i don't care if you're black, white, purple

thanx for the heads=up

or heads down in the case of doormen

dude, gabbneb, I see the logical/rhetorical distinction you are making here, but I'm not sure this one is a cause that's really worth fighting for

it's morelike a legal distinction

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Shrug.jpg/250px-Shrug.jpg

i don't care if you're logical, rhetorical, legal

sorry, "your"

yeah, dude, it's always a little cheap to gag on testimony like this, and yes, his answer is clearly trying to see "I simply view this person as an employee with a specific function," and yes, the joke makes a slight assumption that he didn't treat his employees with much respect regardless of race, BUT BUT the original gag is actually kinda supported by his wording and not THAT cheap:

I have a mind that focuses on the fact that he is a doorman and functions as a doorman.

... because "is a doorman and functions as a doorman" is somewhat rhetorically distinct from "is a person who happens to be employed as a doorman"

http://www.57thstreet4.com/

in any case I don't think anyone needs to fuck themselves and/or really bother going into this

also to be honest I don't think it's some obscene violation of sense to look at the reporting on this and conclude that dude was not exactly the sort of boss the janitors were inviting to their kids' birthday parties or anything

Bernard Spitzer was on the premises of each of these buildings on a daily basis, was fully aware of the harassment and racial slurs outlined in our lawsuit and it is clear that although we were harassed and terminated by Gumly Haft management, it was at the direction of Bernard Spitzer.

a) he was there
b) he knew what those other guys did
c) clearly he told them to do it*

*that's what they told us

Umm gabbneb wtf is your argument here at this point? "It's unfair to goof on his disrespect for his workers because all he did was stand idly by while they were harassed and subjected to racial slurs?"

I mean, you said "pls cite me some allegations that he treated them poorly" and you seem to be citing one yourself, right now

I want to go to the birthday party of a jan8r! Jan8rs are hardcore. Somehow I always end up being their pals.

the health of our legal system demands robuts defense of all defendants, on message boards

ROBUTTS

It can't be worse than it is in Las Cruces, this robut system. ;_;

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2007/09/gallery_robot_sex/Robots_18.jpg

huh.

i'm not entirely talking about what's fair to goof on at this point, but instead breaking down their argument to expose what i think is a logical flaw. i mean, forgiveness for the prose style, but their webpage seems to say that he's guilty because he stood idly by while witnessing others' discrimination and that he's guilty because he directed the discrimination, two allegations that would seem to be in opposition to one another. sure, there's ways to resolve them, or they could be pled in the alternative. but i think they just emphasize further my argument that it's a little tabloidy to stretch the allegations into a fantasy that this haughty UES rich dude personally harassed his doormen of dark color, and to convict the guy based on not very strong allegations.

hey gabbnebb whats up

I mean, you said "pls cite me some allegations that he treated them poorly" and you seem to be citing one yourself, right now

no, i'm citing an allegation that these guys were treated poorly by building supervisors, and that such poor treatment was directed (they think) by the far-deeper-pocketed head of the management company

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/look_2.gif

gabbneb is OTM here but I am ignoring that because the original joke was funny

haha gabnebb your original posts here were directed at the joke -- I'm not sure anyone has much felt like arguing with you about the suit itself

also, to be fair --

their webpage seems to say that he's guilty because he stood idly by while witnessing others' discrimination and that he's guilty because he directed the discrimination, two allegations that would seem to be in opposition to one another

I'm not sure I see how these are inherently opposed -- the claim would seem to be that he stood idly by while witnessing others' discrimination because he had directed them to discriminate! One of those things is harder to prove than the other, but they are in no way opposed to one another.

Cf "Jim stands idly by while his dog craps on the sidewalk because that is precisely where Jim trained his dog to crap"

right, as i implied, xp, but it's not clear that that is what they're alleging

Aw, Jim. Why?

gabbneb why aren't you on court tv

i mean, you've got the face for tv, natch

he claim would seem to be that he stood idly by while witnessing others' discrimination because he had directed them to discriminate

or (as may actually be the allegation) that he 1) directed them to get rid of the employees, and 2) was aware of the harassment that others chose as a means of doing so

zing!

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hccofield1125.artnov25,0,1528135.story

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-cofield1125.artnov25,0,1528135.story

"Despite all the letters, I don't believe she should be treated differently in this situation because she is a judge, whether it's positive or negative," Bright said.

Dude, gabb, are we talking about the same website, linked above? The claim seems pretty clear to me -- the allegation is that the management group was directed by Spitzer to get rid of black employees, and that when a campaign of intimidation did not induce them to quit, they were summarily fired.

(Also there are direct allegations about his behavior in there: "All of this came after direct confrontation with Bernard Spitzer himself on the building property. He refused to respond to any of us - even to a simple 'good morning Mr. Spitzer.' On one occasion when he saw one of my African American co-workers at the front desk filling in for a concierge who was in the restroom, he went out of his mind yelling, turned real red and stomped off.")

I don't know what distinction you're trying to make -- that he may have called for discriminatory firing but that doesn't mean he was rude about it, or something? Because that would be odd.

none of those are allegations that he personally harassed any of the doormen.

Good god, gabbneb, my question remains: what the fuck difference does that make in the discussion we're having?

the harassment appears to be the order to clean the toilets with toothbrushes, and the associated comments from management company employees. there's no direct allegation that spitzer ordered or was aware of any of those things in particular, or perhaps even generally.

you are a mystery sometimes gabb

xpost - Gabbneb you are basically sitting here going "just because he's alleged to have made discriminatory orders and condoned harassment as a tactic to achieve them doesn't mean he was personally rude to anyone's face," which, as arguments go, is simultaneously true, pointless, and batshit insane.

no, that's not what i'm saying

can we talk about negro washington

Seriously gabbneb please summarize WTF you are saying and why it matters.

(I am 90% sure my response to whatever it is will be "no shit, nobody has argued that, because it doesn't particularly matter")

i think this is the chewbacca defense

oh my fucking god

I WILL NEVER ACCUSE A RICH MAN OF LOOKING DOWN UPON THE LOWER CLASSES AGAIN. I AM REALLY SORRY, EVERYONE ON ILX BESIDES GABBNEB, FOR BRINGING THIS THREAD UPON US u_u

The argument is that the substance presented in the allegations is not enough to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Spitzer order the harrassment or knew it was going on. At worst, the current allegation is that he didn't have enough insight into how shitty his proxy was.

None of this is germane to the original, still funny joke.