A Little More Tolerance, Please

Remove all ads!

This is pretty much why this case is important, alluded to earlier:

"Debate on marriage and more looms"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931895.asp

Incidentally, since some people are saying that gay people have heightened protection, I can tell you that isn't the case. Basically, if you a law implicates race it receives the greatest scrutiny. If it implicates gender it receives intermediate scrutiny. If it implicates gay people it demanded the lowest form of scrutiny. To equate the protection is wrong. Indeed, how is it that you think the 'Defense of Marriage Act' is still around?

I agree with others though, why can't those gay people just be quiet and sit in the back of the bus where they belong?

 

Too bad it's not true. I am one of those WASP salesmen in the US that you are attempting to comment on. Despite all the conservative lies to the contrary I do have rights that are covered under both federal and state laws. The most often example used by conservatives in such misinformation, goes something like: "A boss can fire an employee if he/she does not like his tie." Wrong. You can be fired for wearing inappropriate attire that much is true. But if an employee wears a certain tie he or she must first receive a warning about wearing such a tie and all other actions taken must be documented and witnessed. Then if an employee is fired all the other employees in the workplace cannot wear the same tie.

If you doubt me just read the rather long online listing of adivce to employers listed on the Texas Labor Law internet site. A lot of employers really do try to be fair and follow the letter of the law in their treatment of their workers. Even in a redneck state like Texas, most are pretty good. The important thing is that all the employees are treated equally. According to one HR department mgr I spoke with, that is what a judge will look at most if a wrongful firing suit is filed.

I did work at one store where an employee was fired for being openly gay. It was because a customer complanied about being taken care of by a "rude fag." It was never really clear if the guy was fired for being rude or being a "fag" - or perhaps both. But the mgr who fired him said he was not required to have gays working in his store.

 

Chandos, it's quite obvious you need a shade of reason for sacking someone. The problem is that when a minority member is sacked he automatically becomes viewed as sacked for being a minority member. This tendency is predominant if not exclusive. If I got angry and told a white hetero guy of my nation and religion that he sucked, it would be interpreted as a harsh statement about his personality. However, if he were a Chosen of Pink Rabit, I would be deemed guilty of the crime of spreading hatred against minorities in form of saying that all Chosen of Pink Rabbit suck.

 

@ Chandros

You are totally wrong about the rights between employers and employees. I'm not sure why you think this is conservative vs. liberal issue, and I take offense at your claim of conservative lies. I think it is a given that both conservatives and liberals will bend the truth to suit their goals. I went to the Texas website you mentioned and here is a direct quote.

Texas is an "employment at will" state. That means that employers may terminate employees at any time for any legal reason or for no reason at all.

Here is the direct link.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/termination.html

 

This is taken off the link you provided:

The employment-at-will doctrine is not without some limits, however. Employers are not at liberty to fire employees for exercising legal rights or for refusing to commit illegal acts. Protected employee activities in Texas include:

Discrimination: Employers may not retaliate against employees for filing a claim for discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or disability.

Workers' Compensation: Employees may not be fired for filing workers' compensation claims.

Union Membership: Employees may not be punished or fired on the basis of union membership.

Jury Duty: Employers may not terminate an employee who is called for jury service.

Military Service: Employers called to active duty are protected from dismissal.

Child Support: Employers may not discharge employees who have court orders to pay child support via deductions form their paychecks.

Abuse: (specific to nursing homes) Employees may not be punished or fired for reporting client abuse or neglect in a nursing home.

Hazardous Conditions: Employees may not be discharged for reporting violations in handling of hazardous chemicals.

Employers should also become familiar with the numerous federal laws protecting employees from retaliation.

Here's more:

Before Termination

Make sure the company policy has been established and communicated to employees.

Investigate fully the incident leading to termination.

Give the employee notice of the infraction and provide an opportunity for the person to explain or provide contradictory facts or evidence.

Document the investigation process and any and all conferences with the employee.

Make all decisions regarding termination on objective facts. Avoid subjectivity.

Follow the policy if there is a disciplinary procedure. Do not by pass certain prerequisite punishments. For example, if the infraction warrants just a warning, then only give a warning. It is critical to enforce company policy fairly and consistently.

Look carefully at the last line, Snook. I was right. Thank you for helping me prove my point.

 

Actually, I'm with Snook here. In an at will state you could fire someone because you don't like their tie. Those are suggestions at the bottom, and good ones at that, but not requirements. Those suggestions stem from lots of practical concerns a small business person might have. For example, if an employee quits or is terminated do you have to pay unpaid vacation time? That really depends in large part on your set out policy; you want to set a policy and follow it so that you can avoid potentially frustrating situations.

That said, in an at will state, you can fire an employee for most any reason you want with a list of exceptions. The exceptions are rather limited as the list shows. And the color of an employees tie isn't one of those exceptions.

Snook said it this way:

Pretty much sums it up though you might want to add that you can't fire an employee for an illegal reason but that seems included by 'for any legal reason' to me. Thems the facts or all my years of learning ain't done me no good.

May seem harsh but it is true. And for good reason imo but that's neither here nor there.

 

As I see it from the text, employer may not fire employee in revenge for filing a job-related suit or reporting rule or law violations. This serves only to protect employees from being fired with untrue reasons given. This way employer can't sack employee for lying, stealing, negligence etc so long as he can't prove his claims.

 

@ Chandros

An employer may fire an employee for any or no reason at all. Using the Texas example there are some limitations, but if you think about it they do not apply to the majority of the workforce. True, you cannot fire someone for whistleblowing (in most states) or if they will not perform an illegal act. Those help out everyone, although why an employee would want to continue working for that employer is beyond me. However, the ugly tie scenario does not fit into any of the "protected" situations and the termination would be completely legal. Where the unfairness is that certain groups are given a recourse to accuse their employers of discrimination and others are not. For example a handicapped person with an ugly tie may attempt a lawsuit, yet a non-handicapped person may not.

I think if you re-read it you will see that I am correct on this issue. The bottom part is telling employers that you had better follow your employee handbook and handle discipline evenly. That is the reason that most small corporations (who hire the majority of the population) do not have policies. If there is no policy, the employer may do as they wish.

 

This thread is supposed to be about gays and as a side issue, if whether or not they are protected. Have we gotten back to that yet? Or are we agreed that they are not? I don't see anything that says they are, so I suppose that we are arguing worker rights on this thread now. Right?

Ok, let's move on to that topic.

"It is critical to enforce company policy fairly and consistently."

Notice the word "critical." Why would a word like that be in a sentence? Could it mean that it is important for an employer? And about what? Vacation time? Give me a break. The words are plain English for those who can read them. I work in Texas. I have talked with all kinds of employers about what they can do and can't. Yes, they can fire you. But the key is that (and I have been saying this over and over to you guys), the same standard has to be applied to all employees .

That really should be just common sense to most, as it is to most employers. If they have a policy, and most do, they want everyone to follow it. Go figure.

Here's more from the same site:

A Final Word of Caution

When drafted carefully and used properly, employee handbooks can be valuable tools for employers. However, when the handbook is not prepared cautiously, it can be a sword instead of a shield.

Pitfalls to avoid:

Failing to put company policy and practices in writing.

Using unclear and ambiguous language in a stated policy or procedure.

Using suggestions or express statements of guaranteed employment in the policy.

Using language that is absolute.

Enforcing company policies inconsistently.

Failing to follow established procedures.

Failing to give every employee a copy of the company handbook.

Failing to obtain written acknowledgment of receipt of the handbook from employees.

Failing to advise all employees of any revisions or additions.

[ June 30, 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Back on topic, I think, handbags at the ready ladies.

If you are different because you are from another country, that is not intrinsically funny, because countries are not funny.

If you are different because of the colour of your skin, that is not intrinsically funny, because skin colour is not funny (maybe green is).

If you are different because you are disabled, that is not intrinsically funny, because disabilities are not funny (maybe lisps are).

If you are different because of something to do with sex, that is intrinsically funny, because sex is funny (if you have ever actually had it you will know what I mean).

For arguments sake let us say that there are two types of Gay jokes.

1. Those with purely humorous intent.

2. Those with harmful intent.

And lets say there are two types of people

1. Intelligent people.

2. Stupid people.


When you have intelligent people telling humorous Gay jokes you end up with Gay Icons, like the cast of the American sitcom Will And Grace, and Graham Norton, the six-days-a-week British chat show host. These people relentlessly poke fun at the Gay lifestyle in the most lewd and overt way, but they are not vilified by the Gay community. Instead their shows are followed by Gay and Straight alike, and in doing so they generate millions of pounds for their respective countries. There are dozens of overtly gay people in the Entertainment Industry who make their living this way. It is almost as if it’s your national duty to laugh a Gay people because Gay and Straight culture has given their blessing to this form of humour.

Intelligent people telling harmful Gay jokes - bad.

Stupid people telling humorous Gay jokes - bad.

Stupid people telling harmful Gay jokes - bad.


Do you shut down the one good scenario that entertains people and more importantly educates Straight people that Gay people are the exact same as them without lecturing, in order to make the telling of Gay jokes as culturally taboo as telling racist jokes?

And then what? No more jokes with any type of sexual innuendo? And then no more jokes about bodily functions, and then having to take pills to stop yourself from farting in public in case you accidentally making someone laugh at you?

Harmful and unfunny Gay jokes are the price that society pays to be allowed to broadcast the message 'Gay Is Good' to the world in the mass media. When the world has been educated (and it isn't yet), then the sexual orientation based jokes will not be as funny anymore, but because it does involve sex (snigger, snigger) it will always get a laugh, the same way that the very mention of Ex-president Bill Clinton will get a laugh (bring him back, make love not war ).

The simple question is, why aren't you prepared to pay that price? Why can't you see the big picture?

Laugh at the good jokes and leave an awkward, stony silence after the bad.


I'll give you an example of what had me rolling about on the floor laughing. I copied this from the first Tavern Of Infinity long ago, but I never copied the names of the posters at the time, the full posts are still there if you want to read them. By this stage a huge number of ultra-powerful completely invulnerable characters were seated in the tavern;

posted March 20, 2001 22:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A tall, lean man with dark, wet hair bursts through the door, dressed in leather pants, stripped to the waste with oiled pecs. he minces up to the bar whilst winking at all the other males in this tavern of infinity. In a high pitched voice he asks the barmaid to make sure his shandy comes in a clean glass. He slaps the arse of the bloke standing next to him, and with all his crotch-bulging might asks to 'check out his specifications'

The bloke beats him up and throws him out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is funny not because the character is Gay or gets beaten up, but because everybody else's character appeared to have been made in the BG character generator, and was also unable to be beaten up.

Then the next day;

Lord Moeken wakes up. It is morning, but in the small, dry room, he feels...another presence.
He notices another form in his bed and smiles, remembering the young lady he had met the night before, just before he had consumed vast amounts of ale.

He sharply draws back the covers.

Lying there, grinning is a young man with wet black hair and oiled pecs. "Hiya sailor! I said I wouldn't be too rough didn't I?" the young man beamed. The smile vanished from the Lord's face.

Lord Moeken beat him up and threw him out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is funny, not because the character is Gay or gets beaten up, but because it is poking fun at Moeken's flawless, invulnerable character, and doing it in a highly unpredictable way. You could replace the Gay character with a dozens of different things (live a little) and the joke would still work.


To the people with green skin that I may have offended at the start of this post, I was referring to Orvil the Duck.

To the people with lisps that I may have offended at the start of this post, I was referring to the speech impediment of the television presenter Jonathan Ross, which he uses as a humour prop whenever his show hits a lull.

Lastly I will say this, if someone puts a beside a statement for the 'hard of understanding' then I see this as an attempt at humour. If it's not funny I will say so, but I would never ask someone to stop telling jokes in a similar vein just because one or two of them stunk. I'm sure the scriptwriter for Will And Grace comes up with a few stinkers every now and then and gets told to edit them out.

I think Corin in BG1 looks Gay, so there.

[ June 30, 2003, 07:53: Message edited by: Divel ]

 

No, jokes involving skin-color, nationality, religion, gender and so on are mostly the best jokes.

I just seen taxi, taxi again, a film full of jokes about Muslims, Jews, Japanese, Algerians, Germans and British. And I personally think its one of the funniest films, maybe because it feeds all my prejudices about the people living around the Mediterranian.

Anyway, the problem is, when a joke bases on:

"All people who where born in Scandinavia are liars and thieves and are always drunk, and completly irresponsible."

What do you call a scandinavian with a bike ? A thief.

 

We have the same joke here in Holland, but Scandinavians is replaced with Morrocans.

 

@Yago. You have stated that the first assumptions in my previous post are wrong. It is off topic, but I think I have to clarify why these assumptions are not wrong. Hopefully this simple point of fact about racist jokes will not hijack the original thread.

To explain why you should not find such jokes funny you need to do a bit of role-playing.

Imagine you are an Austrian man with a wife and five-year-old daughter.

You move thousands of miles away from your home to a fictional country called Fasi. There is a large firm in Fasi that is the only place that can make use of your particular talents. If you can’t get a job there you will have to take low paid menial work. The owner of the firm is not a clever man. He inherited the business from his father.

He once heard the joke;

‘What do you call an Austrian, with a bicycle? A thief. Ha-ha-ha.’

He reads your job application. He sees that you are from Austria. He remembers the joke and throws out your application, as he does not want a thief working for him.

You are now thousands of miles from home and have very little money and no prospects. Then your daughter gets ill. You are a foreigner and have no health insurance or a basic right to health care. If you had have got that job you would have had enough money to pay for the treatment your daughter needed.

You could steal the money, but you are not a thief, regardless of what all the Fasi people around you say. So instead you watch your daughter slowly die before your eyes.

Is anyone still laughing?


I know you originally stated that the bike joke was as a bad joke, but even jokes that may seem to be harmless aren't, and often pave the way towards far worse jokes, like the bike joke.

A joke is a joke, and will always raise a laugh, unless the person listening to the joke is intelligent enough to see beyond the here and now, and is able to see the damage that jokes with no basis in fact (ie. lies) can have when targeted against innocent communities.

That is why society says that funny jokes that have been seeded with racism should not be tolerated, because the racism (which is usually an unnecessary part of the joke) is not intrinsically funny. (Intrinsic means ‘belonging to a person or thing’s basic nature’).

I know that it means that you have to consciously stop yourself from laughing at something that is obviously intended to be humorous, but if you understood what I have just said, it should become second nature to you.

I am sure that you have seen many funny movies that seem to involve racist jokes. But if you look more closely, you will probably find that more often than not the characters are laughing at the stereotypical impression that one race has about another. It is usually the person who believes the false stereotypical image that is the butt of the jokes. In other words you are laughing at the racist, not the racism. I haven’t seen ‘Taxi, Taxi’ so I could be wrong about that particular movie. If I am, then ask yourself whether the stupidest person you know would actually believe what is being said about the different ethnic groups in it. If he/she would, then the movie is another brick in the walls that divide us from our brothers and sisters.

Now back on topic.

The point I was trying to make was that television and movies are trying to educate the world about the truth about the Gay community all around us by using humour. If stupid people try to imitate (badly) what they see on screen, then that is a small price to pay. Soon Gay jokes will become every bit as dull as:

What do you call a Gay, with a bicycle? A thief. Ha-ha-ha.’

Just be patient, (and tolerant of the stupid people with a poor sense of humour).

I was hoping that someone would try and tell me why jokes about sex, in all its forms, types and positions were not funny. Never mind.

This is already long post but I think I should hit on another point before I go;

The reason why some people shout from the rooftops that they hate Gays is simply to tell people of the opposite sex that they are not Gay. Some slightly effeminate boys feel the need to make this point more forcefully than those that already look and behave like grizzled old men by the time they are sixteen.

Spreading rumours that someone is Gay is often seen as a legitimate tactic to stop them ‘picking up’ a person that the rumour spreader wanted for themselves. The only way to counteract this tactic is to again shout ‘I hate Gays’ from the rooftops (and giving the rumour spreader a public hiding also helps).

This doesn’t make shouting ‘I hate Gays’ right, but a sixteen-year-old boy has to do everything possible to improve his chances of getting laid because, quite simply, that’s what sixteen-year-old boys are programmed to do.


(BTW
Yago, I am not having a go at you, infact I think I am actually agreeing with what you said, only hopefully without leaving any ambiguity.

I sometimes I catch myself laughing at things that are really harmful to others. It's human nature. But as a global society, it is time to leave racism behind, get the World working as a harmonious single entity, and then go and kick some Extraterrestrial Butt. )

[ July 01, 2003, 05:19: Message edited by: Divel ]

 

Well, I’ve been away for 4 days, and I’m amazed this thread is still alive. Having read all the posts, I would like to make a few comments.

Gay Rights – It may be true that, in situations where there is a question as to whether a homosexual has been discriminated against, courts may give the benefit of the doubt to the homosexual. IMO this is a result of the reality that gays are discriminated against on a regular basis, and it is often difficult to ascertain the real motive in specific cases. The unfortunate side effect is that there are going to be individual cases where discrimination was not a factor, but the court may still find in favor of the homosexual. Is this fair? Of course not. But neither is the general discrimination. It is the price that society as a whole pays for tolerating discrimination in the first place.

Queer Nation and Gay Pride parades – yes, these are “in your face” types of demonstrations. However, sometimes, to get society to wake up and make changes, these sorts of things are effective. As long as they don’t break any laws, I see nothing wrong with them, and if they make some people feel uncomfortable, then they are on the road to succeeding in their objectives. Take a look a Martin Luther King Jr. and tell me that this wasn’t his general approach.

An interesting point, and I think I would have to agree with it.

This is one approach. The other is to do what I did when I started this thread, which is to voice your objections. The problem with silence is that it could be interpreted as endorsement, no matter how awkward and stony the silence is.

With regards to shows and movies like Will & Grace and The Bird Cage, IMO these are funny because, while they focus on gays, the gay aspect is only one part of the whole – gays are presented as human beings, with human strengths, weaknesses and emotions. Once this is established, the humor in the gay jokes becomes inoffensive.

I feel that I need to clarify something I said previously. When I stated that we shouldn’t be tolerant of bigots, what I really meant was that we shouldn’t tolerate their bigotry. There is a difference, and it is the exact same difference as disliking homosexuals vs. disliking homosexuality. There is a saying (I assume with religious roots) which goes something like this: Hate the sin, love the sinner. In other words, don’t taint your view of an entire person simply because of one aspect of that person’s life. For example, I hate liver – always have. The thought of eating liver makes me ill, and I can’t understand how anyone could like it. But do I hate anyone strictly on the basis of the fact that they like liver? Of course not. For the same reason, I don’t dislike homosexuals simple because they have same-sex relationships; their lifestyle has no real impact on me, so why should I care?

Finally, the reason that I started this thread. The SoA thread contained comments which I found offensive. I objected to them not because they contained the word “gay”. My concern was that some people seemed to be basing their decision not to include certain NPC’s in their party simpy because they considered the NPC’s be gay. This is pretty much a classic example of prejudice, and even though we are only dealing with NPC’s, these attitudes carry over to the real world. Whether the word “gay” is offensive or not has to be taken in overall context with the statement in which it appears.

 

At Divel

I'm agreeing with you. But you really should go and get a copy of "taxi, taxi", it's a really funny film and it gets my point over, why some of those jokes are funny, better then I can with text. But you are right (by the way, is the one with Austrians a lucky guess or do have background information ?), there are different jokes. The right kind and the wrong kind. "Taxi, taxi" is full of the right kind. Another film would be "Die Schweizermacher", but I don't think that film is aviable for you. Which other ? ... "Bend it like Beckham". That film is really funny too. What else ? Oh, yeah, "Dogma".

 

Under the right -- or more to the point, wrong -- circumstances pretty well any joke could be seen as being cruel or insensitive.

As for homosexuals, I believe that the practice is wrong -- that's been hashed out in about 20 other threads. I have never once physically attacked a homosexual, denied him/her a job, paid anyone else to hurt them or anything similar. The argument that if I do not 100% agree witht hem or their lifestyle I am a bigot and curtailing their rights is absolute horses**T. There is no law anywhere that says I have to approve of everything everyone does.

I have an opinion. If that amounts to abuse in the books of some turkey, well, I just don't give a damn.

 

Ok, I have changed this post due to popular demand. If someone calls me a turkey I meet flame with flame.

This thread is not about whether the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong, so why bring it into this thread? It will just make this thread the same as all the others. It will cause the arguement to get bogged down in morals. It will stall the currently unhindered debate about common sense and ethics. I think this would be a wrong turn to take.

If a person says he does not agree with another person's lifestyle, then thats fine. If a person says he does not agree with them, what exactly does that mean? I take it to mean the same thing as someone who says something like 'I do not like Nuclear Power Stations, I don't agree with them.'

When you don't agree with them, how does that affect them when they enter into your sphere of influence?

No one in this thread, as far as I am aware has said anything about a law stating that anyone has to agree with homosexual behavior or even agree with heterosexual behavior.

This thread is about making homosexuals the butt of jokes and derisory comments. It is about what constitutes a tasteless joke or comment. It has touched on the fact that saying a heterosexual person is like a homosexual person when they quite obviously aren't, is considered to be highly flameful behavior. The question is why is it flameful when it can only be interpreted as a joke?

Some people (not many) think that intimating that someone who does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, is actually for it, is a really funny joke.

I think that the last post simply started out with a truism, and then subtly segwayed into a related topic which threatened to turn the thread into a homosexuality is right/wrong spam-athon.

My bad for trying to incorporate a bit of Gay humour into a thread about, well, good and bad Gay humour.

[ July 04, 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: Divel ]

 

I nominate Divel for the strawman of the day award. I disagree with LKD's stance on homosexuality but he didn't say what you put into his mouth -- heh, get it, get, oh alright...

He said it's been 'hashed' out which from the context I took to mean pretty clearly: debated, argued, etc. but not settled. Yes, hashed out can mean 'we figured it out' but it was clear imo he didn't mean that. Do a search for 'homosexual' if you want to see those threads.

The insinuataion that he may in the future that 'he may have the opportunity to [attack homosexuals etc' is a wildly inappropriate assertion and a complete distortion of what he wrote.

I agree with you that the 'turkey' probably was an ad hominem but on a board which regularly likes to compare the current US administration with the Nazis it is a rather small sin and such a weak ad hominem as to be rather harmless.

All in all, your post was, imo, largely inflammatory and I suspect that was your goal.

 

Ah, I see Depaara is agreeng with me about jokes. It depends if a joke is transporting a political message, like this and this group of people (Indians, Japanese, Irish, Protestants, Catholics) are somehow "bad" or "corrupt". In this case, the joke is serving to spread the involving message. On the other hand, there are jokes without any message like this, which actually just consist out of funny possible situations, to which differences may lead. Like that weird British tradition which has something to do with longbows and consists of putting two fingers to the chin, which just is answered with confusion.

Well, there has been a flood-wave of jokes about the brainless half-monkeys living on the European continent. Let's just say, it fueld my anger.

Edit: Ahm, yes, there is no need to specifically target Depaara.

[ July 03, 2003, 18:46: Message edited by: Yago ]