[TravelerKai]

(08-26-2015 03:51 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 03:28 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 02:52 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Considering that this Black dude had been allowed to work in the prestigious media industry for years, even though (from what we've learned today) he had been (for a long time) behaving "strange and threatening", well... I'd say he did not get fired because of racism: he actually kept his job for years only because of "affirmative action"... a White dude so weird, would have been thrown out of his job after just one week, years ago.

I mean, the guy obviously was a known weirdo, but still, he was allowed to stay in this media industry for years: any White or Asian dude would have been expelled at the first crazy stuff they pulled.

So actually, instead of blaming his getting (ultimately) fired on "racism", he should have been happy that his race "protected" him for so long!... And well, not surprisingly, when the race card couldn't protect him anymore, he snapped!

I have noticed this trend for quite some time, in the West: people who have used the race card to their advantage, to pull some nasty shit for years (without getting fired or punished), when finally people have had enough of them and thus they loose the shield provided by the race-card, they instantaneously become crazy mad!

Unless you have proof that this is the case, you should state that differently. In fact this post would still be useless and not insightful at all. Don't post things like that unless you know this for a fact, otherwise you will get called out or worse banned. By assuming he was an affirmative action hire, you assume he may not have been good enough to get his job at all. He actually did get fired for his behavior so it's not reverse racism because he actually was fired. The people that hired him after that, should have done their homework on him before hiring him.

So again, how would you know how he was fired or hired? In some states, you can be fired for being gay due to legal technicalities. Any right to work state would give no worker any protection at all. Not every flaming gay person in corporate America is a AA hire. In my own personal experience, they tend to be hired because they are technically very good at their jobs and no one else was available. Either that or a liberal woman hired them trying to bolster their army with "Their people". Which is no different than what deer huntin and fishin straight men do too. So again, watch it with the as a matter of fact posting without anything to back that up. It makes it look like you are using this as an opportunity to bring something up unrelated to create more race drama.

Even if he was, it still does not change this discussion in the grand scheme of things. His homosexuality and mental state are far more relevant than junk like possible and imaginary affirmative action.

I absolutely did not say he was hired because of affirmative action.

I said he was not fired earlier because of AA.

Because from what is now coming to light on the net, he had been behaving badly, strangely, [b]for a long time, without being immediately fired.[/b]

So, apparently, he was protected, either from his being black or his being gay (meaning, by belonging to a "minority")

As to "The people that hired him after that", yes, I do think that they hired him, back in the media industry, through AA... Because, an Asian or White straight man would not have had another shot, I mean, another chance at having a media job, after having been fired once...

You are still wrong.

Behaving badly at work without getting fired is a privilege shared by many of all colors, each gender, etc. In some states it's hard as fuck to get rid of a full time employee for a litany of reasons.

1. Union reasons.
2. Severance Pay guidelines.
3. Internal HR/Company Policy (which can be very broad and unique)
4. State regulations.
5. EEOC considerations
6. Privately owned vs. Publicly owned
7. Internal Office Politics (broad and unique)
8. The state is not a Right to Work State

There is a reason why Corporate America is flush with 3rd party contractors in the past 10 years or so. With contractors, you can let them go instantly without needing to fulfill any of the above. The IT industry is like this. Relatively few are full time employed in many states for all these reasons.

Just because he was behaving badly and was seeming to get away with it, does not mean it was an AA reason. I'm sure everyone that works somewhere right fucking now, works with some jackass or a neurotic psycho bitch that everyone in the office groans and moans about, that has an HR file as long as toilet paper. I can think of 3 at my workplace. The worst person I ever worked for had 2 people prior to me walk out the door. Eventually I did too. Why didn't they fire him instead before I got there? Related to a C level exec? 5 strikes and you are out rule? I was just the third guy. He is still there by the way.

Some awful people are hunting and fishing buddies with someone important. Church members, kid's sports, etc. The blonde woman may have been protecting him for all you fucking know. Some places are private and/or have zero HR policies and everything is handled on a case by case basis.

You do not know the absolute antics he pulled before they fired him. You are trying to armchair quarterback this with extremely shitty conjecture. Do you have access to his HR file? What if whatever he was accused of doing was found to be not true by the HR dept.? Who would be telling the truth then?

All I'm saying is that you are reaching to damn far on this in some sad attempt to paint some black male as an AA recipient of some kind, because he is black. Everyone knows white women are the biggest recipients of AA. You have no evidence or proof to support that if it was an Asian or other race person, that the outcome would have been the same.

If you want to say something something else that would reveal your real intentions on trying to drag this out as meaningful, I would like to see it. Go ahead, your points no longer have a leg to stand on at this point.