Disco Writer used the N word in the writers room.

[Gonzo]

Instead of lobbing political assumptions and epithets at Disco writers we weren't even sure were in the room at the time, or insults towards other posters here based on political stereotypes and perceived biases, can we get back to the original discussion about the merits of whether or not this should have been reported to HR or whether it's justified to use racial epithets to describe one's lived experiences being at the receiving end of them? There was actually a legit discussion going on there with some interesting perspectives without it devolving into a rapid-fire political slapfight.

ETA: Ninja'd by cultcross.

True but we all knew what would happen to the thread sooner or later didnt we.

It could have been anyone, potentially someone that was just walking past the door at the time and not even in the room or a part of the conversation, some individuals just cant help themselves.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

As of now, there is nothing that convinces me that this incident is symbolic of deep problems related to Kurtzman, Discovery or CBS. It just seems like another moment in which a creative person had difficulty adjusting to a particular workplace.

 

[Longinus]

There is certain type of people to whom following the rules is super important in itself. The letter of the rules, not necessarily the spirit of them. So if the rule is technically broken, it must be reported regardless of the context. Personally I find that super annoying.

 

[Doctor Bombay]

If I were a betting man, which I'm not, I would say the person who went to HR was someone in some position of authority. Said person probably felt it set a bad precedent and feared potential future lawsuits or other such actions that might damage potential for promotion.

But that's just my viewpoint.

 

[Jayson1]

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.

He proably could have used another word but one of the side effects to political correctness it can downplay how bad things are. Making everything seem family friendly dilutes the truth. Which makes me only hope it wasn't a writer because I only imagine how safe their writing must be to get to the point of going to HR. Jason

 

[Awesome Possum]

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.

The problem is that one side does not see the other as people, so an equal conversation is impossible. As someone who has been forced to argue to for their right to exist I can assure you it isn’t pleasant and most of the time leads to a lot of pain. You want to believe that all things are equal, they aren’t. They’re so far from equal to pretend they are is being foolish and ignorant of history. You cannot connect on a fundamental level with someone who believes that you are not a valid human being or do not deserve to live because nothing you can ever say will change their mind because they do not see you as an equal. You cannot reason with them because their belief does not come from a place of reason. To that person, it would be like an insect telling an exterminator they don’t deserve to be killed.

 

[fireproof78]

You want to believe that all things are equal, they aren’t. They’re so far from equal to pretend they are is being foolish and ignorant of history

I pretend nothing of the sort. I know they are not. And I'm sorry that they are not.

But, I will never stop believing that discussion can happen. Painful or not, it is worth it to me.

But, this isn't prescriptive. I would not tell you to engage if it were not safe. But, the dialog has to start somewhere or nothing changes.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I pretend nothing of the sort. I know they are not. And I'm sorry that they are not.

But, I will never stop believing that discussion can happen. Painful or not, it is worth it to me.

But, this isn't prescriptive. I would not tell you to engage if it were not safe. But, the dialog has to start somewhere or nothing changes.

Things change because there are reasonable people who will listen and it becomes increasingly unacceptable to be a bigot. Those who aren’t reasonable slowly die out. This is why progress takes so long, it happens one funeral at a time.

 

[fireproof78]

Things change because there are reasonable people who will listen and it becomes increasingly unacceptable to be a bigot. Those who aren’t reasonable slowly die out. This is why progress takes so long, it happens one funeral at a time.

Sad but true.

But, I cannot expect to find the reasonable people if I'm not willing to engage in dialog and lump all with political beliefs of a certain type in to one category.

Again, not prescriptive. For me, I feel an urgent prescient need to connect with all humans, disagreement or not.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Sad but true.

But, I cannot expect to find the reasonable people if I'm not willing to engage in dialog and lump all with political beliefs of a certain type in to one category.

Again, not prescriptive. For me, I feel an urgent prescient need to connect with all humans, disagreement or not.

You can afford to, I can’t. For me the disagreement is over whether I have a right to live. I live in the US, my equality is a “political debate” because a certain side always needs a wedge issue to rally together the bigots, religious extremists and other terrible people in order to get votes. Whether or not I’m allowed to have a job, be able to adopt children, go to the bathroom, have access to medical treatment (nothing to do with whether I have insurance or not), enlist in the military, or have any legal options is a political football game meant to gain votes. They isn’t a debate for me, it’s my life and I don’t have the time or emotional energy for this. But I end up having to because not many people will. They’d rather “both sides” it or ignore it.

 

[fireproof78]

They’d rather “both sides” it or ignore it.

I'd rather both sides it because the other side of every debate are still people.

And I'm sorry for the fact that you have to fight. I used to be one of those who fought against you. I'm working to do what I can to change it .

That's why I look at both sides as people. I have to or risk wishing death and destruction on those who are in the other side.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I think if people just settled down a bit and didn't automatically break into their designated factions they would see that there are no real villains in this story worth tearing each other apart over.

Mr. Mosley did not use the n-word maliciously or to insult anyone, he used it to recount a personal experience where he was the brunt of a racist epithet by a police officer who racially profiled him for being in the "wrong" neighborhood. I think it's perfectly legitimate for a black person to be able to recount the actual lived experiences with racism they have encountered without judgment, especially in the context of a writer's room of a franchise where racial epithets by police and recreated presidents have been utilized in dialogue before.

Whomever reported Mr. Mosley's remarks to H.R. is catching the brunt of the hostility here, and while I would have never reported that myself, we don't have to presume malicious intent on their part or jump to conclusions about their political or racial background without basis (and I've seen reasons presented from liberals and conservatives, minorities and whites to oppose its use in this context in this very thread). Having a knee-jerk negative reaction to hearing the n-word spoken aloud is not necessarily a bad thing, as it indicates how far we have come at rightfully stigmatizing the word. I think the person in question handled it the wrong way by going directly to H.R. rather than having a personal discussion with Mr. Mosley and hopefully working things out and getting a better understanding of Mosley's perspective, but I also understand that that's a tough dialogue to open up and that is what the purpose of H.R. is for. I don't think we should assume this person was doing this out of some spiteful campaign to take down Walter Mosley, or any malicious reasoning without evidence.

CBS was in legal cover your ass mode and really had no choice but to say something once the issue was raised to H.R. by an employee. Personally I would have told Mr. Mosley that by the description of events both he and the complainant described he did nothing to violate company policy and called it resolved, and would not have told him to avoid such language in the future regardless of context. Especially when the same language would be allowed to make the same point in a script under discussion by the same writer's room. How do you have an open writer's room under such contradictory conditions? That being said, CBS rightfully took no punitive action against Mosley and was legally obligated to address the issue once it was raised, though I would have handled it differently without the zero tolerance verbal admonishment that removes all context from the situation. So, perhaps a bit misguided in their handing of the situation, but not malicious either.

If CBS was at all aware of Mosley's writing background on issues of race, and I have to believe they were and that informed their hiring of him, they would have known that he does not shy away from the blunt language and attitudes he has personally experienced as an elderly black man growing up in America and that you write/talk about writing what you know. It's all a bit too "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find there's gambling going on in here!..." for my liking.

Mosley's mysteries are full of stories about racial tensions and the black experience, and he wrote a future scifi short story called "The N*g I Me" about a bio-engineered virus meant to be used by white supremacists kill off people of color but is hijacked by activists and instead only spares black people, so they couldn't really think he would demur from the use of the n-word in the writer's room if he felt the context was justified.

That doesn't mean everyone in the writer's room has carte blanche to use or censure the world regardless of context, however. That's why zero tolerance policies rarely, if ever, are ideal.

But it would be nice if we could discuss this without demonizing the players involved or the people commenting on it, regardless of what their real or imagined political stances may be. No one's a monster or a villain in this situation, they're just people with decent but conflicting motivations for their actions.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

What HR did to Walter Mosley (whatever it was) was not "woke" or "political correctness" gone awry. It was CYA. Perhaps Mr. Mosley had some good reason to use the n-word, talking about his experiences as an African-American man. Human resources has an obligation to make sure that there is an atmosphere conducive to work, and that abuses occur that disrupt or affect performance

BS. The person who complained was exercising his or her white liberal outrage (privilege) and had no right to do so. He or she not only displayed an incredible amount of disrespect to Mosley's unique experiences that inform his life/right to reference whatever slur was used against him (or anyone like him), but assumed his or her outrage took center stage in a situation where the person using the slur has every right to use it (which was not directed at anyone in its negative sense). As mentioned earlier, it is this kind of arrogance, this "we know best" (which lines up with "I'm white and I say so") belief system that sees an American black man penalized, and yes, he was--long before he left the position--the moment he "dared" to speak his mind about his experiences (which the offended are forever clueless about).

Because Mr. Mosley quit, we don't know what HR's intentions were. If any employee, including African American, were using the n-word casually, it should be investigated.

Yes, because its the job of anyone--particularly the largely white, paternalistic entertainment industry to police the use of a term when used by black Americans. Yes, because they (in this case, an entertainment company) are so knowledgeable about the how, when and why black people might use or refer to the term, that they can wave their mighty hand in fair judgement...ending with some kind of penalty.

The term has been possessed/modified in large parts of the Western black culture over the past 70+ years to mean more than what others think it means, but even as a slur, it is our right to refer to it if we choose to.

You cannot possibly know how that kind of controlling treatment ("investigation" included) has affected black people (black people in America in particular) for centuries. Its not only demeaning & infuriating, but a continued form of psychological slavery, where your life, history--any part of your own identity is not your own. It has to be sanctioned by the All-Knowing, All-Caring, "we know best" masters, because after, all...they know what is best for everyone.

F-that.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'd rather both sides it because the other side of every debate are still people.

And I'm sorry for the fact that you have to fight. I used to be one of those who fought against you. I'm working to do what I can to change it .

That's why I look at both sides as people. I have to or risk wishing death and destruction on those who are in the other side.

Something I've learned from passing is that while I can choose how and when I engage someone on their bigotry and intolerance, people close to people--people in my family--do not. What they do can affect their dignity, if not their lives. While I can respect that you want dialogue in order to change people's minds, for some that is not an option.

 

[fireproof78]

Something I've learned from passing is that while I can choose how and when I engage someone on their bigotry and intolerance, people close to people--people in my family--do not. What they do can affect their dignity, if not their lives. While I can respect that you want dialogue in order to change people's minds, for some that is not an option.

And I have agreed and respected that approach. I'm not telling anyone what to do or think. And I apologize if I have come across that way.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

The person who complained was exercising his or her white liberal outrage (privilege) and had no right to do so.

Only white people write for Discovery? Please proceed, governor.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I'd rather both sides it because the other side of every debate are still people.

And I'm sorry for the fact that you have to fight. I used to be one of those who fought against you. I'm working to do what I can to change it .

That's why I look at both sides as people. I have to or risk wishing death and destruction on those who are in the other side.

I don’t think you’re understanding. I do see the other side as people and don’t wish death on them, but the problem is that the other side will not do the same for me. This isn’t an issue where both sides have a valid point. There’s a side that’s right and wants people to be equal and there’s the fucking abyss that is the root of human atrocities. Giving them equal footing raises them up where they can do more damage.

 

[fireproof78]

Giving them equal footing raises them up where they can do more damage.

Genuine question-treating them as human gives them equal footing? As in, I should regard them as less than human? This confuses me.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Genuine question-treating them as human gives them equal footing? As in, I should regard them as less than human? This confuses me.

No, I’m talking about debating them or having discussions with them.

 

[fireproof78]

No, I’m talking about debating them or having discussions with them.

Ah.