27 ms·

The weak point in this statement is equivocating explicitly racist harassment with “being a jerk.” You should not have to accept a “sincere apology” from someon

The weak point in this statement is equivocating explicitly racist harassment with “being a jerk.” You should not have to accept a “sincere apology” from someone who calls you a racial epithet. There is nothing careless or unintentional about that. I mean, look how awful this policy sounds if we substitute more concrete language: “if someone calls you a n_gger on a single occasion, but subsequently offers a sincere apology, then we believe that apology should be accepted.” Weird that Musk is doubling down on that, especially coming from South Africa. He should have instead clarified that Tesla is zero-tolerance on racism.

alien_at_work 9y ago
I think this "zero tolerance for all the things" is more dangerous than the things it targets in most cases. I assume Tesla is a very high stress place (at least at times). I don't know if you've ever experienced a highly emotional situation but it's possible to get so upset you yell things at people that you actually feel absolutely terrible about later (and didn't realize you were capable of saying). I can imagine someone, in such a highly charged situation, saying something hurtful like that and then feeling absolutely gutted about it later. Of course you don't have to accept an apology in that situation but I personally wouldn't think much of the kind of person who would write someone off, permanently, for one such event when they never did anything like that before or ever again and sincerely appologized.
- abalone 9y ago
  Straw man. No one said zero tolerance for all things. Just racist harassment. Your argument is weak as well. Would this logic apply to physically assaulting a coworker as well, if the perpetrator is stressed and they’ve never done it before and feel bad after? No, of course not. There is a line beyond which zero tolerance should be the rule, and that line starts with calling someone a n_gger.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
There are times when someone wants to cause pain to another, and chooses a response to inflict maximum harm. This could be a racial slur, but it could also refer to a death of a loved one or something else. Imagine someone telling another "I see why your son killed himself." It is meant to cause maximum damage, not meant to be racist/sexist/etc. In these cases, I don't think there should be any difference in forgiveness between those who used discriminatory language and those who picked another means to attack. I'm not saying people should accept a sincere apology. I see such an attack as very bad regardless if it used discriminatory language. The intent, to cause maximum pain, is unjustifiable regardless of the tool used to carry it out.

alien_at_work 9y ago

I think this "zero tolerance for all the things" is more dangerous than the things it targets in most cases. I assume Tesla is a very high stress place (at least at times). I don't know if you've ever experienced a highly emotional situation but it's possible to get so upset you yell things at people that you actually feel absolutely terrible about later (and didn't realize you were capable of saying). I can imagine someone, in such a highly charged situation, saying something hurtful like that and then feeling absolutely gutted about it later. Of course you don't have to accept an apology in that situation but I personally wouldn't think much of the kind of person who would write someone off, permanently, for one such event when they never did anything like that before or ever again and sincerely appologized.

abalone 9y ago
Straw man. No one said zero tolerance for all things. Just racist harassment. Your argument is weak as well. Would this logic apply to physically assaulting a coworker as well, if the perpetrator is stressed and they’ve never done it before and feel bad after? No, of course not. There is a line beyond which zero tolerance should be the rule, and that line starts with calling someone a n_gger.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

There are times when someone wants to cause pain to another, and chooses a response to inflict maximum harm. This could be a racial slur, but it could also refer to a death of a loved one or something else. Imagine someone telling another "I see why your son killed himself." It is meant to cause maximum damage, not meant to be racist/sexist/etc. In these cases, I don't think there should be any difference in forgiveness between those who used discriminatory language and those who picked another means to attack. I'm not saying people should accept a sincere apology. I see such an attack as very bad regardless if it used discriminatory language. The intent, to cause maximum pain, is unjustifiable regardless of the tool used to carry it out.