Regressive Corporate CBS Fires Employee for Politically Incorrect comment on private Facebook account

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You can also respond to what I wrote.

I did.

Actually you quote-mined my next-to-last post and now you've repeated that quote-mining behavior.

From last post you snipped:

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

 

[dismal]

I did.

Actually you quote-mined my next-to-last post and now you've repeated that quote-mining behavior.

From last post you snipped:

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

My response: I don't give a shit about your attempts to spin away what you said. It's pretty evident you created this post not to criticize this woman for her disgusting comment, but to rail against right wingers.

I can tell this conclusively by two things:

1) You did not mention you found the woman's comment disgusting, which would be odd if that were the point of the thread
2) You did comment about right wingers getting their panties in a wad about it

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Actually you quote-mined my next-to-last post and now you've repeated that quote-mining behavior.

From last post you snipped:

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

My response: I don't give a shit about your attempts to spin away what you said. It's pretty evident you created this post not to criticize this woman for her disgusting comment, but to rail against right wingers.

I can tell this conclusively by two things:

1) You did not mention you found the woman's comment disgusting, which would be odd if that were the point of the thread
2) You did comment about right wingers getting their panties in a wad about it

You are definitely RIGHT about the first one. I never claimed to make this thread all about a chorus of obviousness that she's wrong.

Regarding number 2, and in general, your commentary, this thread isn't about me. The fact of the matter is that the op article is news and it's political news.

Rush Limbaugh, Daily Caller, Free Republic, and other right-wing sites are indeed getting quite upset, some even so much as calling CBS to complain. YES, they are more upset than those on the left for the reasons I stated:

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

Regarding this person and what they wrote and the acquaintance that ratted her out on Facebook, I don't think they should have written that but in the heat of the moment, people say things and are free to do so in this country, especially privately where she had a reasonable expectation of private conversation with her friends. I think her friend should have spoken to her about it privately and handled it that way, rather than getting her fired by exposing a private conversation.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually you quote-mined my next-to-last post and now you've repeated that quote-mining behavior.

From last post you snipped:

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

My response: I don't give a shit about your attempts to spin away what you said. It's pretty evident you created this post not to criticize this woman for her disgusting comment, but to rail against right wingers.

I can tell this conclusively by two things:

1) You did not mention you found the woman's comment disgusting, which would be odd if that were the point of the thread
2) You did comment about right wingers getting their panties in a wad about it

You are definitely RIGHT about the first one. I never claimed to make this thread all about a chorus of obviousness that she's wrong.

Regarding number 2, and in general, your commentary, this thread isn't about me. The fact of the matter is that the op article is news and it's political news.

Rush Limbaugh, Daily Caller, and other right-wing sites are indeed getting quite upset, even so much as calling CBS to complain. YES, they are more upset than those on the left for the reasons I stated:

I DO think her comment would be more repugnant to Republicans on average for the reasons I stated above--to include that she was writing about Republicans and that Republicans think a lot of liberals are like her, that a lot of liberals are jaded by this whole thing, and that a lot of Repubs would view this as another example of "liberal bias in media." I think that ought to be clear from my post above that you snipped.

Regarding this person and what they wrote and the acquaintance that ratted her out on Facebook, I don't think they should have written that but in the heat of the moment, people say things and are free to do so in this country, especially privately where she had a reasonable expectation of private conversation with her friends. I think her friend should have spoken to her about it privately and handled it that way, rather than getting her fired by exposing a private conversation.

I agree, but then again, I am not a conservative snowflake.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's a petition to get her fired from her second job:

Haley Geftman-Gold, senior VP and legal counsel for CBS should be FIRED for her outrageous comments regarding Las Vegas shooting victims. If you agree, sign this petition and help push for the termination of this sick individual!

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/499/628/746/terminate-hayley-geftman-gold/?taf_id=43277917&cid=fb_na

They seem to want her terminated because they are offended by what she wrote, not because of how it makes any company look.

Here are some comments from signatories of the petition:

There is so much hate being allowed today. Those being accused on a daily basis of being the hateful, evil ones are not the ones spewing hatred. The hate comes from Antifa, BLM and the left. It is time to recognize and make public exactly where this is being allowed and overlooked.

Because this is the way the media thinks. They probably agree with her, but too afraid to admit.......

Just because some of them are probably republicans that is in no way to be..They were humans.....If I was a democrate,I would be ashamed of how my party is acting....,I guess thats the difference beteween the Republicans democrates,we are acting like adults and they are acting like children having a temper tantrum.....Donal Trump will be a 2 term President especially after the way they have acted......shameful...

Also, there are two facebook groups to try to get this woman disbarred and who knows what else.

 

[ronburgundy]

In contrast, Mahr's comment about 9/11 didn't take a moral stance at all and said nothing about the sympathy the victims deserved. It was simply a factually correct observation, so it could only be "incorrect" in the sense of "politically incorrect" where facts are not allowed to be spoken because they run counter to some irrational ideological assumptions. He simply pointed out the fact that a person who deliberately gives their own life to serve a cause they believe is just is the opposite of the definition of a coward, which is objectively true no matter what one feels about their cause or the morality of the act. There is little relation between the cowardice and morality of actions.

One major part of this is that many people think attacking civilians is a cowardly act.

And those people are mindlessly misapplying the word as though it simply means "anything I feel is wrong." There is nothing about the standard definition of cowardice that would apply to a person engaging in an act that they know will end their own life but they think is the only way to save their family. Whether their assumptions about those effects are objectively correct doesn't impact whether they are a coward.

The fact that people got outraged by Mahr suggesting they weren't cowards shows that they are conflating "cowardly" with "immoral", because they reacted as though Mahr had said the act was not immoral. Mahr was merely separating the emotional/moral issues from the factual issues, but most people are incapable of that, so they assumed his factual observation reflected how he emotionally/morally felt about the terrorists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One major part of this is that many people think attacking civilians is a cowardly act.

And those people are mindlessly misapplying the word as though it simply means "anything I feel is wrong." There is nothing about the standard definition of cowardice that would apply to a person engaging in an act that they know will end their own life but they think is the only way to save their family. Whether their assumptions about those effects are objectively correct doesn't impact whether they are a coward.

The fact that people got outraged by Mahr suggesting they weren't cowards shows that they are conflating "cowardly" with "immoral", because they reacted as though Mahr had said the act was not immoral. Mahr was merely separating the emotional/moral issues from the factual issues, but most people are incapable of that, so they assumed his factual observation reflected how he emotionally/morally felt about the terrorists.

I have a couple of minor quibbles. These are so minor that it's probably stupid to bring them up. I am not trying to create a tangent or an argument, just explain what I think about this. So, first, I am not sure that it always makes sense to conclude that a "person engaging in an act that they know will end their own life but they think is the only way to save their family" is not a coward. I think it's probably true of atheists because atheists think that when you die, that's it, but for religionists, I am not so sure. A truly devoted, faithful person, very confident in an afterlife of paradise might possibly still be a coward and I guess it depends on the situation to understand what are they giving up, sacrificing, from their own perspective and what are they gaining from that perspective of their religion. On the other hand, most people probably are not 100% faithful and believing in something irrational like a paradise afterlife, but it's more of a continuum. So maybe generally speaking such actions that end their lives would in reality be perceived as risks to different degrees, depending on the person. And, now, second point, is I have doubts generally that when people are calling out these suicide terrorists as "cowards" that they are always conflating cowardly with immoral deaths. I mean sometimes it's pretty cowardly to kill innocent people who had no chance to defend themselves, but moreover, you seem to be assuming that their word choice was authentic in the first place. Calling them cowards may be a reaction to them being called heroes or martyrs at least some of the time. So maybe it's often an intentional political reaction to counter that and thus try to reduce more terrorist acts.

 

[ronburgundy]

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He said something politically incorrect that got the right-wing in a tizzy. This lady said something politically incorrect that could have gotten the right-wing in a tizzy had they known ahead of time, but now they are getting their panties in a wad afterward.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way.

Wrong. You are using it as though it means the same thing as "immoral" or "morally incorrect", which is not what it means or has ever meant.
The phrase would not exist if it simply meant that, because "immoral" already had that covered. It was coined precisely as a contrast to "immoral", and a contrast to "factually incorrect". The whole point is that it refers to situations where neither of those established concepts apply, yet people still treat it as though it is "incorrect" and unacceptable purely because it does not fit into some dogmatic ideology or traditional assumption that has no tie to either a defensible moral system or a rational understanding of reality. IOW, it is "incorrect" only in relation to a narrow dogmatic political viewpoint. It was coined by moderate socialist as a critique of hardline Marxist ideologues.

For example, when Kaepernick kneels during the national anthem, it's politically incorrect.

Correct. That is politically incorrect, which is why it is not something that no reasonable person is upset about. There is nothing about his action that is factually incorrect or is wrong by any widely accepted moral principles. The reaction against it is a mindless emotional over-reaction stemming from its violation of dogmatic traditional norms that have nor basis in morally or fact. Kneeling is not immoral or disrespectful in any culture. It isn't immoral even by the ethical principles conservatives generally apply.

The right-wing uses the term to refer to things that are offensive to most sensible people as well, "morally reprehensible" to the vast majority of the population such as using racist terms and saying racist things, like the guy talking about his dog having more value than a million black people.

Correct, the right does [mis]use the term in this way. They want people to view immoral acts as not actually immoral, so they call them "politically incorrect". They do this precisely because they accurately understand that politically incorrect things are precisely those that are not morally incorrect but that some political dogmatists try to punish as such. So, they try to mislabel their own immoral acts as merely "politically incorrect".
However, leftists respond by also wrongly abusing the term and try to claim that there is no difference between politically and morally incorrect things, so that you can fallaciously equate things that are merely politically incorrect like referring to someone as "black" with actual immoral acts of racism. Notice that while actual racist acts remain immoral over time, politically incorrect things often change then change back (like whether people can be called "black", "person of color", "African-american" etc., because they are not based in any moral principles or reasoned understanding of reality.

In sum, the right is objectively wrong in claiming that many of its moral wrongs and factual wrongs are merely politically incorrect. Whereas many on the left are objectively wrong in claiming that there is no such thing as political incorrectness, and thus everything they say or do that is labeled politically correct is actually morally and/or factually correct.
The objectively correct view is that political, moral, and factual correctness are distinct things that all exist, that political correctness has no moral or factual validity and that many agendas on the left and the right are epitomized by it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This reminds me of when Bill Maher got fired. How is it different?

Bill Maher was simply correcting people who thought that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

He said something politically incorrect that got the right-wing in a tizzy. This lady said something politically incorrect that could have gotten the right-wing in a tizzy had they known ahead of time, but now they are getting their panties in a wad afterward.

She didn't say something "politically incorrect". She said something morally reprehensible to the vast majority of the population, no matter their political ideology. She said she feels no sympathy for the random victims of a mass murder simply because the music they like has a statistical association with being a gun-toting republican.

You are using "politically incorrect" to mean something based on how people use the term, whereas I am using it in its correct, objective way.

Wrong. You are using it as though it means the same thing as "immoral" or "morally incorrect", which is not what it means or has ever meant.
The phrase would not exist if it simply meant that, because "immoral" already had that covered. It was coined precisely as a contrast to "immoral", and a contrast to "factually incorrect". The whole point is that it refers to situations where neither of those established concepts apply, yet people still treat it as though it is "incorrect" and unacceptable purely because it does not fit into some dogmatic ideology or traditional assumption that has no tie to either a defensible moral system or a rational understanding of reality. IOW, it is "incorrect" only in relation to a narrow dogmatic political viewpoint. It was coined by moderate socialist as a critique of hardline Marxist ideologues.

...and hijacked in the 90s by conservatives to mock compassion or daring to say "Well, maybe because it was okay then, doesn't mean it still needs to be okay now." *slaps secretaries ass*

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...and hijacked in the 90s by conservatives to mock compassion or daring to say "Well, maybe because it was okay then, doesn't mean it still needs to be okay now." *slaps secretaries ass*

I will add that most of the stuff with political correctness has little to do with public policy, but instead personal, moral choices. So, for example, dictionary has this:

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

https://www.google.com/search?q=political+correctness&oq=political+correctness

So it would be politically correct to avoid...as taken to an extreme...expression...perceived to...insult groups of people who are...discriminated against...

like country music fans, white male Republicans, etc....just like the facebook poster was writing about "Rethuglicans" and "gun toters" etc. She wasn't avoiding it, though, she was doing the opposite by talking in extremes to her friends about it. So, she was being politically incorrect.