There have always been wretched racists in this country, but it’s troubling that even now some of them seem to take their prejudice as a matter of course. Watch this guy go up to a small group of anti-fracking protesters and calmly declaim some vile racist remarks. He clearly thinks there will be no consequences.
There were consequences, fortunately — he was fired by his employer. But still, it says there is a population of deeply deluded people in America who think that their racism is perfectly normal. That’s what ought to worry us.
A couple of months ago Karoli, at Crooks and Liars, made a good point about Dylan Roof, the guy who killed people at a black church in hopes of starting a race war. The answer to why his rather obviously extreme racist beliefs – which he made public knowledge – didn’t set off any alarms was that it just didn’t stand out. Among an awful lot of people, it’s normal behavior. Nothing remarkable.
(As I wrote “awful lot of people” I realized it has two meanings; both valid.)
a lot of awful people I think is what would more accurate
there was what looked like a kind of nervousness about that guy that always makes me go careful lest he was out for no good. it is sad that his apparent fear ( a guess from experience on my part) makes him “other” the protesters when what they were about might actually even been in his long term interests.
his getting fired while it might have been an appropriate response for his employer it is just as likely to just re-enforce is feeling of threat from and hostility toward the protesters and the “liberal establishment” in general.
changing such minds is a task I know not how to accomplish however.
uncle frogy
Must be more comfortable than I thought, living in a cesspool.*
*Gave up on the video less than 1′ in.
He didn’t even mind looking right at the camera as he spewed, like he was proud of what he was saying. Wonder if the right-wingers will try to make a hero out of him for losing his job. Don’t see how they can unless it’s sub rosa, some kind of fund to help him out. How many of the GOP candidates will denounce him?
This response helps me to keep hope alive, even if the flames are small and flickering these days.
Such vile bigotry is not only common, but the bigots are coming back out of the woodwork these days, not only willing to express their repugnant views, but proud of them.* I grew up with a John Bircher, a bigot extraordinaire, and one of the things I was so very grateful for, as I was in my teens, was seeing such open bigotry being chased into the shadows, people who wanted change, for the better.** Now I’ve lived long enough to see a United States that my familial bigot extraordinaire would be fucking thrilled with.
*Look at some of the people running for president, open bigots. No problem.
**Yeah, I know it never went away, but things did seem better, for a while at least.
But dontcha know it ain’t at all racist if what you’re saying is true. How can the truthiness be racist? Stereotypes wouldn’t exist if they weren’t true, amiright?
Hey, why are all these dogs following me around?
I’m guessing that this is one of the same people I meet on the internet who insist that characterizing beliefs, thoughts, actions and communications as racist is being “uncivil”.
Or one of the people who act outraged about others being outraged.
Or one of the ones that insist that you have an obligation to provide a platform for them to endlessly spew their “arguments” and repetitively criticize any effort to discuss solving racism or you are “censoring” them.
I’ve stopped caring about politeness when I see it online now. Role-modeling is critical in social change and they know it deep down so that confidence needs to be matched by others as often as possible. And employers don’t magically stop being members of society so I think pressuring business to take sides on cultural issues is just fine.
Unfortunately, my cynicism has reached such depths that I expect them to be fighting over him to either make him this cycle’s “Joe the Plumber” or offer him the VP spot.
Is it legal to fire someone for his opinions, vile as they might be? o_O
The article mentions that he was fired “with cause”. What specific cause was used?
F.O. @9
I think (but could be wrong) that Pennsylvania has an At-Will Employment law that permits the firing of an employee at any time without specifying a cause or providing prior notification.
It reminds me of how shocked people were when Paula Dean admitted to having used the N-word long in the past. I was like, shit, I know people who still use it frequently. I grew up in a part of the country not typically associated with racism, and I have plenty of family members who measure the safety of a neighborhood in melanin, and who say “I like black people just fine, but I hate —-“. I don’t think she got in trouble for racism, but for threatening the illusion of the “post-racial” society.
Also, not that a privileged douchebag like this would care even if he weren’t a flaming racist, but these kinds of insults really do have lasting impressions on people. My wife and I have friends who just had their first baby. When we bought a stuffed animal as a gift, we made sure to remember not to get a monkey. The mother has too many bad memories associated with being called a monkey growing up.
@9
The National Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Act more or less both say “Yes you can fire them, unless they’re part of a concerted protected activity.”
So like, if Joe Schmoe goes on a racist tirade like this or calls his boss an idiot on facebook, he’s fair game. But if he does it as part of a protest against the business or he’s taking part in an anti-boss facebook group, he’s protected.
You can tell how proud he is of himself, how brave he feels to have the courage to say those things and how happy he is that he is ruffling feathers and being “naughty”. I remember that kind of thing from when i was 8.
He was deliberately mugging for the camera, and spewing insults, in the hope of being able to start a fight. I am not surprised in the least at such behavior. I wish I could say I was. But, no worries. He’ll get another job after spinning out his unemployment benefits, which he will claim he deserves because “they” got him fired.
anthrosciguy (#1) –
See also: the unwillingness of christians, cops, courts, prosecutors and politicians to go after and speak out against christian terrorists who bomb and murder abortion providers, both people and places. They hate the victims as much as the perpetrators of the violence hate them. They show their assent by being silent, turning a blind eye or even protecting the perpetrators (e.g. John Ashcroft reducing charges against James Kopp as quickly as he could).
DLC wrote @14:
typical Bully tactic. The response by the people he was bullying, was exactly the recommended procedure. “Don’t back away. Don’t show any submission.” etc. etc. When confronted by people standing up to him, face forward, staring at him, asking him questions, he sputtered a bit more. Threw more insults around, and walked away, still muttering.
Rather than seeing this as yet another evidence of racists everywhere, it could be used as a “teaching moment”: of the proper way to react when bullied.
sheeesh
I kept waiting for the protesters to fling “fracking poisons the water supply” at him, but I didn’t catch it in that video. Maybe on their signs. Even if they did, I’m sure he would have dismissed it as “hippy lies from the monkey boy with the mop head”
I agree with the title of the post. I don’t think you can ever reach someone like that. He’s got his mind made up and you’ll never change it. Also agree that he will take the firing as confirmation of his position regarding these people. Sadly, I think there are a lot like him in the US.
Calling your boss an idiot on facebook could very well be protected activity. See The NLRB and Social Media
I live in rural Pa and there are about 5 houses within 10 miles of me that fly confederate flags. You see them on the bumper stickers often, too. There are a few people of color in the area but only a handful. The “it’s pride in heritage!” excuse is often on full display here, because… uh… Gettysburg! When I’ve trolled racists I just drop my voice and say “it’s OK to say what you really think, I’m with you too” and when they say something racist I go, “oh, you misunderstood me! I meant I also agree that the south was badly commanded during the war. I wasn’t saying that I’m a racist. Eew.”
The oligarchy’s “divide and conquer” strategy has worked remarkably well.
Unless the bully is physically stronger than you and decide to beat you into submission.
laurentweppe @ 20:
Or, here in the States, pulls a gun out from under their jacket.
Marcus @ 19:
America, where people not only don’t learn from history, they get to twist it all about first!
I would just like to address the question about his firing. Most of the fracking outfits I have dealt with specifically tell their employees not to engage with protesters in any way at or near any area of operations. Even if the protesters are blocking work, SOP is to tell tool pusher and have him call the cops.
If I had to bet, I would say this guy was fired for gross insubordination in not following that directive and I imagine the conversation with the company began with the phrase: “What the F*CK is wrong with you?”
Fracking companies have enough bad PR without morons that work for them adding on. So, they tend to take this kinda stuff pretty seriously.
@18
Yes, if it’s part of a protected concerted action, as my post said right above the part you quoted.
The BMW salesman was fired because he was acting solo, whereas the Nonprofit foundation acted unlawfully because the people they fired were technically acting under a concerted effort.
“deluded people in America who think that their racism is perfectly normal”
It might be in part the security of the US “free speech” ideals. By comparison, I find that US residents are far more willing, quick and creative saying things (online) which would make Europeans expect being sued or legally warned, i.e. for insulting individuals or inciting hatred. This level of freedom is a cultural achievement but obviously also a gift to abusers in this age where anyone [*cough*deranged person D.M.*cough*] can daily flood the online existence of individuals and the public with messages that would have lead to being literally kicked out of town 150 or 200 years ago. The recipients of abuse in many cases are getting jaded, which creates less backlash and a bigger “safe space” for abusers – or so they think.
@24, good point – just pointing out that many American employees don’t realize just how much more protection they have under the current NLRB’s interpretation of section 7 than under previous administrations.
There’s a cartoon going the rounds in Sweden right now, which translates like this:
Woman: All these refugees coming here have got me really worried.
Man: Do you feel threatened? Have they assaulted you sexually?
Woman: No, it’s just that it’s brought out some really unpleasant sides of some of my fellow citizens.
I’m with peterh. Though I, she says proudly, managed to get to 1 minute 40.
The protesters did a fine job as far as I can tell. Really liked the bloke telling him to go home and get a beer seeing as he’s finished work for the day. Excellent stuff.
He’s quite confident in a crowd of mostly women and children. I’d like to see what he sounds like in a group of large, mixed-race men.
flange @ 29:
Oh? Now why would that be? Wouldn’t have anything at all to do with bigoted stereotypes would it? You might want to spend some time thinking things through before you commit such stupidity to pixels.
@microraptor, @Vivec
Thanks, now the employer’s pressure to explain that the activities were completely unrelated makes sense.
Follow up interview with Pisone:
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/company-fires-employee-who-taunted-gas-drilling-pr/npthf/
Regrets, apology, playing the victim, rationalizing own behavior (kinda), turning to God.
I believe he managed to touch on all the usual post-racist-outburst stuff. Almost impressive considering he doesn’t have any professional PR people.
Do you (plural) think people should be fired for saying racist things?
In public to a camera like this guy? In public generally?
At the bar to their friends?
In the privacy of their own home to their family? What if the person was filmed in the latter two scenarios and this was put on the internet? What if the person didn’t know they were being filmed? And those the degree of offensiveness to the racism count for anything?
And what’s the benefit? Will it make the racist examine his own behaviour? Is it to protect the customers or co-workers who might have to deal with a racist? Is it to create a strong social stigma against racism? Is it for justice, that he shouldn’t be a jerk and face no consequences?
Just asking questions, are we?
Are you really that clewless on how to make your points?
Do you have any points?
See how this works?
Yeah, I’m have not enough exposure to the thought in this area to develop a position, so I am just asking questions. The JAQ criticism is water off a duck’s back btw, but feel free to indulge.
Marc Abian @ 35:
Since you seem in love with questions – What area? Virulent, open bigotry? Hate speech? You’ve been hanging around this blog for a long time, Marc. I expect you’ve had plenty of exposure to where you could express yourself in a form other than a series of gotcha questions.
I’m not sure I understand your last sentence Caine, but honestly they’re not gotcha questions as wikipedia defines gotcha journalism. I’m uncomfortable with the erosion the work/life separation in general* so I’m somewhat predisposed to disagree with anything that erodes it further if that’s what you mean, but that’s by no means an absolute position.
What I meant by this area is what consequences should people suffer for expressing their distasteful personal beliefs, particularly when it comes to their jobs. And I’m unclear what people’s thought process is when they call for someone to be fired or not hired for something.
Sorry for the inadequate proofreading in my first two posts.
*In fact I’m writing a bit about this, and I’m probably going to have to cover situations like that in the OP too, which is why I’m asking in the first place.
Caine @ 30
Oh? Now why would that be? Wouldn’t have anything at all to do with bigoted stereotypes would it? You might want to spend some time thinking things through before you commit such stupidity to pixels.
What I’m saying is this is a typical, stupid bully, picking on people he knows are physically smaller and weaker than he. And, if the presumably black videographer were replaced by, for example, LeBron James, the bully wouldn’t have approached the group.
Marc, #33
Why are you looking for one blanket answer to this? Depends on the employer and how they feel about such behavior and such a person being affiliated with them.
Since this video went online and had the potential to go viral, maybe the company thought they’d terminate him now rather than become affiliated with his views to the general public. Better to fire him now than to receive petitions and be the subject of protests about it later. The employer’s response doesn’t have to be about social justice. It is also self-interest. And I’m okay with that. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to have people working for me who go viral for hate speech.
Marc#33
What makes you think there is free speech within the work place? Or, when you are representing the company, or are readily identified with the company?
There is no such thing as absolute free speech.
flange:
Bullshit. You don’t know that, and you didn’t say that in your previous comment. You said, specifically, large, mixed race, men. A bigoted, sexist, piece of shit comment that should not have been made in the first place. I’m not a man, however, I am mixed race (and I don’t need a man to protect me, thanks), and I loathe the implication that mixed race people are just convenient powder kegs waitin’ to go off, at the behest of some white idiot, naturally.
Do me a favour, and stop fucking digging. You said something stupid, got called on it, said something stupid again. STOP NOW.
flange:
Also, presumably? Really? Guess he was just making monkey noises at a white dude, yeah? And of course, that “presumably” black videographer, why, I guess he wasn’t large enough, or possibly not mixed race enough, or could it be he wasn’t black enough, to get what you feel would be satisfactorily violent towards the bigot, because at the very least, any proper black man should look super threatening and scary, right?
Seriously, you need to shut the fuck up, and go searching for your brain. Then you could try to use it.
#39 Saad
I wasn’t seeking a blanket answer, which is evident in the fact that you answered without giving one.
Do you consider a company to be affiliated with the personal views of one of its employees, or even several?
Oh I understand that. But should it be in the company’s self interest? Should people put pressure on a company to fire one of its employees for this type of thing? There are plenty of positions which you might hold, which could be unpopular with the customers in certain areas or industries.
NoR
I wasn’t talking about within the workplace at all.
There is a big difference between speaking in a capacity as a representative of a company and speaking in a personal capacity, though. Do you believe that a company is affiliated with the personal beliefs with employees readily identified with the company or in general? Should employees readily identified with a company have to express their views anonymously or only among their family or friends?
Marc @ 43:
Did you read his employer’s statement? I included it upthread. The man had just gotten off work. He was still at his workplace, when he decided to go off on the protesters.
I think that would make things worse though I can’t quite articulate why yet. However, I don’t think that’s the case, judging from this part
My questions are more than about this one man, though he can be a handy example.
Nope. Our Emergency Response SOP made it clear, there was no way we could talk to media during the emergency; all communications had to be made the official company spokesperson during the emergency. Doesn’t matter where you were.
In order for it to “private”, there needs to be safeguards in place. Like not on company property, not using company property, not talking about anything considered confidential, etc.
PZ has a disclaimer up on the sidebar saying this blog is his personal opinion, not necessarily that of UMM. That helps.
Still, if you disclose confidential job information, like company performance prior to official announcements, it can lead to termination.
While some folks complain about about pseudonyms, many of us use them so nothing we say will reflect back to our employers, who may not look kindly on atheists.
Yes, i’ve been loving this climate built on feedback where the bigots find enough co-bigots to think bigotry is cool again to be a part of open daily interaction. Meanwhile a lot the bigger crypto*-bigots are going geez shut up shut up shut up.
*Not really all that crypto if you at all pay attention to them, yourself, and culture.
I’m going to quote myself again
NoR
I don’t know why you think a directive not to talk to the media during an emergency unless you’re the official spokesperson means that there is no difference between talking in a personal and official capacity. An emergency and talking to the media are 2 criteria that you introduced. Just because a company tells you to do something doesn’t mean they should (though I agree with them in this case). If your contacted by the media during a crisis for a comment on that crisis as an employee, I don’t think you can speak but as an employee.
I agree with all that, except some cases of company property. Talking to your wife on your work phone for example. Confidentiality in particular you have to respect off the clock as well as on.
Maybe it helps, but I don’t think it should. There should be a presumption that he’s not talking in an official capacity until there’s evidence to the contrary.
@Marc
Whether or not you think an employer should be associated with the particular views of an employee, the fact of the matter is that when an employee, at their place of business, expresses a sentiment, there are people who will interpret the continued employment of that person as condoning those sentiments. A lot of employers actually have pretty firm regulations about expressing personal opinions at work.
There’s also the fact that an employee expressing divisive and insulting views outside of work is more likely to be a divisive and insulting person AT work. If he’s easy to replace, an employer in an at-will state has no reason to retain someone who goes out of their way to bully others. He’s too likely to turn that personality trait on the people he’s around for 8+ hours a day.
WRONG. I can only tell them to contact the AUTHORIZED spokesperson. Or, I would be fired, since I’m not on the list of AUTHORIZED spokespersons. No ifs, ands, or buts, I would be out with no recourse in this “at will” state.
This isn’t about absolute free speech, which doesn’t exist. It is about permissible speech while representing the company in any fashion. Even what you consider tenuous connections will get one in trouble.