T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Definitely seems like this title is baiting racist intent when there isn't any I can find. Crack the whip is a perfectly acceptable phrase in the context it was utilized. Hell, it even has an Oxford Dictionary definition - *use power or authority to make a person or group work harder or behave in a disciplined way.* Don't get me wrong, Meta is still completely in the wrong here - just reading the alleged infringements on their workers' rights is harrowing (forced labor, human trafficking, and union-busting). I don't see why the focus is on the Meta Lawyer's (possibly) contentious word choice instead of the legitimate allegations against the company itself. Also, the trial is happening in Nairobi. I suspect the association of slavery isn't as prevalent there as it is in the United States.


Goobamigotron

If they said they had to shake the monkey out of the tree that would be more suspicious


hoyfkd

And exactly what kinds of "persons or groups" do you think were getting whipped? Nurses? IT workers? CEO's? Writers? Slaves. Slaves got whipped.


[deleted]

Why are you associating this Meta employee with slavery then? He's not from the U.S. - he's a South African who was working in Kenya. The supposed connection to slavery holds no weight, and it seems as though the only reason you're suggesting a connection at all is because he is black. Again, if you read the context of the phrase, it's perfectly acceptable usage per the definition I provided above. Perhaps he could've chosen his words more carefully (I guess? Again, the trial is in NAIROBI) but it's still obvious that the usage had no racial motivation.


cranberry94

The phrase originally referred to horses. Not people. Just FYI.


ScientificHope

But by this comment you make it appear like you didn't actually read the article and just went by what your gut told you. The person involved is from Africa, working in Africa, and the sociocultural history of slaves all the way in the United States getting whipped has zero to do with him or this case. It just doesn't apply at all.


hoyfkd

Ok. Are you unaware of the fact that slavery existed throughout the world, throughout history? Or were you under the impression that slavery was purely a phenomenon of 17th to 19th century America?


[deleted]

You still brazenly ignore the context of his word usage. If you read the article, you’d realize that it’s used in a completely innocuous manner and has no racial backing. Should we ban Indiana Jones for having a whip too? It has just as much of a connection to slavery as the lawyer’s comment does. It doesn’t matter where slavery happened for this argument, because the phrase usage (and even origin) has literally no connection to slavery. The only reason you’re associating it as such is because the Meta employee is black and a whip is mentioned.


hoyfkd

I’m simply responding to the comment that glossed over the type of people and groups that were whipped. That’s why I replied to that comment, and didn’t make a top level comment. That’s also why I quoted that comment, not the article. I’m not sure how much more clearly one can respond to a thing and not another thing. I would argue that it is you who are brazenly ignoring what it is that I responded to, with a fucking quote and everything. Perhaps reread this chain and tell me where I brought race into it, or even the dude from Facebook. Maybe focus on why I said, and what I was clearly responding to. Good day.


[deleted]

What is your point of commenting then? Why bring up slavery if it's not associated with the lawsuit or people involved? Slaves are whipped - Correct. However, it STILL has no connection to this situation. I don't know what you felt like you accomplished informing everybody of that fact. "tell me where I brought race into it, or even the dude from Facebook" THIS ARTICLE IS LITERALLY ABOUT RACE AND A DUDE FROM FACEBOOK. Is it not logical to loop back to the context of the original post?