4 ms·

But it's not just those under the drinking age who were offended. If you read the whole story it sounds like he was fired in part because some of his black coll

But it's not just those under the drinking age who were offended. If you read the whole story it sounds like he was fired in part because some of his black colleagues at the New York Times also said they were offended and that they would no longer be willing to work with him.

BobbyJo 6y ago
Sometimes you pull a short straw and end up with shitty coworkers. I've worked with groups of people that were uniformly high functioning and understanding, and other groups that dwelled on political positioning and avoided work at all costs. Happens in every industry, some more than others.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  The New York Times is a highly influential newspapers, and who draws the short straw at that workplace and why is capital-p Politics. Do you keep in your mind that their joutnalists have a figurative gun to their head when you are reading their articles? No? Maybe you should.
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    Big, multinational, influential companies are just as likely to have shitty cultures or teams as any other company in my experience. As far as the gun to the head, every major news organization as of now survives on viewership, not quality. I always keep in mind that the point of EVERY published news article is not to disseminate information, it is to collect eyeballs.
- lsiebert 6y ago
  I think if you are white, you can engage with this entirely as an intellectual debate, or think of it as not a big deal. It's easier then to forget that it's a word still used regularly by people committing violent hate crimes against Black folks, and those cheering them on.
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    I think as a society we should always strive to be objective, especially when accusing someone of wrong-doing and, subsequently damaging their lively-hood. Yes, Black Americans have life experiences that tie extreme emotion to this word, but I think we can recognize that without losing sight of objectivity. There is a reason we don't allow police officers with personal involvement to investigate crimes, and why it's generally frowned upon for employers to date their employees. It's the same reason why we shouldn't let the most subjectively affected decide intent in this instance.
    - lsiebert 6y ago
      intent may be a mitigating factor for some, but the harm should be judged by those harmed, should it not? If they can't speak to the harm, who can?
      - BobbyJo 6y ago
        As a society, we have decided intent matters, and as a result, enshrined it in law. We consider intent in situations where people are killed, I think we can do the same when some feelings are hurt.
        lsiebert 6y ago
        I think that's basically what I said? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    My cousin (immigrant from Pakistan) was trying to set up a housing arrangement with tiny houses for homeless people in New Orleans East. At one of the planning meetings in the local library, a (Black) resident stood up and said "What it feels like is you're trying to dump them all on the n****s in New Orleans East". I was appalled that my cousin would be framed that way, and quite frankly I'm more appalled that I'm not allowed to criticize this framing because repeating the language that was used even to criticize it starts this whole other fire. (At a later meeting that was set up by the local councilman to use him as a punching bag he was told to "take his tiny houses back to Pakistan" with him and that "Donald Trump was President now" by a bunch of people I really doubt voted for Trump if they did vote). I've never been so happy to see someone lose an election in my life.
breischl 6y ago
According to the author's version of events his colleagues were offended by a description that was inaccurate to point of falsified (again, according to the author), and their outrage was conveyed by someone who may have been looking for excuses to get rid of him for years. Perhaps they would have been offended by his actual words, but it seems at least plausible that if they read and believed his version of events they would no longer be offended. It also seems potentially plausible that their outrage was exaggerated by the NYTimes lawyer.
- autarch 6y ago
  I'm not defending his colleagues (or him), just responding to the GP comment's suggestion that ignoring the complaints of those under the drinking age might not be relevant.

BobbyJo 6y ago

Sometimes you pull a short straw and end up with shitty coworkers. I've worked with groups of people that were uniformly high functioning and understanding, and other groups that dwelled on political positioning and avoided work at all costs. Happens in every industry, some more than others.

im3w1l 6y ago
The New York Times is a highly influential newspapers, and who draws the short straw at that workplace and why is capital-p Politics. Do you keep in your mind that their joutnalists have a figurative gun to their head when you are reading their articles? No? Maybe you should.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  Big, multinational, influential companies are just as likely to have shitty cultures or teams as any other company in my experience. As far as the gun to the head, every major news organization as of now survives on viewership, not quality. I always keep in mind that the point of EVERY published news article is not to disseminate information, it is to collect eyeballs.
lsiebert 6y ago
I think if you are white, you can engage with this entirely as an intellectual debate, or think of it as not a big deal. It's easier then to forget that it's a word still used regularly by people committing violent hate crimes against Black folks, and those cheering them on.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  I think as a society we should always strive to be objective, especially when accusing someone of wrong-doing and, subsequently damaging their lively-hood. Yes, Black Americans have life experiences that tie extreme emotion to this word, but I think we can recognize that without losing sight of objectivity. There is a reason we don't allow police officers with personal involvement to investigate crimes, and why it's generally frowned upon for employers to date their employees. It's the same reason why we shouldn't let the most subjectively affected decide intent in this instance.
  - lsiebert 6y ago
    intent may be a mitigating factor for some, but the harm should be judged by those harmed, should it not? If they can't speak to the harm, who can?
    - BobbyJo 6y ago
      As a society, we have decided intent matters, and as a result, enshrined it in law. We consider intent in situations where people are killed, I think we can do the same when some feelings are hurt.
      - lsiebert 6y ago
        I think that's basically what I said? I'm not sure I'm getting your point.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  My cousin (immigrant from Pakistan) was trying to set up a housing arrangement with tiny houses for homeless people in New Orleans East. At one of the planning meetings in the local library, a (Black) resident stood up and said "What it feels like is you're trying to dump them all on the n****s in New Orleans East". I was appalled that my cousin would be framed that way, and quite frankly I'm more appalled that I'm not allowed to criticize this framing because repeating the language that was used even to criticize it starts this whole other fire. (At a later meeting that was set up by the local councilman to use him as a punching bag he was told to "take his tiny houses back to Pakistan" with him and that "Donald Trump was President now" by a bunch of people I really doubt voted for Trump if they did vote). I've never been so happy to see someone lose an election in my life.

breischl 6y ago

According to the author's version of events his colleagues were offended by a description that was inaccurate to point of falsified (again, according to the author), and their outrage was conveyed by someone who may have been looking for excuses to get rid of him for years. Perhaps they would have been offended by his actual words, but it seems at least plausible that if they read and believed his version of events they would no longer be offended. It also seems potentially plausible that their outrage was exaggerated by the NYTimes lawyer.

autarch 6y ago
I'm not defending his colleagues (or him), just responding to the GP comment's suggestion that ignoring the complaints of those under the drinking age might not be relevant.