Reading this makes me think Charlie is lucky he just got fired and not taken out back and shot...

Referring to a stranger solely by an intrinsic physical characteristic is usually reductive and rude—and sometimes also much worse.

Referring to a stranger solely by an intrinsic characteristic is usually reductive and rude, and sometimes outright offensive. You might describe a friend or a chef, or a musical artist as Mexican, but you probably wouldn’t yell at a stranger on the street “Hey, Mexican Dude! You dropped your wallet!”

Racism is not the same as rudeness. Also, it’s much worse.

Well said. I do think calling “Burn it all down.” a single issue is a bit generous. I’d call it a lazy, uniformed and petty impulse we should be ashamed of as a nation... but you’re not wrong.

Amen. Anyone who thought Warren or Sanders where their first pick, and Trump came second, doesn’t give a flying fuck about a single thing Warren or Sanders actually believe or want to achieve in goverment. They just don’t want to admit now they were utterly uninformed and lazy as fuck, and their vote had nothing at…

“Hilary is a meanie pants bully and I want to be mean and bully those other people without being called on it!”

So, if they agreed to it, it’s a “reasonable” expectation, no matter the context or other behaviours on the part of the management? Have I got that right?

That’s fair. I can see why you thought that was rhetorical, but I was genuinely trying to pin down at what point something becomes in your mind “unreasonable”. So, if they agreed to it, it’s a “reasonable” expectation, no matter the context or other behaviours on the part of the management? Have I got that right?

You’re right. You didn’t say that, although I asked the question pretty directly, you rather conststanty pontificated rather than conversed...

Look, if a person accepts a job that requires them to do X, and then management fucks up royally, misunderstands their workforce, miscommunicates with the workforce, mismanages public communication and ignores the abundantly clear issues of perception and implied endorsement, then heaps additional unnecessary public…

Oh, are we at the point now where we are just going to quote each other as though that magically means we aren’t being willfully obtuse? I’ll take a hard pass on that.

It’s not reasonable to coerce your employees into something nearly everyone will perceive as a rather contentious political endorsement. It may be legal, but it’s not reasonable. It’s bad for your brand. It’s bad for your employees.

You can’t see how a perceived public endorsement of Trump may impact the life of a NY based professional dancer? Seriously? That’s a pretty limited imagination you got there.

Would everyone in your life, personal and professional, know that you did that work for that client, be easily able to find a video of you doing said work, and would many, if not a majority of them, see your doing that work as an endorsement of a politician?

Empathy?

No no no! Genesis very specifically says “kinds” of animals—not species! You see, God just told a few pairs of birds that contained sufficient genetic information to account for all the different species of birds we have today to make their way to the ark! So sure, there are like 10,000 species of birds alive today,…

The sixteen-year-old runner-up from 2010 who has been well prepped by her PR team to avoid saying his name as much as possible and keeps reminding us she once sung for Obama too!

It’s gonna be a snake-pit, and by all reports that is just how Trump likes it. He apparently delights in pinning his underlings against one-another while doing absolutely none of the heavy lifting (or even light reading) himself.

The NYU site is a great resource. For this particular question, I’d recommend her 1919 article A Parents’ Problem or Woman’s? Sanger is pretty clear, and radical, for 1919.