Racism in America (with data)

[malchior]

Yeah, I tried to see if he was printing, but didn't spend too much time on it.

Oh he totally was. And I get that some people are saying he was trying to have a reason to fire but that is pure thought crime/pre-crime stuff. We have no idea what he was thinking.

[hepcat]

Whoa, you’re preaching to the choir on this. I’ve stated my hatred of internet justice multiple times. I would rather someone in the mental health community examine his past and make sure he isn’t dangerous, as I strongly suspect he was looking to kill someone that day. Or at least hurt someone badly. But in this one instance, I also can’t fault his employer for perhaps realizing they have a potentially dangerous individual in their employ.

[malchior]

Whoa, you’re preaching to the choir on this. I’ve stated my hatred of internet justice multiple times. I would rather someone in the mental health community examine his past and make sure he isn’t dangerous, as I strongly suspect he was looking to kill someone that day. Or at least hurt someone badly. But in this one instance, I also can’t fault his employer for perhaps realizing they have a potentially dangerous individual in their employ.

For sure, this isn't a criticism of anything in particular. It is more that this is a good example because what everyone does makes sense. People being outraged? Sure. The employer wanting to minimize the reputation damage? Yep. All checks out. The interesting thing to me is that even when the whole chain is understandable this is potentially a dangerous direction for society. Is this our version of the Chinese social media point system? Except as demanded by a live 'studio audience'? It also raises some points that align with your thoughts, instead of getting him fired for the mob's satisfaction perhaps we do get him the help he might need? A lot to think about here.

[gbasden]

I both agree and don't. Yes, I don't think 30 seconds of anybody's life is enough to know what's in their head and heart. On the other hand, I've never gone at anyone with balled fists ready to attack either. With or without gun. There has to be some conduct that is enough to provoke consequences, yes?

[Zarathud]

Live by the mantra of “personal responsibility,” die by the same. Anyone who brandishes a gun at Costco for courage is picking a fight — that they should lose hard enough to never try it again.

[malchior]

I both agree and don't. Yes, I don't think 30 seconds of anybody's life is enough to know what's in their head and heart. On the other hand, I've never gone at anyone with balled fists ready to attack either. With or without gun. There has to be some conduct that is enough to provoke consequences, yes?

Sure but what are the lines? Will the standard be different today than they are tomorrow? Is this like pornography where we'll know it when we see it? Again I'm not defending this guy but I am troubled by the direction this is trending. The Atlantic already cataloged people who were 'cancelled' for innocuous behavior. Those people truly are 'victims' of this stuff. However, this is interesting to me because like I said everything except his behavior seems reasonable but it relies on again a 30-second glimpse into something. We are implicitly trusting the frame story that he was approached about wearing a mask. What if there truly was threatening behavior before this? Would this be a just result then?

[Blackhawk]

Depending on his job, an employer who sees that he's not quite right and potentially dangerous, and then lets him stay around opens themselves up to all sorts of problems if he loses control in the course of his job. Once they become aware of the problem, their hands may be tied. They can't allow him to stay.

[malchior]

Depending on his job, an employer who sees that he's not quite right and potentially dangerous, and then lets him stay around opens themselves up to all sorts of problems if he loses control in the course of his job. Once they become aware of the problem, their hands may be tied. They can't allow him to stay.

FWIW he sold insurance policies which most likely requires direct contact with the public.

[gbasden]

I both agree and don't. Yes, I don't think 30 seconds of anybody's life is enough to know what's in their head and heart. On the other hand, I've never gone at anyone with balled fists ready to attack either. With or without gun. There has to be some conduct that is enough to provoke consequences, yes?

Sure but what are the lines? Will the standard be different today than they are tomorrow? Is this like pornography where we'll know it when we see it? Again I'm not defending this guy but I am troubled by the direction this is trending. The Atlantic already cataloged people who were 'cancelled' for innocuous behavior. Those people truly are 'victims' of this stuff. However, this is interesting to me because like I said everything except his behavior seems reasonable but it relies on again a 30-second glimpse into something. We are implicitly trusting the frame story that he was approached about wearing a mask. What if there truly was threatening behavior before this? Would this be a just result then?

Well, I know like most Americans that I have little to no recourse if my employer wants to fire me. Part of how I've always lived my corporate life is to not do things to put my employer in a position where they needed to fire me. As BH said, if they kept him on after this and he does go postal on somebody they can be very liable. I know there are people that are misrepresented and victims, but I think we are finally seeing what some people are like now that cameras are everywhere. I would guess from the other comments, the fact that Costco kicked the dude out and then escorted the filmer to his car that they didn't believe he was the aggressor.

[malchior]

I both agree and don't. Yes, I don't think 30 seconds of anybody's life is enough to know what's in their head and heart. On the other hand, I've never gone at anyone with balled fists ready to attack either. With or without gun. There has to be some conduct that is enough to provoke consequences, yes?

Sure but what are the lines? Will the standard be different today than they are tomorrow? Is this like pornography where we'll know it when we see it? Again I'm not defending this guy but I am troubled by the direction this is trending. The Atlantic already cataloged people who were 'cancelled' for innocuous behavior. Those people truly are 'victims' of this stuff. However, this is interesting to me because like I said everything except his behavior seems reasonable but it relies on again a 30-second glimpse into something. We are implicitly trusting the frame story that he was approached about wearing a mask. What if there truly was threatening behavior before this? Would this be a just result then?

Well, I know like most Americans that I have little to no recourse if my employer wants to fire me. Part of how I've always lived my corporate life is to not do things to put my employer in a position where they needed to fire me. As BH said, if they kept him on after this and he does go postal on somebody they can be very liable. I know there are people that are misrepresented and victims, but I think we are finally seeing what some people are like now that cameras are everywhere. I would guess from the other comments, the fact that Costco kicked the dude out and then escorted the filmer to his car that they didn't believe he was the aggressor.

Sure. that is sort of irrelevant to the point I'm obviously failing to make. I'm positing a thought experiment here. The only reason we 'know' any of this is because it is what is being told to us on social media. Eventually maybe it'll be run down and verified but this video was posted this morning. By the afternoon the guy was fired based solely on a 30-second video and a social media framing. That should give any of us pause. What are the standards here? As you point out our employers have vast power over our lives and now we have social media mobs forcing them to use that power against people. Zooming back up to historical reference, other times 'instant justice' has happened in the past it hasn't worked out too well. I don't think this will be good in the long run.

[LordMortis]

I also can’t fault his employer for perhaps realizing they have a potentially dangerous individual in their employ.

This. I'm totally against doxxing but if I am an employer and I see this, it's not about saving face, it's about a safe workspace. Saving face would be providing him health care for x amount of time so he could seek help.

I'm also not a fan of forcing someone to get treatment but to me this sounds like a recipe for snapping. I'd be afraid to be anywhere near someone like that. Even for 30 second out of context.

[Grifman]

Ditto. But I also worry that someone like that is also dangerous. Hopefully he’ll get the help I suspect he needs at some point.

Sure and that is a fair concern. At the same time, this is 30 seconds of someone's life. He fucked up but 'we've' essentially said...to the pit of despair with you. No income. No health insurance. We don't know anything about that man other than what was shown to us in a moment. He gets dealt swift 'justice' and then we move on to the next one. This is the beginning of a rise of something that I don't think we understand the depths of yet.

I too am of a mixed mind of "trial by Twitter" as much as I like to see someone get their comeuppance. What sticks in my mind is a question i read a commentator raise about someone who said something truly awful at one time, while the rest of their life told a somewhat different story - "What would happen if you were judged by the worst day of your life?" I think about that often, because if my worst day were filmed and put on Twitter, I might not do any better than some of these people in the judgement of the crowd.

[hepcat]

Sure. that is sort of irrelevant to the point I'm obviously failing to make. I'm positing a thought experiment here.

And I completely agree with you on that point, make no mistake. I just find it hard to find fault with the employer in this specific instance.

A while back I posted a link to a video of a woman who was chased down by an African American gentlemen who swore she cut him off in traffic, then called him the N word and flipped him off. He followed her home and then proceeded to terrorize the woman by trying to get all her neighbors and every passing person to ridicule her. He even read her license plate out loud in his video, demanding the internet ruin her. This woman was pleading and begging with him, saying she didn’t do what he said. She was hysterical the entire time. Turns out that they guy filming her has a history of trying to become internet famous and has done this before to people...and under questionable claims of racism.

That drove home the point for me that this cancel culture crap has been weaponized at this point. I’m happy that someone invented the gun for people who couldn’t defend themselves, couldn’t be believed before; but at the same time that gun doesn’t care if it’s being used for justice or righting wrongs. It just wants to kill. That where I fear we are heading myself.

[malchior]

Sure. that is sort of irrelevant to the point I'm obviously failing to make. I'm positing a thought experiment here.

And I completely agree with you on that point, make no mistake. I just find it hard to find fault with the employer in this specific instance.

Right I find it hard to fault the employers in almost all these instances. They have almost no choice in this environment.

[Freyland]

If it helps any, we do know a bit more about his mindset than just demonstrated by 30 seconds of video. Did you notice the shirt?

[hepcat]

Does that shirt symbolize something beyond exceeding and unrealistic American exceptionalism?

[Z-Corn]

I’m happy that someone invented the gun for people who couldn’t defend themselves, couldn’t be believed before; but at the same time that gun doesn’t care if it’s being used for justice or righting wrongs. It just wants to kill. That where I fear we are heading myself.

No, a gun is just a tool that sends a piece of metal out of its muzzle at a high rate of speed. It doesn't have the intellect to want to kill.

[hepcat]

I think you’re missing my point about the weaponization of social media.

[Smoove_B]

If you're out in public, visiting a store while wearing your flip-flops and holding a concealed weapon, yelling at someone for filming you and shouting "I feel threatened" with the understanding you're doing it to justify eventually pulling your gun...I'm ok with you getting named and fired from your job.

There are blurry lines and it's not acceptable 100% of the time to make an example out of someone. But in this case? F that guy.

[Smoove_B]

The couple who defaced a BLM mural in Martinez, California have been interviewed by police. Charges *may* yet to be filed.

I will say that I would rather they just be fined and made to pay (or do) the clean-up, and not face criminal charges. I realize that they would probably be more harshly treated if they weren't white, but this is one area where I would like to achieve equity by less criminal punishment than more.

Charged with hate crime.

[hepcat]

If you're out in public, visiting a store while wearing your flip-flops and holding a concealed weapon, yelling at someone for filming you and shouting "I feel threatened" with the understanding you're doing it to justify eventually pulling your gun...I'm ok with you getting named and fired from your job.

There are blurry lines and it's not acceptable 100% of the time to make an example out of someone. But in this case? F that guy.

You had me at flip flops.

[raydude]

Yeah, I tried to see if he was printing, but didn't spend too much time on it.

Sorry, I don't understand this phrase. Is "the dude was printing" street slang?

[hepcat]

Raydude has asked the question I was too embarrassed to ask. I was afraid you dang kids wouldn’t think I was cool.

[malchior]

Yeah, I tried to see if he was printing, but didn't spend too much time on it.

Sorry, I don't understand this phrase. Is "the dude was printing" street slang?

It refers to seeing the outline of his gun 'printing' against/through his clothes. If you are concealed carry, you theoretically shouldn't 'print' and reveal you are armed but that has practical limitations.

[Z-Corn]

I think you’re missing my point about the weaponization of social media.

...or am I?

[Smoove_B]

Printing is displaying to someone that you're carrying a gun by showing them the silhouette through your shirt or jacket. It could be seen as a covert threat. More to the point:

The informal term “printing” refers to showing an outline of a concealed carry gun on either a shirt or garment that the person is wearing. It's a big taboo in the concealed carry community. For those states and cities where open carry isn't allowed – it can potentially get a concealed carrier in hot water.

Kinda like when Jeff V is wearing bicycle pants. He's "printing" his virility.

[Grifman]

Raydude has asked the question I was too embarrassed to ask. I was afraid you dang kids wouldn’t think I was cool.

[hepcat]

I think you’re missing my point about the weaponization of social media.

...or am I?

Also, a gun is not a tool. It is a weapon. No matter how hard the NRA wants you to believe you could use a gun to open a jar of pickles or hammer a nail into a board, it is still a weapon.

Kinda like when Jeff V is wearing bicycle pants. He's "printing" his virility.

You do realize I was the victim that saw the print out that day, right? I still wake up some nights, screaming “It moved, it moved!”.

[Alefroth]

Does that shirt symbolize something beyond exceeding and unrealistic American exceptionalism?

No, it's meant to be taken at face value.

[Freyland]

Does that shirt symbolize something beyond exceeding and unrealistic American exceptionalism?

No, it's meant to be taken at face value.

Bingo.

[Kasey Chang]

Getting fired only feeds their paranoid persecution complex. if they have in their mind that they were never at fault, it's (insert blame here) that's ruining their lives, then there's no reasoning with them.

And they have guns...

[malchior]

Here is another instance of this trial by twitter mob from closer to my area.

A group twitter account sent a still shot of her arm to her employer in what appears to be a Nazi salute. Again for effect, it is a still shot with no context. Is it a wave? Did she go full Nazi on a street in Nutley? I certainly don't know with any certainty but what is the employer going to do in this environment? Of course, they canned her.

When you dig into this what this really is about, it looks a lot like it is about taking scalps. You can see it in the thread where they posted the original photos of her (posted below if you wish to check it out). They are so certain in their view of what happens that it goes beyond evidence to whatever they think it is. I'll be clear and state that I don't agree with what appear to be her views but this goes way beyond disagreement. Someone went out of their way to find a damning photo and attack her through her employer. This is bad juju.

[LordMortis]

If you're out in public, visiting a store while wearing your flip-flops and holding a concealed weapon, yelling at someone for filming you and shouting "I feel threatened" with the understanding you're doing it to justify eventually pulling your gun...I'm ok with you getting named and fired from your job.

There are blurry lines and it's not acceptable 100% of the time to make an example out of someone. But in this case? F that guy.

Not just yelling but closing in on the object your are "threatened" by.

[LordMortis]

Here is another instance of this trial by twitter mob from closer to my area.

A group twitter account sent a still shot of her arm to her employer in what appears to be a Nazi salute. Again for effect, it is a still shot with no context. Is it a wave? Did she go full Nazi on a street in Nutley? I certainly don't know with any certainty but what is the employer going to do in this environment? Of course, they canned her.

When you dig into this what this really is about, it looks a lot like it is about taking scalps. You can see it in the thread where they posted the original photos of her (posted below if you wish to check it out). They are so certain in their view of what happens that it goes beyond evidence to whatever they think it is. I'll be clear and state that I don't agree with what appear to be her views but this goes way beyond disagreement. Someone went out of their way to find a damning photo and attack her through her employer. This is bad juju.

Agreed. Covington taught me not to jump too quickly. That was a lesson in humility, even if I still ultimately believe the kids are wrong and douches after relearning the context. three times. But I still don't blame an employer for terminating a guy on that 30 second video.

[raydude]

Raydude has asked the question I was too embarrassed to ask. I was afraid you dang kids wouldn’t think I was cool.

I'm an engineer. I got past my non-cool anxiety years ago

[Paingod]

At the same time, this is 30 seconds of someone's life. He fucked up but 'we've' essentially said...to the pit of despair with you. No income. No health insurance. We don't know anything about that man other than what was shown to us in a moment. He gets dealt swift 'justice' and then we move on to the next one. This is the beginning of a rise of something that I don't think we understand the depths of yet.

I'm still uncertain how I feel about all of it, doxxing in general, as it can clearly be used to punish people who thought they could act in a wildly inappropriate manner with impunity and would otherwise have no consequence - but is also being wielded as a tool to strike at people who've done nothing wrong except offend a particular person or group operating at the edge of society.

The silver lining is that it may put a damper on the "free-for-all asshole" mentality. A world where people have to re-learn to be accountable for their actions. We've gotten quite used to the relative anonymity of being "one in a crowd" - and it's a really new theme for the last 80 years or so. Before that, anyone who acted like this guy was ostracized by the community. We're just going back to that, and I don't know that it's entirely a bad thing. Holding people personally accountable for how they treat others. I mean, in almost 43 years of life, I've managed to avoid screaming at and threatening complete strangers. It's not hard.

I'm sure this guy's moment will fade and his life will move on, but he's probably never going to do this particular kind of asshole again - while also serving as a lesson to others.

TL;DR: I don't think it's specifically bad to expect people to treat others with respect.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'll say that the Costco "I feel threatened" guy should no longer have his Florida CCW (assuming he has one). I say that as a Florida CCW holder. Regardless of the situation, when you're carrying, you need to emulate George McFly, not Biff Tanner. Go meekly, absorb insults, and don't even think about using force except to defend life and limb. You have to extricate yourself from any conflict or de-escalate if you can't.



Whether he should lose his job, not sure. That's up to his employer and should probably be based on safety rather than politics. Do they feel safe with him around, potentially carrying? I guess they made their decision.

[Skinypupy]

At the same time, this is 30 seconds of someone's life. He fucked up but 'we've' essentially said...to the pit of despair with you. No income. No health insurance. We don't know anything about that man other than what was shown to us in a moment. He gets dealt swift 'justice' and then we move on to the next one. This is the beginning of a rise of something that I don't think we understand the depths of yet.

I've had lots of "30 seconds of my life" that were especially shitty, and I would hope others don't judge the whole of my existence by those brief moments or interactions. However, I can say with absolute, 100% confidence that not a single one of those moments - even when I'm at my absolute worst - involved me throwing out racial slurs.

That's the key difference here for me. Racial slurs are not something one just randomly tosses out in a moment of weakness. For may of us (most, I hope), those words would never appear in our consciousness as an option, even during a heated moment. The fact that someone would not only think them, but feel comfortable enough throwing them out in a public setting knowing they're being recorded is a significant window into their overall character. I don't have much of problem with a company making the decision to get rid of them based on that, since their racist thinking and poor judgement represents a serious risk to their organization.

All that said, I do agree with you that it can be an extremely slippery slope. The incidents with people throwing out "white power" or racial slurs, I generally shrug at. There have been lots of others, however, are far less clear cut and deserve a pause for understanding, rather than mob justice.

[LawBeefaroni]

Now no one can say that no good came out of all this.
If this doesn't help heal us, what will?
https://www.ladyamusic.com/

This is the kind of dumb thing that I can't see anyone being happy with. Obviously a non-trivial number of their fans are going to be annoyed by "PC bullshit" or the like. And on the other side...is there any mystery about what "A" stands for?

I know someone that is really not happy about it.

Oof. That's not great.

Apparently it gets worse.

Today (July 8) the band Lady A have filed a lawsuit against the singer Lady A. They are asking a Nashville court to grant its right to the trademark of the name, documents viewed by Pitchfork confirm. The lawsuit notes that the band isn’t asking for monetary damages or attempting to prohibit White from performing under the name Lady A.

“Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended,” the group said in a statement. “She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years.”

Not a great look. Just get another name. Might I suggest Lady Parabellum?

[Isgrimnur]

Rolling Stone

The Dixie Chicks have officially dropped the “Dixie” from their name. The iconic country-pop trio of Natalie Maines, Emily Strayer, and Martie Maguire are now simply called “The Chicks,” changing their website URL and their Instagram handle to the new name on Thursday.

On their website, the trio only offered this statement: “We want to meet this moment.” In a press statement, they added, “A sincere and heartfelt thank you goes out to ‘The Chicks’ of [New Zealand] for their gracious gesture in allowing us to share their name. We are honored to co-exist together in the world with these exceptionally talented sisters. Chicks Rock!”
...
Along with the name change, the Chicks released a brand new single on Thursday, titled “March March,” which will be appearing on their upcoming fifth studio album, Gaslighter. The protest song, produced by Jack Antonoff, combines a minimalist electronic beat with subdued instrumentation from Maguire’s fiddle and Strayer’s banjo.