Getting canned over racist language

[bcla]

I think I read yesterday that John Schnatter himself, not Papa John's, owns the naming rights to the stadium.

True. However, he directed it be named after the company and not himself. Not sure how that works since it would seem to be a business transaction on behalf of the company. This is a really tangled legal web, isn't it?

 

[mefordis]

I personally don't boycott anything. I shop where I want and buy what I want. Simple. It would be impossible to expect everyone to share my morals.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

By saying that a wise person is simply one who knows when to stay silent, it's like saying as long as someone doesn't announce their racism, it's okay. I don't think that's what you meant, but it can come across that way.

Didn’t come across that way at all to me. But, I took it at face value as a generalized statement that applies to far more than just racist thoughts.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Frankly, I don't even know why the term "SJW" is allowed on the DIS since it is used as a pejorative by the general public. When it is used to describe a poster or that poster's position it veers into personal attack territory. There are other terms we can't use to describe certain groups of people because those terms are contemptuous of those groups. I think that SJW should be one of them. I have yet to see it used on the DIS (or, for that matter elsewhere) in a positive manner. Even if it's used as shorthand for a certain group it's still NOT a nice or positive term and it's clear that when people use it it comes from a state of disapproval.

Meh, there are dozens of terms that have no positive meaning that we use all the time. Perfect example, you’ll never hear the term “racist” used in a positive manner. SJW is no different, though I do agree calling someone here such a term does border on “personal attack”.

 

[Farro]

I'll be up front, I'm not a SJW and I have no desire to be one. I don't care what you are, it isn't my business. Now if you are out there breaking the law that is one thing, but if you have views that are different then mine, then go about your life and I'll go about mine. I'm not going to try to get you fired from your job because I deem your views immoral, or disgusting or whatever.

Acting out your views in the workplace is a different matter, and one that should be handled at the discretion of the company you work for.

When your "views" have the potential to harm/hinder someone in said workplace, yes, you should be fired. After he said this, I wouldn't trust him to treat employees of color with any semblance of equality. Damage is done, he needed to go. What kind of idiot still thinks it's okay that word, any context???

And...who eats Papa Johns? Gross.

(and that hair...)

 

[mummabear]

Well, of course racism isn't ok. That's not what I meant. But do racist individuals have the freedoms in the US to say certain things? Like it or not, they do. I do not support their views, but I do support their right to freedom of speech. Of course, if you're going to go around at work saying racist things, that's a good way to get fired.

I agree that racism is never ok, I also think that homophobia is never ok.
I do not agree however that someone should be able to be fired for things said, if not at work, not wearing a work uniform or in a marked car, really no matter how vile they are, if they aren't at work it's not works business (obviously OT for Papa John)
I find it hypocritical that people feel that they have the right to their own views being respected as long as they are religious, yet in many cases this is accepted. Kim Davies wasn't fired for refusing to do her job.
So overall I suggest the KKK as the test on any matter that you want your beliefs respected. while you think you should not have to bake a cake because of your beliefs, do you also then agree that a KKK member can refuse service because of theirs? (and the answer in both cases is o you cant)

 

[Farro]

So, now the KKK is our litmus test?

 

[bcla]

I agree that racism is never ok, I also think that homophobia is never ok.
I do not agree however that someone should be able to be fired for things said, if not at work, not wearing a work uniform or in a marked car, really no matter how vile they are, if they aren't at work it's not works business (obviously OT for Papa John)
I find it hypocritical that people feel that they have the right to their own views being respected as long as they are religious, yet in many cases this is accepted. Kim Davies wasn't fired for refusing to do her job.
So overall I suggest the KKK as the test on any matter that you want your beliefs respected. while you think you should not have to bake a cake because of your beliefs, do you also then agree that a KKK member can refuse service because of theirs? (and the answer in both cases is o you cant)

Kim Davis was in an elected position. Only the state legislature could remove her from office under Kentucky law.

I don't know if I have a right to have my views respected. However I have a right to express my views free from government interference. I noted an investment advisor with a major investment company who was caught on video using vile, racist language at the occupants of another car. She got fired, even though it was clearly off the clock. However, her identity and employer were identified when that video was shared over the internet. And her firing was apparently swift. A company with a huge public presence will protect itself because if they don't fire someone who has been identified with the company, they will probably lose business. And I've certainly heard of people who said things off the clock that became very public, and it absolutely changed how coworkers treated them in a negative manner.

This is just the reality.

 

[Planogirl]

Unfortunately some people are going to be racist whether they use racist terms or not. I see that as stupidity but then when they decide to show the whole world that they are racist it just adds another layer of stupidity. Maybe these companies would prefer to not have such stupid employees.

I can't wrap my mind around what this guy was thinking. He would presumably have to have some kind of intelligence to build up a business so successfully. None of this makes any sense to me.

 

[robinb]

Meh, there are dozens of terms that have no positive meaning that we use all the time. Perfect example, you’ll never hear the term “racist” used in a positive manner. SJW is no different, though I do agree calling someone here such a term does border on “personal attack”.

The difference is that "SJW" has a political origin. It is used by one political group to refer to another political group in a derogatory manner. It violates the "no politics" rule here on the DIS.

 

[mummabear]

I don't know if I have a right to have my views respected. However I have a right to express my views free from government interference

So you feel the same about everyone's views?

 

[auntfrannie]

Well, he was forced out as ceo last year over his proclamation that his pizza sales were down because of the anthem protests. (No John, your sales are down because your pizzas are so crappy, they might as well be rectangular and sold to school children every Thursday.)

You know you have no business being the face of a franchise in the 21st century, when part of your strategy for distancing yourself from online racists is that the front man for another franchise who has been dead for nearly 38 years used the n word and never got in trouble. And also no points for trying giving yourself credit for not following in the footsteps of your Hoosier forefathers by not dragging African-Americans behind trucks.

He just appears to have always been like this and is finally letting his true colors show.

HEY! WATCH IT! I actually enjoyed the rectangle cafeteria pizza at school. It was definitely better than PJ's crap!

 

[mefordis]

If people are inclined to boycott immoral companies, they could start with Bayer, who participated in the torture and murder of Nazi concentration camp prisoners.

My point is, to be consistent in this philosophy you pretty much would have to buy nothing from anyone.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wa...r-bought-concentration-camp-victims-wwii.html

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The difference is that "SJW" has a political origin. It is used by one political group to refer to another political group in a derogatory manner. It violates the "no politics" rule here on the DIS.

I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

 

[UncleMike101]

The difference is that "SJW" has a political origin. It is used by one political group to refer to another political group in a derogatory manner. It violates the "no politics" rule here on the DIS.

If that phrase, or it's acronym, can be considered a violation of a "No politics" rule then the words "left" and "right" would need to be a violation as well since those are fighting words in political circles.
I see the word "racist" batted about on this forum and it has to be one of the most volatile political weapons in use today.
Just because a word or phrase is used by some people in political conversation does not automatically bestow that word or phrase with a singularly political connotation.

I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

Yes it is....

 

[robinb]

I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

No, not at all.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social_justice_warrior

social justice warrior
NOUN
derogatory, informal

• A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.
  
  ‘these social justice warriors want to apply their politically correct standards and rules to others' speech’

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-justice-warrior

social justice warrior
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun

1. Disparaging. a person who advocates a progressive orthodoxy, often on the Internet, especially involvingthe treatment of ethnic, racial, gender, or gender-identity minorities. Abbreviation: SJW

 

[Nancyg56]

I think that as Americans we can think anything we want, and we are free to express those views. If I am expressing a viewpoint in public that may jeopardize my employer's business, I must accept the consequence that I may be terminated. IMO, if I feel so compelled to use speech that is offensive to others I also must accept that my employer may be compelled to protect the business. I also feel that if a business continues to employ an individual who has uses speech in a way that I find reprehensible I can choose to spend my money elsewhere. I do nto feel the need to tell others to patronize or not patronize tha tbusiness, but I will not.

WE have a local business who used winter months that were slow to sponsor winter lake parties, and pushed his bar business in that way. He knew that there were folks who would overindulge and then go back on the ice, however he turned a blind eye to his responsibility to refuse to serve when someone was intoxicated. WE lost a young family man after one of his "events" and I cannot find it in myself to spend one dime there. This is not necessarily the same, however for me the principle is. WHat occurred tehre was morally wrong to me so I will not give my money to keep him open. I don't push so folks will share my POV< but I sure will not participate in assisting him to stay open.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

The stretch was in equating the term racist with social justice warrior in any way. If someone believes blacks are inferior by virtue of being black they are in fact a racist by definition. Social Justice Warrior is a catch all phrase used to deride and insult and blow off others. That is its only purpose.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

You are as wrong as anyone can possibly be.
My personal Family diversity is both broad and far reaching and I hold no animosity toward anyone except criminals, whom I have a long running dislike for since I've invested most of my life trying to bring them to justice.
My Wife, Children, and Grandchildren are card carrying Native Americans.
My Daughter is married to a wonderful Puerto Rican man and their two Puerto Rican children, my grandchildren, are the loves of my life.
We have a Foster Daughter who is gay and I love her as though she were my own flesh and blood.
So I'll kindly ask you to keep your fanciful, imaginary, interpretation of my post to yourself.

You can be anything you want on the net. Ultimately, a post stands or falls on its own merit. And that you're having to post all this to try and gain credibility, whether true or not, tells us one thing. It tells us that you know your posts were not standing on their own merit.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The stretch was in equating the term racist with social justice warrior in any way. If someone believes blacks are inferior by virtue of being black they are in fact a racist by definition. Social Justice Warrior is a catch all phrase used to deride and insult and blow off others. That is its only purpose.

So, pick any other term meant exclusively as an insult & apply it to my statement. Are we going to ban any & all insulting terms because they have the potential to be used in a political manner?