Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the specific double standard in this case?
The "specific double standard" (which the article does not state) is that if Brandi Johnson's Boss were a white man ....... he would have been fired on the spot after hearing the tape recording.
There is a zero tolerance for this is the workplace - many companies (and all large ones) have a diversity training every year. It's clear to all employees that you lose your job if anything like this happens ... if fact if something much less than a N----- tirade happens. She taped it because the company was ignoring her complaints about the abuse.
The defense of "it means love" and "we can do it, but you can't" is not going to fly ..... nor should it.
It looks like the damages of $250,000 is not nearly enough if you can doubt the seriousness of this.
if you really need this explained to you, i suggest you go actually read the story in the link.
oh hell, i guess i have time to coach you thru it
Quote:
The case against Rob Carmona and the employment agency he founded, STRIVE East Harlem, gave legal airing to what some see as a complex double standard surrounding the word: It's a degrading slur when uttered by whites but can be used at times with impunity among blacks.
"to what some see as a complex double standard surrounding the word"
Then the jury did not find a "double-standard in this case. The author of the article commented on what some would "see" as a double -standard.
You, are one of the "some". Others, are able to understand, that the ruling in this case, is not an indictment of the use of word "******" by any group. The use of the word "******" in this case, had it's specfic conotations because of the tone and manner in which it was used towards an employee by his employer; No matter the race of the person who used the word.
Try to formulate your own ideas in you own words...parroting makes for a weak arguement.
"to what some see as a complex double standard surrounding the word"
Then the jury did not find a "double-standard in this case. The author of the article commented on what some would "see" as a double -standard.
You, are one of the "some". Others, are able to understand, that the ruling in this case, is not an indictment of the use of word "******" by any group. The use of the word "******" in this case, had it's specfic conotations because of the tone and manner in which it was used towards an employee by his employer; No matter the race of the person who used the word.
Try to formulate your own ideas in you own words...parroting makes for a weak arguement.
lol!
they did indeed find that there was a double standard - had the 'n-word' user in this case been white, they'd have been out on their ass from the get-go.
they did indeed find that there was a double standard - had the 'n-word' user in this case been white, they'd have been out on their ass from the get-go.
he understands and knows he's beaten. don't let him try to dig out of it. Its obvious they found the double standard you know it I know it and so does he.
he understands and knows he's beaten. don't let him try to dig out of it. Its obvious they found the double standard you know it I know it and so does he.
liberals are destroying this country.
Not just the liberals.......the courts have been the only branch saving us.
The "specific double standard" (which the article does not state) is that if Brandi Johnson's Boss were a white man ....... he would have been fired on the spot after hearing the tape recording.
There is a zero tolerance for this is the workplace - many companies (and all large ones) have a diversity training every year. It's clear to all employees that you lose your job if anything like this happens ... if fact if something much less than a N----- tirade happens. She taped it because the company was ignoring her complaints about the abuse.
The defense of "it means love" and "we can do it, but you can't" is not going to fly ..... nor should it.
It looks like the damages of $250,000 is not nearly enough if you can doubt the seriousness of this.
Quote:
..."were a white man ....... he would have been fired on the spot..."
That is a supposition that is unprovable. The award was granted...so where is the double standard? Surely the case having to go to court cant be the double standard. The rulling can't be the double standard. The award can't be the double standard.
There are numerous cases of "White bosses" taken to court on a EEOC cases which were not fired "on the spot". The only reason this made the "hit parade" is the race of the boss. nothing more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
