Should he have been fired?

[Eos]

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

I missed that one. For some reason that description made me giggle. It also further highlights my point of how oddly hypocritical the firing seems to be.

[KhainiWest]

I missed that one. For some reason that description made me giggle. It also further highlights my point of how oddly hypocritical the firing seems to be.

http://takimag.com/article/bastardi_...#axzz1reUpItlb

I'm italian blood too qq mamamia

[Eos]

@KhainiWest; Gosh. That was every bit as hilariously awful as expected.

[Abbeh]

I wouldn't have fired him.

It's about damn time someone speaks out from the "white" side of that equation, but it would figure he was fired for it. It's really sad that blacks can still play the racism card at the slightest thing and have a white person severely reprimanded. I wonder, who is more of a victim these days? I grew up in a fairly mixed community, and while I've had my fair share of awful encounters with stereotypical black people, I've never really been afraid of them for their 'stereotype.' I've always been more afraid of unintentionally doing or saying something someone will twist and find offensive and label me racist. Is that racist?

[Raul]

I wouldn't have fired him.

It's about damn time someone speaks out from the "white" side of that equation, but it would figure he was fired for it. It's really sad that blacks can still play the racism card at the slightest thing and have a white person severely reprimanded. I wonder, who is more of a victim these days? I grew up in a fairly mixed community, and while I've had my fair share of awful encounters with stereotypical black people, I've never really been afraid of them for their 'stereotype.' I've always been more afraid of unintentionally doing or saying something someone will twist and find offensive and label me racist. Is that racist?

I think there's a difference between what you're saying (which I agree with) and some of the the stuff he says. 10 is just idiotic and toolish, and 13-15 are just condescending and asinine.

[KhainiWest]

I'm pretty sure the race war between hispanic and african americans is a lot worse than african americans and caucasions, just sayin

[Luxeraph]

I don't find it offensive but maybe it because I read the whole thing in a kind of sarcastic way due to how he started the article, mostly because of this:

Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,

And I didn't check all the links (actually only clicked on about 3) but they seemed to show how racism is still everywhere these days.

So to me the whole thing looked like joke, not sure if it was intended to.

@above: In the states or outside?

[FrozNlite]

Fine Eos, if I didn't properly answer the base question: should he have been fired? YES. Even though the rest of the site is morally bankrupt, racist, sexist, etc.? Honestly, the whole site should be fired. It's through vocal communities of bigots like these that all of the -isms and phobias continue to persist. Just because it's hypocritical doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.

Now in writing that last sentence I had to pause because I've argued the exact opposite when debating the moral argument of Shakespeare's Measure for Measure. In the end I feel it comes down to logic and circumstantial situations. In the play the question hinges on putting a man to death for impregnating his lover out of wedlock. Clearly the world has determined the religious bases of laws like that are illogical, and thus it's no question that the severity of the punishment far exceeds the crime. But in cases of blatant -ism or phobia, I have a tough time believing a zero tolerance policy is at times illogical or inappropriate. I don't think treating other human beings as inferior will ever be "in style," and thus it's not a question of where such behavior occurs - end it.

So again, should he have been fired? Yes, he's promoting racism and all of the problems associated with it. Even though he's writing on a site filled with -isms and phobias? Yes, and the whole site should be fired/shut down.

EDIT: Another way of saying things

It's about damn time someone speaks out from the "white" side of that equation, but it would figure he was fired for it. It's really sad that blacks can still play the racism card at the slightest thing and have a white person severely reprimanded.

Are -isms and phobias dual-sided at times? Yes. But in the same vein that two wrongs don't make a right, your aforementioned "equation" wouldn't exist if people wouldn't respond to racism with racism.

Here's an idea to solve pomegranate: to ALL PEOPLE: don't be racist. Jesus pineappleing Christ it's 2012 people.

[CrazyForDex]

Jesus pineappleing Christ it's 2012 people.

I found this funny in a bizarre sort of way.

Should he have been fired? I voted for unsure because there is freedom of speech and that website seems pretty scandalous (among other things). I think the guy is a dumbass and pretty racist though.

[The Great One]

I'm pretty sure the race war between hispanic and african americans is a lot worse than african americans and caucasions, just sayin

That's more of a gang war then a race war

[The Great One]

Fine Eos, if I didn't properly answer the base question: should he have been fired? YES. Even though the rest of the site is morally bankrupt, racist, sexist, etc.? Honestly, the whole site should be fired. It's through vocal communities of bigots like these that all of the -isms and phobias continue to persist. Just because it's hypocritical doesn't mean he shouldn't be fired.

Now in writing that last sentence I had to pause because I've argued the exact opposite when debating the moral argument of Shakespeare's Measure for Measure. In the end I feel it comes down to logic and circumstantial situations. In the play the question hinges on putting a man to death for impregnating his lover out of wedlock. Clearly the world has determined the religious bases of laws like that are illogical, and thus it's no question that the severity of the punishment far exceeds the crime. But in cases of blatant -ism or phobia, I have a tough time believing a zero tolerance policy is at times illogical or inappropriate. I don't think treating other human beings as inferior will ever be "in style," and thus it's not a question of where such behavior occurs - end it.

So again, should he have been fired? Yes, he's promoting racism and all of the problems associated with it. Even though he's writing on a site filled with -isms and phobias? Yes, and the whole site should be fired/shut down.

EDIT: Another way of saying things



Are -isms and phobias dual-sided at times? Yes. But in the same vein that two wrongs don't make a right, your aforementioned "equation" wouldn't exist if people wouldn't respond to racism with racism.

Here's an idea to solve pomegranate: to ALL PEOPLE: don't be racist. Jesus pineappleing Christ it's 2012 people.

As long as people are different there will be problems racism being one of em. It's been a part of human nature and history and sadly it's never going away.

[Flonne]

I never got anything resembling a talk like this, but other than that, it's all solid facts without any real stereotyping, so no, he shouldn't have been fired. I can, however, see how people were able to use a "victimization complex" argument against the article in order to get it condemned, because, while stupid if you actually read it, it's got enough of a semblance of an actual argument that "sheeple" will go along without question. 10c and 10e, 10f, and 10g were the only ones that I felt went over the line. Though I did kind of lol at 13, where he basically advocated using a black person as a friend to avoid persecution of racism.

I have a friend that lives in Alabama, so I know firsthand (oh wait, that would be secondhand!) that most of those numbers, however made up they may seem, are really not. Alabama is full of terrible people, by the way; never go there. LOL.

[Eos]

I have a tough time believing a zero tolerance policy is at times illogical or inappropriate.

Encouraging people to hide how they really feel, or punishing them for it, instead of confronting and educating them?

How exactly do you rationalize that as "fixing" the problem?

[FrozNlite]

Encouraging people to hide how they really feel, or punishing them for it, instead of confronting and educating them?

How exactly do you rationalize that as "fixing" the problem?

How do you rationalize fixing it? Keeping him at his post amidst a staff of bigots who wouldn't tell him any different, and allowing him to keep spreading a message of hate?

You are right in everything in your first sentence, but how to solve this problem? I'm more curious now from a discussion standpoint.

[Eos]

How do you rationalize fixing it? Keeping him at his post amidst a staff of bigots who wouldn't tell him any different, and allowing him to keep spreading a message of hate?

You are right in everything in your first sentence, but how to solve this problem? I'm more curious now from a discussion standpoint.

I'm not trying to fix it. I'm simply pointing out your response doesn't accomplish anything positive, for anyone. It won't unmake what he said. It won't change how he thinks/feels. It won't change anyone who agrees with him. It won't satisfy the people who feel wronged for more time than it takes the next thing to piss them off. I recognize it as nothing more than his opinion. If I had any degree of vested interest in his claims I'd answer them the traditional way; In an editorial/commentary rebuffing each point I had issue with, using my own factual verifiable sources to debunk the prejudiced and inaccurate ones so that a reader could make their own determination and the author could consider the additional information/views.

Keeping him in his job obviously won't fix him, but more importantly removing him from it won't either. It's just punishing him for the sake of having an unpopular view.
In order to "fix" him, you'd have to establish exactly what you consider a successful resolution. If the goal is for him to understand his view is unpopular, or that he's mistaken, beating him up isn't going to accomplish that, if anything it'll only more strongly associate for him his belief that affirmative action has gone too far.

I'm disappointed in you declaring that a "message of hate". It's a message of ignorance, prejudice and fear perhaps, but certainly not hate. People like yourself projecting their own issues on to this author and blowing it out of scale are just as misguided as he was. What would it take to change your perspective? If you want to change his, you'd have to consider it from that angle. You're interpreting his motives, and to some extent even his very meaning, based on your own experiences and perspective. All he did he was the same.

[Promothian]

I do not think he should have been fired. I believe the late and great George Orwell said it best "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." some of his points were valid, namely before 10 but not all before 10.

in general a small amount of people from any group will be hostile however that is simply a part of being human. many circumstances change and shape who we are and so some of us are hostile to others for otherwise irrelevant differences.

but it is undeniable that parts of what he wrote were racist.

although many people disagree with his opinion it doesn't matter.
he's stating his opinion it's up to the reader to accept the new information or to deny it.

If people want to be spoon fed knowledge and just want some all knowing beacon to decide what is right from wrong then they just want to be sheep. It irritates me that many people treat themselves like kids by believing any new information presented to them without any scrutiny and then complaining when they see information they disagree with by saying that the person is sending out a hateful message. if you disagree then just say so and move on with your life.

[Eos]

what is relevant is weather the person posted this in their free time or that his post on takimag was as a writer for the site.

if it is the later then he might be projecting an image or message that does not follow the websites vision/image that it has made for itself. if that is the case then firing him is acceptable.
however if he posted this completely unrelated to his profession then there is no reason for him to be fired.

This is not a hypothetical abtract musing with insufficient information available to make a judgment. You have access to the site. Look for yourself at the contents of it and give an actual answer, not a text book if-then-else-maybe.

[VerrKol]

I was all in favor of firing him on the grounds while his statements are (presumably) true, they do nothing which generate money for the site and given the apparent backlash do the opposite.

Then I saw the rest of the articles. No way should he be fired. If the site chooses to cater to a particular demographic and actively seeks/encourages authors that meet this target audience, the author cannot be faulted for doing his job. The article did not appear to be any more provocative than usual for the site so I must conclude the site's chosen political/social orientation caused this backlash, not the author himself.

Summary: You should not be able to fire people for doing their job.

[Promothian]

This is not a hypothetical abtract musing with insufficient information available to make a judgment. You have access to the site. Look for yourself at the contents of it and give an actual answer, not a text book if-then-else-maybe.

I removed that part after checking it further because of essentialy what you said. but I also changed my mind.
regardless if he's getting paid to write and if it doesn't match the theme of the website. he's paid to give HIS opinion on subjects not the website's opinion. so he should keep his job.

[Flonne]

I don't even see it as a message of ignorance/prejudice, at least not some of the remarks people are getting upset over. For centuries, blacks were slaves. This is undeniable, and I don't think anyone in their right mind would TRY to deny this. Slaves are severely punished/killed for having/showing any semblance of intellect; it wasn't just the ability to read that they were punished for, it was just about anything. Of course. The slave owners would have been afraid of one slave spreading dissent to the others. For centuries, they were quite literally bred to be workhorses; strong, huge, and powerful, with little thought outside of doing what they were told, because they knew the consequences if they tried. Slaves are literally culled from birth, intellectually. You think that, after centuries, that would have no effect at all on the current generations of black people? It's obvious they still retain their superior physical stature, you need only look as far as athletics to see that much. So, him citing sources that say they have a lower IQ on average is not racist at all, it would be racist to claim otherwise; they are not to blame for it at all, and anything else would be blatant patronization. People say genetics play a huge role in your life, but only when it suits their needs; with things like intellect and mannerisms, most refuse to admit that those are also controlled by genetics.