Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Brawndo

Michael Gilbert Resigns

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

No, it doesn't. But your post escalated things by an order of magnitude talking about the grand wake of destruction that these things leave behind. Just like Brett Kavanaugh's life was going to be ruined by a "baseless" accusation...as just a month later he's sworn into a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the country and welcomed as a conquering hero to a Federalist Society gala. Meanwhile, his accuser's life has actually been upended as she's had to relocate multiple times due to security and still can't return to work. But yes, things like power and privilege are merely academic constructs by the liberals to wreck the lives of people they disagree with. 

The Kavanaugh temper tantrum belongs in the politics club and as a bonus has literally zero to do with the nonsensical and gratuitous introduction of racial slurs into the workplace harassment discussion upthread that I was referring to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The Kavanaugh temper tantrum belongs in the politics club and as a bonus has literally zero to do with the nonsensical and gratuitous introduction of racial slurs into the workplace harassment discussion upthread that I was referring to. 

It directly relates to the culture that you *are* referring to.  Like it or not, you open the door, someone might walk through it backwards rather than forwards.

Edited by Eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

It directly relates to the culture that you *are* referring to.  Like it or not, you open the door, someone might walk through it backwards rather than forwards.

 What culture is that? And what door was opened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The Kavanaugh temper tantrum belongs in the politics club and as a bonus has literally zero to do with the nonsensical and gratuitous introduction of racial slurs into the workplace harassment discussion upthread that I was referring to. 

“White men are inherently privileged and powerful in America.”

Please allow me a modest LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nfreeman said:

What in the world does whiteness have to do with this?  Do you think non-whites don’t enagage in this kind of behavior?  (They do, and the stats on, say, rape are appalling.)

More importantly, why is it OK to throw this kind of slur around?  Would you have said the same thing about a different racial or ethnic group?

The question answers itself. 

Not to mention the fact that no one here has any idea what Gilbert did.

 

 

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

 What culture is that? And what door was opened?

 

The culture of people who accuse white men.  I might even agree with you, freeman--you'll hopefully recall that I've mentioned the Duke lacrosse case and the presumptions on college campuses numerous times.  But don't start/turn the conversation and then tell someone that their reply belongs elsewhere just because of your own personal politics.  You moved the needle on this one; you own it.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

“White men are inherently privileged and powerful in America.”

Please allow me a modest LOL.

Your post was not the one I was referring to.  

 

6 minutes ago, Eleven said:

 

 

The culture of people who accuse white men.  I might even agree with you, freeman--you'll hopefully recall that I've mentioned the Duke lacrosse case and the presumptions on college campuses numerous times.  But don't start/turn the conversation and then tell someone that their reply belongs elsewhere just because of your own personal politics.  You moved the needle on this one; you own it.

I neither started nor turned the conversation.  Someone opined that Gilbert’s alleged harassment of a young woman was somehow related to whiteness, and others agreed.  I called BS.  That’s got zero to do with Kavanaugh, other than the fact that purveyors of the “toxic whiteness” worldview heavily overlap with the group that opposed Kavanaugh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Your post was not the one I was referring to.  

 

I neither started nor turned the conversation.  Someone opined that Gilbert’s alleged harassment of a young woman was somehow related to whiteness, and others agreed.  I called BS.  That’s got zero to do with Kavanaugh, other than the fact that purveyors of the “toxic whiteness” worldview heavily overlap with the group that opposed Kavanaugh.  

You called BS and the conversation changed.  That's enough for whomever's reply it was to be justified.  You're old enough and wise enough* to look inward; I hope you do so and realize that you only "push out" political talk when it's not in line with your personal thinking.   

 

*I do mean this.  I've met you.  You're no dummy and you certainly seem wise to me.

 

EDIT:  Added an m somewhere.

Edited by Eleven
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

You called BS and the conversation changed.  That's enough for whomever's reply it was to be justified.  You're old enough and wise enough* to look inward; I hope you do so and realize that you only "push out" political talk when it's not in line with your personal thinking.   

 

*I do mean this.  I've met you.  You're no dummy and you certainly seem wise to me.

 

EDIT:  Added an m somewhere.

Well, I don’t agree with your description of the circumstances in which I push political talk to the politics club (I don’t think I’ve done so more than a couple of times since the opening of that club, so I don’t think there is a discernible trend), nor do I think of pushing back against racial slurs as political in the same way as a Kavanaugh discussion is — more as sociological — but I recognize that others may differ.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nfreeman said:

Well, I don’t agree with your description of the circumstances in which I push political talk to the politics club (I don’t think I’ve done so more than a couple of times since the opening of that club, so I don’t think there is a discernible trend), nor do I think of pushing back against racial slurs as political in the same way as a Kavanaugh discussion is — more as sociological — but I recognize that others may differ.  

Eh, call or email me tomorrow if you want to talk more.  Otherwise, it's sleep time.  (I hope!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nfreeman said:

All of this is fair -- and again, it has zero to do with whiteness.  It has 100% to do with the fact that he was her boss.

If he were black or Latino, would you or LTS have thrown "black" or "Latino" into your earlier posts? 

Again, the question answers itself.

I'll answer this succinctly.  Would I say the same thing? No. There is no apparent pattern that implicates non-white executives of engaging in similar behavior. This may be for any number of reasons.

As for would I say the behavior is wrong?  Of course. It doesn't matter who does it or how they identify on gender.  There's no support for harassing another person, physically or mentally. 

The rest of this almost probably would be great in some sociology/philosophical club.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LTS said:

I'll answer this succinctly.  Would I say the same thing? No. There is no apparent pattern that implicates non-white executives of engaging in similar behavior. This may be for any number of reasons.

As for would I say the behavior is wrong?  Of course. It doesn't matter who does it or how they identify on gender.  There's no support for harassing another person, physically or mentally.  

The rest of this almost probably would be great in some sociology/philosophical club.   

Have you done any research as to the frequency with which non-whites engage in similar behavior, and how that frequency compares with that of whites?

Is it reasonable to expect someone to do so before throwing around assumptions that this behavior is associated with whiteness?  Or is it OK to make those assumptions -- and state them in public -- and if they turn out to be incorrect, well, that's OK because it's only whites who were slurred, not a different race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Have you done any research as to the frequency with which non-whites engage in similar behavior, and how that frequency compares with that of whites?

Is it reasonable to expect someone to do so before throwing around assumptions that this behavior is associated with whiteness?  Or is it OK to make those assumptions -- and state them in public -- and if they turn out to be incorrect, well, that's OK because it's only whites who were slurred, not a different race?

No, I did not do research.  Much like we evaluate individual hockey abilities on this forum, I used the eye test.

Is it reasonable that people could have an exploratory and educational discussion surrounding the topic?  Yes.

Keep in mind, my initial statement used the words "it seems" and "higher probability".  It did not label all of them just that those in those positions seem to be more frequently engaging in those transgressions based on media reports.

If it turns out incorrect, then we all end up more educated on the subject which is the point of a discussion.  But yes, it is okay to state assumptions in public, because they are assumptions, not fact.  I never said it was a fact and that is actually an important fact here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Have you done any research as to the frequency with which non-whites engage in similar behavior, and how that frequency compares with that of whites?

Is it reasonable to expect someone to do so before throwing around assumptions that this behavior is associated with whiteness?  Or is it OK to make those assumptions -- and state them in public -- and if they turn out to be incorrect, well, that's OK because it's only whites who were slurred, not a different race?

The slurring of the white male. So tragic.

I shouldn't poke fun, actually. That exact sort of feeling wound up having a truly surprising effect in November 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Your post was not the one I was referring to.  

 

I neither started nor turned the conversation.  Someone opined that Gilbert’s alleged harassment of a young woman was somehow related to whiteness, and others agreed.  I called BS.  That’s got zero to do with Kavanaugh, other than the fact that purveyors of the “toxic whiteness” worldview heavily overlap with the group that opposed Kavanaugh.  

Kavanaugh had a temper tantrum similar to Clarence Thomas and BOTH got into the Supreme Court. White privilege is overrated. Power and Money Privilege is very underrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LTS said:

No, I did not do research.  Much like we evaluate individual hockey abilities on this forum, I used the eye test.

Is it reasonable that people could have an exploratory and educational discussion surrounding the topic?  Yes.

Keep in mind, my initial statement used the words "it seems" and "higher probability".  It did not label all of them just that those in those positions seem to be more frequently engaging in those transgressions based on media reports.

If it turns out incorrect, then we all end up more educated on the subject which is the point of a discussion.  But yes, it is okay to state assumptions in public, because they are assumptions, not fact.  I never said it was a fact and that is actually an important fact here.

Your eye test seems to be a bit unfair.  Your eye test is how we end up with Duke lacrosse and it also is how we end up with Trayvon Martin.  We all need to stop making assumptions based upon race--and that goes for *all* races.

Edited by Eleven
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I think LTS, AudSmell, TBPhd, D4rk and the others in this thread who have effectively stated that it's OK to slur whites, and only whites, are all good and honorable guys.

(Or at least as good as can be reasonably hoped for in light of their toxic whiteness.)

I just completely disagree with them on this point, for reasons I've expressed many times.

And with that, I'm signing out of this one.

  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I haven't said a damn thing of substance in this thread. 

FTFY

  • Haha (+1) 4
  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swedesessed said:

Kavanaugh had a temper tantrum similar to Clarence Thomas and BOTH got into the Supreme Court. White privilege is overrated. Power and Money Privilege is very underrated.

White privilege always has room for some token Uncle Tom's. Clarence Thomas is among the whitest motherpluckers out there.

Which brings to mind one of my favourite Chappelle [edit: trying to recall who did the joke about Bill Clinton] bits:

It's Chris Rock I was thinking of. I can't find the clip. It's the one where he talks about Clinton being black. I think Toni Morrison more famously called Clinton the first black president.

 

Edited by That Aud Smell
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

White privilege always has room for some token Uncle Tom's. Clarence Thomas is among the whitest motherpluckers out there.

Which brings to mind one of my favourite Chappelle [edit: trying to recall who did the joke about Bill Clinton] bits:

It's Chris Rock I was thinking of. I can't find the clip. It's the one where he talks about Clinton being black. I think Toni Morrison more famously called Clinton the first black president.

 

These are the kind of things that drive me crazy.  You're black, but if you act a certain way or grow up in a certain place, you're not actually black.  We just had the conversation yesterday about how stereotypes are bad, but then this line of thought is still so prevalent.  It's a never ending circle of stupidity.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shrader said:

These are the kind of things that drive me crazy.  You're black, but if you act a certain way or grow up in a certain place, you're not actually black.  We just had the conversation yesterday about how stereotypes are bad, but then this line of thought is still so prevalent.  It's a never ending circle of stupidity.

I feel like sometimes the purported prohibition on stereotyping people can be weaponized in order to deny or dispute that a certain demographic has a shared experience and culture.

Anyway, rather than being stupid, I found Chris Rock's joke hilarious. Here's a quote of it from a review of the special Bring the Pain:

"You know what I like about Clinton? He's got real problems. He don't got president problems, he's got real problems like you and me. He's runnin' out of money. His wife's a pain. . . . All his friends are goin' to jail. I know Bill Clinton. I am Bill Clinton."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Eleven said:

Your eye test seems to be a bit unfair.  Your eye test is how we end up with Duke lacrosse and it also is how we end up with Trayvon Martin.  We all need to stop making assumptions based upon race--and that goes for *all* races.

No.  There is a remarkable difference in how we end up with those things.  The assumption was not based just on race.  Once and for all, and I would ask that everyone get it right, I said. It seems that being a white corporate executive somehow raises the probability of engaging in sexual harassment.  I did not say being white, I did not say black corporate executive, I did not say white DMV workers., I spoke of a group that was characterized by more than their race.  I didn't even say that all of them do it.  I even stated that it probably is not a race factor and that race is a byproduct of the situation (that most corporate executives are white, older men)

Your referenced examples are a bit more extreme, do you not think?  

 

7 hours ago, nfreeman said:

For the record, I think LTS, AudSmell, TBPhd, D4rk and the others in this thread who have effectively stated that it's OK to slur whites, and only whites, are all good and honorable guys.

(Or at least as good as can be reasonably hoped for in light of their toxic whiteness.)

I just completely disagree with them on this point, for reasons I've expressed many times.

And with that, I'm signing out of this one.

My "toxic whiteness"?  I'll go ahead and say this, that kind of commentary is completely uncalled for by anyone on this forum, let alone someone who is supposed to police good behavior. 

Also, at no point did I say it's okay to slur whites, and only whites. Why is it that you insist on this narrative?  It's simply untrue, there's no evidence of it.  The fact that you chose those words to misstate what has been said is out of line.  You clearly are not listening or do not understand what is being said but most assuredly I have no said what you claim.

I'm sure it's best this whole conversation ends because it seems that people either want to draw inappropriate parallels or completely mischaracterize what is being said and on top of that throw around insults.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to the day when increasingly common travel and interaction results in non-distinguishable race and ethnicity.  Oh, the glorious silence. Of course, we’ll still have politics and religion, but those discussions will be distilled to core ideas.

I’m not sure where gender’s going.

When the time comes, we’ll be stuck with “humans do human stuff”.  In itself, that will be meaty and worthy.  Just imagine, debate outside the wild pendulum and great divide of ascribed privilege and victimhood.

I surrender “European” and “white”.  I’m holding on to “Christian” and “male”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit to add, and back to the root.  I’m glad the people (PSE) have no tolerance for a people (Boss) mistreating a people (Employee).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LTS said:

It seems that being a white corporate executive somehow raises the probability of engaging in sexual harassment. 

That's the problem.  It doesn't, and you've provided nothing to convince the rest of us that it does.  It happens in bars and cafes and restaurants, too.  It has nothing to do with white corporate executives.  White corporate executives might be more convenient lawsuit targets, because there's actually a chance of monetary recovery there, and they might be more convenient press targets, because who cares what happens in a bar on the East Side, but if you think there aren't situations where some non-white manager is pinching some non-white waitress's behind, well, you're behind.

Edited by Eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...