Hey bob, you're on camera!!

The guy is an racist idiot, but I don't think anyone deserves to lose their job over something like this. He's a fucking grunt, he's not a public figure, he wasn't working and it wasn't like he wore his company's uniform or logo on him or anything and I don't think a company should punish someone for what they do after hours. He was definitely trolling for a fight, but there was no violence, just harsh words, racist or not.

...but it's a private company and racists aren't a protected class and they can fire who they want.

If you have a job where the company owner is not an unapologetic racist, it's probably a good idea to not be a stupid racist on camera, lest you end up permanently unemployed and unemployable like this guy.
Ironic that he's now the one actually taking MY tax dollars to support his unemployable racism and stupidity.
I think, for numerous reasons, this qualifies as *fail

Adding video to channels (Fail) - requested by newtboy.

I don't get it, if they're the lazy monkeys then why is he making the monkey noises?

I more or less agree with you, but if the company had not fired him the anger would have been redirected towards them until he was.

I find the current popular trend of online vigilantism in the name of social justice disturbing. Jon Ronson gives an excellent TED talk on the phenomenon.
I really must get around to reading his book.

Excellent talk indeed. Stewart Lee called Twitter 'a Stasi for the Angry Birds generation.'

His sister-wife will be so proud.

If it were a public figure or an elected official, I wouldn't have a problem at all with them being fired.

I'm not sure if that TED talk example fits exactly. She was a PR manager right? For someone in the PR biz, that was just monumentally stupid thing to say and someone in PR should know better so I find it hard to have sympathy for someone in that case.

But yeah, it's a blurry line to be sure. For me it's a very potent example of why direct democracy isn't always great and why it's a good thing that we elect individuals to make decisions for us to counter the mob with pitchforks mentality that large groups of people tend to have.

Could you imagine if we put EVERYTHING to a popular vote? Sure some things might become more progressive, but then crap like this would happen. Imagine if the decision to use the nuclear bomb was up to direct popular vote. Our planet would be an irradiated wasteland many times over.

So, you don't think private companies should have the right to determine if an employee's publicly displayed behavior might be detrimental to the company's image and take action? The supreme court disagrees. Can you imagine the sorry state we would be in if employees couldn't be fired for inappropriate behavior?
I agree, some take it too far, but not this case. His recorded behavior would likely cause a boycott of the company if not properly addressed. Sure, some racists and racist apologists would flock to their defense, but likely not enough to keep the business going...no matter what business we're talking about, in part because they don't tend to be the people with large sums of money to spend.

I didn't say that, now did I? In fact my first post, I qualified my remarks with that it was a private company and they can do what they want.

that said. Where was the actual harm done to this company's image? he's a nobody grunt. This company wasn't big or significantly important and whether or not the guy is a racist has no bearing on the tangible performance of a construction-based job.

The only harm, in fact, is when someone decides to be that vigilante and make it known what this guy did and where he worked. In other words, some anonymous stranger on the internet decided to go after the guy and his livelyhood.

is that fair? racist or not? This guy and his words are going to be forgotten in very short order. But his lack of a livelyhood is going to have much further reaching consequences

Isn't public ridicule enough to effect social change on a small scale like this? Why do we have to go after some poor schlub's livelihood who probably already is living paycheck to paycheck?

Your first sentence was...
"If it were a public figure or an elected official, I wouldn't have a problem at all with them being fired."
The obvious implication is that, because he's NOT a public figure or elected official, you DO have a problem with him being fired, even though you admit they have the right to do so.

The company sells it's services to the public. If the public doesn't want a racist asshat working for them, they won't hire the company. Most of the public doesn't want a brain dead racist asshole working for them on their property and/or projects, so it DOES have a tangible bearing on a construction based job. If the public knows you employ people like this, you won't be getting that construction based job....that's pretty tangible.

Absolutely it's fair to expose people's public actions and tie it to them personally. 100% fair and proper. Period. People should own their actions, some need to be forced to own them.

It won't be forgotten. It's on the internet forever, probably when you simply google his name, so any employer with a brain will put his application in the round file. I'm sure there are plenty of racist employers out there willing to 'take one for the team' and give this upstanding young man employment, they just need to get together. I'm thinking he should apply with the Trump campaign.

Obviously public ridicule was not even a thought for him, much less a concern. He didn't care a whit that he was being recorded being a dumb racist douche, knowing it would be posted publicly (or, if he didn't understand that, he's simply too dumb to employ anywhere, especially in a field like construction where properly doing one's job is a serious public safety issue).
The only thing that makes a difference to people like this, and indeed most people, is effecting the pocket book.
This is 'free market' in action, and how it's supposed to work....but for it to work, people MUST be informed about the people they're hiring (and products they're purchasing). An informed consumer is a necessary, if not the MOST important part of the free market economy, and it's in danger of extinction, even with all the info on the internet (or maybe in part because of it).

but now you're changing the question on me.

First, you asked if the company should have the right, and I answered that. But now you're asking if I have a problem with it..and obviously, I do.

Fortunately, those two things don't conflict. Nuance is a bitch, ain't it?

And I didn't ask you if it was fair to expose people. I asked you if it was fair for the poor schlub who is probably already working paycheck to paycheck to LOSE HIS JOB over this nonsense. Public ridicule is one thing...losing one's livelyhood is quite another. Not only he will be hurt for a long time over this, but his family probably will be too.

And hey, let's take this to the logical conclusion. If it's ok for his current employer to fire him. Isn't it alright for his future employers to know about this? Let's make it so that this guy should never hold a job ever again. Should his wife divorce him over this? should his kids shun him? Should he die, hungry and alone in an alley? Where's the line here?

Don't use fictional terms like "free market" and "informed consumer" and apply them to RL. It's very laughable.

If what happens on the internet is so eternal, without looking, name all the names of ALL the bad cops who have killed unarmed people in all the bad cop videos you've posted on VS. Could you even spot them in a crowd? Those cops certainly have done far more damage than this racist has, so it should be easy.

Not so eternal, now is it? You won't remember this guy in less than a year.

You're confusing justice with revenge.

yeah..i am with @VoodooV on this one.

the man was not working.
was not wearing any company logos or identification,yet loses his job.

for what?
being an insensitive racist idiot?

public shaming?
all for it,and it might even change a few hearts and minds.inject a little empathy in an otherwise rigid and narrow worldview.

losing his job?
eeeeeeh..i think some people are taking the social warrior thing a tad too far,and are not being far sighted in their execution.

sure..we can hate on this racist asshole and ridicule him for his idiocy,but what happens when the PC police find something that YOU do offensive or inappropriate?

would you still be as confident in losing your livelihood?

i have been following this case in canada where this graphic designer is facing 6 months in jail for criticizing and disagreeing with two feminists.these women are trying to make the case that his criticisms,in the form of tweets,constitutes harrassment.

he lost his job.
is 80k in the hole,and the case has been ongoing for three years.

so there is already a frightening amount of this PC police,social warrior fascism having actually consequences.

so where do we draw the line?
who is going to arbitrarily monitor that line?
who decides what is offensive and what is not?

you start going down this road and that line will become more and more blurred until the first amendment is toast.

i am finding it more and more disturbing that people are beginning to think that being offended somehow equates to a right.that their little world,their minute and tiny habitat should be protected from offensive language.

unless you are ok with destroying peoples lives for being an idiot or an asshole.

social warriors:morality police concerned with their own little habitat,but they have your best interest as well.

oh goodie....

Clarify. You have a problem with them having the right, or just a problem with they exorcising that right? Please explain the difference...as a right only exists if exorcised.
EDIT: You say you answered my question 'should they have the right to fire him', but I looked and can't find that answer. You answered 'they DO have the right', but never answered if you think they SHOULD have the right...which it seems you think they should not, because you have a 'problem' with them using that right....right?

For it to not be 'fair' for him to lose his job, you must assume he has a right to his job...he does not. It is absolutely fair to fire someone for any reason you see fit if you own or run the company...as happened here. What's the issue?

His family has not publicly shown a penchant towards racism or other intolerably intolerant behavior that I know of, they can probably find their own jobs.

Yes, it's OK, and normal, for future employers to investigate potential applicants and disqualify them if they show insanely poor judgement publicly like this guy did. You think that's not OK?

Should his wife divorce him...she probably agrees with him, but if not, perhaps she should. Being married to a racist, antagonistic idiot sounds terrible if you aren't one yourself.
Should his kids shun him, no, should they teach him at every opportunity how backwards his thinking is until he changes? Yes.
Should he die hungry and alone in an alley, no, no one should, but it happens none the less.

Laugh away and fictionalize if you wish, but the terms clearly apply.

I'm not hiring bad cops. If I were, I could put the resources in to investigate applicants for them. With 5 VS pages of 'bad cop', and 6 pages of 'police abuse' alone, it's quite a job, one I don't intend to take up to satisfy you, but I'm satisfied any competent HR person could find out just about anything they've done that might matter. If I felt like spending an hour doing it, I could find 99% of them on VS....I don't.
Often applicants are required to list their accounts (facebook, twitter, etc) so they can be looked at easily. And there are sites that record those sites so even erased posts can be investigated.
So yes, it's eternal, now isn't it? I won't remember this guy in less than a week, as there's no reason to, fortunately or unfortunately, employers have resources and reasons I don't.

I never said it was 'justice' that he would lose his job and be mostly unemployable forever, I said it was IRONIC, since he was lambasting people on the video for being 'lazy' and 'taking his tax dollars', which is what he'll be doing now. I agree, it's a little much that he's mostly unemployable for life now, but as I said, he just needs to find an employer that's willing to be labeled, at best, a racist sympathizer if not racist themselves...he should try Trump.

It seems you are under the mistaken assumption that they bowed to public pressure by PC warriors and fired him. Read the description, the company itself was disgusted, and has a policy of being intolerant of hate speech by their employees. Do you feel the company has no right to fire him for public statements and actions outside work that run 100% contrary to the company policy?
Where do you draw the line? What if he was advocating for the legalization of sex with prepubescent children? Should they still ignore it if he only does it outside work? If that line is up to the company to decide, what's the issue here?

Presumably the idea is we all love racists and paedophiles so much we don't think they should have to work for a living.

How can you tell he is taking your tax dollars? Most belligerent a-holes do work hard and are too proud to take it. (Except things they pay into such as unemployment insurance, which is not the same thing as regular government benefits.)

You again assume...that the company was really disgusted and not preemptively handling the PR nightmare. I mean they probably get government handouts/tax breaks, so they really want this to just go away. And since almost all millionaire/billionaires are lying sacks of shit, gonna have to say they have no/little integrity here.

Gonna have to agree with Voody and Enoch.

Yeah and it sets precedent to do it even in situations where it should not apply.

"Absolutely it's fair to expose people's public actions and tie it to them personally. 100% fair and proper. Period. People should own their actions, some need to be forced to own them."

Newt, this is a racists dream come true...it's what's keeping black men and women (who predominately are abused into our criminal justice system) unable to be productive citizens. This grudge holding helps no one.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

*promote the discussion

i would be interested how other people view this situation.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, December 30th, 2015 1:56pm PST - promote requested by original submitter enoch.

Unfortunately, when he went out and got his racism documented in the public, he became a public figure.

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

Seriously...anyone stupid enough to behave like this while -knowing- they are being recorded, is simply too stupid to be a decent employee. Even ignoring the potential PR backlash against the company, sooner or later, they're going to do something else stupid that -will- cause significant damage to the company.

Frankly, he's too stupid to live...but it's the universe's job to carry out that sentence. Our job is to try and ensure that he does as little collateral damage as possible.

WHAT?!?
What a racist, disgusting thought.
So, you're saying all black men and women are publicly disgusting people that need their actions hidden to be employable?!?
Er Mer Gerd! Did you REALLY just write that? Do you really think that? No wonder you're defending the racist douchebag.

To your other 'point'.
How can I tell he 's taking my tax dollars for certain...I can't...but it's insanely more likely that he is, being unemployed and unemployable, taking unemployment than it is that the protesters are (like he claims). Most ridiculous asshats like this want to THINK they are 'too proud' to take what they call a 'handout', right until that second it's available to them, then it's 'free money they'd be stupid to not take'. The states with the most hard core, anti welfare right wingers are also ALWAYS the states that take the most tax dollars and give the fewest. These 'hard working proud' people ARE the welfare queens they complain about.

EDIT:And can you please explain how one kind of 'tax dollar' is different from another 'tax dollar'? All public programs are paid into by tax payers. Public 'unemployment insurance' is no different from any other 'welfare' program...you're forced to pay in, you're allowed to take out if you prove you qualify. That silly thinking is how idiots convince themselves that THEY are hard working upright people and THOSE PEOPLE are just lazy takers, when they are all doing the exact same thing, taking from the public fund for their personal needs.

My assumption is based on their written, public statement that was clear that this is and has always been THEIR policy.
Your assumptions are based on nothing but wishful thinking and misplaced outrage.

@newtboy
still missing my main point.

which may be my fault,i tend to ramble.

i can agree that:
choices have consequences.
i can agree that an employer had a right to fire according to its own dictates and standards.
i can actually agree with much of what you are saying,but it is not my point.

i am simply pointing out the larger and greater societal implications of how social media,youtube,instagram,tumblr etc etc are being used as bully pulpits by those who feel morally superior to admonish,chastise and ridicule other people into submission.sometimes rightly so,other times not.

there is already a growing number of people who have been directly affected by this new paradigm,and what i find disturbing is that so few are even bothered by this new development.

people have lost jobs over facebook posts!
for posting an opinion for fuck sakes!

and nobody seems to have a problem with this?
this is perfectly acceptable in a supposed "free" society?

lets use a totally hyperbolic example,but the parameters are the same:
during the salem witch trials it was later found to be common practice that one farmer would accuse his competition of witchcraft.

was this neighbor actually practicing witchcraft?
probably not,but what an effective way to rid yourself of competition.

we can use an even more recent example of afghanistan,where farmers were turning in their rivals for cash.they get rid of competition and their neighbor is whisked off to gitmo.

do you see what i am saying?

the larger implications are vast and easily abused.
and this is most certainly a PC police issue,because it is actually punishing offensive speech,opinions and positions.

west baptist church are a repulsive and offensive group of religious thugs,but they have a right to speak and express their vile opinions.

and i will defend their right to be offensive and vulgar,while totally disagreeing with their position.

this is social control by proxy.
don't say anything offensive,or there shall be consequences i.e:job loss
dont say anything controversial or there will be consequences,or post anything racy or contrary to social norms.

in fact,because more and more people are paying the price for saying/posting a controversial view or offensive opinion,just be quiet.

sit down.
shut up.
and obey.

or the PC police will band together to expose your offensive,controversial and subversive opinions and destroy your life.

so you just sit there and think your thoughts,but don't you dare voice them,or the morality police will expose you for the subversive you are.

this tactic is already reaching orwellian levels.
and nobody seems to be bothered.
nobody seems to be giving this the scrutiny and examination it deserves.there is a real danger here that many of my fellow citizens seems to be either unaware,or just dont care the larger implications and that is disturbing to me.

because some of the examples are just like THIS turdnugget.
a reprehensible,vulgar and ignorant example of a human being.so it is easy to feel good about him getting a "comeupance".

because we hate him and what he represents.so it is easy to ignore the larger picture and the implications of social warriors taking things too far.which i could literally type all day laying out scenarios where this form of PC police/social warriors could easily be abused (and already HAS in some instances).

and that should have us all standing up and taking notice,because it is those very implications and the relative silence that is disturbing me the most.

so yeah,this turdnugget is an easy target and easily dismissed as getting what he deserved,but what happens when it is YOUR behavior being villified? something you were doing ,maybe in the privacy of your own home or out with friends that made its way to youtube,and someone found offensive.what if you were taken out of context? or the video was edited?

how would you defend yourself?
better yet,WHY would you have to defend yourself when you were not harming anyone,but some overly-sensitive fuckwit was offended and decided you should be punished?

there is a plethora of historical examples i could use where tyrannical governments,despots and police states have literally quashed dissent,differing opinions and abhorrent behavior by simply creating fear..not of the government per se,but rather by their own neighbors.

which is EXACTLY what the PC police and social warriors use to silence their opponents.fear.

you are totally within your right to disagree with me,but my main argument is how easily this tactic can be abused and if we dont start paying attention now.we may not get a chance later.

it has happened before.
it can happen again.

*intent to harm is an actual legal charge,and can be prosecuted.

there was no harm here.except for feelings and racist/derogatory language.

i guess you could make the "emotional distress' argument,but in a 5 minute video you would be hard pressed to prove actual,irreparable harm.

i am rambling again,and probably lost the plot somewhere,but i hope i at least got my main point across.

there is a real and present danger here my man,and it threatens some of this countries core ideas and is ripe for abuse.

because the truth is:this tactic works and it works extremely well.

Yeah, no. That's pretty flimsy logic. We're all public figures if that's the case unless you manage to shun the internet completely and somehow manage to never offend anyone ever.

You're just reinforcing the notion that this is Internet vigilantism and McCarthyism-style witchhunting.

There's a reason that we only protect people from the effects of racism and that racism itself is not a crime. It's too subjective and open to interpretation and in no way could be judged fairly

I can agree with that, it is an issue...I just don't think it applies to this video where he was fired because the business found his behavior unacceptable.

The facebook post thing, it depends on the opinion. For instance, it's some people's opinion that 5 year old girls want to have sex (just to go back to an earlier example). Expressing that opinion, while legal, is certainly reason to fire someone IMO, because it would definitely hurt the company if it came out they hire people that publicly state that, and indicate (rightly or wrongly) that the company supports that sentiment. EDIT: I think that's best left up to the boss, but should be indicated in the contract what's expected and what's unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated claims by competitors is not the same thing as video proof of someone's actions....it doesn't mean people don't still make unsubstantiated claims to other's detriment, but isn't applicable to THIS situation.

It's not a PC police issue because the PC police didn't cause this action, it was taken precipitously by the employer. In fact, there's little indication the protesters even knew who he was, much less where he worked.

Yes, the WBC have the right to be disgusting...just as I have the right to not hire them because I find them disgusting...right? I would also defend to the death their right to be offensive, but not the right to have no social consequence for their words and acts. The two don't go together, in fact the latter would make the former intolerable.
I would certainly rail against a LAW that bars some kind of speech criminally, but never the public's right to decide for themselves what they find appropriate, or the right to not support people they find disgusting and/or dangerous.

If you want to publicly espouse your positions, and you care, you should do a little checking to be sure your boss won't be so offended by you that he no longer wants you as an employee. If you work for a giant corporation, you should understand it comes with conditions like 'don't publicly say or do things that, if seen, would injure the business'. It is controlling, yes, but not forced. It's a contract...you get to work there and be paid, they get to tell you what's unacceptable to them.

Not all companies think or operate that way. It's limiting, but if you find that methodology unacceptable, don't work for a company with a 'behavioral standards' clause in your contract.

The PC police aren't needed. They didn't have to go after the company, the company took action on it's own. Any guess as to exactly WHY they took this action is just that, a guess, but they have SAID it was based on their outrage, and they were not under any pressure YET to act...that's a good indicator to me that they just found him disgusting and fired him because they don't want to employ people they wouldn't spit on if they were on fire.

If there were laws requiring them to fire him, I would be right there with you saying it's terrible. Since it's the company took action by itself, ostensively for their own reasons, I'm not bothered in the least...except by those defending the racist's right to keep his job...a right that never existed.

Yes...there COULD be abuse by PC groups (EDIT: or non PC groups...religious groups use that methodology often) pressuring companies into this kind of reaction, and that's bad....but not here. In fact, you seem to want to remove the decision from the company...which leaves it in the hands of the masses, exactly what you DON'T want.

It HAS been my behavior being vilified. I'm a legal marijuana patient, but I'm not protected from discrimination based on my prescribed medicine. it doesn't even have to be publicly known, they can test me for it. I dislike that, but I do agree a company has a right to do so.
I accept it as a cost of having the same freedom to decide who I hire.

Again, I do see this CAN and HAS been abused by 'pc thugs'...I just disagree that that happened at all in THIS case.

Again, intentional infliction of emotional distress is also an actual legal charge, and can be prosecuted. It does not have to be irreparable harm, that's never been the standard for harm. Aggressive use of 'hate speech' does meet the standard in many if not most places....but he's not being prosecuted, at worst you might say he was persecuted.

I agree that there is a danger with the PC groups exerting too much control over others, but looking at this case by itself, I don't think it is in that category.

@newtboy

so i finally got my point across?
thank god!
it only took me a novella.
jesus christ,you would think me being a poet would equate to a more economical verbiage.

man do i fail.

so yeah,we are arguing two separate points.
you are arguing this specific turdnugget and i am arguing the broader implications of abuse in the future.

i still stand by my stance that i do not think this turdnugget should have lost his job.i think there could have been a much better way to have handled this situation,but as you stated (and i agree) the company was within their rights to fire him.

if i was his boss,i would have used this situation to educate,because lets be honest..this man is pretty fucking ignorant.

he even admits to not knowing any black people and had only been exposed to 9,in his entire life,and then he proceeds to vomit the most repugnant,racial shit.

ignorance is curable.
stupid is not.

but it is not the companies job to cure this neanderthal of his ignorance,but i suspect losing his job will only exacerbate an already instilled racism.

so lost opportunity and ultimately:fail.

i also think we are becoming far to comfortable and complicit in our ever-increasingly surveilled,data mined and personal data collected state.

which i am just repeating my main point,but it does concern me.

Uh... the internet didn't get this guy fired. Nobody was putting words in his mouth or accusing him of things he didn't do.

He went out, made an ass of himself while knowingly being filmed, and the company he worked for doesn't want employ him anymore.

Someone on the internet targeted him, judged him guilty all by themselves, sent the video to an otherwise unsuspecting company and said that we'll judge this company based on what this guy does in his off hours.

It's internet blackmail.

You know who else tries to punish people eternally for subjective crimes? The Christian GAWWWD

All mistaken assumption...sorry.

He was MIS-identified by the videographer/poster as an anonymous Rex Energy employee.
He was properly identified by his ex employer, MMC.
No one threatened (or apparently even informed) the 'unsuspecting company', according to the info given, you're making that up, they seem to have found it themselves, or maybe been informed by another disgusted employee that recognized him.
No one blackmailed anyone.
You're seemingly just simply making stuff up again to give yourself a reason to be angry. WHY?

Yes. I'm only talking about this specific case not being about PC thugs, I'm not saying PC thugs don't exist.

That doesn't help your case at all.

They mistakenly rat him out to one company and the actual company hears about it? That changes nothing.

Someone still targeted him and became internet judge, jury and executioner.

Angry?? You just love your strawman don't you Don't project your insecurities onto me.

Now who is making assumptions?

You're assuming that the video was taken without the loved one's knowledge and consent.

So cool, you agree that it's blackmail. Thanks. Guess we're done here. That was easy. Cya later

How non-public was it? Was it with their friends and it was clear that they might be being recorded? Also, how unethical? Was it something that would cause harm to others? If so, fuck em, go ahead.

If they were being racist in their own home, then I'd say it's wrong, unless this is one of my loved ones who is in a position of power and may be wrongly oppressing other races.

Or was it on a dirt road at a public protest? Because the video we're talking about here wasn't in a non-public setting.

No. Someone became internet WITNESS.
They left the judging, jurying, and executing 100% to the guy's boss. Perhaps they WOULD have become judge, jury, and executioner...but they didn't. There's also absolutely no indication they made any demand of anyone.

No point arguing what might be if it were completely different...things would be completely different.

You sure SOUND angry to me. It's not a straw man to tell you how you appear to others. I note you didn't disagree, you only accused and projected....which is what angry people do. ;-)

EDIT: "Rat him out"? So, they had some obligation to keep his actions secret? You can't 'rat' on someone you aren't in collusion with in some way. You're sounding like the idiotic "don't snitch" insanity of the early 2000's that suggested reporting being the victim of crime was somehow a bad thing, far worse than committing the crime.

@HugeJerk come on man,now you're just engaging in semantics,while ignoring voodoos point.

ok,lets play the semantics game and change the scenario,and see how comfortable you are with those scenarios:

@VoodooV has a video of your family member smoking weed...in a park.

@VoodooV has a video of your family member participating in a winter solstice ritual and his companies owner is a strict,religious fundamentalist.

(and before you throw out that firing over religious reasons is illegal,understand that the companies boss is not an idiot.your family member will be fired for other reasons,but rest assured..he is GONE).

@VoodooV has a video of your family member meeting with a lady of the evening.

would you like me to continue?
because in every one of these scenarios NOBODY was harmed,yet each one of those activities could bring great harm to your family member.

smoking weed harms no one,but it is illegal still in many states and many companies have a strict "drug-free' policy.(which i think is retarded)

engaging in a religious ritual,conforming to your family members belief system,harms no one,but is in direct conflict with the religious practices of the person who signs his checks.this would likely result in termination..with predjudice..but wait,thats against the law!! damn..foiled again!
aaaaah,but what is this?
the boss could just use another reason for termination.
the argument has been made that the owner of the company can do what he pleases..it is his company after all and he views paganism as heretical and against the wishes and dictates of GOD.
so your family member can just kiss his job goodbye.

or how about prostitution?
nobody was harmed.
sex between consensual adults for the exchange of currency.
but..its illegal...so bye bye to job.

and if @VoodooV was a particularly venal and nasty human being ,who REALLY wanted to impose his will upon your family member.he could just send those tapes to every new job your family member may have the luck to get.send them to creditors.apartment managers.etc etc.

@VoodooV could literally destroy your family members life,just by sending a video with an implied threat.

"if you do not take action about this person,i will expose YOU"

most people do not have the temerity to stand up to that form of bullying.they have businesses to run,bills to pay and families to protect.

and it is also why this tactic is so effective,because it WORKS.browbeating with the intent to force submission to a set of moral ideals held by a select,self righteous few.

it is like the dark ages!! but with broadband and iphones!!

so you better behave.
better obey all laws,real and social.
or the focus could become YOU,and not some turdnugget that is easy to hate.

Playing devil's advocate...
Even where it's legal, it's usually not legal to smoke in public. It's certainly not responsible to smoke in public where kids are nearby...or others that might be drug tested. You could be doing them great harm. (As a legal smoker, I think about these things). Also, if you're caught and go to jail, you won't be at work, that is direct harm to the company and why most have clauses in the employment contract that criminal activity at any time is grounds for termination.
Sleeping with a 'lady of the evening' is incredibly risky behavior...and illegal. Many people are harmed by STDs, not just the one that contracts them first. Many are easily spread by normal social behaviors, so having someone in the office with, say, a massive herpes outbreak who wipes their face then shakes hands/shares drinks/sneezes/etc is a real safety/health issue. Also, your company is harmed if you're caught and go to jail because you won't be at work.

To the religion example, there's little to be done if people lie and cheat to get around the agreed on rules....but I'll go out on a limb and say that it's wrong, and they'll all burn in hell forever for bearing false witness. ;-)

1. Weed in the Park (Illegal act in public place) Fine, they deserve to be called out on it, but it's also something that the public at large doesn't care enough about to affect them long term.

2. Winter Solstice Ritual. Fine, they could be fired from one company, but it's pretty rare to have strict religious fundamentalists as employers. They'll find a job elsewhere and be able to sue the other company.

3. Prostitute. It's illegal, if they're caught, I'm assuming they met in public. It's something that society tends to forgive.

As far as your version of VoodooV being a crazy stalker, that's probably something that could be dealt with using anti-harassment laws.

Even the racist moron in this video will end up with another job eventually, we have some social safety nets that will help him survive until then. The people who choose to crusade about these things also tend to have a short attention span, there's always something new to be outraged about. So, the likelihood of an ongoing campaign to keep this guy unemployed is pretty low.

Also, there is nothing forcing these companies to fire them. They can keep them employed and accept the bad PR and any accompanying loss of business. It's their choice.

That whitetrash shit got fired http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/30/racist-pennsylvania-man-calls-black-man-n-and-chimp-is-promptly-fired-from-his-job-video/
So whose tax money will he be milking now?

@HugeJerk
did you hear that???
that was the point whooshing over your head.

so you reply to a comment about your semantics,
by using even more semantics and then engage in some impressive mental gymnastics.

ok man..i can accept when a horse is dead,and i am not interested in beating it any further.

voodoo was attempting to make an over-arcing point in regards to civil liberties and possible abuses.which is very similar to the point i was trying to make,but you are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge those possibilities.

while newt may disagree with mine and voodoos premise,at least he acknowledges the possibilities for abuse.

ah well,probably my failure.
i can muddy the waters of my own argument by my own ramblomatic self-destructive prose.

peace brother.

http://videosift.com/video/Catholic-School-Teacher-Fired-For-In-Vetro-Fertilization

The ONLY difference is I'm assuming that most of us on VS do not object to artificial fertilization. You'll notice that I'm making the same argument in that sift as I am now. The school has the legal right, but that it's a shitty thing to do and that it was shitty that someone ratted her out.

The only difference is who is doing the judging.

Is it still fair that the woman lost her job? If it's not fair for her to lose her job, then it's not fair for this guy to lose his job.

Again, we're not arguing legal rights. That's not in dispute.

I AM GAWWD AND I SHALL JUDGE YOU AND PUNISH YOU AS I SEE FIT!!!!

I got your point... but your point was stupid and not based in reality.

Interesting.
I'll be consistent and say yes, it's "fair" that she lost her job, as it's clear that her employers have an often stated interest in her reproductive system and firm rules on how it may or may not be altered, as a part of their faith, and properly following that faith is essential for being a good teacher...in their eyes. That means that having artificial insemination makes her a bad roll model, and being a near perfect roll model is a major part of the job.
EDIT: I wonder who ratted her out? She DID have a right to keep her personal medical information private, and those with access have a legal obligation to keep it private as well, so she DID get ratted on.

Also interesting was your comment/position there, which seemed to mirror mine here. In part, you said....
" Freedom cuts both ways, you're free to do what you want..but if you don't act within some semblance of societal norms and what is considered decent, no one is going to want to be around you or work with you. "
The business not wanting to work with him is what happened here, but now you seem to take issue with that, and you take serious issue with others boycotting the company (which didn't actually happen here, but you've been complaining that it did) while back then you seemed to be celebrating it. What changed besides the reason someone lost their job?

Thank you for proving my point. You appear to have missed that that the only difference is who is doing the judging.

Being racist is not a crime. Artificial insemination is not a crime.

So maybe we shouldn't fire people for doing things outside of work that have nothing to do with their jobs.

Of course it wouldn't be an issue if we didn't tie our employment to our ability to provide food, shelter, and healthcare.

If those things were independent of each other, then they can fire away.

But since this shit has a direct effect on someone(s) quality of life then I tend to err on the side of not throwing someone out into the street unless there was actual measurable harm done.

I don't see why you assume I missed that point. I stayed consistent, showing that while I disagree with the motives, I'm consistent in offering others the same rights to decide what's appropriate public behavior for those in their employ, and what simply won't be tollerated. How do you see that as my MISSING that there's no real difference when I'm the one that sees them as the same?
Neither of those people were charged with a crime. As YOU said so clearly....
"Freedom cuts both ways, you're free to do what you want..but if you don't act within some semblance of societal norms and what is considered decent, no one is going to want to be around you or work with you. "
Now that it's applied to a racist, you change your mind about that. Go think about that, then come back.

one example of the reality my argument is based:http://videosift.com/video/canadian-man-faces-jail-for-disagreeing-with-a-feminist

"not based in reality"
pfffft../fart noise

Um..yeah. If we lived in the Star Trek universe, it would be different. That doesn't translate to a right to a job, much less the right to any specific job. Even Stalinist Russia didn't provide that.

I will guess you never owned or run a business that employed someone you found outrageously disgusting. I think you might see the other side if you had, and that this man's needs don't trump the company's owners rights to make their own choices.

Ok let's say there's no cameraman present, but another certain kind of person who'd be happy to give that guy his fight. Let's say the guy got his jaw broken and couldn't work and couldn't afford hospital fees, and THAT was his payment for not being civil with other people?

Not ok with that either? Well what exactly are you ok with? Should the ignorant bastard who was offensive and (attempting to be) intimidating just get away with no consequences? Or worse still offered protection that was never afforded these poor protesters? What will that teach him?

I guess my opinion is i'm happy with the law of the jungle and in this case he got his comeuppance through twitter. Whenever you go around saying stupid things and acting like you're tough, you're taking a risk. It took effort to go there and be rude, but manners cost nothing. They tried to be nice, they tried to get him to go away MULTIPLE times. The guy put in a lot of work for what he got out of this. It's not like his life is over, no one will remember his name in a few weeks and he will have another job and he might not try to make people scared for their own safety in future.

@VoodooV

You notice how newtboy assumes so much, but then attacks people for assuming (Claiming only his logic is almost always correct.)

Case in point--a corporation that hires racist people probably loathes it? Why would they give a fuck if it didn't involve money? They almost NEVER do otherwise.

We see nearly EVERY corporation use shady shit. They try to shirk tax obligations via foreign accounts. They buy elected officials to do their bidding while screwing others. BP blew people up and didn't give a fuck. Toyota burned people alive for a profit. Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, stole billions of tax dollars from a program to help the needy.

The Salvation Army paid a politician 90K a year just to do no work, and they are not even supposed to be a political organization. They use sweat shops that abuse children...

The COMPANY, not the "boss", makes choices. Yet we are expected to believe that the emotionless company gives a fuck about anything besides money.

But to point out this is assuming in Newt's eyes. Silly, isn't it?

He got the point a long time ago enoch. He just doesn't give a fuck. Two different points

"WHAT?!?
What a racist, disgusting thought.
So, you're saying all black men and women are publicly disgusting people that need their actions hidden to be employable?!?
Er Mer Gerd! Did you REALLY just write that? Do you really think that? No wonder you're defending the racist douchebag."

I am not sure how defending minorities got turned into a racist statement...first, I said that our criminal justice system forever holds records against people (Ie., when they apply for a job, benefits, etc.) I stated I disagree with that because it's racist. This is because blacks are targeted by the law to a far greater rate than whites--even doing the same crimes.

Second, this was because you said the racist's viewpoints should be held indefinitely against him. Since we could apply "crimes" against blacks, that logic is what our system uses to be racist. It should discontinue in all forms.

Third, this was all pretty crystal clear. Often you have these fits, and blame them on my lack of clarity. (Kind of like how you blame me for assuming but never consider your assumptions as possibly incorrect.) This is obviously not the case here because there is no way I reasonable said anything close to what you read. I, therefore, assume, based on your past misconstrued responses, you simply want to start this shit.

(I find it funny, when I engage Choas, he can understand when he makes mistakes in reading my posts, and he apologizes, and he rarely does it...)

Actually, having sex with children isn't what is harmful to children (Unless done in a physical manner that causes bodily destruction.) Oh shit, call the PC patrol, Lawdeedaw said pedophiles aren't monsters or hurt children!

Or wait, did I? By your assumptions that I assume you would assume I would be saying those things. But only a fuck-tard would. And hence why PC attacks are for fucking tards.

In history sex with kids was fine. In Rome it was an honor and often the child had power over the adult. Even in America it was fine when the average age of living was dying young. In Mexico 13 is the legal age, but younger is often accepted. Even by older men. This is still true in many places.

HOWEVER, pedophiles in America deserve to have their dicks cut off! Their clits burned away! Etc. Why? What makes pedophiles so vile here is the fact that they do it when society condemns it so much. Because of this children's lives are utterly destroyed. It is like sibling sex and how that is condemned--but to a much greater level. Under no circumstances in abusing children in this manner okay, or excusable. Even in the case of mental retardation.

So yeah...

Really? Please quote where I claimed that.

Duh. Businesses are owned and run by people. People who may be disgusted by disgusting behavior. They often do things that aren't in their financial best interest because it's what the owners want...like Domino's pizza supporting anti abortion groups back in the day.
Often, the company charters are written by the "boss", and so yes, they can directly make the choices. Not ALL companies are emotionless cash machines willing to sell their mothers down the river for a nickel...some are, but not all....so yes, that would be assuming in my eyes, assuming that ALL companies will put any financial gain ahead of any and all other considerations just because some have shown they will.

Then allow me to clarify for you, this is how....you didn't say "our criminal justice system forever holds records against people ", you said...
Newtboy said:
"Absolutely it's fair to expose people's public actions and tie it to them personally. 100% fair and proper. Period. People should own their actions, some need to be forced to own them."
Lawdeedaw said:
Newt, this is a racists dream come true...it's what's keeping black men and women (who predominately are abused into our criminal justice system) unable to be productive citizens. This grudge holding helps no one.

You state that what's keeping blacks down is their criminal records...as if they all have one, and it's the only thing they have to overcome, and as if only blacks have criminal records. Need I say more, or do you now see the racism I see there?

I did not say it SHOULD be indefinitely held against him, please read again more clearly. I said it WOULD be held against him. Two different words and concepts. I said clearly that it was overboard that that would happen, but it's reality that once on the internet with his name attached, it will follow him for life. That's not an endorsement, it's a statement of fact.

You are FAR from crystal clear. I've now explained how you said what I read.
I'll assume that you assume my assumption is assumptive, and assume your assumptions are also all assumptive assumptions, although I do assume that assumption is all based on assumptions. That clear it up?

......



......



..........



nope. I'm walking away now.

My $0.02:
I'm glad he got fired. He's an idiot and his company have the right to fire him.

In the case of the Catholic school teacher or any or @enochs other imaginary scenarios of people being fired for spurious reasons, no, they would be wrong.

Why? Because they are different situations. Context matters!

Bein fired for getting drunk and calling your boss an asshole? Fine!
Being fired for admitting to being an atheist? Not cool.

This really isn't that hard people. You judge each situation on its merits.

Erm...

That's kinda not the point.

Is that fair? That actions have consequences? Sure it is... When you transgress, you generally don't get to pick your punishment.

Yeah, it obviously sucks for the guy, and this is probably just going to entrench his blind hatred, but it's the only language he'll understand. Social pressure wouldn't work on him, he has no regard for his fellow American's exercising their right to free speech, right? Or the right to be a black person and not be vilified for being black?

So I say "Suck it!" to Mr. Racist. He exercised his rights and now he's become acquainted with the concept of responsibility for ones actions. One would hope that he has the consistency to refuse welfare, but somehow I doubt it... =)

"as if they all have one, and it's the only thing "

Except it wasn't implied. It wasn't suggested. In fact I distinctly said, "This grudge holding helps no one." That was key...

The criminal history we put upon them (and others, mostly poor) is merely one racist cog in the wheel. For example--whites with a criminal record are still more likely than blacks to get a job. HOWEVER, these policies are one of those overreaching, significant impacting bullshit excuses we have.

They are used to justify racism. "See, it's those people always in jail." It prevents jobs when whites can deny as many as possible to avoid EO laws. "See, we couldn't hire blacks because they have criminal records..." It stops college admissions (Because blacks in jail are not blacks in college.) It takes away the power to vote.

Okay, and let me clarify were you did indeed say it should be forever held against him.

"Yes, it's OK, and normal, for future employers to investigate potential applicants and disqualify them if they show insanely poor judgement publicly like this guy did. You think that's not OK?"

I am owner Newt of Newt's Fabrications and Misunderstandings. I see this guy applying and look into his past. Would YOU hire this guy? Would you, as a black employer perhaps, offer this guy a job working with other black employees?

No? So moving on. You think Walmart wants this racist? Even 20 years from now? Why the fuck would they do that when they have a plethora of job applicants to do that?

So he moves on to Lawdeedaw's Lawn Service. I barely pay minimum wage, and I work him like a dog. Since I am the job he can get, he takes me up. His history is held against him and he has to settle.

Oh, kinda like what happens to blacks who just want to be productive...and have committed past crimes.

Edit Added Later:

Oh, and enouch and VooDooV "defend" this guy much more than me...yet you implied I was a racist douchebag...in fact I never defended him at all and left them out...oddly enough...

In fact I
1-Attacked most businesses as greedy.
2-Said most racists like him are just too proud to take government funds (But I didn't elaborate as to how/why.)
3-And stated that the past should not indefinitely be held against people.

Unless I missed a post from myself (possible) I never even said this guy should keep his job...

Nope.

Learn to read the whole post, in which I also said....

"I never said it was 'justice' that he would lose his job and be mostly unemployable forever, I said it was IRONIC, since he was lambasting people on the video for being 'lazy' and 'taking his tax dollars', which is what he'll be doing now. I agree, it's a little much that he's mostly unemployable for life now, but as I said, he just needs to find an employer that's willing to be labeled, at best, a racist sympathizer if not racist themselves...he should try Trump."

Also try reading your own posts...and not adding words that aren't there when you quote yourself, like you have here. You didn't qualify your statements until now, so that's NOT what you actually said.

You didn't deserve this explanation, EDIT: and you've now clearly shown you can't understand it since you can't read English without changing what's actually written by adding or removing words and changing the meaning....so it's the last one.

Smell ya later.

Lol, like a kid. Anyways, I have given the same number of explanations and have felt just as exacerbated, so yeah.

Anyways, I read the whole post. The problem is you contradicted yourself. You can't hold this against him by every potential employer (Which you advocated when you spoke of future employers looking up his past and deciding on their own) and yet not hold it against him forever. If people won't hire a racist now, why would they change it in the future. Or, why would he have the same opportunities as everyone else in due time, ie., not having this held against him.

Also, I do read my posts over a couple of times before I post. I am not sure which one in particular you are referring to since I humored you over and over again, hoping you would get basic shit, but I think you mean the comment you flipped out about for me being "racist."

I did mention grudge holding as endemic of racism. Which negated that particular argument you used because it implied a fuck-ton of information that if you had ignored it you would assume erroneously I am racist.

As an employer, would you send this worker to represent your company on a job site (that could be owned by a black person)? The hate level he expressed while knowingly being filmed, makes him incompetent for working with clients.