Support NeoGAF

[Fades]

That is the first amendment, of course you meant.

But...the second-amendment people!

 

[Escape Goat]

That is the first amendment, of course you meant.

Yes, of course.

 

[Azerare]

With so many reports of people getting absolutely vile stuff said to them from people on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, is it fair game to expose these people?

Back in the day, people would hide behind anonymity to post racist and other bigoted stuff, but after Obama got elected and racism officially ended,

This is a joke I missed right? Just because he got elected didn't mean racism just dissipated into nothingness.

 

[AlteredBeast]

This is a joke I missed right? Just because he got elected didn't mean racism just dissipated into nothingness.

Obvious joke.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

There's a difference between true doxxing and outing someone to their employer. I see a lot of doxxing on Twitter and Tumblr--posting names, addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, emails. That is something that I'm categorically against. Perhaps Johnny said something questionable on the internet, but that does not make it okay for people to bring counter-harassment in the real world. Death threats, SWATing, threats to a person's family...none of that is okay. It's something that's typically used as a tool of oppression, such as GamerGaters posting targeted harassment campaigns against women and minorities in the industry...if it's seen as irreprehensible when they use it, it's not at all okay for the same tool to be used on someone else, moral righteousness be damned. There are also the mythical examples of twelve year olds being doxxed on Tumblr, which has its own implications, though people never seem to be able to pull out receipts for that.

Outing someone to their employer or parents for shitty social media posts...that's more of a grey area that depends hugely on what they post. I don't think that someone should be fired because of diet racism or because they think that Obama is an n-word, though you can feel free to call them out on their bullshit loudly and often. On the other hand, neo-Nazism, white supremacy, full-sugar racism, incitement or support of violence and domestic terrorism, actual legal activities...that should definitely be reported, both to employers and to the proper authorities if applicable. I'm strongly against internet witch hunts and mobs either way, though.

I think this is getting at the "relational" question I posed above.

Say I work at AAA Law Firm, with a fellow named Joe Blow. Joe Blow says something incredibly offensive. I engage him, he doesn't back down. Fine, I could certainly see myself screencapping what Joe say and making a mention of it to my boss. His actions out of work certainly can have ramifications on his employment.

But what about the cases where I don't their boss or family? Is it okay to do something like this (imagine a racist comment instead of one about infidelity for the purpose of this thread):

And throw someone's picture out there? Hearsay is a pretty dangerous route to go on to getting people fired. Maybe even forget the picture, and say it was just a post like Joe Blow made, so then I have to starting stalking the internet for this person's details, their employers, their family, etc. That seems pretty creepy and inviting abuse. What do you do if people start faking offensive commentary to get their coworkers fired?

I think the only way that this kind of action might even remotely slide is if 1) You actually know the person and 2) If you actually know who to report it to (e.g. have connections to a family member or employer) directly.

 

[Nepenthe]

I don't understand the argument that bringing bigoted behavior to an employer's light that results in disciplinary action is going to reinforce negative behavior and thus it doesn't need to be done. What is the difference between this and an employer themselves finding out and doing the same thing in terms of the net change of the affected person's behavior? If we're assuming the point of termination is to teach someone a lesson, and yet we've concluded that termination only strengthens a person's hate, then should employers just not ever fire bigots from their establishments?

 

[Audioboxer]

The second amendment protects most forms of speech, but this does not include threats or intimidation. We have laws for that sort of thing. But I won't shed any tears when the internet takes the law into their own hands.

The first amendment, and yes while it does it doesn't mean speech isn't without consequence. More you can say shit without being locked up. That doesn't mean private services need to tolerate you, you can be banned, and yes it does mean your work can fire you if you walk around calling employees and customers foul words/displaying bigotry/etc. Precisely because you sign/accept something important when you go to work, a contract.

However what isn't clear cut is someone saying that by targeting you and with motive trying to get you fired, that is simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. It's not the same as being a customer and complaining about an experience by an employee whilst they are working. It's going out of your way to try and seek retribution because that person has said things they are unfortunately protected to say on a social platform. It should be up to the social platform to decide whether it meets ToS, but even then said platform cannot go after you, all they can do is ban. The police only get contacted when there is incitement to violence/something illegal.

Hence why NeoGAF is not going to go after banned users either. It can actually get you in legal trouble. So think about that. If Twitter, FB and yes, even NeoGAF aren't trying to get people fired, maybe that is because it is not a simple social experiment to run wild with. There are consequences on the line for vigilante warriors as well. Again, hence why you see most people try to do it anonymously. Don't take it seriously at your own personal peril. I'll say it again, what the heart knows is trying to seek social justice is not always what the head should act upon. For YOUR own sake. You can and you may well get in trouble for harassment/victimisation if you play the sheriff and start going after people by trying to cause real life consequences (financial risk/job risk/personal attacks).

 

[Henkka]

I think it kind of depends on the degree of racism we're talking about... Did they post a picture of themselves wearing a MAGA hat? Don't do anything.

If they're posting some really vile shit and bullying people? That's different, and I'd be okay with contacting their family. Contacting someone's boss is risky business, and could have unforeseen consequences. Even racists have kids to feed. If you get them fired, you could negatively affect innocent people.

 

[commedieu]

Those people lose their jobs because they are public servants and like some recent examples have posted comments while in uniform (there was a female police officer fired recently, I remember that topic on GAF). That isn't exactly the same as hunting down minimum wage paid dumb ass non-public servants.

You still haven't answered my question if you want to, would you approve of GAF doing it? People say on GAF where they work, not to mention as I said above names, public profiles and more are posted on here as well. A NeoGAF mod has already said GAF wouldn't behave like that, and would actually ban GAFers doing it to other GAFers. So where do people sit with that being a moderator response from GAF?

It's messy and complex because it's messy and complex. People need to realize hurdles don't just exist because "you're a sympathiser to an asshole". That is making light of what is a serious topic to discuss, as it does involve varying degrees of targeting and going after individuals. Considering no one gets trained for this, nor are we exactly insured to dismantle the lives of others, who holds us accountable for playing the sniper? Who makes sure individuals don't go too far? Who do we report to to get feedback on how we are doing? Is this something you should only do once you are 18 and over?

You can replace police with Joe 6 pack, and it's the same outting when someone notifies their employer, that they have announced to the public that they work for. Which is why I said that the cited behavior is usually against company policy.

Op isn't about stating an official policy on outting people or some official stance on morality that all must abide by. Bish/gaf is free to do what he/it wants, if there was "rock solid" evidence of racism as op posted in his speculative.

It's not some amorphous concept. It's racists outting themselves due to their own words. The hurdles are added extraneously to a very concise op with a set of specific circumstances. You're adding the trigger language like "hunting down." To make it sound nefarious. You are adding hurdles to have some conversation that isn't happening in this thread then trying to debate that.

It's been stated that this specimen has made the information on where they work public. That isn't hunting down, that's just reading.

In context, racist people that out themselves as racist as well as their place of work deserve to get fired. Racism isn't having a controversial opinion. It's being racist.

 

[Audioboxer]

You can replace police with Joe 6 pack, and it's the same outting when someone notifies their employer, that they have announced to the public that they work for, which is why I said that the cited behavior is usually against company policy.

Op isn't about stating an official policy on outting people or some official stance on morality that all must abide by. Bish/gaf is free to do what he/it wants, if there was "rock solid" evidence of racism as op posted in his speculative.

It's not some amorphous concept. It's racists outting themselves due to their own words. The hurdles are added extraneously to a very concise op with a set of specific circumstances. You're adding the trigger language like "hunting down." To make it sound nefarious. You are adding hurdles to have some conversation that isn't happening in this thread then trying to debate that.

It's been stated that this specimen has made the information on where they work public. That isn't hunting down, that's just reading.

In context, racist people that out themselves as racist as well as their place of work deserve to get fired. Racism isn't having a controversial opinion. It's being racist.

But he kind of isn't as NeoGAF could well be held legally accountable for the actions of "staff" if it involves a user on the site being targeted due to their actions on GAF. Or at the very least Bish held accountable personally. Let me be clear though the remark to mention Bish was more tongue in cheek because he is known to be the unfortunate party to usually have to cleanup horrific posts/users (a lot of GGer/bigotry/sexism and more that makes its way onto GAF). No one on GAF has given any indication they support such justice being carried out by the site, and as I said Cyan has already said you will be banned on here if you openly target another GAFer in such a way ~ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=221203872&postcount=54

You can keep calling things hurdles to be dismissive if you want, but we have to deal with real life here and not just heartfelt wishes to deliver social justice at any cost. You most definitely can get yourself in trouble for going after someone if motive is proven that you set out to cause financial loss/personal loss due to a "grudge". Hence why people do it anonymously.

The first amendment would back them up in court if your evidence was them posting racist memes as to why you targeted them to get them out of their job. You most certainly would be grilled as to why you were contacting a place of work you didn't even go into and weren't even served by the person you targeted. That is just reality as fucked up as people may think it is that someone who is an asshole can come out "on top". I mean at this point if they've lost their job they're not really coming on top, it's more you if something is traced back to you that is being dragged down with them. Hence why people need to be warned to be careful and not just "yeah go fucking wild online!".

 

[commedieu]

But he kind of isn't as NeoGAF could well be held legally accountable for the actions of "staff". Or at the very least Bish held accountable personally. Let me be clear though the remark to mention Bish was more tongue in cheek because he is known to be the unfortunate party to usually have to cleanup horrific posts/users (a lot of GGer/bigotry/sexism and more that makes its way onto GAF). No one on GAF has given any indication they support such justice and as I said Cyan has already said you will be banned on here if you openly target another GAFer in such a way ~ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=221203872&postcount=54

You can keep calling things hurdles to be dismissive if you want, but we have to deal with real life here and not just heartfelt wishes to deliver social justice at any cost.

And now I'm calling for social justice at any cost. Let's be clear, you're adding that to my words. Im speaking to tbe context of the op, that isn't being dismissive of your tacked on speculatives for this racist person who is being hunted down.

As far as gaf policy, I don't know it and I assume they'd be free to do what they wanted as owners/moderators of a discussion forum. Online racism and bullying makes its way real life. Online is signficant to real life as weve seen as recently as our presidential election covering twitter statements. A guy was fired at twitter for his commentary on homeless people from 2013. That's the real world.

As far as the context of what op said, I don't see any problem with someone bring fired if their employer caught wind of their racist statements and acted on it.

 

[Tall4Life]

Doxxing and similar forms of harassment are NEVER okay, even if you think you are one of the "good guys". I don't see much difference between that and GGers doxxing and harassing women because they think they are "fighting the good fight". Obviously, I'm vehemently against GG and I'm in support of combating racism, but take a step back.

 

[Audioboxer]

And now I'm calling for social justice at any cost. Let's be clear, you're adding that to my words. Im speaking to tbe context of the op, that isn't being dismissive of your tacked on speculatives for this racist person who is being hunted down.

As far as gaf policy, I don't know it and I assume they'd be free to do what they wanted as owners/moderators of a discussion forum. Online racism and bullying makes its way real life. Online is signficant to real life as weve seen as recently as our presidential election covering twitter statements.

As far as the context of what op said, I don't see any problem with someone bring fired if their employer caught wind of their racist statements and acted on it.

I'm not saying you are, but others seem to be verging on that. This is just part of the problem with these hypotheticals. As I said previously everyone has different lines in the sand. My points are no matter where YOU draw lines, there are legal lines which can bite you in the ass regardless of you appealing that you're not as quick to act as that other person you know about who does emails workplaces no matter the cost. You only do it when it's in "context a". They do it no matter the context. That just doesn't hold up if you find yourself in hot water.

People just need to be careful and I think it is incredibly unwise to shoot down words of wisdom like I'm trying to put forward because yes, we do all want to put our hearts first to bring down the assholes of the world. Like it or not we need to be careful not to get dragged down with them. I mean I guess these words of wisdom can get shot down if you say just do it all anonymously then? I guess so, but that is where you need to come to terms with is it okay morally to do something you know you could get in trouble just because you can do it with anonymity?

As for GAF my point was more I would think that the site and EviLore especially knows they could get themselves in legal trouble for behaving in such ways. Which is why they potentially really aren't free to do what they want. That then leads us back to people doing things anonymously because they KNOW there can be ramifications for them. I almost feel sorry to keep using GAF, as it's been made crystal clear what GAF believes/will enforce, but I'm just trying to take a situation all us posters are in, that we post on a private site, GAF, and "shock" some of you into thinking would you now be okay if GAF did this? I'm sure GAF would report posts/content to the police if it warranted it, but no, the site is not going to email jobs. No matter what disgusting GGer fucks end up worming their way on here. They will be banned, and IPs/emails logged for dupe accounts. That will be it.

Anyway, this is all just opinion, and then some advice. Individuals can behave however they see fit, just be prepared for potential situations to arise if you aren't careful.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I give absolutely 0 sympathy to a racist so couldn't honestly care less when they're exposed, or what consequences they face after being exposed. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm lazy and would rather have a fap with that time, but I ain't going to act all offended when someone reveals a bigot.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Snitching on people should not be done lightly, and what is and isn't deserving of outing is one hell of a grey area.

Mob justice, on the other hand, is not okay. Period.

I would like to see online bullying criminalized in some way, but that's another huge grey area.

 

[Big Baybee]

Expose them. Let their jobs know what kind of employee they've hired if you can.

 

[Lowmelody]

Any racist or misogynist who has any degree of power over other people, whether it be a teacher or politician absolutely should be exposed in every public way possible. They should not get to fuck over the minorities under them simply because it makes waves to remove them. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt to say "he may hate black people or think they are lesser than white people, but he might not treat his black workers differently". They do, every chance they think they can get away with it and one minor instance is too much to tolerate.

There is no position of power where a racist or misogynist could add more than they take that an otherwise decent person could accomplish better for everyone involved.

To hold the lively hood of his family as a shield to accountability is abhorrent as it has the direct effect of excusing and perpetuating further abuse to minorities, the blame goes on the worthless fuck that undermines the well being of others. He alone is responsible for the consequences of abusing others.

 

[Mully]

Let them be.

Exposing and humiliating racists or anyone with ignorant views does nothing but ostracize them to the fringes of society.

I think it's better to engage with and gradually educate them then publicly shame people with ignorant views.

 

[Audioboxer]

Snitching on people should not be done lightly, and what is and isn't deserving of outing is one hell of a grey area.

Mob justice, on the other hand, is not okay. Period.

I would like to see online bullying criminalized in some way, but that's another huge grey area.

Your 1st amendment makes that tricky. I mean here in the UK we have hate speech laws. As someone in favour of freedom of speech it can be a slippery slope at times. However I feel far more comfortable with there being a layer of contact for worrying social media posts (we can forward content to the police in the UK), than individuals playing police and targeting jobs.

It's not as if the police then contact someones place of work the second they are reported. They will assess the content reported and act accordingly (at the very least most likely getting in touch with the person face to face). It's not as if freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK, we just have an official way to report troublesome content. I will say however it doesn't really mean police over here give a shit about racist memes and general shitposting, that will still be on FB to ban/cleanup. It's more about content that gives concern that posters are targeting minorities and/or planning to. So not just violence, but targeting to abuse verbally as well. I mean try going to a football match and being a racist and getting caught, you will get arrested.

As long as things are how they are in America though that is why I'm pointing out good intentions won't fly for shit if you get yourself in trouble legally for targeting someone with motive (such as job loss/financial loss). Especially if they haven't directly targeted you (yes I know them being racist makes you feel targeted, but I'm talking hard evidence that legally shows them directly target you). If the two of you aren't even friends and don't even know each other, you can honestly potentially get yourself into some serious bother depending on how you conducted yourself.

 

[The One and Done™]

Expose them.

 

[Schattenjäger]

If someone is engaged in criminal behavior, like bullying someone to the point of suicide, that should probably be reported to the police. If someone is engaged in behavior on the internet that reveals them to be some kind of bigot, like yelling about Obama being a monkey or something, sure, call them out and tell them they're being a jerk, but going all internet detective and trying to get them fired or expelled or their family mad at them is pretty weird and creepy.

I think it's dangerous to go down the road of trying to enforce behavioral norms by doing our best to wreck people's lives. If you want to do it, well, try to justify it all you want, you're still doing your best to wreck someone's life. Up to you if your conscience is ok with that. (Though just as a reminder, if you try to do this here you will be banned.)

Best mod stays best mod

 

[Fried Food]

I see nothing wrong with forwarding a public facebook post that is blatantly racist, to the racists' work HR department.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Your 1st amendment makes that tricky. I mean here in the UK we have hate speech laws. As someone in favour of freedom of speech it can be a slippery slope at times. However I feel far more comfortable with their being a layer of contact for worrying social media posts (we can forward content to the police in the UK), than individuals playing police.

It's not as if the police then contact someones place of work the second they are reported. They will assess the content reported and act accordingly. It's not as if freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK, we just have an official way to report troublesome content. I will say however it doesn't really mean police over here give a shit about racist memes, that will still be on FB to ban/cleanup. It's more about content that gives concern that posters are targeting minorities and/or planning to. So not just violence, but targeting to abuse verbally as well.

When I say "online bullying", I mean the kind of extended harassment and mob justice that has driven people to suicide. And with "criminalized" I had monetary fines or public service in mind.

I mean, we already have laws against harassment. I don't see why this should be different online.

Of course, that puts the power back in the racist justice system's hands, among many other problems.

 

[pigeon]

Those people lose their jobs because they are public servants and like some recent examples have posted comments while in uniform (there was a female police officer fired recently, I remember that topic on GAF). That isn't exactly the same as hunting down minimum wage paid dumb ass non-public servants.

You still haven't answered my question if you want to, would you approve of GAF doing it? People say on GAF where they work, not to mention as I said above names, public profiles and more are posted on here as well. A NeoGAF mod has already said GAF wouldn't behave like that, and would actually ban GAFers doing it to other GAFers. So where do people sit with that being a moderator response from GAF?

You keep posting this like it's some kind of killer argument. I don't really see the point. Sure, if people got banned from GAF for being racists I would be fine with GAF emailing their employers. Why would I not be?

 

[Audioboxer]

When I say "online bullying", I mean the kind of extended harassment and mob justice that has driven people to suicide. And with "criminalized" I had monetary fines or public service in mind.

I mean, we already have laws against harassment. I don't see why this should be different online.

Of course, that puts the power back in the racist justice system's hands, among many other problems.

I completely agree with you, this just opens up the debate to why things are complex and require suitable planning and level-headed approaches.

The 1st amendment and bother for you more so comes into play if you're gunning for people for racist memes and being a Trump supporter. If it's proven they are trying to condone violence/harm towards someone, either themselves or via supporting someone else, they will get hammered by the law. Or should. However if they are being a general asshole/posting racist remarks without actually targeting specific individuals or condoning/inciting violence then it isn't as clear cut.

From reading all the posts in this topic though its clear some people would go after others for the above (memes/open trump supporter/saying the n word). Which is when yes, if you don't do it anonymously and/or it gets traced to you, you might well find yourself in bother because the 1st amendment does protect quite a bit. Both fortunately, and unfortunately.

You keep posting this like it's some kind of killer argument. I don't really see the point. Sure, if people got banned from GAF for being racists I would be fine with GAF emailing their employers. Why would I not be?

Because as an argument is has more to do with legality than feelings/being a killer argument. If you have to do something anonymously not to potentially get in trouble yourself then at best its morally dubious. If you are doing it openly and with your credentials attached it can be a legal matter. Why do you think GAF DOESN'T do it? That is an important part of said argument. Unless GAF done it anonymously, which obviously it isn't going to do, the site may very well get into a legal broil for targeting a banned user and causing financial/job loss.

A moderator could elaborate more if they want to, but I think we have a rather clear post here from Cyan - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=221203872#post221203872

 

[joebruin]

I wouldn't report someone myself but you would only have yourself to blame for spewing garbage and you got fired or disciplined for it.

 

[7DollarHagane]

I dont see the "expose them in public" as simply having racist opinions and thoughts is not illegal.

If you have evidence that they took action against minorities or used their influence to harm others based on race then by all means, use the law, use whatever means you have to expose it.

But someone who treats everyone fairly and retweets or likes some racist crap on social media deserves an eye roll and a talking to, not public shaming or penalizing.

 

[User Name Here]

If it's a public post, then you're sharing public information. I personally wouldn't go out of my way though.

But then again, not brining information like that to light is probably how we end up with shitty people in powerful positions that end up doing irreversable harm.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Letting a business know they've hired a racist is akin to the political suppression of McCarthyism?

I think that there are vile and evil people who truly mean harm to others based on race, and then there are others who just might lack understanding and informing them and having a discussion might change attitudes.

Because in the end the goal in dealing with racism is not shame or financial harm but understanding and acceptance. If someone's attitudes or opinions can be changed thats most important I think?

 

[Figboy79]

I'm not for physically attacking or harming racists, but I am 100% for outing them to their family and employers. Racism has absolutely no place in the world. The effects of racism are real, and hurt real people.

This is the way I look at it: A racist person is the manager or person in a position of power. A minority comes in looking for work, or maybe wants a raise, or a promotion, and is working his/her hardest to get that, but if their boss/manager is a racist, there is a 100% chance he/she will be looked over for advancement. Personally, I've seen that happen to co-workers, myself included. Being passed up for promotions, or even getting the job, because the hiring person is bigoted or racist.

Sure, not every racist is going to be in positions of power, but many are, and that will have an affect on the lives of the minorities that have to work under them. A racist co-worker will make work tense, hostile, and uncomfortable, and usually, when a complaint is filed, it is the complainer that gets disciplined and let go, not the person that drove the employee to file a complaint in the first place. Again, I've seen this happen first hand, and have read enough accounts where this happens.

Racism is wrong. Period. Racists should be confronted and exposed, and racist beliefs shouldn't be allowed to continue to propagate and define this country. I admit I may be a little biased, but it's because, as a minority, I suffer the consequences of racism in all of its forms. From outright, blatant racism, to casual and culturally "accepted" racism and stereotyping. I want racism to die. Preferably a quick, yet painful death. That won't happen if "good people" keep their mouths shut when they encounter racism. I used to keep quiet, because I didn't want to "rock the boat." I figured, "Hey, everyone knows racism is wrong, and eventually they'll get it and stop being douche canoes." 37 years later, not a single fucking thing has changed. I am quiet no more. If it costs me my job, so be it. If it costs me friendships, so be it. I'm not keeping my mouth shut any longer. I encourage people that claim they are against racism to do the same.

 

[pigeon]

Because as an argument is has more to do with legality than feelings/being a killer argument. If you have to do something anonymously not to potentially get in trouble yourself then at best its morally dubious. If you are doing it openly and with your credentials attached it can be a legal matter. Why do you think GAF DOESN'T do it? That is an important part of said argument. Unless GAF done it anonymously, which obviously it isn't going to do, the site may very well get into a legal broil for targeting a banned user and causing financial/job loss.

A moderator could elaborate more if they want to, but I think we have a rather clear post here from Cyan - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=221203872#post221203872

I think this is debatable -- Cyan is talking about GAF's current policy, not their only plausible policy -- but even if we assume it, it's irrelevant. You didn't ask whether it would be legally safe for GAF to expose racists, you asked whether I'd be fine with it. Sure, I'd be fine with it. I don't pay GAF's legal bills!

 

[commedieu]

I'm not saying you are, but others seem to be verging on that. This is just part of the problem with these hypotheticals. As I said previously everyone has different lines in the sand. My points are no matter where YOU draw lines, there are legal lines which can bite you in the ass regardless of you appealing that you're not as quick to act as that other person you know about who does emails workplaces no matter the cost. You only do it when it's in "context a". They do it no matter the context. That just doesn't hold up if you find yourself in hot water.

People just need to be careful and I think it is incredibly unwise to shoot down words of wisdom like I'm trying to put forward because yes, we do all want to put our hearts first to bring down the assholes of the world. Like it or not we need to be careful not to get dragged down with them. I mean I guess these words of wisdom can get shot down if you say just do it all anonymously then? I guess so, but that is where you need to come to terms with is it okay morally to do something you know you could get in trouble just because you can do it with anonymity?

As for GAF my point was more I would think that the site and EviLore especially knows they could get themselves in legal trouble for behaving in such ways. Which is why they potentially really aren't free to do what they want. That then leads us back to people doing things anonymously because they KNOW there can be ramifications for them. I almost feel sorry to keep using GAF, as it's been made crystal clear what GAF believes/will enforce, but I'm just trying to take a situation all us posters are in, that we post on a private site, GAF, and "shock" some of you into thinking would you now be okay if GAF did this? I'm sure GAF would report posts/content to the police if it warranted it, but no, the site is not going to email jobs. No matter what disgusting GGer fucks end up worming their way on here. They will be banned, and IPs/emails logged for dupe accounts. That will be it.

Anyway, this is all just opinion, and then some advice. Individuals can behave however they see fit, just be prepared for potential situations to arise if you aren't careful.

Your wisdom is common sense though. Any employer would think about a possible wrongful termination lawsuit when firing someone.

Often in society can you report things anonymously, it's all on public record once it goes to a trial. Trying to fear monger people into thinking twice about snitching on someone for their racist posts and their revelation about their employment is a bit off. It's valid for witch hunts though, which no one is promoting as far as I can tell. People are fired in the real world for this. Like again, the gentleman from Twitter who had a hateful post about homeless people. He was fired for a blog.

One should always exercise caution to not witch hunt, but in some situations, "rock solid" situations, like op mentioned. Its not really vague or deserving of some deep conversation about moral responsibility. it's hitting print screen and forward.

I agree, people shouldn't act like morons, people also shouldn't do illegal things. Who is disagreeing with this?

Gaf can do what GAF wants. And twitter can fire people over their blogs about homeless people.

Folks all act differently.

 

[Azzanadra]

That sounds incredibly fucked up, not to mention dangerous. Why would you even consider this? What's next? Doxxing racist assholes in the hope someone will show up on their front foor one day with a .45? The onus is on employers do their ow background checks, mind your own business.

 

[krazen]

While I understand freedom of speech rights; its difficult if they are in a position of power.

Like that infamous Neogaf confession post where the teacher intentionally ruined a students life because they were raised as a White Supremacist. Even if you aren't in a position of power, who's to say someone who's on a lower end of the totem pole isn't unfairly doing things behind the scenes to mess with customers or workers they don't like.

While I believe in freedom of speech, unfortunately racism doesn't stay as speech most of the time, either consciously or subconsciously (Hey Bob, what do you think of the guy we brought in to interview? "Ahh, something about him bothers me, I don't think he would be a good fit")

 

[pigeon]

It's very frustrating to juxtapose threads like this with the knowledge that black college graduates have job offer rates on par with white felons.

People of color are getting fired or prevented from getting jobs in the first place every day by racists. I see a lot of people in this thread super worried about making sure those racists won't themselves get fired because it might mess up their lives.

 

[NCR Redslayer]

That sounds incredibly fucked up, not to mention dangerous. Why would you even consider this? What's next? Doxxing racist assholes in the hope someone will show up on their front foor one day with a .45? The onus is on employers do their ow background checks, mind your own business.

From reading this thread, I just want to find out what the best way to deal with racism. I know it's somewhere between tolerating it(not doing anything to change racist opinions) to riots and full on anarchy (hang the bigots and their family). Yet what would be the most effective tool because even just calling out a racist could get you killed in real life and frankly I am only human. On the internet no one knows you're poor and you can shape what people view you but not what they think of you. I actually don't know if people are synpathetic more in real life or on the internet. I frankly don't want to know the answer in fear of my cynicism getting the better of me.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think this is debatable -- Cyan is talking about GAF's current policy, not their only plausible policy -- but even if we assume it, it's irrelevant. You didn't ask whether it would be legally safe for GAF to expose racists, you asked whether I'd be fine with it. Sure, I'd be fine with it. I don't pay GAF's legal bills!

Well okay, but I'm sure you want GAF to carry on

As I said I fully believe they would report illegal/potentially harmful posts to the authorities, but not go to jobs over assholes who get banned.

It's not irrelevant either because it's important to note why the actual services that may ban users, such as GAF, FB and Twitter do not behave like those individuals seeking vigilante justice. Part of that is most certainly around legal issues. Not just moral.

Your wisdom is common sense though. Any employer would think about a possible wrongful termination lawsuit when firing someone.

Often in society can you report things anonymously, it's all on public record once it goes to a trial. Trying to fear monger people into thinking twice about snitching on someone for their racist posts and their revelation about their employment is a bit off. It's valid for witch hunts though, which no one is promoting as far as I can tell. People are fired in the real world for this. Like again, the gentleman from Twitter who had a hateful post about homeless people. He was fired for a blog.

One should always exercise caution to not witch hunt, but in some situations, "rock solid" situations, like op mentioned. Its not really vague or deserving of some deep conversation about moral responsibility. it's hitting print screen and forward.

I agree, people shouldn't act like morons, people also shouldn't do illegal things. Who is disagreeing with this?

Gaf can do what GAF wants. And twitter can fire people over their blogs about homeless people.

Folks all act differently.

Honestly it's not aimed as fear-mongering. People can do whatever they want. It's just hard at times not to want to offer some balance to a debate as it can be worrying seeing posters seemingly not even consider their own well-being in the chance to go after someone else.

A lot of people get fired as part of public services/being employed by social media companies because they are constantly in the public eye and their employer sees everything they do and say anyway, well before anything is ever reported on mass. If you use a social media service whilst working for them you are in effect working even when you are using, if that makes sense. Same goes for wearing a police uniform and making an instagram post saying the "n" word. It's fortunate justice being served by employees effectively hanging themselves in-front of their employer whilst they are working or when using the service that employed them.

Like it or not witch hunts can and will ensue because people have different thresholds for feeling that content is worthy of someone suffering retribution. As I've said before in here who trains people, who gives feedback about what is rock-solid situations and so on? When you give the reigns to everyone and anyone to police you get wildly different lines drawn in the sand. That is essentially what can become an issue and why like it or not people need to be careful about what they do online when targeting others and aiming for job loss/financial loss/personal loss.

This is not to be confused with outing publicly via debate, or reporting content you see posted publicly. I'm strictly talking seeking retribution via means such as those that involve some sort of personal loss. I think they deserve it as well, but again people need to be careful how they go about serving justice. This is thought for YOU, not for the assholes sake. The second they went public with their shit, whether racism, bigotry or whatever, they effectively "hung themselves". I have zero sympathy for them.

 

[Tonedeff]

This shit is simple man. If you think you need to inform an employer over some racist shit, do so. Don't then go to the mob with that info, unless you have to. Really simple.

 

[bishoptl]

No. For one I don't like witch hunts. Reddit did one and learned the hard. Two let's say you made the person lose their job. Now they hate even more and might lash out in more violent ways. They might also have a family to feed as well.

Then they should probably keep their mouths shut.

 

[User Name Here]

It's very frustrating to juxtapose threads like this with the knowledge that black college graduates have job offer rates on par with white felons.

People of color are getting fired or prevented from getting jobs in the first place every day by racists. I see a lot of people in this thread super worried about making sure those racists won't themselves get fired because it might mess up their lives.

Right. And those people keep their jobs and cause harm because we're all to afraid (aside from people who don't give a crap) to out them due to potential repercussions.

 

[Cyframe]

It's very frustrating to juxtapose threads like this with the knowledge that black college graduates have job offer rates on par with white felons.

People of color are getting fired or prevented from getting jobs in the first place every day by racists. I see a lot of people in this thread super worried about making sure those racists won't themselves get fired because it might mess up their lives.

That's the thing. A few posts suggest that racists shouldn't lose their jobs and cash flow for saying racist things. We're just to believe that employers will have an omnipresence and just know who isn't right for the job, but that doesn't happen. It's an ideal, not reality.

When I look at the racial abuse that I've dealt with and others deal with still, I don't have empathy for racists who lose their job or students who get expelled for actions.

Recently a student who went to Belmont University in TN was expelled for his comments on snapchat. I won't repeat them here, but absolutely he should have been expelled.

I can see that certain individuals have good intentions, but reading through this thread is reminiscent of white complacency. More people need to be held accountable for their racism, and actions can be taken. I just don't want to hear 'sorry' when someone details racial abuse and how that has impacted them. White people (everyone really) should be ensuring that workplaces and colleges shouldn't be able to become dens of harassment.

 

[subrock]

It's not like you need to drag racists out in the daylight and shame them, but speaking up and correcting them when you see or hear the racism is important. A lot of racism comes from a place of fear and training, so untraining and unfearing is going to be more effective than belittling and shaming someone.


Edit: I should add that if someone continues to be openly and publicly racist after bringing it to their attention then shaming is fair game

 

[NCR Redslayer]

Right. And those people keep their jobs and cause harm because we're all to afraid (aside from people who don't give a crap) to out them due to potential repercussions.

That sound like my boss when he hired someone who could properly speak english and then fired me right after. I'm glad he found someone who could work weekends shift understaffed for minimum pay and not get angry at customers when they say for you to speak up for yourself.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I think social shaming is one of the few things that can motivate people to change or take a look at themselves.

That isn't an unconditional endorsement, though, because if the shaming is disproportionate I think it can become overwhelming and cease to have a constructive effect. A lot of people are looking for an excuse to feel better about themselves, and will be unnecessarily vicious to create a sense of separation between themselves and the person that they hate for acting in a shameful way. And at that point it's like they're just looking for a socially sanctioned punching bag.

So I think it has to be a balance of those things, we can call people out but we also have to make sure we somewhat care about them or the constructive aim we're claiming to have in calling them out, too.

 

[Audioboxer]

It's not like you need to drag racists out in the daylight and shame them, but speaking up and correcting them when you see or hear the racism is important. A lot of racism comes from a place of fear and training, so untraining and unfearing is going to be more effective than belittling and shaming someone.


Edit: I should add that if someone continues to be openly and publicly racist after bringing it to their attention then shaming is fair game

Actually people should do that, confronting via shame is a powerful tool. There is times, actually nearly all the time, where someone does not deserve any sort of respect or time to be "kindly corrected". Feigning "ignorance" is largely something from 1900. In today's world with the internet and all the education we do get the majority of people choosing to be racist do so by their own choice and resistance to education/correction in the first place. They should be shamed for such destructive views. There are ways to do that though that don't potentially get you into bother. That's all I've really argued in here as the first poster wanted a hypothetical debate about when to go emailing employees. I stand by confronting/shaming/reporting and a whole host of other actions can be far more reasonable for you to go for first, not to mention you aren't going to get into any legal issues over. Although I do advise personal care online if you are going after anyone who can see who you are, your name and where you live. For your own safety. You never know what tackling a racist on FB may lead to if it's done via your FB profile. Don't risk your/your families safety. In situations of that sort of concern report to FB, or even the police.

 

[Straight Edge]

Shit like this is why some young bucks in my office got shit-canned for saying "nigga" because an older black lady didn't care who said it and went to HR. Shit is gonna get misconstrued trying to enforce shit with strangers.

 

[User Name Here]

That sound like my boss when he hired someone who could properly speak english and then fired me right after. I'm glad he found someone who could work weekends shift understaffed for minimum pay and not get angry at customers when they say for you to speak up for yourself.

That's messed up. Did you at least find work soon after?

 

[commedieu]

Well okay, but I'm sure you want GAF to carry on

As I said I fully believe they would report illegal/potentially harmful posts to the authorities, but not go to jobs over assholes who get banned.

It's not irrelevant either because it's important to note why the actual services that may ban users, such as GAF, FB and Twitter do not behave like those individuals seeking vigilante justice. Part of that is most certainly around legal issues. Not just moral.



Honestly it's not aimed as fear-mongering. People can do whatever they want. It's just hard at times not to want to offer some balance to a debate as it can be worrying seeing posters seemingly not even consider their own well-being in the chance to go after someone else.

A lot of people get fired as part of public services/being employed by social media companies because they are constantly in the public eye and their employer sees everything they do and say anyway, well before anything is ever reported on mass. If you use a social media service whilst working for them you are in effect working even when you are using, if that makes sense. Same goes for wearing a police uniform and making an instagram post saying the "n" word. It's fortunate justice being served by employees effectively hanging themselves in-front of their employer whilst they are working or when using the service that employed them.

Like it or not witch hunts can and will ensue because people have different thresholds for feeling that content is worthy of someone suffering retribution. As I've said before in here who trains people, who gives feedback about what is rock-solid situations and so on? When you give the reigns to everyone and anyone to police you get wildly different lines drawn in the sand. That is essentially what can become an issue and why like it or not people need to be careful about what they do online when targeting others and aiming for job loss/financial loss/personal loss.

This is not to be confused with outing publicly via debate, or reporting content you see posted publicly. I'm strictly talking seeking retribution via means such as those that involve some sort of personal loss.

He was the head of their vr department, didn't tweet it, and the comments weren't via twitter, they were from 2013, and published on a website. Bringing up twitter is an example of differing opinions as opposed to gaf.

Do we really have to find a plumber thay was fired for being anti semetic online for you to understand the point tha is being made? In the real world, you're fired for words online. Regardless of if your company is a media one or a public service like police or anything governmental.

There is no need to be fair and balanced for blatant racism that would be factual words that a person said. There is no need for racism police, racism has a definition and a myriad of examples. People are free to act, and do whatever they want. There isn't any confusion of having evidence of racism. It's either the definition of racism, or its not racism.

You keep wanting to have these emotional objections to our reality with subterfuge like suggesting people beware of reporting on others with factual material from the source themselves. I don't need to do this, as I can flatly say that racism isn't acceptable in public in any way from people who are linked to their jobs on their profiles online. You seem to want to add some wiggle room to this, but I'm not buying it.

It's clear that people are different. Ive known that sense I was a child. Racism is defined very well. Worrying about speculative witch hunts, from morons, isn't the concern here. I already said I don't condone morons behavior, but they're fucking morons. It's not illegal to be one, yet. So I don't see why you feel there is a need to keep discussing the outliers rather than the reality of words getting people fired. It happens and it should. You don't have to be a racist online. There are options. You can wear robes and have private get togethers. Many do this and it's fine.

 

[iamverificationimage]

I don't agree with public lynchings even for racist dickheads, this book by Jon Ronson made me change my mind on internet vigilantism back when I was in my early twenties I would of agreed with it, but now that I'm older I realize that public shaming on the Internet would be life destroying what's stopping someone who has lost everything after being publicly shamed from harming themselves. I wouldn't want to be the cause of someone taking their own life.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0196HJ6OS/



https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronso...ne_shaming_spirals_out_of_control?language=en

 

[Relceroi]

As a rule, when aiming for a change, don’t vandalize individuals and their lives. If they are doing something illegal, report them to the authorities. Otherwise you are only causing harm in what is likely to be a misguided attempt to feel good about yourself. If you see it as necessary or worthwhile, try to engage them in a discussion, but focus on the people in your social circles instead of those who are unknown to you.