Are you a man or a job?

[NecCat]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1791047

There is dozens of web pages to this story, all with different takes, but basically Raymond Cote was miked up to do a public meeting, before the meeting he made remarks to an acquaintance about a parents weight without realizing his mike was live, and ended up resigning before he could have been considered for being fired.

It's ridiculous that he lost his job over remarks that were insensitive but really fairly innocent. It's really ridiculous that the overwhelming majority of comments and stories were calling for his (workplace) head. Is it not possible to separate the man and his opinions from the job he does?

He didn't get up as a representative of the Mahopac Board of Education and publicly call out a meeting participant for being fat. He didn't privately remark on his plan to kill or torture fat parents. He nicknamed her chubby wubby, in what he thought was a private conversation. And he no longer has his job. If everyone was publicly heard to say what we privately thought about coworkers and customers, would any of us have our jobs still?

The court of public opinion is getting bigger, louder and nastier.

[HYHYBT]

President Reagan did far worse than that, and nobody wanted him out of his job who didn't anyway.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Hmm... do I want a man who makes fun of people for their weight being one of the people who has control over what my children learn...

Hmmmmm....

Edit to extrapolate:

With the big bullying in schools problem our country has had recently, I really have no sympathy for someone (a GROWN someone who should know better) who makes a crude, and insensitive remarks like that. *shrug* Part of being in the public eye is that you need to know when to keep your damn mouth shut.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think the court of public outrage is going to have its way for at least another decade before enough people get fed up with it that it stops. Lest we forget an owner just lost his team because he was recorded in private. It might be a while. The public is really exercising its muscles in terms of shaming and removing what it finds objectionable these days.

The backlash is going to show up, but I just don't think we're there yet.

As for politicians... I don't think they'll ever not be under scrutiny. Their problem is they tend to start with half the people hating them anyway. Alienate anyone in your coalition and pretty soon you have no support. It's the same reason you don't see moderates anymore.

[Hyena Dandy]

With the big bullying in schools problem our country has had recently, I really have no sympathy for someone (a GROWN someone who should know better) who makes a crude, and insensitive remarks like that. *shrug* Part of being in the public eye is that you need to know when to keep your damn mouth shut.

This is kind of my view of it. It's not like this has no bearing on his job. If I see a guy is willing to use demeaning nicknames to refer to people, AND this guy is in charge of education, I'd certainly wonder how he would respond to bullying in the school system. It's relevant. This isn't a 'He's in the public eye' thing to me. It's a "This shows that he is not totally suited for the job." The relevance goes to character.

[Gravekeeper]

It's a "This shows that he is not totally suited for the job." The relevance goes to character.

There isn't a teacher alive that hasn't used choice words for children(s) in private. I think you really do need to seperate the person and their job here. Otherwise its pretty hypocritical of us given CS. I think some of my customers are frothing trogdolytes, but it doesn't mean I don't give them great customer service.

Besides, "chubby wubby" isn't exactly....well, its like 5 year old playground level. Its not precisely devestating hateful speech. Insensitive? Yes. But he did believe he was speaking in private. And anyone here that claims they've never had a disparaging remark for someone in private conversation is lying through their teeth.

Publically declaring that he cares nothing for anyone in the entire community over a playground insult is certainly approaching irrational shitflipping levels.

[TheHuckster]

There isn't a teacher alive that hasn't used choice words for children(s) in private. I think you really do need to seperate the person and their job here. Otherwise its pretty hypocritical of us given CS. I think some of my customers are frothing trogdolytes, but it doesn't mean I don't give them great customer service.

Besides, "chubby wubby" isn't exactly....well, its like 5 year old playground level. Its not precisely devestating hateful speech. Insensitive? Yes. But he did believe he was speaking in private. And anyone here that claims they've never had a disparaging remark for someone in private conversation is lying through their teeth.

Publically declaring that he cares nothing for anyone in the entire community over a playground insult is certainly approaching irrational shitflipping levels.

I agree with the sentiment; however, I'm sure you'd agree that if you forgot to hit mute before venting about a problem customer or were otherwise caught "on-air" making insensitive remarks about your customers that you'd also be subject to discipline up to and including termination, and there'd be little you'd be able to do to defend yourself.

I do disagree with the idea that we should be on a witch-hunt for anyone who makes a statement that might hurt others' feelings to the point where we look for things to be offended by and invade their privacy, but when their privacy is uncovered, intentionally or not, it shouldn't give them immunity from the consequences.

I'll admit I vent to my close friends and family members about someone who made my day difficult and might even make rather colorful commentary about them in some way that, if heard by the public, would paint me as Mr. Mean-man who should never hold another job in his life. Nothing racist or very hateful, mind you, but at least insulting and personal to whomever incurred my wrath... but if anyone betrayed my confidence by tapping my phone lines or whatever, I'd blame my resulting punishment on those who betrayed me, and not my superiors. If it were my fault for leaving the microphone on, then I'd simply be kicking myself in the ass over it.

[s_stabeler]

I do disagree with the idea that we should be on a witch-hunt for anyone who makes a statement that might hurt others' feelings to the point where we look for things to be offended by and invade their privacy, but when their privacy is uncovered, intentionally or not, it shouldn't give them immunity from the consequences.

yes and no. If, for example, someone bugged the home of a politician, should what they say at home be subject to being trrawled over to see if thye said anything offensive?

if someone is overheard saying somehting dumb because the mic is still live, that's different- but (for example) if a teacher was overheard grumbling about a class's homework, it's understandable if there are less-than-flattering terms used.

[NecCat]

If I see a guy is willing to use demeaning nicknames to refer to people, AND this guy is in charge of education, I'd certainly wonder how he would respond to bullying in the school system. It's relevant.

Using demeaning nicknames in private conversation is not related to bullying. Bullying by definition requires participation from the victim, through fear, sadness, humiliation, pain etc. A private conversation, about a person who never hears of it, isn't bullying, there is no victim. A person who sometimes makes fun of people in private is quite capable of also being against bullying in schools, and working effectively towards the goal of stopping it.

I agree with the sentiment; however, I'm sure you'd agree that if you forgot to hit mute before venting about a problem customer or were otherwise caught "on-air" making insensitive remarks about your customers that you'd also be subject to discipline up to and including termination, and there'd be little you'd be able to do to defend yourself.

I do disagree with the idea that we should be on a witch-hunt for anyone who makes a statement that might hurt others' feelings to the point where we look for things to be offended by and invade their privacy, but when their privacy is uncovered, intentionally or not, it shouldn't give them immunity from the consequences.

I'll admit I vent to my close friends and family members about someone who made my day difficult and might even make rather colorful commentary about them in some way that, if heard by the public, would paint me as Mr. Mean-man who should never hold another job in his life. Nothing racist or very hateful, mind you, but at least insulting and personal to whomever incurred my wrath... but if anyone betrayed my confidence by tapping my phone lines or whatever, I'd blame my resulting punishment on those who betrayed me, and not my superiors. If it were my fault for leaving the microphone on, then I'd simply be kicking myself in the ass over it.

But at what point have you safeguarded your privacy enough? If you are at a restaurant talking to a friend and the waiter hears you, is that your fault or did the waiter betray your trust? What if your friend posts something funny you said on facebook? If you leave the windows open in your house and your neighbour hears you talking in your house? If someone hears you from their baby monitor? Is it your expectation that people can make fun of others if they lock themselves in a room in their house, with no electronics, with friends who never talk to the outside world, but under other circumstances if they slip up and someone hears them it's on them for saying rude things?

He lost his job for doing something that EVERYONE does, all the time. Look over at customerssuck, we make fun of people who won't read signs, cant work gas stations pumps, doors, computers, people who wear their pants below their underwear, people who want us to break laws, people who.... There is too many categories to even list. What if a customer recognizes themselves in a story and demands the clerk be fired for making insensitive remarks. That would be on the poster, because someone heard (read) the remarks and got offended?

He made a mistake with his microphone, yes he e should have apologized, yes I'm glad that no one (that I have found) has named the woman he referenced so she doesn't suffer public shame, maybe he should have done sensitivity training or something, but he should not have lost his job over this.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

A person who sometimes makes fun of people in private is quite capable of also being against bullying in schools, and working effectively towards the goal of stopping it.

There's a South Park episode that quite masterfully deals with this topic... And I rarely say masterfully.

I don't really see the issue still. He's a public figure caught doing something stupid in public. Don't get me wrong, I think we'd be better off if we let everyone get away with saying something idiotic once and go after the idiots that display a pattern. Most dudes have had moments of misogyny. Most people have shamed fat people. Whether or not people have said anything racist, most are guilty of behaving in racist fashion from time to time.

Maybe it's good that we're all noticing it and calling it out now. At some point, people will come to the realization that people are not now and will never be perfect in that regard. In other words, society can get over its fascination with utopian people.

[Rageaholic]

A lot of this is overreaction. I really don't give a shit about Donald Sterling and what he said. I think he seems like a real asshole, but I'm not going to be asking for his head on a plate just because he said some stupid shit in private. Same thing with this 'chubby wubby' guy. No major crime was committed here, no one was hurt, let it go.

[TheHuckster]

yes and no. If, for example, someone bugged the home of a politician, should what they say at home be subject to being trrawled over to see if thye said anything offensive?

Unfortunately it doesn't matter. The media will crucify them and play the bugged recording over and over until he/she has to move to another country. Plus, because this is a democracy, you can't force people to "disregard" the unfortunate events that lead to such a discovery about someone the same way a judge might discard evidence for the same reason. These are two very different concepts.

But at what point have you safeguarded your privacy enough? If you are at a restaurant talking to a friend and the waiter hears you, is that your fault or did the waiter betray your trust? What if your friend posts something funny you said on facebook? If you leave the windows open in your house and your neighbour hears you talking in your house? If someone hears you from their baby monitor? Is it your expectation that people can make fun of others if they lock themselves in a room in their house, with no electronics, with friends who never talk to the outside world, but under other circumstances if they slip up and someone hears them it's on them for saying rude things?

When you're in a restaurant or even among neighbors, chances are people surrounding don't care what you're saying (unless it's about them). They aren't going to decide to rat you out, as there's nothing to benefit them from it. I'm talking about if you're at your place of work and you were a little too loud in the break room venting about a customer. If a customer overhears you insulting them or even venting frustration over them, and they make a stink about it, there's a chance they're going to be offended and complain to a manager about it.

He lost his job for doing something that EVERYONE does, all the time. Look over at customerssuck, we make fun of people who won't read signs, cant work gas stations pumps, doors, computers, people who wear their pants below their underwear, people who want us to break laws, people who.... There is too many categories to even list. What if a customer recognizes themselves in a story and demands the clerk be fired for making insensitive remarks. That would be on the poster, because someone heard (read) the remarks and got offended?

Posters on CS don't name their customers, and if they do name their employer, will not specify which exact location they are at. If a customer happens upon a posting that they recognize, they're going to have a hard time proving their case, not to mention because the CS poster did not make any specific personal descriptions of the person, there's no harm they can claim. In fact, if they do make a big stink about it, they become victims of the Streisand Effect.

Contrast that with standing next to an open mic, and saying insults about a specific person who is in the same room as them, causing immediate humiliation and embarrassment upon everyone involved.

Those who this happens to don't necessarily deserve to get fired. I'm just saying they are victims of a very unfortunate event which occurred due to them being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Their saying these things in and of themselves is not what got them fired; it's the fallout from inadvertently making these statements known, which casts their employer in a negative light, which did.

[Greenday]

A lot of this is overreaction. I really don't give a shit about Donald Sterling and what he said. I think he seems like a real asshole, but I'm not going to be asking for his head on a plate just because he said some stupid shit in private. Same thing with this 'chubby wubby' guy. No major crime was committed here, no one was hurt, let it go.

There is quite a difference between Donald Sterling and this moron. Donald Sterling is going to cost the NBA loads of money and business.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

You seriously don't think that, do you? Sports fans can't boycott anything. I'd put the chances of NBA financials taking a hit as a result of this at close to zero... maybe a percentage point or two of revenue specifically in LA. Give it one year regardless of what the NBA does to Sterling and they'll be back to normal.

What the NBA doesn't like is how it looks and it looks like a rich white guy that said racist things owning a team comprised mainly of African-American players. It's historically uncomfortable, a public spectacle, and the players union weighed in on it. Essentially, he's an easy owner to sacrifice but I doubt the league could ever prove real financial damage as a result of Sterling.

And Sterling doesn't deserve the sympathy, but it's hard for me to pretend he was an imminent threat to anyone other than his PR team.

[Rageaholic]

You seriously don't think that, do you? Sports fans can't boycott anything. I'd put the chances of NBA financials taking a hit as a result of this at close to zero... maybe a percentage point or two of revenue specifically in LA. Give it one year regardless of what the NBA does to Sterling and they'll be back to normal.

What the NBA doesn't like is how it looks and it looks like a rich white guy that said racist things owning a team comprised mainly of African-American players. It's historically uncomfortable, a public spectacle, and the players union weighed in on it. Essentially, he's an easy owner to sacrifice but I doubt the league could ever prove real financial damage as a result of Sterling.

And Sterling doesn't deserve the sympathy, but it's hard for me to pretend he was an imminent threat to anyone other than his PR team.

Beat me to it.

Keep in mind, this was something he said in private. It was the girlfriend who brought it public and made it an issue.