Netflix comms boss sacked for using very bad word

Amnesia

Amnesia

Amnesia

Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2007
Posts
9,621
Location
Buckingham Palace
Dis86 said:
Really? The fact that it has to be referred to as "the n-word" is utterly pathetic. We live in the real world not Harry potter's universe. It's like he who must not be named ffs.

Saying that we've got 2 out of the 4 triggered horsemen in here, just need explicit and Vincent next!
Click to expand...


you say its pathetic yet you do the same ha ha
 

Angilion

Angilion

Angilion

Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
stockhausen said:
Everyone who hasn't crawled out from under a rock should know by now that the acceptable word is "African American".
Click to expand...

Especially when they're neither African nor American and always with complete disregard for what they want.

But that's irrelevant anyway because the whole point of the context was a meeting about words used in comedy that might offend someone. Not when referring to a person. Context matters to rational people. In the context of a meeting about specific words, using those words is appropriate.

An example:

1) "Mr Flibble is a phrase that might offend some people, so it could cause bad PR if it's used in any program we air and we need to consider that"

2) "You Mr Flibble!"

Not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

I reject the whole idea of magic words. There are no magic words which are immune to context and always cause harm. They're not a real thing. If I say "hadouken", people nearby will not be killed by a ball of lightning or whatever it is.

I reject the whole idea of the meaning of a word depending solely on some minor aspect of the biology of the person saying it. I reject it because it's a lie created for the purpose of promoting irrational prejudice and discrimination. As can be clearly seen in this case of blatant racism. He was sacked because he's "white". As simple and as overtly racist as that.

I also reject the idea of treating people as being on an intellectual par with dogs, which is what is behind pretending to conceal a word or phrase while using it. "N-word" is the same thing as saying "walk" as seperate letters so a dog won't understand that you're using the word "walk".

No, that's not fair. It makes sense when talking within earshot of a dog because a dog probably really won't understand what you mean. It makes no sense when talking within earshot of a human who isn't so mentally handicapped that they could be fooled by doing that.
 

sigma

sigma

sigma

Soldato
Joined
13 Nov 2006
Posts
23,977
Angilion said:
Especially when they're neither African nor American and always with complete disregard for what they want.

But that's irrelevant anyway because the whole point of the context was a meeting about words used in comedy that might offend someone. Not when referring to a person. Context matters to rational people. In the context of a meeting about specific words, using those words is appropriate.

An example:

1) "Mr Flibble is a phrase that might offend some people, so it could cause bad PR if it's used in any program we air and we need to consider that"

2) "You Mr Flibble!"

Not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

I reject the whole idea of magic words. There are no magic words which are immune to context and always cause harm. They're not a real thing. If I say "hadouken", people nearby will not be killed by a ball of lightning or whatever it is.

I reject the whole idea of the meaning of a word depending solely on some minor aspect of the biology of the person saying it. I reject it because it's a lie created for the purpose of promoting irrational prejudice and discrimination. As can be clearly seen in this case of blatant racism. He was sacked because he's "white". As simple and as overtly racist as that.

I also reject the idea of treating people as being on an intellectual par with dogs, which is what is behind pretending to conceal a word or phrase while using it. "N-word" is the same thing as saying "walk" as seperate letters so a dog won't understand that you're using the word "walk".

No, that's not fair. It makes sense when talking within earshot of a dog because a dog probably really won't understand what you mean. It makes no sense when talking within earshot of a human who isn't so mentally handicapped that they could be fooled by doing that.
Click to expand...

Unless you were there how do you know exactly what was said and in what manner?
 

sigma

sigma

sigma

Soldato
Joined
13 Nov 2006
Posts
23,977
Here's quote I just found:

The first incident was several months ago in a PR meeting about sensitive words. Several people afterwards told him how inappropriate and hurtful his use of the N-word was, and Jonathan apologised to those that had been in the meeting. We hoped this was an awful anomaly never to be repeated.

I highly doubt he was simply reading it off a list. Surely anyone who applied a bit of reason to this whole affair can see that there must have been something reasonably significant which took place?

Anyway, I'm out. Remember to think more about what you're reading, folks... rather than just taking it at face value.
 

Angilion

Angilion

Angilion

Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
sigma said:
Here's quote I just found:

The first incident was several months ago in a PR meeting about sensitive words. Several people afterwards told him how inappropriate and hurtful his use of the N-word was, and Jonathan apologised to those that had been in the meeting. We hoped this was an awful anomaly never to be repeated.

I highly doubt he was simply reading it off a list. Surely anyone who applied a bit of reason to this whole affair can see that there must have been something reasonably significant which took place?

Anyway, I'm out. Remember to think more about what you're reading, folks... rather than just taking it at face value.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that reason is always applied. That's an incorrect assumption.

The section you emphasised goes against your interpretation - the complaint was solely about the existence of the word, not the context.

sigma said:
Unless you were there how do you know exactly what was said and in what manner?
Click to expand...

Using the available evidence to draw a conclusion.

Also, much of my post was (a) general and (b) in response to things said in other posts in this thread.
 

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
sigma said:
Anyway, I'm out. Remember to think more about what you're reading, folks... rather than just taking it at face value.
Click to expand...

You didn't even answer the question about your statements about your workplace and their relevance to the thread. Bit rich to be telling others not to take things at face value when you seem to make some rather dubious posts without much thought early on in the thread - firstly you asked "Why couldn't he say black person?" then you mentioned, without any context, that directors at your work wouldn't use language like that... well they probably wouldn't in most work places but think about the context here.

As for your quote, you've not added anything there - the mere utterance of this word is sufficient for some to deem it "inappropriate and hurtful" regardless of context and that is a problem, especially if it costs people their jobs.
 

Lopéz

Lopéz

Lopéz

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
29,093
Location
Ottakring, Vienna.
Context is crucial here. Did he say "I don't see why we can't say **** on TV", or was it more like "The problem with the word **** is that ****s like yourself get so worked up when anyone else says it!"

The difference between the former and the latter is huge, and we'll probably never get to find out what the context was in this case.
 

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
OP
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
I think the most crucial part of the context has already been given - that it was used simply in a descriptive manner.
 

Gixer

Gixer

Gixer

Associate
Joined
28 May 2004
Posts
2,309
Location
Southampton
Angilion said:
Especially when they're neither African nor American and always with complete disregard for what they want.

But that's irrelevant anyway because the whole point of the context was a meeting about words used in comedy that might offend someone. Not when referring to a person. Context matters to rational people. In the context of a meeting about specific words, using those words is appropriate.

An example:

1) "Mr Flibble is a phrase that might offend some people, so it could cause bad PR if it's used in any program we air and we need to consider that"

2) "You Mr Flibble!"

Not the same thing. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

I reject the whole idea of magic words. There are no magic words which are immune to context and always cause harm. They're not a real thing. If I say "hadouken", people nearby will not be killed by a ball of lightning or whatever it is.

I reject the whole idea of the meaning of a word depending solely on some minor aspect of the biology of the person saying it. I reject it because it's a lie created for the purpose of promoting irrational prejudice and discrimination. As can be clearly seen in this case of blatant racism. He was sacked because he's "white". As simple and as overtly racist as that.

I also reject the idea of treating people as being on an intellectual par with dogs, which is what is behind pretending to conceal a word or phrase while using it. "N-word" is the same thing as saying "walk" as seperate letters so a dog won't understand that you're using the word "walk".

No, that's not fair. It makes sense when talking within earshot of a dog because a dog probably really won't understand what you mean. It makes no sense when talking within earshot of a human who isn't so mentally handicapped that they could be fooled by doing that.
Click to expand...

+1

It's a word that used in the right context should cause no offence or upset, to anyone with a brain that is. I find it strange how we're becoming de-sensitised to some words yet more sensitised to others. They're just words and it completely comes down to how the word is used. Morons will be morons though and they cannot comprehend this so on hearing certain words, regardless of context, their brain goes into complete meltdown and they run around hands in air screaming 'you can't say that' and then do their best to get you publicly persecuted on social media.

The world sucks.....

I wasn't in the meeting where said bad word was used and how it was used so I cannot pass comment on whether I think the dismissal of said employee is right or wrong.
 

edscdk

edscdk

edscdk

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2008
Posts
7,369
Nexflix need to ask 20 coloured employees if they find the comments offensive in the context given. If they do then sack him if not they should get a skinny white guy with air brushed Abs to scream "this is sparta" and boot the white ********** who complained in the privates as hard as he can. Then see if anyone finds snowflakeism offensive and maybe sack the **********
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom