Gut Rumbles

July 11, 2003

explain it to me

I'm not sure what is jane's point with this comment she left about the nutball who gunned down a bunch of his coworkers:

Pretty easy to ignore the fact that the guy was a raging racist and shouldn't have been in the workplace in the first damn place, isn't it.

Well, I WOULDN'T ignore such an obvious problem. But I'm judgmental and bigoted and I don't like to sing "Kumbaya." I am a perfect example of EVERYTHING that's wrong with bosses today. I would have fired his disruptive ass months ago for the good of the company and the good of the crew he worked with.

But you can't do that today, and YOU, Jane, and your bleeding-heart friends are responsible for every one of those deaths. That guy should have BEEN GONE. But he was sent to "Anger Management Class" instead. I am certain that "Conflict Resolution" and "What Fish Are You?" classes were bound to follow, and if ONLY he had the chance to become comfortable with personal empowerment, none of this would have happened.

My way: Fire the bastard.

YOUR WAY: REASON with him, train him, love him.

My way: Fuck him. Get that bastard out of here.

YOUR WAY: Love can build a bridge. You and your kind BUILT a bridge for these people. As a result, he crosses that bridge, brings guns to work and kills a lot of people. THEN you blame his acts on racism.

Yeah, somebody should have seen this coming. But it would NEVER be YOU, Jane. And if I voiced any concern at work about a similar situation, I would be told to watch my step. I could lose my job by "harrassing" that guy.

That's the world you leftist idiots have created. I hope you are proud of it.

update Mrs. Du Toit says it all.


It's not just leftists. You can thank trial lawyers, too. Most companies are terrified of firing people for fear of being sued for some lame reason. It's seems "the guy sucks at his job and can't seem to get along with any of his co-workers" isn't reason enough for letting somebody go these days.

Posted by: Emily on July 11, 2003 12:47 PM

Yes, Emily. And why can't we get any controls on the trial lawyers? Because the majority of Democrats in Congress are TRIAL LAWYERS or in their collective, PAC pockets. When someone infers that there is no difference between the two major parties, THAT is one issue where there seems to be a significant disagreement.

Posted by: Mrs. du Toit on July 11, 2003 02:03 PM

It must be the what I wrote. I do believe I mentioned employers and union/management agreements that protect such employees, but hey, don't let that get in the way of you trying to blame me for the fact that YOU have a fucked up workplace. I haven't seen a diversity trainer in all the years I've been in this commie government, so bite me.

And I'm no more responsible for some sick fuck in Mississippi gunning down his co-workers than you are. Personal responsibility. Personal action. Personal consequences....OOPS, I sound like a conservative instead of some nancy boy trying to blame a liberal for someone's criminal action.

Ahhhh I love a good rant!

Posted by: Jane on July 11, 2003 02:41 PM

Umm, he may have been a raging racist, but 8 of his victims were Black, 6 were White.

Since Mississippi is 60/40 White:Black, this represents a slight overrepresentation of Blacks. Switch those numbers around, so that 6 Blacks are shot, and 8 Whites, and the racialist lobby can rest easy. It would be perfectly diverse, with a logpile stack of bodies that "looks like Amurrica", or at least looks like Mississippi.

Really, if killing a slightly overrepresentative number of Blacks is evidence of racism, I submit to you that it's only a bit of race hatred. All the murders up to a 5:6 ratio, or maybe even the 6:6 ratio, were perfectly representative, and therefore worthy under the civil rights scheme. It's only the extra two killings that make it morally suspect as a racist hate crime.

One thing that isn't talked about is the number of Blacks in the workforce at this plant. If Blacks on the plant floor outnumber Whites by an 8:6 ratio, or higher, then the killings weren't racist at all, but quite generously representative. In fact, if Blacks outnumber Whites, say at a 9:6 ratio, or 10:6 ratio, then Blacks are underrepresented and perhaps he actually feels invidious animus toward his own race, as a self hating White man.

If he turns out to have killed one or two more Black people than he should have, I have a simple solution that will put everyone to rest: Send him back in to kill three or four more honkies. That'll fix things right up, and avoid any racial fallout.

And how many women were killed? If no women were killed, it's a clearly sexist crime. And if no disabled people were killed...why, it's a vicious exclusion of persons with disabilities from the relations he enjoyed with his fellow co-workers.

By the way, why hasn't there been a similar stink over the Baton Rouge serial killer, who like some of my best friends, just happens to be Black, and who also just happened to have killed at least a half dozen White women after brutally raping them?

Removing the tongue from cheek here...

As for racist who never should have held a job in the first place... well fuck me. I thought this was a free country and we were free to think however the fuck we want to think about other people. If he wasn't abusing people in the workforce, violating Title VII or some state law, you would have tough times firing him. "Hmmmm, Mr. Asshole, you think wrong about a protected class of people, so we're gonna fire yer ass." Yeah, that works.

I'm bloody sick of race being the lens through which everything must be viewed. Check it out folks, he was one sick puppy who killed more than a handful of Whites, more than a handful of Blacks. He's an equal opportunity sonovabitch who ought to be hanged, shot, electricuted, lethally injected, drawn, quartered and castrated at the very first opportunity.

Racism, in its many forms, is both irrational, and disgraceful. But since when did it become an employer's job, or the government's job, to monitor your thoughts for rationality and social worth?

To reduce this mass murder to a "hate crime" -- putting it in the same class as illusory offenses to Jesse Jackson's sensibility and opportunities to enrich his bank account -- is to reduce a monstrous crime to a mildly offensive, watered down liberal trope. It's missing the fucking point, not by a mile, or a long shot, but completely.

Posted by: Omnibus Bill on July 11, 2003 03:13 PM

I think that "Select test" thing was wrong. How the hell can I be a democrat when I feel the same way Acidman does about most things? You FIRE a person like that. Not reconfigure the entire world to suit them, not change everybody else, when it's THEM who are wrong, ya know?

Posted by: Stevie on July 11, 2003 05:10 PM

The problem with dealing with people like the fucking nut that did the shooting is that so much time is spent breast beating and looking for mystery causes. This guy did what he did for 1 reason only. Because he is a NUT. You can't counsel, diagnose, or soothe away the shit in this guys head. Until society comes to terms with the fact that some people are downright evil or at the very least mentally screwed in a way that can never be fixed, this shit will continue to happen.

Posted by: Paul on July 11, 2003 06:12 PM

During the boom, the manager of a temp agency told me that employers would take just about anybody, including guys with serious criminal records, but nobody wanted guys with a record of domestic violence. They feared he'd blow up in rage at the people around him, whereas the ex-con might steal but wouldn't murder people wholesale.

At any rate, if your blood pressure is too low, check out this story:

Meridian, Miss. - The girlfriend of the factory worker who killed five fellow employees and himself this week interrupted a memorial service yesterday by standing up in the church and saying the gunman also should be viewed as a victim.

As the mayor said the actions of one man did not reflect the attitude of the community, Shirley Price stood and spoke:

"Excuse me. Don't criticize this man. He was a human being, too ... don't exclude him. He was a victim, too ... He was a kind and loving human being."

Posted by: Joanne Jacobs on July 11, 2003 06:20 PM

Ms. Price should be dragged off, shot and not buried....

Posted by: Stevie on July 11, 2003 07:46 PM

I consider myself to be a "kind and loving: human being." I don't believe that people who commit mass-murders qualify for that distinction. That's just MY humble opinion.

Posted by: Acidman on July 11, 2003 08:15 PM

LIke everything else in this nanny state of ours, nothing is the fault of the perpetrator. We, collectively, have absolutely no sense of responsibility. When I worked as a "Personnel Manager" in a private company in D.C. in the 80's and 90's I had to jump through myriad hoops just to try to discipline, not fire, asshole employees. After I left the position (to take a less stressful position in another company) some of my former co workers told me that the boss was now blaming me for the intrapersonal problems that he was experiencing. It never occured to him that his Rodney King....."can't we all just get along".....attitude was at the root of all his problems. And, the kick in the ass.......this prick is still a reasonalbly sucessful businesman. Go figure..........To quote Jane, "Ahhhh, I love a good rant.

Posted by: AnalogMan on July 11, 2003 09:06 PM

I voiced the same opinion on this matter that you did Acidman and someone left the following comment to my post.

    As for the going postal popularity contest, what would you have "someone in authority" do? Arrest someone for being disliked? The idea of taking action against someone because other people don't like their attitude is scary. What characteristics would be considered actionable? Who would define them? Now if you could come up with some template based on a study of past confirmed cases of "going postal" that reliably showed a strong correlation between certain indicators and the actual subsequent conduct of a crime you might be able to justify taking action --- oops, wait, that would be evil profiling, can't do that.
    Oh well. Enjoy the weekend.
    - Charlie

I guess I think someone in "authority" should have fired his crazy ass with the first hint of "psychotic behavior".

Posted by: Dawn on July 12, 2003 09:57 AM

Yes, if only they had fired him. No way he would have been angry about that. He would just have gone home and unloaded all those guns. Right.

Even more amusingly, the right-wing morons on this board say someone should have fired this sick freak for his racist, hateful views, while those beliefs are indistinguishable from their own.

Posted by: David D on July 13, 2003 01:01 AM

David D., you are a totally symmetrical asshole.

Posted by: Acidman on July 14, 2003 05:44 PM

Hi...Im just surfed in and want to say hello!
Regards George

musik download
ebook download
private sexkontakte
film downloads
filme download

Posted by: sexshop on January 18, 2004 06:52 AM

All sentences that seem true should be questioned.

Posted by: Berglin Deb on January 25, 2004 08:32 AM

Hello, this is a nice site you have

Posted by: Graber Janet on May 3, 2004 09:14 AM

If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand, things are as they are.

Posted by: Romero Oscar on May 20, 2004 11:13 PM
Post a comment