Disco Writer used the N word in the writers room.
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
The professors were just as liberal when I went to college around the Turn of the Millennium. Not necessarily politically, but I've disagreed with professors and just about anyone else before. I didn't go into a class and come out automatically thinking the way a professor did. But that's only my experience as someone who went to college in Massachusetts. One of the bluest of Blue States.
Afterwards, I was a substitute teacher for a year, then worked in a community college for four years. I can tell you that professors wish students were as cooperative and as willing to listen or learn as you're making them sound like. We had too many students who were only there because they had it drilled into them that they "had" to go to college or their parents thought they "had" to go to college. Some are there to learn skills for whatever career they're seeking but many others acted as if it were 13th Grade. It became easy to pick out the serious College Students from the 13th Graders.
The College Students can think for themselves. The 13th Graders can think for themselves too, but they just don't care. To them it's just school. I'm sure there are some teachers and parents who think they're molding younger versions of themselves, but they're not. In theory, that's what they want to do. In reality, that's not what's happening. The ultra-liberal college student would've been ultra-liberal even without college or those "evil" professors. Who, by the way, aren't all on an agenda. Some of them are only there because they can't get a job in the field outside of an academic setting, so they teach instead.
It isn't so much the name of the politics that matters, the label, it's the values, policies and priorities you support. We don't even agree on what the labels "liberal", "conservative", or "post Keynesian anarcho-demo-fascist" mean, but at the coal face of implementation are human choices about how we should interact and treat each other. If you're going to judge someone, that's a pretty sound basis, I'd say.
I was a 13th Grader for three years at a Community College...
It was either that or get a FT job to be able to live at home.
I ended up getting a PT job anyway just to have spending money.
I remember my senior year of college. Best two years of my life, I used to say.
I agree to a point. But, if we are engaging in dialog then judging someone on that label impacts actual discussion. At the end, we are all humans and I feel like a lot of political labels are used to justify continued hostility towards them.
I certainly agree that labels without depth to them are used to shut down discussion. "Fascist" for example is used wildly outside it's dictionary definition to mean "things with which I disagree"
On that I completely agree. I think judgement can be appropriate at times but if we are wanting conversation and connection with our fellow humans then perhaps judgement is not the best way to begin, or even second choice.
At least for me. I'd rather connect with people than judge them, even if I complete disagree with their politics or their actions.
I used it........but was being sarcastic and "smug" I believe. But will stop :-)........
Basis, but not the whole story. (Do I get to use "necessary but insufficient" here or is that gratuitous?).
Individual interactions between people of most political and philosophical positions for the most part look very similar, yet it does not follow that they aggregate as very similar. The emergent picture is very different indeed from the pieces which build it.
The only thing that happened to Mosley was he was asked nicely on a phone call not to use the word again in conversation AT WORK. He made the choice to QUIT and then air his side of the story in public.
Sure, it sounds fine in theory, but it takes certain sort of privilege to afford such a stance. If people are personally harmed by certain policies, then they might be pretty reasonably be willing to harshly judge those who support such policies.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to speak about racism he's experienced? For a show that features cannibalism and genocide it's come to something when a black man recounting his personal experiences with racism is more offensive than those subjects. The person who reported him to HR should hang their head in shame in my opinion. They're the true racist because they're trying to diminish what Mosley endured.
Perhaps. But how does that promote discussion? How does that promote connection?
For me, judgement is a deeply personal thing, and treating people poorly because of my negative judgement diminishes my ability to relate.
Sometimes there is no discussion to be had. Sometimes you need to call someone a bigot, because they're a bigot. They know what the policies they support do, they know what they have done.
Then I will simply disagree. I always want discussion and will never give up on it.
This is just 'both sides' bullshit. Sometimes the other side doesn't have legitimate point. Minorities should't be required to discuss with the Nazis, reasonably trying to convince them why it would be kinda nice if they were allowed to live.
Who said it is a requirement? I'm talking about treating people as people. Like, the black man who befriended a KKK member and helped to change his mind. That's not for everyone, but we're on a discussion board. why not try to connect, relate and understand each other?
Because, the country I live in is at the point of shouting labels at each other and nothing is changing. So, maybe discussion and relationship are worth a shot.
I don't have the answers. But I see what's not working. And I know what does work is people feeling connected and in relationship with other humans, even if we disagree.
Can he speak of it without dropping the N bomb? Because we don't know exactly what happened I am trying not to judge anyone. A junior writer (OF ANY COLOR) could have gone to a more senior one and asked if he could stop using THAT word. The more senior person could have been scared to make the call and asked his supervisor how to handle. Eventually it landed in the lap of HR.......once that happens it is pretty much on autopilot. By keeping it verbal, I'm sure they hoped he would just say "oh I had no idea anyone was offended...I will not use it again in conversation AT WORK" By writing the piece in The Times I feel like CBS will have to issue some kind of statement now and tell their side.
Could it have been handled better.....without a doubt, but people are making grand assumptions on how and why it transpired. Hell, the other side could be he was abusive and confrontational and dropping the word left and right. As of now WE DON'T KNOW.
Similar threads
