but I wouldn't need to know about it. If it's "not", I'd rather not know that my employer is low enough to be accepting of that kind of shameless nastiness.......and toward a child, at that.

And I wouldn't go to the child's parent, either. I won't be the person who would expose them to something that hurtful just for spite, no matter how worthless the perp is.

JMHO, YMMV.

[ileus]

40. If we suspect they're republicans yes....tattle away.

[WillowTree]

42. His employer found out one way or another and dealt with it.

Check this out.

[Heddi]

53. Should you have gotten fired for the horrible things you said when you were on FR?

You said some pretty horrible things about black people & gay people back when you were an *ahem* undercover freeper.

Should you have been fired for that?...and please spare me any "oh, but I"m self employed" bullshit.

Would your employer buy your "oh, I was trolling them" argument that you often use here when your hateful posts are highlighted?

It's interesting that you take this stance, knowing how repugnant some of the things you wrote back then were.

[Fumesucker]

68. Good point...

[F4lconF16]

55. X-posted in A&A.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/118728676

[qwlauren35]

66. For me

When you're talking about a co-worker on Facebook, you're on the hairy edge of "at work". Hence unacceptable. Same as if you were at work. Now, I think I would have gone through the process, i.e. reprimand, counseling, 2nd offense=firing. But if it was a company with a zero tolerance policy and the people knew it, then they were just stupid.

[Fumesucker]

75. Early in my career I was fired twice when it was found out I'm an atheist

Then I learned to conceal my true beliefs or lack of such and never had a problem with it again.

But it didn't change how I thought, if anything it made me more stubborn.

[MineralMan]

77. I've railways been open, but not blatant,

about my atheism. I've never seen any negative consequences, though. If asked about my beliefs, I just say I have none, since I am an atheist. The most I've gotten were attempts to tell me about Jesus. Never anything worse. I suppose there are environments where that wouldn't be the case, though.

[JackInGreen]

76. In a perfect world

With perfect knowledge of motivation, context, and writ in stone definitions, sure. We aren't that telepathic I'm afraid.

[edgineered]

80. A grain silo has less rats than this place. nt

[kwassa]

84. My employer warns all of us every year ....

what we do on social media can get us fired. We are expected to represent ourselves as professionals at all time.

and racism is intolerable.

I would not hesitate to report clearly racist posts to that person's employer. Racism is only stopped by active opposition. Letting it slide perpetuates it, and gives it an aura of acceptance.

[BarstowCowboy]

85. I'm going to say no, but only because it would wind up backfiring

If we had a policy in place like the one you suggest, eventually it would lead to someone losing their job over some trumped up BS like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/us/dallas-teacher-suspended-ferguson-tweet/index.html

In a perfect world your idea would work great.

[Dr. Strange]

86. That's always the risk, isn't it?

See also, the Steven Salaita situation.

[BarstowCowboy]

88. Exactly that

What Mineral Man suggested with the best of intentions would eventually be used against those it was intended to protect by those it was supposed to keep in check.

[ellisonz]

94. Excellent High Sparrow! n/t

[MineralMan]

98. Note: Nobody seems to have noticed the conditional nature

of the Yes response in this poll. The condition was "if you know their employer." If you don't, then going to search for and discover who their employer is would be a different situation.

Frankly, I only read Facebook on my own feed. I think most people use Facebook that way most of the time. I know who the people are on my feed. They are my Facebook friends. Some are people I know well. Others are people I know only casually, like old high school classmates from 50+ years ago. If someone on my friends list turns out to be an asshole, they don't stay on my friends list. I don't wander around Facebook looking at random people. Occasionally, I follow a link to a page from DU or some other source, but I don't know who those people are or who employs them, so the condition wouldn't be met.

Ignoring the conditional nature of that answer in this poll means not understanding the question.

[Blue_Tires]

100. If that was my kid damn right I'd want someone to tell me/my boss

[Dr. Strange]

105. How about criminal charges?

London woman charged after alleged #killallwhitemen tweet

A student diversity officer who came to prominence in a race row after allegedly tweeting the hashtag #killallwhitemen has been charged by police with sending a threatening communication.

Bahar Mustafa, of Goldsmiths, University of London, is set to appear at Bromley magistrates court on 5 November.

The 28-year-old from Edmonton, north-east London, faces two charges. One is sending a communication conveying a threatening message between 10 November 2014 and 31 May 2015. The second is for sending a grossly offensive message via a public communication network between 10 November 2014 and 31 May 2015.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/06/london-woman-charged-over-alleged-killallwhitemen-tweet

[nc4bo]

106. Pass. Yes if the person was part of the criminal justice

System, a LEO, a social worker, teacher, social services worker, doctor, nurse or any other person whose racist pov negatively effects the lives of those they despise.