Should he have been fired?

[Eos]

The author was, due to public outcry.

But should he have been? A good chunk of it is simple, if unpleasant, truth. #8-#12 is a matter of perspective, but also where it really gets offensive and questionable.

http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_...#axzz1rdp9YG6n


But the bottom line - He's an author, giving his thoughts/opinions/feelings. He's not calling for anyone to be harmed, he's not specifically trying to harm anyone. He's giving a thought out, matter of fact assessment based on his own personal experiences and concerns.

I don't agree with his perspectives on all counts, but he did make it very clear he was talking about outliers on many of his more negative points, and lets face it, every culture has it's outliers who make them look bad, from the Natzis, the KKK, the yakuza, the mob, the mafia, the black panthers, the phelps clan/westboro baptist church, PETA, etc.

So, again, did this warrant firing, and why?

[Shidoshi]

Law of great numbers applied to skin color is sadly pretty correct (in Brazil too). Judging people before you properly meet them is something we do everyday and it's an important skill, you don't let hobos enter fancy restaurants and you don't enter a dark alley full of black people.

The problem is that it's hard to overcome the differences between the two populations if we are always applying these statistics. It's hard to place a definite line on where you drop your prejudging based on statistics/appearance.

I don't think the author is entirely wrong about his approach, but that course of action is a double-edged sword. And the subject is a touchy one, likely to be badly interpreted.

[FrozNlite]

Yes it did. His comments are blatantly racist as they address a single community in elements of generalized separation. His list of "occasions to avoid" based on "statistical common sense" are not the "unusual circumstances" where principles are overridden for safety, as he prefaces, but simply a list of general occurrences with the overarching subtext of "just don't be around black people, especially when they're in large concentrations."

He's clearly not describing outliers 100% of the time as well in that he makes two points about avoiding or highly scrutinizing black politicians. Seriously? Finally, he uses things like YouTube clips as sources for his racism. Because obviously the entire black population can be represented by one extremist, racist black professor who wants to "exterminate all the whites." It's the same as if one tried representing the entire white population with Hitler.

[Untradeable]

It seemed alright until I started reading past number 10 on the list ( and all the subsets of 10); At that point it seemed like he was imposing his fears more than a legitimate concern. I understand his point of view, But in today's society anything that is viewed as controvercial or "bad" can be grounds for a dismissal. It may not be fair, But it's in the company's best interest to avoid having confrontational issues in their articles.

[KhainiWest]

Haven't read anyone's comment's yet so I'm sorry if it's repeated;

Yeah he deserved to get fired. It sounds like he had somewhat good intentions and yeah, none of what he said was technically wrong, but it applies to every culture, every person. If he took it that approach it be much more acceptable.

Now I'm assuming this guy wrote for someone else, representing, so although opinions matter, something that unproffesional and clearly not thought out, probably won't do anything but bring the represented through the dirt. If this was a personal blog and he got fired from a job with nothing related, yeah, it's wrong.

[The Great One]

Yea he should have been fired. It didn't seem like he did a really good job of saying these things are rare or are outliers and hardly happen. His talk basically boiled down too: stay away from blacks a good 80% of them are inferior to you and therefore will only cause problems and try and hurt you. The other 20% make friends with them so you won't seem like a racists plus it will help you in your career.

It was just too damn offensive.

[Eos]

I believe I am still going with "no" on this one.

The question wasn't "are you offended", or "do you think he's wrong", it's "Should he have been fired".

I don't see any reason to fire him because he has an opinion of his own. If it's an unpopular opinion, or a "wrong" one, he's still entitled to it.

Why should he have been fired for doing what's essentially his job - Sharing his view point?

Do only people with popular socially acceptable opinions have the right to share them?

He may have been motivated out of good intentions colored with ignorance and prejudice, but stifling him doesn't address that, it just buries the problem, and this in particular is the sort of problem that can only be overcome by confronting it, talking through it and expanding perceptions. Removing him may have been expedient, but I do not believe it was justified and would not be surprised to see it challenged as a violation of free speech.

[The Great One]

If only had had put it in a context so people could confront it instead he says it and it just comes off as racism. That's the real reason why he was fired.

[Eos]

If only had had put it in a context so people could confront it instead he says it and it just comes off as racism.

He did put it in a context; As what he educated his family on. You can't get any more contextual than that.

[Onion Knight]

Replace the word "black" with "baby seal", suddenly the article would look better on cracked.

I don't think that the reaction to this article should have led to his firing unless it was truly damaging to the site it was being hosted under. Already you're dealing with opinions so credibility is entirely reliant on the sources and the writing style of the author, and the outrage would have generated above average ad revenue. It seems like a gross overreaction to a trivial issue of political correctness and saving face IMO.

[KhainiWest]

I believe I am still going with "no" on this one.

The question wasn't "are you offended", or "do you think he's wrong", it's "Should he have been fired".

I don't see any reason to fire him because he has an opinion of his own. If it's an unpopular opinion, or a "wrong" one, he's still entitled to it.

Why should he have been fired for doing what's essentially his job - Sharing his view point?

Do only people with popular socially acceptable opinions have the right to share them?

He may have been motivated out of good intentions colored with ignorance and prejudice, but stifling him doesn't address that, it just buries the problem, and this in particular is the sort of problem that can only be overcome by confronting it, talking through it and expanding perceptions. Removing him may have been expedient, but I do not believe it was justified and would not be surprised to see it challenged as a violation of free speech.

Depends on the company. They may not support that type of writing, and are very well in their right to remove him on those grounds

[Eos]

Depends on the company. They may not support that type of writing, and are very well in their right to remove him on those grounds

Look at the cover articles of their site and tell me him having an opinion was at all out of place;
http://takimag.com/

Editorials bashing politicians, celebrities, opinions on PTSD, it's all over the board, including articles offering opposing views to his own.

[Raul]

Depends on the company. They may not support that type of writing, and are very well in their right to remove him on those grounds

This is basically what I feel. He causes too much liability to the company and gives them a bad reputation if they don't fire him. So, to make sure that they can keep up decent circulation through moderates, they have to fire him and act apologetic.

[KhainiWest]

Oh wow, uh, so they are firing him for...doing his job? That's f`ucking retarded.

@Raul;

look at the site man, they got nothing BUT controversial sh`it all over it

[Panacea]

Shidoshi voiced most of my opinion, if not all of it.

Things like this are why racism is still as prevalent as it is, when it shouldn't matter. No, I'm not talking about the article itself, but rather "the talk" that it refers to.

It is true that there are those who feel that they are owed something because of their past and will be extremely hostile toward those who they feel are responsible for it. This mindset occurs on both sides, and until it's completely wiped out, this "talk" will not disappear as it should.

When it comes to the Law of Large Numbers, I will definitely avoid situations in which I am alone and about to encounter a group of individuals that I do not know or trust, but color will have little to do with it, although I may be more wary of some more than others and that is something I am working on.

Should he have been fired? Not sure. I wouldn't have fired him as this is something that can apply to all races, and not just one. I also try to think of it in terms of whether or not who wrote it and what race they identified as/were talking about would have been treated the same way.

[Raul]

Oh wow, uh, so they are firing him for...doing his job? That's f`ucking retarded.

@Raul;

look at the site man, they got nothing BUT controversial sh`it all over it

There's a fine line and he crossed it. I feel that there should have been a number 16 about how white people are incredibly sensitive to being racist beyond what is even close to necessary and that's invoked here.

[The Great One]

Okay looking at the rest of the site. How in all hell could they fire him?

[MissingLink]

I don't think he should have been fired, he was just repeating advice as he would give his kids, and much of it was reasonable and based on his life experiences.
But he could have left out section 11, 12 and the last parts of 10. That's just kicking the bees nest.

People have a natural distrust of other, different, people, and it is there for a reason. In the distant past someone new and different in your area was probably an invader there to take your land, your daughter and your life.

[hadriel]

Does the site have a significant amount of racist articles?

I feel that #1-9 do not sufficiently provide grounds for #10-12 on a rational basis. #10-12 are common-sensical, and #1-9 are slightly less-common-sensical.

Hadriel

[KhainiWest]

There's a fine line and he crossed it. I feel that there should have been a number 16 about how white people are incredibly sensitive to being racist beyond what is even close to necessary and that's invoked here.

No seriously look through the articles. There's an entire thread that Italians are corrupt and morally bankrupt.