this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
238 points (96.9% liked)

Work Reform

10003 readers
50 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Frontier Airlines CEO Barry Biffle blamed higher overhead costs on workers being less productive, calling it a "society-wide" problem.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 101 points 1 year ago (18 children)

In today's episode of “White male cisgender affluent, mentally disconnected from reality, emotionally immature CEO, has an irrational hissy fit in public over someone or something that doesn't let him be cruel and controlling over other humans”…

[–] theGrey@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

What does them being white or cisgender have anything to do with it? An idiot is an idiot regardless of the race or gender of the person.

Unnecessary labels for the subject at hand, imo.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

Have you noticed that most (almost all) CEOs are white male cis gendered? I'm sure it's a coincidence though, they definitely deserve their wealth beyond imagination, as they are objectively superior human beings, and I'm 100% sure they didn't do anything unethical to amass their incalculable power and affluent life style.

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if he were a non-white trans CEO, does that suddenly make it ok to do stuff like this?

Being a shitty CEO - nay, a shitty human being - is not mutually exclusive to white people.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it doesn't, where in my comment did I imply that?

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Believe it or not, it can be implied with your original comment. You’re saying “of course it’s a white male cisgender CEO” - but if it were, for example, a black trans person, would you suddenly go “of course it’s a black trans CEO”? By labelling something, you’re suddenly saying that everything that you didn’t explicitly label is somehow different - somehow, a non-white, non-male, non-cis CEO is different than a white male cis CEO.

As another user said, it’s an unnecessary label for the context at hand that serves, at best, to make people go “ok, the labels are unnecessary but go for it”, and at worst it divides people because people are stupid and will get hung up on culture and identity in contexts where neither are needed.

EDIT: Should clarify, I understand you were stereotyping the old rich white man, but adding the “cisgender” bit was unnecessary for that purpose. Most people will get that regardless and it’s ultimately a semantics thing, but it can be dangerous rhetoric if you throw it around willy-nilly. Like I said - everything you didn’t explicitly label is somehow different, even if you just said “old rich white guy”.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Just call a spade a spade, they're a bigot.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)