5 ms·

Well his response to this: "They tried their best. They called me every name in the book. They cut off my health insurance. They deleted all of my fucking stor

Well his response to this: "They tried their best. They called me every name in the book. They cut off my health insurance. They deleted all of my fucking stories, which like, what the fuck? And then they still lost. People keep asking, ‘Is it going to be weird going back?’ I’m like, yeah, for them.”" I rather think it will be super weird for everyone. Also the original joke, that was likely the one triggering the firing, was about his workplace: “I work at one of these places that’s so woke it’s kinda racist,” the joke reads in part. “Like this lady asked my boss, she’s like ‘Yo, does Jad consider himself a person of color?’ because she was making a list of us. Fucking hell? Sick, alright. I get to be in this lady’s brown dude Pokédex.”

Shorel 3y ago
Someone needs to take a stand, so not all work places end up being so woke they are racist. Bring back common sense.
- ben_w 3y ago
  "Common sense" is how this mess, and the preceding messes that made people want this particular mess, happened in the first place. Aim for uncommon sense instead.
  - pnt12 3y ago
    That will be uncommon.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  It truly is impressive that we went from Martin Luther King to a world where a term like "person of color" is not racist. Incidentally, if anyone dares to call me that (I'm Japanese), I sincerely will not consider him a man of good character.
  - Kye 3y ago
    "People of color" was popularized in the 70s and 80s as a solution to the othering effect of words like "non-white," and not just by white people. Dr. King preferred "citizens of color." What sets "people of color" apart? Both acknowledge the subject's humanity.
    - hasmolo 3y ago
      as an answer for you: Political scientist Angelo Falcón argues that the use of broad terms like "person of color" is offensive because it aggregates diverse communities and projects "a false unity" that "obscure[s] the needs of Latinos and Asians" more or less creating a group that simply ‘is not white’ is disparinging for all of the folks in that group that feel more unique than simply ‘not white’
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites. It is racist to generalize peoples' heritages, it is racist to exclude whites, and above all it is racist to not simply consider your fellow man as just a fellow man just like yourself. Racism is considering someone's race for something where race is not relevant, the intent behind the act is irrelevant.
        koolba 3y ago
        > To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites. Apparently that’s allowed now, at least by the people seem to think everybody else are the racists: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129796 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129796
        hasmolo 3y ago
        most technically racist means systemic oppresion, but it is def discrimination
        faeriechangling 3y ago
        That’s not a technical definition of the word, that’s an academic/activist niche way to describe the word which is contrary to popular or historical usage. I criticize the redefinition as seemingly wholly existing to narrow the number of cases in which racial discrimination can be considered racism and I wonder what ethical justification could possibly exist for PRESCRIBING this definition when people use the word “racist” in the common sense of the word. It seems to be a definition which exists wholly because some think it would be swell if a black woman calling an Asian man a slur wasn’t called a racist. Yet the people who argue for this I find don’t actually support this behaviour, they would discourage it, they just want marginalized groups to just never be called racist, because that’s too harsh or something. Also what constitutes systemic oppression anyways? Take a majority subordinate under a minority boss. Can the minority say a slur without it being racist? Can the majority? What a stupid debate to have when this shouldn’t happen EITHER way, because this is RACIST. The original definition is more fair and simple and straightforwards and popular and less counterproductive than the redefinitions.
  - hasmolo 3y ago
    women of color was a thrid wave feminist creation. it was made by white women to describe the non-whites that were asking to be seen. anyone calling anyone a person of color is def a latent racist, as it is always talking down. we can just chat with others wothout acting like we are 5 years old and need to show them we have identified a color or shape that is different!
    - Kye 3y ago
      1977 is just a bit earlier than third wave feminism's start in the 90s.
    - metabagel 3y ago
      It’s OK to refer to persons of color (a classification), but it’s not OK to refer to a specific individual as a person of color. It can be offensive to acknowledge another person’s race, and it’s best to avoid doing this.
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    In the United States, the term means you would have been kept out of white-only clubs. The average idiot in America might have forgotten that this has happened in living memory. So when someone uses it to refer to Japanese-Americans they might be signaling that they recognize a white-only rule existed in living memory.
- hasmolo 3y ago
  can you define common sense versus woke? the term woke has lost all meaning, and now seems to mean ‘whatever i find to be outside of expectations i have had set’, and i legit would love to understand it better so i am not misinterpreting all the argumetns i see
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
      I appreciate that you tried to provide an answer. Unfortunately there's just no way to satisfy the leftists when they ask you to define words for them. The thing is these people are never genuinely interested in defining a word, it's all just a sick game of rhetorical wordplay where criticisms are deflected by muddying the waters.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Can you provide a definition what "leftist" means to you? Or more advanced, can you provide a definition what "leftist" means to which leftist would agree? Or is the definition of a leftist to you, someone who does not define a word?
        flkenosad 3y ago
        Parent was just ranting about how y'all obsess over definitions and your comment is basically, "define this, define that." Did you even listen to what was being said? I'm starting to think most of the left is just bots at this point.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        I suppose I need to add a disclaimer every time I participate in those debates: "I am neither left, nor right, nor US and don't have any horse in this race." But most of this just smells like classical strawman debates to me: "They think X and this is stupid" "no we don't think this, we think Y and you think Z" "no we don't we .." So my point with my question actually was: I don't think there is a coherent group calling themself "leftist" (nor "rightists"). So I don't think those debates lumping them all together are that productive, except for letting go off some personal steam. There are of course people who call themself "left" and want their ideology to rule the world. And there are of course people who call themself right, who wants to do the same. But to my knowledge, there are also lots of people left and right, who do not want this.
ametrau 3y ago
Hahaha that’s pretty good

Shorel 3y ago

Someone needs to take a stand, so not all work places end up being so woke they are racist. Bring back common sense.

ben_w 3y ago
"Common sense" is how this mess, and the preceding messes that made people want this particular mess, happened in the first place. Aim for uncommon sense instead.
- pnt12 3y ago
  That will be uncommon.
Dalewyn 3y ago
It truly is impressive that we went from Martin Luther King to a world where a term like "person of color" is not racist. Incidentally, if anyone dares to call me that (I'm Japanese), I sincerely will not consider him a man of good character.
- Kye 3y ago
  "People of color" was popularized in the 70s and 80s as a solution to the othering effect of words like "non-white," and not just by white people. Dr. King preferred "citizens of color." What sets "people of color" apart? Both acknowledge the subject's humanity.
  - hasmolo 3y ago
    as an answer for you: Political scientist Angelo Falcón argues that the use of broad terms like "person of color" is offensive because it aggregates diverse communities and projects "a false unity" that "obscure[s] the needs of Latinos and Asians" more or less creating a group that simply ‘is not white’ is disparinging for all of the folks in that group that feel more unique than simply ‘not white’
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites. It is racist to generalize peoples' heritages, it is racist to exclude whites, and above all it is racist to not simply consider your fellow man as just a fellow man just like yourself. Racism is considering someone's race for something where race is not relevant, the intent behind the act is irrelevant.
      - koolba 3y ago
        > To add on to this, it is racist to exclude whites. Apparently that’s allowed now, at least by the people seem to think everybody else are the racists: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129796 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129796
      - hasmolo 3y ago
        most technically racist means systemic oppresion, but it is def discrimination
        faeriechangling 3y ago
        That’s not a technical definition of the word, that’s an academic/activist niche way to describe the word which is contrary to popular or historical usage. I criticize the redefinition as seemingly wholly existing to narrow the number of cases in which racial discrimination can be considered racism and I wonder what ethical justification could possibly exist for PRESCRIBING this definition when people use the word “racist” in the common sense of the word. It seems to be a definition which exists wholly because some think it would be swell if a black woman calling an Asian man a slur wasn’t called a racist. Yet the people who argue for this I find don’t actually support this behaviour, they would discourage it, they just want marginalized groups to just never be called racist, because that’s too harsh or something. Also what constitutes systemic oppression anyways? Take a majority subordinate under a minority boss. Can the minority say a slur without it being racist? Can the majority? What a stupid debate to have when this shouldn’t happen EITHER way, because this is RACIST. The original definition is more fair and simple and straightforwards and popular and less counterproductive than the redefinitions.
- hasmolo 3y ago
  women of color was a thrid wave feminist creation. it was made by white women to describe the non-whites that were asking to be seen. anyone calling anyone a person of color is def a latent racist, as it is always talking down. we can just chat with others wothout acting like we are 5 years old and need to show them we have identified a color or shape that is different!
  - Kye 3y ago
    1977 is just a bit earlier than third wave feminism's start in the 90s.
  - metabagel 3y ago
    It’s OK to refer to persons of color (a classification), but it’s not OK to refer to a specific individual as a person of color. It can be offensive to acknowledge another person’s race, and it’s best to avoid doing this.
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  In the United States, the term means you would have been kept out of white-only clubs. The average idiot in America might have forgotten that this has happened in living memory. So when someone uses it to refer to Japanese-Americans they might be signaling that they recognize a white-only rule existed in living memory.
hasmolo 3y ago
can you define common sense versus woke? the term woke has lost all meaning, and now seems to mean ‘whatever i find to be outside of expectations i have had set’, and i legit would love to understand it better so i am not misinterpreting all the argumetns i see
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
    I appreciate that you tried to provide an answer. Unfortunately there's just no way to satisfy the leftists when they ask you to define words for them. The thing is these people are never genuinely interested in defining a word, it's all just a sick game of rhetorical wordplay where criticisms are deflected by muddying the waters.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Can you provide a definition what "leftist" means to you? Or more advanced, can you provide a definition what "leftist" means to which leftist would agree? Or is the definition of a leftist to you, someone who does not define a word?
      - flkenosad 3y ago
        Parent was just ranting about how y'all obsess over definitions and your comment is basically, "define this, define that." Did you even listen to what was being said? I'm starting to think most of the left is just bots at this point.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        I suppose I need to add a disclaimer every time I participate in those debates: "I am neither left, nor right, nor US and don't have any horse in this race." But most of this just smells like classical strawman debates to me: "They think X and this is stupid" "no we don't think this, we think Y and you think Z" "no we don't we .." So my point with my question actually was: I don't think there is a coherent group calling themself "leftist" (nor "rightists"). So I don't think those debates lumping them all together are that productive, except for letting go off some personal steam. There are of course people who call themself "left" and want their ideology to rule the world. And there are of course people who call themself right, who wants to do the same. But to my knowledge, there are also lots of people left and right, who do not want this.

ametrau 3y ago

Hahaha that’s pretty good