6 ms·

It's amazing to me that people are 'for' employers controlling every aspect of their lives.

avalys 3y ago
Give me a break. This guy is a reporter, so his public persona is an integral part of his job. And not "every aspect", only aspects in which he's performing in public.
- boringuser2 3y ago
  His opinions as a private citizen do not in any way reflect on the quality or content of his work as a reporter, which his employer took 0 issue with prior to learning about his personal life. There's a pretty easy correlate for this to understand why it's bad: Let's say a company discovers that you are gay, and fires you based on some sort of "morality" clause. Cool? Why not? From many common perspectives globally, being gay is far more morally incorrect than making a joke about "wokeness". Many organized religious and even non-religious worldviews have strict strictures against being a homosexual, all over the world. Conversely, the morality that someone shouldn't say anything at any time ever that isn't completely neutral is siloed to a small band of weirdos.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    A salient detail that seems to be overlooked by most in this thread is that this putative comedian was making direct and personal references to coworkers and/or authorities working for his self-same employer. So not only was he making bigoted and tasteless jokes, but some of them were revealing private business that should've been kept as internal matters. He betrayed the trust and confidentiality of his employer and his coworkers. That in itself is reprehensible, racism or not. Certainly, any employer who takes action against that sort of betrayal can be justified.
    - boringuser2 3y ago
      >So not only was he making bigoted and tasteless jokes You've played your hand. Gotta keep that close to the vest to be properly disingeneous.
      - akoboldfrying 3y ago
        If you're the kind of person who addresses the substance in another person's objection, now is the time to do so. But if you're the kind of person to seize upon a shiny but irrelevant detail and leave the substantive parts unaddressed, I guess your work is done.
        dmeybohm 3y ago
        I am not the original commenter, but I think saying the jokes are “bigoted” shows a bias, and it was good to emphasize that by not addressing the other argument. We could have a discussion about whether getting fired for talking about conduct at your employer is right, but to link it with the idea that someone told “bigoted” jokes is to conflate two things. To say those jokes are “bigoted” has a high bar, since comedy is about entertainment and not real. The jokes in the article don’t meet that bar, but one should be circumspect about drawing that conclusion because comedy isn’t real. To throw around that judgment offhand without supporting it is to lend support to a world based on censorship and conformity. It should not just be an assumption - “yeah of course these jokes are bigoted.” - that should be the substance of the discussion before we draw that conclusion. So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter and not address their other argument.
        akoboldfrying 3y ago
        >So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter I think whether or not their words amount to bias is up for debate, but I don't object to that subject being brought up in addition to the subject under discussion so far. >and not address their other argument. This part I don't agree with. That other argument is completely independent, and worth pursuing. Abandoning it completely is conceding defeat on that front.
codetrotter 3y ago
> employers controlling every aspect of their lives Agreed. The worst one – "they cut off my health insurance same day" – is pretty unique to the USA in particular. I wonder what it would take for the citizens of USA to get rid of the concept of employer-based health insurance, and replacing it with socialised healthcare.
- solardev 3y ago
  Half the country's been trying for decades, the other half's more interested in culture wars.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >the other half's more interested in culture wars. Are they? Looking at the polls[1], it's not really clear either way. For instance much more republicans think that "the state of moral values" is a "big problem", which seems to suggest they're "more interested in culture wars", but at the same time for "racism" the numbers are flipped. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-health-costs-partisan-cooperation-among-the-nations-top-problems/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-he...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - truculent 3y ago
      Creating an equivalence between “moral values” and racism is the goal of “culture war” framing. Interesting to see it working, I suppose
      - gruez 3y ago
        Do you have a justification for that claim that isn't along the lines of "our cause is just and is worth fighting for/debating. Their cause is unjust and is just 'culture war' issues meant to distract"?
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
toomuchtodo 3y ago
I hope this person’s next step is to organize and unionize his workplace, in order to further defang their employer’s attempts of control outside the workplace. If they attempt to fire him for that, the NLRB can step in and WHYY can be 2/2 for taking the L. Organizing is the only protection a worker has against unilateral actions by an employer.
- sigilis 3y ago
  His workplace is already unionized, he credits SAG for their representation in the arbitration s as being the reasons for this victory.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Tremendous, thanks for sharing this fact.

Give me a break. This guy is a reporter, so his public persona is an integral part of his job. And not "every aspect", only aspects in which he's performing in public.

boringuser2 3y ago
His opinions as a private citizen do not in any way reflect on the quality or content of his work as a reporter, which his employer took 0 issue with prior to learning about his personal life. There's a pretty easy correlate for this to understand why it's bad: Let's say a company discovers that you are gay, and fires you based on some sort of "morality" clause. Cool? Why not? From many common perspectives globally, being gay is far more morally incorrect than making a joke about "wokeness". Many organized religious and even non-religious worldviews have strict strictures against being a homosexual, all over the world. Conversely, the morality that someone shouldn't say anything at any time ever that isn't completely neutral is siloed to a small band of weirdos.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  A salient detail that seems to be overlooked by most in this thread is that this putative comedian was making direct and personal references to coworkers and/or authorities working for his self-same employer. So not only was he making bigoted and tasteless jokes, but some of them were revealing private business that should've been kept as internal matters. He betrayed the trust and confidentiality of his employer and his coworkers. That in itself is reprehensible, racism or not. Certainly, any employer who takes action against that sort of betrayal can be justified.
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    >So not only was he making bigoted and tasteless jokes You've played your hand. Gotta keep that close to the vest to be properly disingeneous.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      If you're the kind of person who addresses the substance in another person's objection, now is the time to do so. But if you're the kind of person to seize upon a shiny but irrelevant detail and leave the substantive parts unaddressed, I guess your work is done.
      - dmeybohm 3y ago
        I am not the original commenter, but I think saying the jokes are “bigoted” shows a bias, and it was good to emphasize that by not addressing the other argument. We could have a discussion about whether getting fired for talking about conduct at your employer is right, but to link it with the idea that someone told “bigoted” jokes is to conflate two things. To say those jokes are “bigoted” has a high bar, since comedy is about entertainment and not real. The jokes in the article don’t meet that bar, but one should be circumspect about drawing that conclusion because comedy isn’t real. To throw around that judgment offhand without supporting it is to lend support to a world based on censorship and conformity. It should not just be an assumption - “yeah of course these jokes are bigoted.” - that should be the substance of the discussion before we draw that conclusion. So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter and not address their other argument.
        akoboldfrying 3y ago
        >So it’s proper to call out the bias of the commenter I think whether or not their words amount to bias is up for debate, but I don't object to that subject being brought up in addition to the subject under discussion so far. >and not address their other argument. This part I don't agree with. That other argument is completely independent, and worth pursuing. Abandoning it completely is conceding defeat on that front.

codetrotter 3y ago

> employers controlling every aspect of their lives Agreed. The worst one – "they cut off my health insurance same day" – is pretty unique to the USA in particular. I wonder what it would take for the citizens of USA to get rid of the concept of employer-based health insurance, and replacing it with socialised healthcare.

solardev 3y ago
Half the country's been trying for decades, the other half's more interested in culture wars.
- gruez 3y ago
  >the other half's more interested in culture wars. Are they? Looking at the polls[1], it's not really clear either way. For instance much more republicans think that "the state of moral values" is a "big problem", which seems to suggest they're "more interested in culture wars", but at the same time for "racism" the numbers are flipped. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-health-costs-partisan-cooperation-among-the-nations-top-problems/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-he...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - truculent 3y ago
    Creating an equivalence between “moral values” and racism is the goal of “culture war” framing. Interesting to see it working, I suppose
    - gruez 3y ago
      Do you have a justification for that claim that isn't along the lines of "our cause is just and is worth fighting for/debating. Their cause is unjust and is just 'culture war' issues meant to distract"?

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I hope this person’s next step is to organize and unionize his workplace, in order to further defang their employer’s attempts of control outside the workplace. If they attempt to fire him for that, the NLRB can step in and WHYY can be 2/2 for taking the L. Organizing is the only protection a worker has against unilateral actions by an employer.

sigilis 3y ago
His workplace is already unionized, he credits SAG for their representation in the arbitration s as being the reasons for this victory.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Tremendous, thanks for sharing this fact.