The irony over this situation is just too rich. This talented black reporter was basically cancelled at a rather liberal publication by an internal outrage mob of the new most aggrieved instigated by right wing provocators over social media posts the reporter posted as a minor and has since apologized for. Talk about cutting your own noes off to spite your face with your adversaries' blade. I guess diamonds, the internet, and the ideological purity requirements of identity politics are truely forever.
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political, ideological, and nationalistic battle. That's against the site guidelines because it destroys what HN is supposed to be for: curious conversation on intellectually interesting topics.
We ban accounts that do this kind of thing repeatedly, so please don't.
The internet is forever. Good on her for taking responsibility. Accountability means consequences.
She's apparently very good at her job, and I hope it means that she can find a place to rebuild her reputation. There should be one, especially since had already taken responsibility for this.
But Teen Vogue wasn't the place for it. Especially since she was a teen when she sent these racist tweets. The Internet means that mistakes you make as a teenager will come back to haunt you. Courts can seal arrest records but the Internet is public. The things you say are heard, and seen, and they matter.
So I hope this is a minor setback in her career, and that they can find somebody equally talented.
I don't think it's possible for this to only be a minor setback. I predict her career in journalism is over. Her name is now associated with having made racist tweets and from having to resign from Teen Vogue. Identity matters a lot in professional journalism and I don't see how any media outlet would want to take her up as a writer knowing that they'd have to deal with the bad publicity that would arise. Why not just hire someone else with no baggage?
Could be. Could also be that they see her take responsibility and move forward with it. It would likely be in a less visible role, but it will give her the opportunity to make genuine amends.
For a lot of people they really want this story to be "ha ha the left turns on itself". And the left sure does. They're damned good at it. People love to punish, and when the real offenders are largely immune to punishment, they'll take it out extra hard on those they can get their hands on.
But there are ways for it to end. She's putting herself up prominently and demonstrating what a genuine apology looks like. She's not hedging, excusing, or turning it around. She's accepting that an apology is more than just saying that you're sorry. Which means that people get a chance to accept the apology.
Something we don't get a lot of practice in. So maybe we'll fail at it. That wouldn't be surprising. But it has to start somewhere, and maybe it'll start with her.
Part of the reason why I think her career is over is because even after a gold-standard apology, she was still made to resign. She did the exact right thing to do and by all means should have been given a second chance and shown some forgiveness.
Edit: A gold standard apology is 1) admitting the transgression, 2) understanding the harm it caused, 3) delivering an apology to those affected, 4) pledging to make amends, 5) changing behavior going-forward
These would be completely uncontroversial if they were written about European or white people: "Stupid white TA"
"Like an old white woman"
"Wake up with swollen white eyes"
"Outdone by White #whatsnew"
(And these clearly were not sufficiently controversial about Asian people coming from her until literally yesterday and probably won't be sufficiently controversial after like next weekend).
Not to say this is unfair to her. "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"
I mean they are stereotypes about a particular minority group. Of course they don't read the same when you replace them with phrases that are not stereotypes about the majority group.
Everything but the eye remark could apply to white people: "Stupid white TA," "Like an old white woman," and "Outdone by White #whatsnew."
And the weeping and gnashing of teeth has nothing to do with making remarks about a "particular minority group." If she were studying abroad in China and said the same things about a "particular majority group," I doubt it would save her back in the US.
If she were studying abroad in China and posted this I doubt the Chinese would care. They don't share the same sensibilities about identity and race as the west. To project these sensibilities on to them is kind of racist in and of itself.
Of course the point is moot because most Western social media is blocked in China anyway.
They don't truly care, but they will cynically pretend to "share the same sensibilities" when it seems useful. Chinese propaganda brands forced sterilization as "female empowerment", and denounces other things it doesn't like as "white supremacy". They see an ideological vulnerability and they try to exploit it.
I don't disagree with your statement but I think we should be specific in describing this as a CCP tactic. The people and their government are not one and the same or always of a like mind.
It's a strange value system to think that expressing racism directed against a larger group of people is a less serious offense than expressing racism directed against a smaller group. I will never understand people who justify racism this way. If anything, it is a more severe offense to insult a larger group of people, but one can be idealistic and argue that insulting a race should not depend on the size of the race.
Larger groups of people tend to be able to defend themselves more easily than smaller groups. There's a power differential in numbers. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's probably based in the same sort of logic that is behind guarding against the tyranny of the majority.
It's the concept of punching up vs. punching down. Except in some cases like, Saddam Hussein's minority Sunni dictatorship over mostly-Shia Iraq, historically majority populations do better than minority ones. So they have less to lose when offended.
I recommend watching the excellent BBC documentary World At War (1973) -- You can watch it on Daily Motion (c.f. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3p7c46). They had western reporters interview Nazi officials asking them to explain all the anti-jewish policies, and the answer is basically "We're punching up." They argued that jews were overrepresented and had too much power in German society; "we are merely righting the balance".
In fact, if you talk to any racist, they will give you plenty of reasons explaining why the group of people they hate deserve to be hated and that he is merely "righting the balance". Everyone believes they are acting in the name of ultimate justice and that the hated group is deserving of the abuse.
So I would recommend some self-reflection before making excuses for hate. None of these excuses are valid, they have all been tried before, and all these ideas such as "punching up" have been discredited since the 40s. Those sympathetic to Hitlerian race theory should not be sources of moral or ethical guidance.
I gave no excuses, simply a rationale. Your counter example is also invalid, as Jews were clearly a minority in Germany, and a historically disadvantaged one at that.
Numerical minority or majority is just one possible criteria for defining power and influence, and given that it is up the person justifying the hate to define their own criteria, they will pick whatever is convenient. E.g. over-representation in key areas is enough.
But if you think a numerical majority is the sole basis for "punching up", then the Peninsulares must have been punching up against native born citizens in Gran Colombia. Or the Jacobins must have been punching up against the peasant-farmers in France. Or the urban Chinese Communists must have been punching up against farmers in the provinces. So of course, these criteria are picked when convenient and discarded otherwise.
Again, I mentioned the Jews in Germany were also historically disadvantaged, so even by my exact wording you are failing to address the complete statement.
That said, I never said I subscribe to the theory, I’m simply explaining it. Perhaps you should save your half-arguments for someone who’s espousing it.
These tweets were controversial in 2019 (when she finally deleted them), and again in 2020, and again this year, when she got the Teen Vogue job.
The difference is that the first two times, no one cared because most people don't care about racism against Asians in America. They only cared this time because 6 Asian women lost their lives this week in Atlanta. If that hadn't happened, she would probably still have her job after her token apology.
It's in the article in the link under "Her job status became shaky days after Condé Nast named her to the position, when the offensive tweets she had posted as a teenager in 2011 resurfaced.", which links to https://www.instagram.com/p/CMIKWZegh4n/
The tweets are in the third image in the Instagram post, transcribed here:
"Outdone by Asian #whatsnew"
"now googling how to not wake up with swollen, asian eyes..."
"give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don't explain what I did wrong..thanks a lot stupid asian T.A. you're great."
Not sure if there's more, but that seems to be the main basis of the reaction.
1. People differ on whether her apology was sincere.
2. In 2011, she was an adult. Not a child.
4. I do not understand what "principle" you are defending here. The right to make racist tweets and ignore them?
5. Forgiveness is one thing. But why she lost the respect of nearly the entire staff of the magazine she was supposed to run. Also, she had literally no experience in fashion, and there are questions about the hiring process that led to her being hired over more qualified candidates with relevant experience.
6. Really, no. Just don't expect to be a boss if your history demonstrates you don't respect a large portion of your staff.
1. Subjective standards should be decided based upon the current fashionable politics.
2. The age of majority in the US is 18, she was 17. If you aren't going to try a 17 year old robber as an adult then why would you try a minor in the court of public opinion as an adult. Oh yeah and basic math doesn't matter if it harms your narrative.
3. Im glad we agree.
4. The principle of forgiveness which you jump over in 5. So yeah kids willful ignorance is cool now.
5. The 'entire' staff did nothing in this case. A minority of the staff voiced a concern. The number mentioned in the article was 20. So its ok to make exaggerations to fit your narrative kids and those that scream the loudest are right. As for experience, she has experience in journalism and Anna Wintour who has plenty experience in fashion thought she was a great fit. So remember kids experience and expertise don't matter only political correctiness.
6. Remember kids only your first offense matters. Apologies nor actions demonstrating maturity, growth, or tolerance don't. Once a sinner always an unclean sinner.
1. You're right. She wasn't sincere in her apology, as demonstrated by her cavalier attitude toward these concerns when the staff first brought it up when she was first hired.
2. She was 18 when she made half of those tweets, including all of the homophobic tweets. As she was in line to be in charge of a fashion magazine with a large gay readership, that alone would have led to her termination.
3. We don't agree. I don't even understand the context.
4. No, you're clearly not defending the principle of forgiveness. You've unilaterally decreed that Asians must forgive her because non-Asians do.
5. Well, if you want to be technical about it, a minority (20) of the total work force (including interns and contractors, 45 people) voiced a concern (but that minority was a majority of employees).
Moreover, her "experience" in journalism consisted of three years of reporting, during which time she thought it was a good idea to began a relationship with someone she covered. Contrast to the staff at the magazine she would have led, where nearly all of the staff had multiples of her experience in the relevant field and were all objectively and subjectively better qualified to lead the magazine. Even before her racist and homophobic past became an issue again.
6. Multiple offenses. Spread over time. Racist and homophobic. And, based on the other scandal she was involved in within the past 4 months (i.e., related to her relationship with a White House staffer which led to her reassignment and his termination), it's clear that she hasn't demonstrated maturity or growth, and was entirely unsuitable for the lead editor position at Teen Vogue in the first place.
You joke, but fashion publications have been at the vanguard of a lot of this.
For example, during recent internal conflicts at the NYT (like the one that forced out Bari Weiss), it was the Style section where the staunchest supporters of one faction lived. It's obvious enough if you compare the Style section to other parts of the newspaper.
I believe there were some earlier squabbles at Teen Vogue as well.
The role of fashion publications is even reflected (knowingly, I assume) in phrases like "not a good look".
Meanwhile, people like Nick Cannon, who openly speaks about how much he hates Jews, still has a television show. People like Chris Brown, who beat his girlfriend's face in, still releases albums. People like Mark Wahlberg, who beat an Asian dude (multiple Asian dudes actually) and blinded him, still releases movies. People like Roman Polanski, who raped a child, still is lauded by Hollywood elites. Meanwhile, this woman is being ostracized because of a few ill-advised comments she made as a teenager. The utter hypocrisy of the woke crowd, their inability and unwillingness to speak truth to power while picking apart those with no power and popularity and calling it a great victory for justice is infuriating. I can't help thinking about the end of the Roman Republic, when easily manipulated mobs ran rampant on the streets building nothing but leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. It's like their vision of progress is if United States turns into a Haiti or a Pakistan. The patients are in charge of the asylum; the people with decency will get ground to dust and the people with none will rise to the top.
People like Roman Polanski, who raped a child, still is lauded by Hollywood elites.
Roman Polanski was lauded by the old generation of Hollywood elites, most of whom no longer work. He's despised by the current and upcoming generation Hollywood elites, all of whom regard him as a pedophile. The Academy kicked him out several years ago, and since then all major US studios/distributors have refused to finance, acquire, or distribute his films in the U.S.
Mark Wahlberg is one of the few conservatives in Hollywood, and largely gets roles because he is a favorite of the conservative market for whom his racist past is not viewed as a negative.
people like Nick Cannon, who openly speaks about how much he hates Jews, still has a television show.
Nick Cannon does not "hate the Jews" nor has he ever said anything like that. His sole public instance of anti-Semitic comments relates to a podcast from last summer in which he spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about a specific Jewish family, while also various Black supremacist statements generally espousing hatred of all non-Blacks. He lost a billion-dollar media franchise he created and several gigs as a result, though I agree with you that he should have also lost his hosting gig on the Masked Singer.
Chris Brown, who beat his girlfriend's face in, still releases albums.
Unfortunately the music industry, and R&B and hip hop especially, are still quite misogynistic, so Brown continues to receive industry backing.
Meanwhile, this woman is being ostracized because of a few ill-advised comments she made as a teenager.
Her comments are pretty bad. But it wasn't just a "few" ill-advised comments. There were many racist and homophobic tweets. A series of them, spread out over several years, including while she was an adult. But the real issue that cost her the job was that most of staff of the magazine she was going to run demanded she be fired.
'Her comments are pretty bad. But it wasn't just a "few" ill-advised comments. There were many racist and homophobic tweets. A series of them, spread out over several years, including while she was an adult. But the real issue that cost her the job was that most of staff of the magazine she was going to run demanded she be fired.'
Her comments are here in a NY Post article and pretty bad they are only if you are of the pearl clutching moral panic set. They are basic dumb stereotypes people mutter while driving. I suggest you actually read them. They arent spread over years as well as documented in the NY Post article, they are all from 2011 when Mccammond was a minor. And most of the staff did nothing, about 20 people on the staff made social media posts as documented in the original article. Your comment might be taken seriously if it wasn't just peppered with inaccuracies.
1) She was 18 when she made some of the tweets that got her fired. Those tweets (in the articles being discussed right now) aren't the only tweets that she made; those are simply the ones that were brought up this time. She also made a number of homophobic tweets as an adult and she apologized for those tweets in 2019 when she was first caught.
2) Almost every Asian person that has seen these tweets find them offensive. But thanks for deciding that Asian people don't get to find racist things racist.
3) Teen Vogue has a staff of fewer than 50, and that number includes non-employees. So yes, over half the company rejected her as a boss. That usually gets a person fired even if they're not openly racist.
1. How about you provide links to said tweets to help us round out that picture. Also, when have you ever given a pre-emptive apology about anything? Apologies generally only happen when offense is recognized.
2. This is just the N billion Muslims will be offended argument repackaged. Pick an action and you can find a sufficiently large group of people to be offended by said action. And no one opinion expressed removes the ability for anyone else judge what they themselves thing is racist. To express otherwise is disingenuous.
3. Barely half is not most as you originally claimed and what about the other staff not in the vocal group of 20 or so. Does the minority opinion and that of say Anna Wintour not matter? Lastly, if you think most workplaces operate under the rules of Teen Vogue in terms of employees relationship to management you are going to have a hard worklife ahead of you.
1. Google is your friend. Some of the racist tweets were reposted, but most of the racist tweets (and all of the homophobic tweets) have been deleted.
2. Sure it is. But you don't get to decide whether someone else is offended by something. Especially when you're not in the group of people who were targeted by the statements.
If McCammond had made similarly racist comments about Latinos or Blacks, she would never have been in the running for the job in the first place.
3. More than half of the employed staff voiced concerns based on her racist and homophobic actions in the past. Out of a staff of 45 (including interns and contractors), more than 20 employees said she wasn't suitable for the job.
You clearly work in a tech environment where HR isn't a thing. I've worked more corporate jobs than you have. In any other company, if half of the employees said the incoming boss was a racist homophobe, and customers started pulling orders, that person's offer would have been withdrawn without hesitation.
Teen Vogue has become a weird Pravda-esque aggressively woke, identity politics-centered publication, and she’s been one person at the helm of it. She made her own bed.
44 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadWe ban accounts that do this kind of thing repeatedly, so please don't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
She's apparently very good at her job, and I hope it means that she can find a place to rebuild her reputation. There should be one, especially since had already taken responsibility for this.
But Teen Vogue wasn't the place for it. Especially since she was a teen when she sent these racist tweets. The Internet means that mistakes you make as a teenager will come back to haunt you. Courts can seal arrest records but the Internet is public. The things you say are heard, and seen, and they matter.
So I hope this is a minor setback in her career, and that they can find somebody equally talented.
For a lot of people they really want this story to be "ha ha the left turns on itself". And the left sure does. They're damned good at it. People love to punish, and when the real offenders are largely immune to punishment, they'll take it out extra hard on those they can get their hands on.
But there are ways for it to end. She's putting herself up prominently and demonstrating what a genuine apology looks like. She's not hedging, excusing, or turning it around. She's accepting that an apology is more than just saying that you're sorry. Which means that people get a chance to accept the apology.
Something we don't get a lot of practice in. So maybe we'll fail at it. That wouldn't be surprising. But it has to start somewhere, and maybe it'll start with her.
Edit: A gold standard apology is 1) admitting the transgression, 2) understanding the harm it caused, 3) delivering an apology to those affected, 4) pledging to make amends, 5) changing behavior going-forward
And why do I feel like if she was on the other political team the tweets would be the headline of every article?
These would be completely uncontroversial if they were written about European or white people: "Stupid white TA" "Like an old white woman" "Wake up with swollen white eyes" "Outdone by White #whatsnew"
(And these clearly were not sufficiently controversial about Asian people coming from her until literally yesterday and probably won't be sufficiently controversial after like next weekend).
Not to say this is unfair to her. "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"
And the weeping and gnashing of teeth has nothing to do with making remarks about a "particular minority group." If she were studying abroad in China and said the same things about a "particular majority group," I doubt it would save her back in the US.
Of course the point is moot because most Western social media is blocked in China anyway.
It's the concept of punching up vs. punching down. Except in some cases like, Saddam Hussein's minority Sunni dictatorship over mostly-Shia Iraq, historically majority populations do better than minority ones. So they have less to lose when offended.
I recommend watching the excellent BBC documentary World At War (1973) -- You can watch it on Daily Motion (c.f. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3p7c46). They had western reporters interview Nazi officials asking them to explain all the anti-jewish policies, and the answer is basically "We're punching up." They argued that jews were overrepresented and had too much power in German society; "we are merely righting the balance".
In fact, if you talk to any racist, they will give you plenty of reasons explaining why the group of people they hate deserve to be hated and that he is merely "righting the balance". Everyone believes they are acting in the name of ultimate justice and that the hated group is deserving of the abuse.
So I would recommend some self-reflection before making excuses for hate. None of these excuses are valid, they have all been tried before, and all these ideas such as "punching up" have been discredited since the 40s. Those sympathetic to Hitlerian race theory should not be sources of moral or ethical guidance.
But if you think a numerical majority is the sole basis for "punching up", then the Peninsulares must have been punching up against native born citizens in Gran Colombia. Or the Jacobins must have been punching up against the peasant-farmers in France. Or the urban Chinese Communists must have been punching up against farmers in the provinces. So of course, these criteria are picked when convenient and discarded otherwise.
That said, I never said I subscribe to the theory, I’m simply explaining it. Perhaps you should save your half-arguments for someone who’s espousing it.
The difference is that the first two times, no one cared because most people don't care about racism against Asians in America. They only cared this time because 6 Asian women lost their lives this week in Atlanta. If that hadn't happened, she would probably still have her job after her token apology.
The tweets are in the third image in the Instagram post, transcribed here:
"Outdone by Asian #whatsnew"
"now googling how to not wake up with swollen, asian eyes..."
"give me a 2/10 on my chem problem, cross out all of my work and don't explain what I did wrong..thanks a lot stupid asian T.A. you're great."
Not sure if there's more, but that seems to be the main basis of the reaction.
1. Sincere apologies don't mean anything.
2. You will be judged by your actions as a child.
3. He who wins is the one who narcs the most on their peers.
4. It is better for you acquiesce to the will of an aggrieved mob than to stand for a principle.
5. Forgiveness is not as important as supporting the current moral panic.
6. Only the most pure and most aggrieved should lead.
1. don't forget to delete your tweets
2. if there's no proof it happened, deny
2. In 2011, she was an adult. Not a child.
4. I do not understand what "principle" you are defending here. The right to make racist tweets and ignore them?
5. Forgiveness is one thing. But why she lost the respect of nearly the entire staff of the magazine she was supposed to run. Also, she had literally no experience in fashion, and there are questions about the hiring process that led to her being hired over more qualified candidates with relevant experience.
6. Really, no. Just don't expect to be a boss if your history demonstrates you don't respect a large portion of your staff.
2. The age of majority in the US is 18, she was 17. If you aren't going to try a 17 year old robber as an adult then why would you try a minor in the court of public opinion as an adult. Oh yeah and basic math doesn't matter if it harms your narrative.
3. Im glad we agree.
4. The principle of forgiveness which you jump over in 5. So yeah kids willful ignorance is cool now.
5. The 'entire' staff did nothing in this case. A minority of the staff voiced a concern. The number mentioned in the article was 20. So its ok to make exaggerations to fit your narrative kids and those that scream the loudest are right. As for experience, she has experience in journalism and Anna Wintour who has plenty experience in fashion thought she was a great fit. So remember kids experience and expertise don't matter only political correctiness.
6. Remember kids only your first offense matters. Apologies nor actions demonstrating maturity, growth, or tolerance don't. Once a sinner always an unclean sinner.
2. She was 18 when she made half of those tweets, including all of the homophobic tweets. As she was in line to be in charge of a fashion magazine with a large gay readership, that alone would have led to her termination.
3. We don't agree. I don't even understand the context.
4. No, you're clearly not defending the principle of forgiveness. You've unilaterally decreed that Asians must forgive her because non-Asians do.
5. Well, if you want to be technical about it, a minority (20) of the total work force (including interns and contractors, 45 people) voiced a concern (but that minority was a majority of employees).
Moreover, her "experience" in journalism consisted of three years of reporting, during which time she thought it was a good idea to began a relationship with someone she covered. Contrast to the staff at the magazine she would have led, where nearly all of the staff had multiples of her experience in the relevant field and were all objectively and subjectively better qualified to lead the magazine. Even before her racist and homophobic past became an issue again.
6. Multiple offenses. Spread over time. Racist and homophobic. And, based on the other scandal she was involved in within the past 4 months (i.e., related to her relationship with a White House staffer which led to her reassignment and his termination), it's clear that she hasn't demonstrated maturity or growth, and was entirely unsuitable for the lead editor position at Teen Vogue in the first place.
For example, during recent internal conflicts at the NYT (like the one that forced out Bari Weiss), it was the Style section where the staunchest supporters of one faction lived. It's obvious enough if you compare the Style section to other parts of the newspaper.
I believe there were some earlier squabbles at Teen Vogue as well.
The role of fashion publications is even reflected (knowingly, I assume) in phrases like "not a good look".
I mean, isn't there a particular party that would want that!? Oh wait, their electorate won't vote for them then.
> no way to appeal its judgment.
Well, there is one way. "History is written by the victors", as they say. And people / groups in power can and do kill humans with wrong thoughts =/
Ironically, ordinary crimes like larceny would fall under statute of limitations under American laws. Only heinous crimes would not.
Cases like hers may eventually help the society grow a thicker skin and reject demands of cancel culturists. Unfortunately, being a martyr sucks.
Roman Polanski was lauded by the old generation of Hollywood elites, most of whom no longer work. He's despised by the current and upcoming generation Hollywood elites, all of whom regard him as a pedophile. The Academy kicked him out several years ago, and since then all major US studios/distributors have refused to finance, acquire, or distribute his films in the U.S.
Mark Wahlberg is one of the few conservatives in Hollywood, and largely gets roles because he is a favorite of the conservative market for whom his racist past is not viewed as a negative.
people like Nick Cannon, who openly speaks about how much he hates Jews, still has a television show.
Nick Cannon does not "hate the Jews" nor has he ever said anything like that. His sole public instance of anti-Semitic comments relates to a podcast from last summer in which he spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about a specific Jewish family, while also various Black supremacist statements generally espousing hatred of all non-Blacks. He lost a billion-dollar media franchise he created and several gigs as a result, though I agree with you that he should have also lost his hosting gig on the Masked Singer.
Chris Brown, who beat his girlfriend's face in, still releases albums.
Unfortunately the music industry, and R&B and hip hop especially, are still quite misogynistic, so Brown continues to receive industry backing.
Meanwhile, this woman is being ostracized because of a few ill-advised comments she made as a teenager.
Her comments are pretty bad. But it wasn't just a "few" ill-advised comments. There were many racist and homophobic tweets. A series of them, spread out over several years, including while she was an adult. But the real issue that cost her the job was that most of staff of the magazine she was going to run demanded she be fired.
Her comments are here in a NY Post article and pretty bad they are only if you are of the pearl clutching moral panic set. They are basic dumb stereotypes people mutter while driving. I suggest you actually read them. They arent spread over years as well as documented in the NY Post article, they are all from 2011 when Mccammond was a minor. And most of the staff did nothing, about 20 people on the staff made social media posts as documented in the original article. Your comment might be taken seriously if it wasn't just peppered with inaccuracies.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/08/teen-vogue-staffers-call-out-n...
2) Almost every Asian person that has seen these tweets find them offensive. But thanks for deciding that Asian people don't get to find racist things racist.
3) Teen Vogue has a staff of fewer than 50, and that number includes non-employees. So yes, over half the company rejected her as a boss. That usually gets a person fired even if they're not openly racist.
2. This is just the N billion Muslims will be offended argument repackaged. Pick an action and you can find a sufficiently large group of people to be offended by said action. And no one opinion expressed removes the ability for anyone else judge what they themselves thing is racist. To express otherwise is disingenuous.
3. Barely half is not most as you originally claimed and what about the other staff not in the vocal group of 20 or so. Does the minority opinion and that of say Anna Wintour not matter? Lastly, if you think most workplaces operate under the rules of Teen Vogue in terms of employees relationship to management you are going to have a hard worklife ahead of you.
2. Sure it is. But you don't get to decide whether someone else is offended by something. Especially when you're not in the group of people who were targeted by the statements.
If McCammond had made similarly racist comments about Latinos or Blacks, she would never have been in the running for the job in the first place.
3. More than half of the employed staff voiced concerns based on her racist and homophobic actions in the past. Out of a staff of 45 (including interns and contractors), more than 20 employees said she wasn't suitable for the job.
You clearly work in a tech environment where HR isn't a thing. I've worked more corporate jobs than you have. In any other company, if half of the employees said the incoming boss was a racist homophobe, and customers started pulling orders, that person's offer would have been withdrawn without hesitation.