zlacker

The point he is making is that it's ultimately absurd to make moral judgements based on word usage.

A person who actively discriminates in hiring against black people but doesn't call anyone a slur is seen as more virtuous as someone who doesn't discriminate, yet uses the slur in jest. The first behavior is seen as more excusable than the second, although an actual reasonable moral judgement makes it evident it's not.

>>Levitz+(OP)
> A person who actively discriminates in hiring against black people but doesn't call anyone a slur is seen as more virtuous as someone who doesn't discriminate, yet uses the slur in jest. The first behavior is seen as more excusable than the second, although an actual reasonable moral judgement makes it evident it's not.

What in the world are you talking about?

>>Levitz+(OP)
None of that is true, sorry

>>cycrut+9k
Imagine company A and B.

A report comes out, turns out that a certain HR person in company A hasn't hired a single black applicant since they got there.

At the same time, a video comes out showing the equivalent person in company B saying the n word in passing.

In this situation, it's maybe considered that the person in A might be racist, while it's completely assumed the person in B is.

>>Levitz+Wa1
Depending on the number of applicants and job posts, it may be hard to prove that the person in company A discriminates.

>>gabaix+Lw1
Thanks for proving my point. This exact benefit of the doubt is not given to the other guy.

>>Levitz+Wa1
I swear, you people make up the most creative mental gymnastics to rationalize why you should be allowed to call people the n-word.

>>Levitz+gO1
Where’s the plausible deniability to using the n word? I guess if you were singing? But I don’t think that’s the example you had in mind here.