What Can Brown Do for You? Discriminate against Sikhs
On December 19, 2008, a UPS employee delivered a package to the home of Anant Singh. Singh’s father, a turbaned Sikh, signed for the package. Rather than entering the elder Singh’s name onto the electronic tracking slip, the UPS employee noted that a “terrorist” had signed for the package (see image at right). The incident has led outraged Sikhs to demand serious action, including an apology, from UPS. (See TLH’s previous coverage here.)
Instead of taking appropriate steps to address the incident, UPS issued a curt and grossly insufficient public statement. The inadequacy of the statement adds insult to injury, and demonstrates the need for the Sikhs to continue to press UPS for a more comprehensive and meaningful remedial response.
UPS said:
“UPS regrets that inappropriate action was taken to enter a name into our delivery records after a recipient signed for a package. We sincerely apologize to our customer for any offense. Documentation noted in our tracking network has been removed.” [Link]
First, expressing regret is not equivalent to offering an apology. Regret is the same as declaring, ‘we wish this didn’t happen.’ Apology is saying to the affected party, ‘we are sorry that this happened.’ Big difference.
Second, the ‘apology’ extended is for “any offense,” as if there is any question that there was offense. It would have been more accurate and responsible for UPS to state that it is apologizing for “the offense” caused, as clearly there was offense taken; it should not be apologizing for “any offense” that may or may not exist.
Third, UPS has more to apologize for than offense to the “customer.” There is offense to the elder Singh, to the Singh family, to the Sikhs in the area, to all Sikhs who may use UPS’ service, and to all Sikhs who are offended by the notion that they can be equated — on appearance alone — with terrorists. I find it troubling that in the statement, UPS didn’t even refer to Mr. Singh, instead calling him an identity-less “customer” or client.
Fourth, more than offense is actual harm. Offense implies that the injury is a wholly subjective affront to one’s self, that the incident was not objectively wrongly, and that the extent of the injury is only to one’s feelings or emotions. The harm here is far greater. It is, at a minimum, harm to one’s ability to freely practice their religion free of animus, discriminatory treatment, or harassment from providers of services; to one’s conception of whether one fully belongs to American society despite one’s religious attire; to one’s concern that such discriminatory feelings still exist years after 9/11 and that such feelings may manifest themselves in assaults, stabbings, or murders, as they have in other incidents after 9/11. These harms, and others not described, extend to all Sikhs who have been subject to the 9/11 backlash and who attempt to participate in the American experiment with their religiously mandated turban.
Fifth, the only remedial action suggested by this statement is that the word “terrorist” was removed from the tracking system. Restoring things to the status quo for UPS’ purposes is not good enough. Nothing was done with respect to the employee.
A UPS spokesman later added:
UPS has addressed the matter with the employee who entered the information. Unfortunately, because it’s a personnel matter, I can’t tell you our specific actions or the details of our investigation[.]” [Link]
UPS claims it has taken corrective action but has provided absolutely no information that allows others, including the Sikh community, to know what such action was. It could have been as simple as a superior saying, “don’t do that again,” which would have been entirely too lenient. Accordingly, it is important for the public to know exactly what action was taken so that it can be determined whether such action was commensurate with the incident and it can be adjudged how seriously UPS takes allegations of discrimination and enforces its non-discrimination policy.
No less than the termination of the employee would be sufficient, in my view. If the employee had used a similar epithet, such as the “n-word,” there is little doubt in my mind that the employee would have been terminated. Why branding someone a “terrorist” does not receive the same level of corporate responsibility is upsetting.
It speaks, however, for the need for Sikhs to continue pressing UPS for a more appropriate response, including a written apology to the Singh family and assurance that the employee was dealt with, i.e., terminated. Perhaps UPS is not taking a hard stand because it does not fear the loss of Sikh patronage and/or the negative media attention that Sikhs are able to generate. To be sure, several local news stations and blogs picked up the story, to their credit. But this attention does not carry the same weight as a more widespread call for action or a boycott.
UPS has already dropped the ball with its two inadequate responses. It’s not too late — it can attempt to salvage its civil rights reputation by offering a written apology to the Singh family and indicating that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS.
63 Responses to “What Can Brown Do for You? Discriminate against Sikhs”
just to clarify – legal claims or boycotting action are warranted if the employer fostered of facilitated actual, discriminatory action, or ignored it's environment where such action blossomed. especially after complaints or warnings making the company well aware.
my comments are specific to this particular situation and fact pattern, where any legal/boycotting or other overreactions are completely unwarranted based on what we know.
first, wasn't this incident already covered here?
http://thelangarhall.com/archives/1719
second, this entire post is such a massive overreaction. one UPS driver, an employee of a company that employees FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND (425,000) people was responsible for this wrong entry into the system. from his ignorant or racist action, you have broadly condemned the entire company, despite the fact that the employee was reportedly already terminated.
ok – so maybe an apology was warranted rather than regret. sand so UPS's possibly insufficient statement spawned this, which is contextually quite possibly the dumbest paragraph i have ever read?
OF COURSE racist and ignorant comments are indicative of some level of hate. and OF COURSE hate is what spawns action worse than mere comments, like assaults, stabbings, and murder, and such hate makes it difficult to practice one's faith. but, wtf man, take context into consideration. tighten up your post. you've drifted onto a massive tangent by stating that UPS's regret is not acceptable because the type of hate/ignorance that spawns stupid comments ALSO spawns violent crime. so…..UPS is to blame? what the hell? the part of my brain that processes logic is about to explode all over my morningstar breakfast patty and toast.
you know what's more harmful than a single UPS driver being dumb, ignorant or racist, or UPS not offering a full unequivocal apology to your liking? people, like you, taking the position you've taken in this post, blowing an isolated incident completely out of proportion and making our entire community look like a bunch of whiny cry babies. this incident is so minor in the grand scheme of things, so minor compared to the other challenges our community (and other communities) faces, and you've taken it upon yourself to write a five point thesis with a list of demands from a company that has already terminated the employee who was an idiot. if the Sikh community were to act in the manner that you demand, it is the epitome of crying wolf – wasting political and social capital over a relative non-issue by appearing incredibly hyper-sensitive.
give me a break.
first, wasn't this incident already covered here?
http://thelangarhall.com/archives/1719
second, this entire post is such a massive overreaction. one UPS driver, an employee of a company that employees FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND (425,000) people was responsible for this wrong entry into the system. from his ignorant or racist action, you have broadly condemned the entire company, despite the fact that the employee was reportedly already terminated.
ok – so maybe an apology was warranted rather than regret. sand so UPS's possibly insufficient statement spawned this, which is contextually quite possibly the dumbest paragraph i have ever read?
OF COURSE racist and ignorant comments are indicative of some level of hate. and OF COURSE hate is what spawns action worse than mere comments, like assaults, stabbings, and murder, and such hate makes it difficult to practice one's faith. but, wtf man, take context into consideration. tighten up your post. you've drifted onto a massive tangent by stating that UPS's regret is not acceptable because the type of hate/ignorance that spawns stupid comments ALSO spawns violent crime. so…..UPS is to blame? what the hell? the part of my brain that processes logic is about to explode all over my morningstar breakfast patty and toast.
you know what's more harmful than a single UPS driver being dumb, ignorant or racist, or UPS not offering a full unequivocal apology to your liking? people, like you, taking the position you've taken in this post, blowing an isolated incident completely out of proportion and making our entire community look like a bunch of whiny cry babies. this incident is so minor in the grand scheme of things, so minor compared to the other challenges our community (and other communities) faces, and you've taken it upon yourself to write a five point thesis with a list of demands from a company that has already terminated the employee who was an idiot. if the Sikh community were to act in the manner that you demand, it is the epitome of crying wolf – wasting political and social capital over a relative non-issue by appearing incredibly hyper-sensitive.
give me a break.
first, wasn’t this incident already covered here?
http://thelangarhall.com/archives/1719
second, this entire post is such a massive overreaction. one UPS driver, an employee of a company that employees FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND (425,000) people was responsible for this wrong entry into the system. from his ignorant or racist action, you have broadly condemned the entire company, despite the fact that the employee was reportedly already terminated.
ok – so maybe an apology was warranted rather than regret. sand so UPS’s possibly insufficient statement spawned this, which is contextually quite possibly the dumbest paragraph i have ever read?
OF COURSE racist and ignorant comments are indicative of some level of hate. and OF COURSE hate is what spawns action worse than mere comments, like assaults, stabbings, and murder, and such hate makes it difficult to practice one’s faith. but, wtf man, take context into consideration. tighten up your post. you’ve drifted onto a massive tangent by stating that UPS’s regret is not acceptable because the type of hate/ignorance that spawns stupid comments ALSO spawns violent crime. so…..UPS is to blame? what the hell? the part of my brain that processes logic is about to explode all over my morningstar breakfast patty and toast.
you know what’s more harmful than a single UPS driver being dumb, ignorant or racist, or UPS not offering a full unequivocal apology to your liking? people, like you, taking the position you’ve taken in this post, blowing an isolated incident completely out of proportion and making our entire community look like a bunch of whiny cry babies. this incident is so minor in the grand scheme of things, so minor compared to the other challenges our community (and other communities) faces, and you’ve taken it upon yourself to write a five point thesis with a list of demands from a company that has already terminated the employee who was an idiot. if the Sikh community were to act in the manner that you demand, it is the epitome of crying wolf – wasting political and social capital over a relative non-issue by appearing incredibly hyper-sensitive.
give me a break.
Perhaps there is an important legal distinction to draw regarding the different levels of anti-discrimination protection required of "common carriers" and public accommodation locales (i.e., pseudo-public or semi-public enterprises). I also wonder if UPS operates in a way that is akin to FedEx, or if it's a bit more centralized/organized.
Perhaps there is an important legal distinction to draw regarding the different levels of anti-discrimination protection required of “common carriers” and public accommodation locales (i.e., pseudo-public or semi-public enterprises). I also wonder if UPS operates in a way that is akin to FedEx, or if it’s a bit more centralized/organized.
Perhaps there is an important legal distinction to draw regarding the different levels of anti-discrimination protection required of “common carriers” and public accommodation locales (i.e., pseudo-public or semi-public enterprises). I also wonder if UPS operates in a way that is akin to FedEx, or if it’s a bit more centralized/organized.
WHAT? even though such an analysis is completely inapplicable to this situation, of course UPS, FedEx and DHL and every interstate/multi-national carrier would be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they are offering a commercial service that engages in interstate commerce by it's very nature. Thus, they are not permitted to engage in any discrimination.
BUT it is completely inapplicable to the instant case because there is no legal question here, nor is there a "discrimination" question. no service was denied, no one treated differently in the confines of what the company offers. merely, an employee of a company that employees nearly half a million people made a disparaging and offensive remark. the customer was offended and rightfully so. a complaint was made. UPS fired the guy. UPS offered a statement. the incident received press attention for its insensitive nature. the press attention raised awareness of Sikhs and our challenges. people were undoubtedly educated. UPS was embarrassed. for this particular situation and incident? SIMPLE. DONE. let it go.
this is analogous to a Sikh walking into a local walmart and hearing a couple employees whisper to one another "oh my god, it's bin laden!" and walk in the opposite direction in faux shock. which happened to me and a lot of other Sikhs every time we went to walmart for YEARS. do such statements by a stupid employee rise to the level meritorious legal claims? does it warrant boycotting WalMart because some of their employees are dumb ignorant hicks? in such a situation – NO. and if a Sikh tried to pursue such a case or a boycotting action, they'd be an idiot who's doing more harm than good.
again – give me a freakin' break.
i eagerly await a 5 page defense of this original post.
WHAT? even though such an analysis is completely inapplicable to this situation, of course UPS, FedEx and DHL and every interstate/multi-national carrier would be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they are offering a commercial service that engages in interstate commerce by it’s very nature. Thus, they are not permitted to engage in any discrimination.
BUT it is completely inapplicable to the instant case because there is no legal question here, nor is there a “discrimination” question. no service was denied, no one treated differently in the confines of what the company offers. merely, an employee of a company that employees nearly half a million people made a disparaging and offensive remark. the customer was offended and rightfully so. a complaint was made. UPS fired the guy. UPS offered a statement. the incident received press attention for its insensitive nature. the press attention raised awareness of Sikhs and our challenges. people were undoubtedly educated. UPS was embarrassed. for this particular situation and incident? SIMPLE. DONE. let it go.
this is analogous to a Sikh walking into a local walmart and hearing a couple employees whisper to one another “oh my god, it’s bin laden!” and walk in the opposite direction in faux shock. which happened to me and a lot of other Sikhs every time we went to walmart for YEARS. do such statements by a stupid employee rise to the level meritorious legal claims? does it warrant boycotting WalMart because some of their employees are dumb ignorant hicks? in such a situation – NO. and if a Sikh tried to pursue such a case or a boycotting action, they’d be an idiot who’s doing more harm than good.
again – give me a freakin’ break.
i eagerly await a 5 page defense of this original post.
just to clarify – legal claims or boycotting action are warranted if the employer fostered of facilitated actual, discriminatory action, or ignored it’s environment where such action blossomed. especially after complaints or warnings making the company well aware.
my comments are specific to this particular situation and fact pattern, where any legal/boycotting or other overreactions are completely unwarranted based on what we know.
just to clarify – legal claims or boycotting action are warranted if the employer fostered of facilitated actual, discriminatory action, or ignored it’s environment where such action blossomed. especially after complaints or warnings making the company well aware.
my comments are specific to this particular situation and fact pattern, where any legal/boycotting or other overreactions are completely unwarranted based on what we know.
Ah sizzle, it’s been a while since you’ve criticized one of my posts. Let’s begin….
First, the incident was already mentioned on TLH, which is why I stated “See TLH’s previous coverage here.” Interestingly enough, in that initial post, you suggested that someone else at TLH should look into the matter further: perhaps “one of the bloggers at this site, via a post, can provide specifics details, links and a more thorough analysis of this very interesting thought experiment if they so found the time.”
Second, you charge that I am condemning UPS, which has many employees on its rolls. The focus of my post are the statements that UPS — the company — made in response to this incident. It’s my contention that the company’s response is inadequate. It’s a pretty basic proposition that when an employee is alleged to have done something illegal or in contravention of a company policy, the company is to investigate and take appropriate action.
Third, you claim that the employee in question was terminated, but didn’t provide a link. If you have such verifying information, great, please share it with us. I hope you are right that he was terminated.
Fourth, you contend that I am overreacting to a single, isolated incident. I am not as willing to let this incident — in which an elderly Sikh was branded a terrorist on the basis of his appearance alone — slide so easily, particularly because there is no indication that any adverse employment action was taken against the employee. (Again, if you have information that he was terminated, please share it.) Employers should know that Sikhs will stand up when such incidents occur. I don’t think we should wait for a wave of occurrences (something other than an isolated incident) before we do something.
Fifth, you claim that such commentary makes us “cry babies.” It may seem to you that I am simply complaining. But ensuring that Sikhs are treated with respect and can practice their religion free of discrimination or harassment is a serious civil rights issue. I don’t think Sikhs are creating a culture of victimization; instead they responded directly to discrimination that they did not ask for or want to happen. If there’s no discrimination, there’s no response, and Sikhs go about their business. Tell the affected family that they are cry babies, I doubt they would agree with your assessment.
Camille, what sort of legal distinction are you contemplating? Beyond the legal remedies, I think it’s critical for UPS to exercise proper corporate responsibility in offering a written apology to the family and terminating the employee in question.
Ah sizzle, it's been a while since you've criticized one of my posts. Let's begin….
First, the incident was already mentioned on TLH, which is why I stated "See TLH’s previous coverage here." Interestingly enough, in that initial post, you suggested that someone else at TLH should look into the matter further: perhaps "one of the bloggers at this site, via a post, can provide specifics details, links and a more thorough analysis of this very interesting thought experiment if they so found the time."
Second, you charge that I am condemning UPS, which has many employees on its rolls. The focus of my post are the statements that UPS — the company — made in response to this incident. It's my contention that the company's response is inadequate. It's a pretty basic proposition that when an employee is alleged to have done something illegal or in contravention of a company policy, the company is to investigate and take appropriate action.
Third, you claim that the employee in question was terminated, but didn't provide a link. If you have such verifying information, great, please share it with us. I hope you are right that he was terminated.
Fourth, you contend that I am overreacting to a single, isolated incident. I am not as willing to let this incident — in which an elderly Sikh was branded a terrorist on the basis of his appearance alone — slide so easily, particularly because there is no indication that any adverse employment action was taken against the employee. (Again, if you have information that he was terminated, please share it.) Employers should know that Sikhs will stand up when such incidents occur. I don't think we should wait for a wave of occurrences (something other than an isolated incident) before we do something.
Fifth, you claim that such commentary makes us "cry babies." It may seem to you that I am simply complaining. But ensuring that Sikhs are treated with respect and can practice their religion free of discrimination or harassment is a serious civil rights issue. I don't think Sikhs are creating a culture of victimization; instead they responded directly to discrimination that they did not ask for or want to happen. If there's no discrimination, there's no response, and Sikhs go about their business. Tell the affected family that they are cry babies, I doubt they would agree with your assessment.
Camille, what sort of legal distinction are you contemplating? Beyond the legal remedies, I think it's critical for UPS to exercise proper corporate responsibility in offering a written apology to the family and terminating the employee in question.
Ah sizzle, it’s been a while since you’ve criticized one of my posts. Let’s begin….
First, the incident was already mentioned on TLH, which is why I stated “See TLH’s previous coverage here.” Interestingly enough, in that initial post, you suggested that someone else at TLH should look into the matter further: perhaps “one of the bloggers at this site, via a post, can provide specifics details, links and a more thorough analysis of this very interesting thought experiment if they so found the time.”
Second, you charge that I am condemning UPS, which has many employees on its rolls. The focus of my post are the statements that UPS — the company — made in response to this incident. It’s my contention that the company’s response is inadequate. It’s a pretty basic proposition that when an employee is alleged to have done something illegal or in contravention of a company policy, the company is to investigate and take appropriate action.
Third, you claim that the employee in question was terminated, but didn’t provide a link. If you have such verifying information, great, please share it with us. I hope you are right that he was terminated.
Fourth, you contend that I am overreacting to a single, isolated incident. I am not as willing to let this incident — in which an elderly Sikh was branded a terrorist on the basis of his appearance alone — slide so easily, particularly because there is no indication that any adverse employment action was taken against the employee. (Again, if you have information that he was terminated, please share it.) Employers should know that Sikhs will stand up when such incidents occur. I don’t think we should wait for a wave of occurrences (something other than an isolated incident) before we do something.
Fifth, you claim that such commentary makes us “cry babies.” It may seem to you that I am simply complaining. But ensuring that Sikhs are treated with respect and can practice their religion free of discrimination or harassment is a serious civil rights issue. I don’t think Sikhs are creating a culture of victimization; instead they responded directly to discrimination that they did not ask for or want to happen. If there’s no discrimination, there’s no response, and Sikhs go about their business. Tell the affected family that they are cry babies, I doubt they would agree with your assessment.
Camille, what sort of legal distinction are you contemplating? Beyond the legal remedies, I think it’s critical for UPS to exercise proper corporate responsibility in offering a written apology to the family and terminating the employee in question.
Publius, I was just speaking to sizzle's distinction of the incident as a lone individual being racist (as opposed to an endemic policy, etc.). If UPS operates in the same way that FedEx did until recently, then each driver — in addition to the company itself — operates as his own "small business contractor" and is subject to Title VI and Title VII. I know that the federal question / legal issue isn't really there, and I don't think a legal remedy is really required. I think it would be good for UPS to apologize. My only point is that businesses and carriers have a higher requirement of equal protection than private individuals, and further, that we should not waive off incidents of discrimination simply because other employees at other large corporations engage in discriminatory behavior.
Publius, I was just speaking to sizzle’s distinction of the incident as a lone individual being racist (as opposed to an endemic policy, etc.). If UPS operates in the same way that FedEx did until recently, then each driver — in addition to the company itself — operates as his own “small business contractor” and is subject to Title VI and Title VII. I know that the federal question / legal issue isn’t really there, and I don’t think a legal remedy is really required. I think it would be good for UPS to apologize. My only point is that businesses and carriers have a higher requirement of equal protection than private individuals, and further, that we should not waive off incidents of discrimination simply because other employees at other large corporations engage in discriminatory behavior.
Publius, I was just speaking to sizzle’s distinction of the incident as a lone individual being racist (as opposed to an endemic policy, etc.). If UPS operates in the same way that FedEx did until recently, then each driver — in addition to the company itself — operates as his own “small business contractor” and is subject to Title VI and Title VII. I know that the federal question / legal issue isn’t really there, and I don’t think a legal remedy is really required. I think it would be good for UPS to apologize. My only point is that businesses and carriers have a higher requirement of equal protection than private individuals, and further, that we should not waive off incidents of discrimination simply because other employees at other large corporations engage in discriminatory behavior.
publius – what are you talking about? i recently blasted you for your last posts, re the United Sikhs' conference, for the same underlying reasons – overstatement of your position, swinging for the fences to make a point rather than taking a nuanced and moderated approach. of late, responding to your posts is almost a second job because i just can't let this stuff stand unchecked. it is kind of ridiculous, and it is rare for any of the bloggers at TLH to ever challenge one another with your collective "progressive" group think, hence the new page title of the blog, i suppose.
1. did you read my comment to MLS's post? it has to do with the online community/blogosphere's reaction to the UPS incident, specifically at the Fark and Digg websites, where commenters are overwhelmingly supportive of Sikhs, and how such support is juxtaposed by typically negative reactions towards Muslims, even though our underlying issues are often similar, such as when it comes to head coverings. Thus, I posed the question and challenge to you bloggers regarding this double standard, especially in relation to the incident of the Muslim woman in Georgia who was recently arrested and jailed for essentially wearing a Hijab to court, where the commenters at the sites were not at all empathetic.
As our current discussion indicates, public relations and public perceptions are our biggest challenge. You kind of missed by a mile there, buddy.
2. I wholly disagree that their response was inadequate, for all the reasons I've already stated. Articles state that UPS supervisors went to the Singh home and sought to apologize in person. As I stated above, the incident was a good occasion to raise awareness of Sikh's challenges. But, that has been done – don't beat it into the ground by taking the position of a truly helpless victimized community that needs its oversensitive feelings further assuaged – doing so does more harm than good. I can't emphasize it enough…this is, in essence, an incident of name calling.
3. Here a link i used as reference regarding the termination of the employee:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLin…
comment at: 2008-12-28 05:44:03 AM by Nasty Nate.
It's not a primary source, nor directly from UPS, but for me it does the trick.
4, 5. If that family approached me and sought support for a boycott of UPS because of this incident, or a public relations campaign to demand more action, I wouldn't support them and I'd try to convince others to not support them. Would that suffice as saying it to their face? Because if I had to be more explicit, I would, all the while sitting them down and having a little conversation about all the worse things that Sikhs regularly go through outside of Bakersfield, and how if we took similar action in response to all of them, our community would absolutely be ignored as a bunch of whiners and cry-babies. to complain from a position of weakness and victimization isn't necessarily constructive, and we should only do so when it is warranted.
Despite your claim to the contrary, your call to action regarding this incident is from a position of weakness and victimization that is not warranted. No one's saying you shouldn't stand up for your identity – we've all done our entire lives. But the manner in which you take action and over which incidents is just as important. Again – mobilizing the community? A public call for boycott? Over this? for the bazillionth time, give me a break.
publius – what are you talking about? i recently blasted you for your last posts, re the United Sikhs' conference, for the same underlying reasons – overstatement of your position, swinging for the fences to make a point rather than taking a nuanced and moderated approach. of late, responding to your posts is almost a second job because i just can't let this stuff stand unchecked. it is kind of ridiculous, and it is rare for any of the bloggers at TLH to ever challenge one another with your collective "progressive" group think, hence the new page title of the blog, i suppose.
1. did you read my comment to MLS's post? it has to do with the online community/blogosphere's reaction to the UPS incident, specifically at the Fark and Digg websites, where commenters are overwhelmingly supportive of Sikhs, and how such support is juxtaposed by typically negative reactions towards Muslims, even though our underlying issues are often similar, such as when it comes to head coverings. Thus, I posed the question and challenge to you bloggers regarding this double standard, especially in relation to the incident of the Muslim woman in Georgia who was recently arrested and jailed for essentially wearing a Hijab to court, where the commenters at the sites were not at all empathetic.
As our current discussion indicates, public relations and public perceptions are our biggest challenge. You kind of missed by a mile there, buddy.
2. I wholly disagree that their response was inadequate, for all the reasons I've already stated. Articles state that UPS supervisors went to the Singh home and sought to apologize in person. As I stated above, the incident was a good occasion to raise awareness of Sikh's challenges. But, that has been done – don't beat it into the ground by taking the position of a truly helpless victimized community that needs its oversensitive feelings further assuaged – doing so does more harm than good. I can't emphasize it enough…this is, in essence, an incident of name calling.
3. Here a link i used as reference regarding the termination of the employee:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLin…
comment at: 2008-12-28 05:44:03 AM by Nasty Nate.
It's not a primary source, nor directly from UPS, but for me it does the trick.
4, 5. If that family approached me and sought support for a boycott of UPS because of this incident, or a public relations campaign to demand more action, I wouldn't support them and I'd try to convince others to not support them. Would that suffice as saying it to their face? Because if I had to be more explicit, I would, all the while sitting them down and having a little conversation about all the worse things that Sikhs regularly go through outside of Bakersfield, and how if we took similar action in response to all of them, our community would absolutely be ignored as a bunch of whiners and cry-babies. to complain from a position of weakness and victimization isn't necessarily constructive, and we should only do so when it is warranted.
Despite your claim to the contrary, your call to action regarding this incident is from a position of weakness and victimization that is not warranted. No one's saying you shouldn't stand up for your identity – we've all done our entire lives. But the manner in which you take action and over which incidents is just as important. Again – mobilizing the community? A public call for boycott? Over this? for the bazillionth time, give me a break.
publius – what are you talking about? i recently blasted you for your last posts, re the United Sikhs’ conference, for the same underlying reasons – overstatement of your position, swinging for the fences to make a point rather than taking a nuanced and moderated approach. of late, responding to your posts is almost a second job because i just can’t let this stuff stand unchecked. it is kind of ridiculous, and it is rare for any of the bloggers at TLH to ever challenge one another with your collective “progressive” group think, hence the new page title of the blog, i suppose.
1. did you read my comment to MLS’s post? it has to do with the online community/blogosphere’s reaction to the UPS incident, specifically at the Fark and Digg websites, where commenters are overwhelmingly supportive of Sikhs, and how such support is juxtaposed by typically negative reactions towards Muslims, even though our underlying issues are often similar, such as when it comes to head coverings. Thus, I posed the question and challenge to you bloggers regarding this double standard, especially in relation to the incident of the Muslim woman in Georgia who was recently arrested and jailed for essentially wearing a Hijab to court, where the commenters at the sites were not at all empathetic.
As our current discussion indicates, public relations and public perceptions are our biggest challenge. You kind of missed by a mile there, buddy.
2. I wholly disagree that their response was inadequate, for all the reasons I’ve already stated. Articles state that UPS supervisors went to the Singh home and sought to apologize in person. As I stated above, the incident was a good occasion to raise awareness of Sikh’s challenges. But, that has been done – don’t beat it into the ground by taking the position of a truly helpless victimized community that needs its oversensitive feelings further assuaged – doing so does more harm than good. I can’t emphasize it enough…this is, in essence, an incident of name calling.
3. Here a link i used as reference regarding the termination of the employee:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=4108885&cpp=1
comment at: 2008-12-28 05:44:03 AM by Nasty Nate.
It’s not a primary source, nor directly from UPS, but for me it does the trick.
4, 5. If that family approached me and sought support for a boycott of UPS because of this incident, or a public relations campaign to demand more action, I wouldn’t support them and I’d try to convince others to not support them. Would that suffice as saying it to their face? Because if I had to be more explicit, I would, all the while sitting them down and having a little conversation about all the worse things that Sikhs regularly go through outside of Bakersfield, and how if we took similar action in response to all of them, our community would absolutely be ignored as a bunch of whiners and cry-babies. to complain from a position of weakness and victimization isn’t necessarily constructive, and we should only do so when it is warranted.
Despite your claim to the contrary, your call to action regarding this incident is from a position of weakness and victimization that is not warranted. No one’s saying you shouldn’t stand up for your identity – we’ve all done our entire lives. But the manner in which you take action and over which incidents is just as important. Again – mobilizing the community? A public call for boycott? Over this? for the bazillionth time, give me a break.
sizzle, thanks for your response. You commented on my original post regarding United Sikhs, but didn't respond to the follow-up post in which I directly replied to your charge that I was "hating" on United Sikhs. Also, TLH writers do challenge each other here.
In your first comment here, you ask, 'wasn't this already covered?' as if writing about it a second time on this site was unwarranted. But your comment to the post written by MLS specifically sought greater analysis of this subject. While you wanted a particular topic explored, your comment still demonstrates that the subject was not "closed" or "over with" by any means.
UPS claims it went to the Singh home and that no one was there. They did not apologize in person. Accordingly, in the eyes of the family, the only apology was made by a spokesman in response to a press inquiry — there was, and to my knowledge has not been, no direct apology to the family. That is exactly why it was said by Teg Sidhu that the spokesman's response was not good enough. What's so difficult with issuing a written apology to the family if they tried, as they claim, to visit the family? If there is a source indicating that a direct apology has been made, please share it with me.
You assert, from a message board, that a friend heard from another friend that the employee was terminated. You admit this is sufficient for your purposes. Such classic hearsay is not for me. Don't you think there would be a better source for this if it were in fact true? A news station has been following the matter — if the employee was in fact terminated, don't you think they would have known and reported about it? (Indeed, the news issued a story on the 30th, two days after the message board participant says the employee was terminated.) If you have a more credible source, please share it.
As it stands now, the apology has been insufficient and the action taken against the employee, if any, is unclear. The subject, therefore, remains open. Sikhs should continue to press UPS for more action — a successful direct apology and a credible indication that the employee was terminated. Demanding respect for the family and appropriate remedial action is not fostering a culture of victimization. If you disagree, maybe we've reached the "brick wall" that you've referred to in the past.
(It seems that your main objection is with the language you quoted above, regarding the extent to which discrimination harms not only the individual, but many others. That line of thinking was derived from the work of Frederick M. Lawrence, a law professor who has written extensively on bias issues. I simply tried to apply his views to the post-9/11 Sikh context. Applying an established model to the Sikh experience, I don't think, make us "cry-babies.")
sizzle, thanks for your response. You commented on my original post regarding United Sikhs, but didn’t respond to the follow-up post in which I directly replied to your charge that I was “hating” on United Sikhs. Also, TLH writers do challenge each other here.
In your first comment here, you ask, ‘wasn’t this already covered?’ as if writing about it a second time on this site was unwarranted. But your comment to the post written by MLS specifically sought greater analysis of this subject. While you wanted a particular topic explored, your comment still demonstrates that the subject was not “closed” or “over with” by any means.
UPS claims it went to the Singh home and that no one was there. They did not apologize in person. Accordingly, in the eyes of the family, the only apology was made by a spokesman in response to a press inquiry — there was, and to my knowledge has not been, no direct apology to the family. That is exactly why it was said by Teg Sidhu that the spokesman’s response was not good enough. What’s so difficult with issuing a written apology to the family if they tried, as they claim, to visit the family? If there is a source indicating that a direct apology has been made, please share it with me.
You assert, from a message board, that a friend heard from another friend that the employee was terminated. You admit this is sufficient for your purposes. Such classic hearsay is not for me. Don’t you think there would be a better source for this if it were in fact true? A news station has been following the matter — if the employee was in fact terminated, don’t you think they would have known and reported about it? (Indeed, the news issued a story on the 30th, two days after the message board participant says the employee was terminated.) If you have a more credible source, please share it.
As it stands now, the apology has been insufficient and the action taken against the employee, if any, is unclear. The subject, therefore, remains open. Sikhs should continue to press UPS for more action — a successful direct apology and a credible indication that the employee was terminated. Demanding respect for the family and appropriate remedial action is not fostering a culture of victimization. If you disagree, maybe we’ve reached the “brick wall” that you’ve referred to in the past.
(It seems that your main objection is with the language you quoted above, regarding the extent to which discrimination harms not only the individual, but many others. That line of thinking was derived from the work of Frederick M. Lawrence, a law professor who has written extensively on bias issues. I simply tried to apply his views to the post-9/11 Sikh context. Applying an established model to the Sikh experience, I don’t think, make us “cry-babies.”)
sizzle, thanks for your response. You commented on my original post regarding United Sikhs, but didn’t respond to the follow-up post in which I directly replied to your charge that I was “hating” on United Sikhs. Also, TLH writers do challenge each other here.
In your first comment here, you ask, ‘wasn’t this already covered?’ as if writing about it a second time on this site was unwarranted. But your comment to the post written by MLS specifically sought greater analysis of this subject. While you wanted a particular topic explored, your comment still demonstrates that the subject was not “closed” or “over with” by any means.
UPS claims it went to the Singh home and that no one was there. They did not apologize in person. Accordingly, in the eyes of the family, the only apology was made by a spokesman in response to a press inquiry — there was, and to my knowledge has not been, no direct apology to the family. That is exactly why it was said by Teg Sidhu that the spokesman’s response was not good enough. What’s so difficult with issuing a written apology to the family if they tried, as they claim, to visit the family? If there is a source indicating that a direct apology has been made, please share it with me.
You assert, from a message board, that a friend heard from another friend that the employee was terminated. You admit this is sufficient for your purposes. Such classic hearsay is not for me. Don’t you think there would be a better source for this if it were in fact true? A news station has been following the matter — if the employee was in fact terminated, don’t you think they would have known and reported about it? (Indeed, the news issued a story on the 30th, two days after the message board participant says the employee was terminated.) If you have a more credible source, please share it.
As it stands now, the apology has been insufficient and the action taken against the employee, if any, is unclear. The subject, therefore, remains open. Sikhs should continue to press UPS for more action — a successful direct apology and a credible indication that the employee was terminated. Demanding respect for the family and appropriate remedial action is not fostering a culture of victimization. If you disagree, maybe we’ve reached the “brick wall” that you’ve referred to in the past.
(It seems that your main objection is with the language you quoted above, regarding the extent to which discrimination harms not only the individual, but many others. That line of thinking was derived from the work of Frederick M. Lawrence, a law professor who has written extensively on bias issues. I simply tried to apply his views to the post-9/11 Sikh context. Applying an established model to the Sikh experience, I don’t think, make us “cry-babies.”)
Yes, we are a crossroads, a brick wall (SURPRISE!)
To reemphasize my point – you called for a boycott, you called for the community to rise up, and you called for more action. I believe that it is a waste of our community's social and political capital to wage a PR war over this. Was this employee's actions wrong? Yes. Was UPS's actions insufficient? Perhaps. Is the incident worthy of a response by the Singhs and community? To the extent that has occurred, yes. To the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.
And yes, you are correct. I think that at the very root of our frequent disagreements is the paradigm by which we view minority status, political and social capital, our views of the majority population, how we, as Sikhs, should operate as a minority community, etc. Indeed, this is my disagreement with not only your world view, but with almost all the TLH bloggers – you all seem to proudly wear the "progressive" label, something I wouldn't adopt myself in a million years as it would align me with a certain strain of political and academic thought, strains with which I often vehemently disagree.
Which brings me to the scholar you now cite – Frederick Lawrence, a professor at GW Law, and from what I've just uncovered, a very staunch advocate of hate-crime laws. The fact that I am pretty strongly opposed to hate-crime laws (despite being the victim of so many hate crimes that I've lost track – it's a position I've thought long and hard about, have written about, and have formally debated at events, and have no desire to stir up on this forum for lack of time of will) is almost irrelevant. Why? Because you've just conflated a "bias-crime" with an incident of "name-calling." Again – you've gone to far. Irrespective of the soundness of the Professor's thesis (which completely contradicts my own observations, experiences, pragmatic and practical execution of such laws, and philosophical understanding of criminal and constitutional law), as I pointed out above, just because certain, singular elements between incidents are similar doesn't make their impact and warranted response similar. If his work truly his your basis for seeking further action against UPS, for heightening your perceived sense of this wrong, I don't even know where to start in explaining how unbelievably naive and impractical that is. I also can't help but wonder if you yourself have ever been the target or victim of such incidents and how you've gone about handling them.
But, whatever. This could go on forever. Just as my response to your second post, re "hating" on the Sikh Conference could have gone on forever had I chosen to respond to the EXTREMELY lengthy rationalizing post, the part II. There's something to be said about tiring of tortured logic and rationalizations and just not caring enough to respond. That may not be the entire case here, but it's getting pretty close.
Peace out.
Yes, we are a crossroads, a brick wall (SURPRISE!)
To reemphasize my point – you called for a boycott, you called for the community to rise up, and you called for more action. I believe that it is a waste of our community’s social and political capital to wage a PR war over this. Was this employee’s actions wrong? Yes. Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps. Is the incident worthy of a response by the Singhs and community? To the extent that has occurred, yes. To the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.
And yes, you are correct. I think that at the very root of our frequent disagreements is the paradigm by which we view minority status, political and social capital, our views of the majority population, how we, as Sikhs, should operate as a minority community, etc. Indeed, this is my disagreement with not only your world view, but with almost all the TLH bloggers – you all seem to proudly wear the “progressive” label, something I wouldn’t adopt myself in a million years as it would align me with a certain strain of political and academic thought, strains with which I often vehemently disagree.
Which brings me to the scholar you now cite – Frederick Lawrence, a professor at GW Law, and from what I’ve just uncovered, a very staunch advocate of hate-crime laws. The fact that I am pretty strongly opposed to hate-crime laws (despite being the victim of so many hate crimes that I’ve lost track – it’s a position I’ve thought long and hard about, have written about, and have formally debated at events, and have no desire to stir up on this forum for lack of time of will) is almost irrelevant. Why? Because you’ve just conflated a “bias-crime” with an incident of “name-calling.” Again – you’ve gone to far. Irrespective of the soundness of the Professor’s thesis (which completely contradicts my own observations, experiences, pragmatic and practical execution of such laws, and philosophical understanding of criminal and constitutional law), as I pointed out above, just because certain, singular elements between incidents are similar doesn’t make their impact and warranted response similar. If his work truly his your basis for seeking further action against UPS, for heightening your perceived sense of this wrong, I don’t even know where to start in explaining how unbelievably naive and impractical that is. I also can’t help but wonder if you yourself have ever been the target or victim of such incidents and how you’ve gone about handling them.
But, whatever. This could go on forever. Just as my response to your second post, re “hating” on the Sikh Conference could have gone on forever had I chosen to respond to the EXTREMELY lengthy rationalizing post, the part II. There’s something to be said about tiring of tortured logic and rationalizations and just not caring enough to respond. That may not be the entire case here, but it’s getting pretty close.
Peace out.
Yes, we are a crossroads, a brick wall (SURPRISE!)
To reemphasize my point – you called for a boycott, you called for the community to rise up, and you called for more action. I believe that it is a waste of our community’s social and political capital to wage a PR war over this. Was this employee’s actions wrong? Yes. Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps. Is the incident worthy of a response by the Singhs and community? To the extent that has occurred, yes. To the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.
And yes, you are correct. I think that at the very root of our frequent disagreements is the paradigm by which we view minority status, political and social capital, our views of the majority population, how we, as Sikhs, should operate as a minority community, etc. Indeed, this is my disagreement with not only your world view, but with almost all the TLH bloggers – you all seem to proudly wear the “progressive” label, something I wouldn’t adopt myself in a million years as it would align me with a certain strain of political and academic thought, strains with which I often vehemently disagree.
Which brings me to the scholar you now cite – Frederick Lawrence, a professor at GW Law, and from what I’ve just uncovered, a very staunch advocate of hate-crime laws. The fact that I am pretty strongly opposed to hate-crime laws (despite being the victim of so many hate crimes that I’ve lost track – it’s a position I’ve thought long and hard about, have written about, and have formally debated at events, and have no desire to stir up on this forum for lack of time of will) is almost irrelevant. Why? Because you’ve just conflated a “bias-crime” with an incident of “name-calling.” Again – you’ve gone to far. Irrespective of the soundness of the Professor’s thesis (which completely contradicts my own observations, experiences, pragmatic and practical execution of such laws, and philosophical understanding of criminal and constitutional law), as I pointed out above, just because certain, singular elements between incidents are similar doesn’t make their impact and warranted response similar. If his work truly his your basis for seeking further action against UPS, for heightening your perceived sense of this wrong, I don’t even know where to start in explaining how unbelievably naive and impractical that is. I also can’t help but wonder if you yourself have ever been the target or victim of such incidents and how you’ve gone about handling them.
But, whatever. This could go on forever. Just as my response to your second post, re “hating” on the Sikh Conference could have gone on forever had I chosen to respond to the EXTREMELY lengthy rationalizing post, the part II. There’s something to be said about tiring of tortured logic and rationalizations and just not caring enough to respond. That may not be the entire case here, but it’s getting pretty close.
Peace out.
sizzle, you wrote, "you called for a boycott, you called for the community to rise up, and you called for more action." In my post and in the comments that followed, I repeatedly asked for this relief — UPS should "offer[] a written apology to the Singh family and indicat[e] that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS." Neither of which has been done. The community should continue to press for this relief, but I did not "call[] for a boycott". I said expressly that local attention paid to an incident does not "carry as much weight" as other action, including a boycott. If some people want to refuse to use UPS services as their means of "pressing" UPS for the demands, then go right ahead. I don't think it's fair to say, however, that I called for a boycott.
You say, "Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps." Okay, I'll take a "perhaps," even though you previously said that the message board post was good enough for you. "To the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not." If the UPS response may have been insufficient, what action would be sufficient in your mind? Is asking Sikhs to continue pressing UPS to "offer[] a written apology to the family and terminat[e] the employee in question" too much?
You argue that I'm conflating bias crimes with name-calling. A reason why I find the "terrorist" label so problematic is that, in the Sikh post-9/11 experience, name-calling can go hand in hand with hate violence. For example, the Rajinder Singh Khalsa incident started off with verbal harassment — "who stole my curtains" and "take off my dirty curtain," in a crude reference to the turban. The verbal taunting quickly escalated into a full-scale assault, which resulted in Khalsa "suffering a fracture to his nose requiring surgery, suffered four fractures to his orbital bone, and suffered loss of vision in one eye." Now, we can say that verbal harassment or name-calling is not worthy of our attention, but it is my contention that to let it slide would be to allow negative, stereotypical views to breed, where those views may gain momentum and translate into actual violence, as they did in the Khalsa case.
You categorically label the TLH writers as "progressive." I can speak for myself only when I say that I have never referred to myself as a "progressive" nor have I ever been called "progressive" except for your comments. Labels are convenient, but not always accurate.
Another thing that I found curious – you first used to claim that I didn't take hard stances, that I didn't have the courage to take a stand. Now when I have, you say I've gone too far, that I'm a "hater" or a "cry baby". Which one is it? (I'm surprised you didn't challenge my New Year's post because it didn't take a hardline approach or because Amritsar was cloudy on the 1st.)
You indicate that you have a different view with respect to hate crimes legislation based on your own experiences. I think some insight into those views would help explain why you so regularly disagree with people here and may help us understand your worldview when it comes to Sikh civil rights concerns. Until then, maybe we will continue to run into that proverbial "brick wall", and your comments will continue to be amusing, rather than persuasive.
sizzle, you wrote, “you called for a boycott, you called for the community to rise up, and you called for more action.” In my post and in the comments that followed, I repeatedly asked for this relief — UPS should “offer[] a written apology to the Singh family and indicat[e] that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS.” Neither of which has been done. The community should continue to press for this relief, but I did not “call[] for a boycott”. I said expressly that local attention paid to an incident does not “carry as much weight” as other action, including a boycott. If some people want to refuse to use UPS services as their means of “pressing” UPS for the demands, then go right ahead. I don’t think it’s fair to say, however, that I called for a boycott.
You say, “Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps.” Okay, I’ll take a “perhaps,” even though you previously said that the message board post was good enough for you. “To the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.” If the UPS response may have been insufficient, what action would be sufficient in your mind? Is asking Sikhs to continue pressing UPS to “offer[] a written apology to the family and terminat[e] the employee in question” too much?
You argue that I’m conflating bias crimes with name-calling. A reason why I find the “terrorist” label so problematic is that, in the Sikh post-9/11 experience, name-calling can go hand in hand with hate violence. For example, the Rajinder Singh Khalsa incident started off with verbal harassment — “who stole my curtains” and “take off my dirty curtain,” in a crude reference to the turban. The verbal taunting quickly escalated into a full-scale assault, which resulted in Khalsa “suffering a fracture to his nose requiring surgery, suffered four fractures to his orbital bone, and suffered loss of vision in one eye.” Now, we can say that verbal harassment or name-calling is not worthy of our attention, but it is my contention that to let it slide would be to allow negative, stereotypical views to breed, where those views may gain momentum and translate into actual violence, as they did in the Khalsa case.
You categorically label the TLH writers as “progressive.” I can speak for myself only when I say that I have never referred to myself as a “progressive” nor have I ever been called “progressive” except for your comments. Labels are convenient, but not always accurate.
Another thing that I found curious – you first used to claim that I didn’t take hard stances, that I didn’t have the courage to take a stand. Now when I have, you say I’ve gone too far, that I’m a “hater” or a “cry baby”. Which one is it? (I’m surprised you didn’t challenge my New Year’s post because it didn’t take a hardline approach or because Amritsar was cloudy on the 1st.)
You indicate that you have a different view with respect to hate crimes legislation based on your own experiences. I think some insight into those views would help explain why you so regularly disagree with people here and may help us understand your worldview when it comes to Sikh civil rights concerns. Until then, maybe we will continue to run into that proverbial “brick wall”, and your comments will continue to be amusing, rather than persuasive.
sizzle, you wrote, “you called for a boycott, you called for the community to rise up, and you called for more action.” In my post and in the comments that followed, I repeatedly asked for this relief — UPS should “offer[] a written apology to the Singh family and indicat[e] that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS.” Neither of which has been done. The community should continue to press for this relief, but I did not “call[] for a boycott”. I said expressly that local attention paid to an incident does not “carry as much weight” as other action, including a boycott. If some people want to refuse to use UPS services as their means of “pressing” UPS for the demands, then go right ahead. I don’t think it’s fair to say, however, that I called for a boycott.
You say, “Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps.” Okay, I’ll take a “perhaps,” even though you previously said that the message board post was good enough for you. “To the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.” If the UPS response may have been insufficient, what action would be sufficient in your mind? Is asking Sikhs to continue pressing UPS to “offer[] a written apology to the family and terminat[e] the employee in question” too much?
You argue that I’m conflating bias crimes with name-calling. A reason why I find the “terrorist” label so problematic is that, in the Sikh post-9/11 experience, name-calling can go hand in hand with hate violence. For example, the Rajinder Singh Khalsa incident started off with verbal harassment — “who stole my curtains” and “take off my dirty curtain,” in a crude reference to the turban. The verbal taunting quickly escalated into a full-scale assault, which resulted in Khalsa “suffering a fracture to his nose requiring surgery, suffered four fractures to his orbital bone, and suffered loss of vision in one eye.” Now, we can say that verbal harassment or name-calling is not worthy of our attention, but it is my contention that to let it slide would be to allow negative, stereotypical views to breed, where those views may gain momentum and translate into actual violence, as they did in the Khalsa case.
You categorically label the TLH writers as “progressive.” I can speak for myself only when I say that I have never referred to myself as a “progressive” nor have I ever been called “progressive” except for your comments. Labels are convenient, but not always accurate.
Another thing that I found curious – you first used to claim that I didn’t take hard stances, that I didn’t have the courage to take a stand. Now when I have, you say I’ve gone too far, that I’m a “hater” or a “cry baby”. Which one is it? (I’m surprised you didn’t challenge my New Year’s post because it didn’t take a hardline approach or because Amritsar was cloudy on the 1st.)
You indicate that you have a different view with respect to hate crimes legislation based on your own experiences. I think some insight into those views would help explain why you so regularly disagree with people here and may help us understand your worldview when it comes to Sikh civil rights concerns. Until then, maybe we will continue to run into that proverbial “brick wall”, and your comments will continue to be amusing, rather than persuasive.
right – UPS has indicated they have a policy against discussing discuss personnel matters, as you quoted.
right – UPS and the Singh family have indicated, in different articles, that UPS peeps have at least stopped by the Singh residence to apologize in person.
right – you spend an entire post damning the actions of UPS and the UPS employee, link name calling to the fear of far more severe and violent hate crimes, throw out the idea of increased action and the word boycott, but now shroud yourself in the veil of your own vague language. being clever for clever's sake is not always that clever.
right – as i've stated repeatedly, name calling and hate crimes do share the common element of ignorance or hate – but that doesn't mean that they are one in the same or warrant the same response. nor do they indicate a clear jump from one to the other or have the same impact on a community. have you met someone who has used derogatory terms? do any of your friends use the word "faggot?" do any of your friends jokingly use the word "chinky?" do any of your friends sometimes use the word "kalu" when they are singing along to rap lyrics? do any of your friends sometimes call someone a "skank?" do any of the punjabi uncles you know use any and all of the above terms or their derogatory punjabi iterations? do any people – anyone you associate with – use any terms that someone else may find offensive, racist, homophobic or misogynistic? now – do you think any of those persons are prone to violence and to act on any of the underlying biases that might have spawned the use of that language? now give me some more Rajinder Singh Khalsa analogies. Give me more academic research that conflates the two. Or, just actually critically think for yourself of how the, just because they share the element of ignorance, they DO NOT WARRANT THE SAME RESPONSE in the real world when we, as a community, are trying to demonstrate our normalcy and equality. most especially to this particular incident or….NAME CALLING.
right – look at the title of the blog with which your associated – it will be in the title bar. As for as categorically labeling you all – I've read and observed this blog from the outset. I know what I observe. Your ideologies and underlying philosophies are not difficult to discern when it comes to politics and social beliefs to anyone who has half a brain. [Admin Singh: language from this comment has been redacted due to a violation of our comment policy. sizzle, please refrain from the use of expletives.] labels aren't always accurate – they're tools. You've cited someone who advocates a "progressive," or "liberal" sociological and legal theory to support your opinion. Given your past positions, I'm not surprised. Thus – I used a convenient label to explain why we disagree far more often than we agree.
right – you are correct – I have criticized you for not taking a hard stance. You would posit questions to the greater audience and expect positions to be fleshed out by readers and commenters. I think that makes for a lame blog post. Now you've gone the other direction. In your last two posts, you've taken stances that have offered very strong arguments that are either highly critical without being substantiated, fully fleshed out, and damaging to reputations (your first United Sikhs post) or what you've offered here, a call to action over nothing. As for your new years post – don't be fatuous, guy. As I've pointed out to you before, I don't categorically criticize you or your posts. I criticize what is worthy of criticism.
right – finally, as for my own worldview and experiences, I've mentioned them in comments to provide perspective, even way before you started writing. Go back and read. Also – if you'd like – read this, what i posted at Sepia a while back – comments 43 and 44. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005270….
If I may add an addendum, in addition to being quick to put down people who are ignorant, I also have a knack, if given the right circumstances and environment, to bring people together and bridge the gap with the ignorant by making them understand that they were mistaken and should adopt a more tolerant worldview when it comes to Sikhs. I've had to do it my entire life and have watched my father do it his entire professional life just to succeed and put food on the table.
Now – i posit the question to you AGAIN. Are you a Sardar? Have you ever been through anything like the Singh family? Have you, yourself, ever dealt with intolerance day after day? Do you live in an area where intolerance is common? I ask because Sikhs i know from the East Coast, DC and California are clueless as to what Sikhs in other parts of the country, such as the Midwest, dealt with and deal with today. Also, they tended to have grown up in generally Punjabi and Sikh communities, an environment which often sheltered them from having to or choosing to relate to the "white world" that spawns so many of our social problems. For every incident we hear about in Queens, there are many others that go unreported elsewhere. And I ask because, to be very candid, your writing and your views smack of total and complete naivety written from some sort of ivory tower. It reminds me of people I've met who are the most activist and vocal for some class of perceived downtrodden without having any real sense of why the downtrodden are downtrodden and how they deal with their everyday problems in the real world in a practical and pragmatic fashion – to even know which approach is most effective. Also, I grow incredibly weary at your feeble attempts to poke holes in my argument by picking on the tiny details that are relatively tangential without addressing the brunt or sentiment of the actual statements. If you find my writing amusing and unpersuasive – that's fine. I think it's obvious what I generally think of your writing and arguments, so that goes without saying. It's not so much you I'm trying to persuade you of anything – I'm trying to add balance to the Sikh opinion, an objection to your ideas, since this is all posted on the World Wide Web, accessible to anyone who may care to read. And, as is obvious, I do that by criticizing opinion and call for action, because, quite frankly, I think that if we adopted it, we'd be in for trouble as a community.
right – UPS has indicated they have a policy against discussing discuss personnel matters, as you quoted.
right – UPS and the Singh family have indicated, in different articles, that UPS peeps have at least stopped by the Singh residence to apologize in person.
right – you spend an entire post damning the actions of UPS and the UPS employee, link name calling to the fear of far more severe and violent hate crimes, throw out the idea of increased action and the word boycott, but now shroud yourself in the veil of your own vague language. being clever for clever's sake is not always that clever.
right – as i've stated repeatedly, name calling and hate crimes do share the common element of ignorance or hate – but that doesn't mean that they are one in the same or warrant the same response. nor do they indicate a clear jump from one to the other or have the same impact on a community. have you met someone who has used derogatory terms? do any of your friends use the word "faggot?" do any of your friends jokingly use the word "chinky?" do any of your friends sometimes use the word "kalu" when they are singing along to rap lyrics? do any of your friends sometimes call someone a "skank?" do any of the punjabi uncles you know use any and all of the above terms or their derogatory punjabi iterations? do any people – anyone you associate with – use any terms that someone else may find offensive, racist, homophobic or misogynistic? now – do you think any of those persons are prone to violence and to act on any of the underlying biases that might have spawned the use of that language? now give me some more Rajinder Singh Khalsa analogies. Give me more academic research that conflates the two. Or, just actually critically think for yourself of how the, just because they share the element of ignorance, they DO NOT WARRANT THE SAME RESPONSE in the real world when we, as a community, are trying to demonstrate our normalcy and equality. most especially to this particular incident or….NAME CALLING.
right – look at the title of the blog with which your associated – it will be in the title bar. As for as categorically labeling you all – I've read and observed this blog from the outset. I know what I observe. Your ideologies and underlying philosophies are not difficult to discern when it comes to politics and social beliefs to anyone who has half a brain. [Admin Singh: language from this comment has been redacted due to a violation of our comment policy. sizzle, please refrain from the use of expletives.] labels aren't always accurate – they're tools. You've cited someone who advocates a "progressive," or "liberal" sociological and legal theory to support your opinion. Given your past positions, I'm not surprised. Thus – I used a convenient label to explain why we disagree far more often than we agree.
right – you are correct – I have criticized you for not taking a hard stance. You would posit questions to the greater audience and expect positions to be fleshed out by readers and commenters. I think that makes for a lame blog post. Now you've gone the other direction. In your last two posts, you've taken stances that have offered very strong arguments that are either highly critical without being substantiated, fully fleshed out, and damaging to reputations (your first United Sikhs post) or what you've offered here, a call to action over nothing. As for your new years post – don't be fatuous, guy. As I've pointed out to you before, I don't categorically criticize you or your posts. I criticize what is worthy of criticism.
right – finally, as for my own worldview and experiences, I've mentioned them in comments to provide perspective, even way before you started writing. Go back and read. Also – if you'd like – read this, what i posted at Sepia a while back – comments 43 and 44. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005270….
If I may add an addendum, in addition to being quick to put down people who are ignorant, I also have a knack, if given the right circumstances and environment, to bring people together and bridge the gap with the ignorant by making them understand that they were mistaken and should adopt a more tolerant worldview when it comes to Sikhs. I've had to do it my entire life and have watched my father do it his entire professional life just to succeed and put food on the table.
Now – i posit the question to you AGAIN. Are you a Sardar? Have you ever been through anything like the Singh family? Have you, yourself, ever dealt with intolerance day after day? Do you live in an area where intolerance is common? I ask because Sikhs i know from the East Coast, DC and California are clueless as to what Sikhs in other parts of the country, such as the Midwest, dealt with and deal with today. Also, they tended to have grown up in generally Punjabi and Sikh communities, an environment which often sheltered them from having to or choosing to relate to the "white world" that spawns so many of our social problems. For every incident we hear about in Queens, there are many others that go unreported elsewhere. And I ask because, to be very candid, your writing and your views smack of total and complete naivety written from some sort of ivory tower. It reminds me of people I've met who are the most activist and vocal for some class of perceived downtrodden without having any real sense of why the downtrodden are downtrodden and how they deal with their everyday problems in the real world in a practical and pragmatic fashion – to even know which approach is most effective. Also, I grow incredibly weary at your feeble attempts to poke holes in my argument by picking on the tiny details that are relatively tangential without addressing the brunt or sentiment of the actual statements. If you find my writing amusing and unpersuasive – that's fine. I think it's obvious what I generally think of your writing and arguments, so that goes without saying. It's not so much you I'm trying to persuade you of anything – I'm trying to add balance to the Sikh opinion, an objection to your ideas, since this is all posted on the World Wide Web, accessible to anyone who may care to read. And, as is obvious, I do that by criticizing opinion and call for action, because, quite frankly, I think that if we adopted it, we'd be in for trouble as a community.
right – UPS has indicated they have a policy against discussing discuss personnel matters, as you quoted.
right – UPS and the Singh family have indicated, in different articles, that UPS peeps have at least stopped by the Singh residence to apologize in person.
right – you spend an entire post damning the actions of UPS and the UPS employee, link name calling to the fear of far more severe and violent hate crimes, throw out the idea of increased action and the word boycott, but now shroud yourself in the veil of your own vague language. being clever for clever’s sake is not always that clever.
right – as i’ve stated repeatedly, name calling and hate crimes do share the common element of ignorance or hate – but that doesn’t mean that they are one in the same or warrant the same response. nor do they indicate a clear jump from one to the other or have the same impact on a community. have you met someone who has used derogatory terms? do any of your friends use the word “faggot?” do any of your friends jokingly use the word “chinky?” do any of your friends sometimes use the word “kalu” when they are singing along to rap lyrics? do any of your friends sometimes call someone a “skank?” do any of the punjabi uncles you know use any and all of the above terms or their derogatory punjabi iterations? do any people – anyone you associate with – use any terms that someone else may find offensive, racist, homophobic or misogynistic? now – do you think any of those persons are prone to violence and to act on any of the underlying biases that might have spawned the use of that language? now give me some more Rajinder Singh Khalsa analogies. Give me more academic research that conflates the two. Or, just actually critically think for yourself of how the, just because they share the element of ignorance, they DO NOT WARRANT THE SAME RESPONSE in the real world when we, as a community, are trying to demonstrate our normalcy and equality. most especially to this particular incident or….NAME CALLING.
right – look at the title of the blog with which your associated – it will be in the title bar. As for as categorically labeling you all – I’ve read and observed this blog from the outset. I know what I observe. Your ideologies and underlying philosophies are not difficult to discern when it comes to politics and social beliefs to anyone who has half a brain. [Admin Singh: language from this comment has been redacted due to a violation of our comment policy. sizzle, please refrain from the use of expletives.] labels aren’t always accurate – they’re tools. You’ve cited someone who advocates a “progressive,” or “liberal” sociological and legal theory to support your opinion. Given your past positions, I’m not surprised. Thus – I used a convenient label to explain why we disagree far more often than we agree.
right – you are correct – I have criticized you for not taking a hard stance. You would posit questions to the greater audience and expect positions to be fleshed out by readers and commenters. I think that makes for a lame blog post. Now you’ve gone the other direction. In your last two posts, you’ve taken stances that have offered very strong arguments that are either highly critical without being substantiated, fully fleshed out, and damaging to reputations (your first United Sikhs post) or what you’ve offered here, a call to action over nothing. As for your new years post – don’t be fatuous, guy. As I’ve pointed out to you before, I don’t categorically criticize you or your posts. I criticize what is worthy of criticism.
right – finally, as for my own worldview and experiences, I’ve mentioned them in comments to provide perspective, even way before you started writing. Go back and read. Also – if you’d like – read this, what i posted at Sepia a while back – comments 43 and 44. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005270.html#comment207427
If I may add an addendum, in addition to being quick to put down people who are ignorant, I also have a knack, if given the right circumstances and environment, to bring people together and bridge the gap with the ignorant by making them understand that they were mistaken and should adopt a more tolerant worldview when it comes to Sikhs. I’ve had to do it my entire life and have watched my father do it his entire professional life just to succeed and put food on the table.
Now – i posit the question to you AGAIN. Are you a Sardar? Have you ever been through anything like the Singh family? Have you, yourself, ever dealt with intolerance day after day? Do you live in an area where intolerance is common? I ask because Sikhs i know from the East Coast, DC and California are clueless as to what Sikhs in other parts of the country, such as the Midwest, dealt with and deal with today. Also, they tended to have grown up in generally Punjabi and Sikh communities, an environment which often sheltered them from having to or choosing to relate to the “white world” that spawns so many of our social problems. For every incident we hear about in Queens, there are many others that go unreported elsewhere. And I ask because, to be very candid, your writing and your views smack of total and complete naivety written from some sort of ivory tower. It reminds me of people I’ve met who are the most activist and vocal for some class of perceived downtrodden without having any real sense of why the downtrodden are downtrodden and how they deal with their everyday problems in the real world in a practical and pragmatic fashion – to even know which approach is most effective. Also, I grow incredibly weary at your feeble attempts to poke holes in my argument by picking on the tiny details that are relatively tangential without addressing the brunt or sentiment of the actual statements. If you find my writing amusing and unpersuasive – that’s fine. I think it’s obvious what I generally think of your writing and arguments, so that goes without saying. It’s not so much you I’m trying to persuade you of anything – I’m trying to add balance to the Sikh opinion, an objection to your ideas, since this is all posted on the World Wide Web, accessible to anyone who may care to read. And, as is obvious, I do that by criticizing opinion and call for action, because, quite frankly, I think that if we adopted it, we’d be in for trouble as a community.
Let my try a different approach — starting from what we agree with. You write, “Was this employee’s actions wrong? Yes.” I agree. “Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps.” I think it was insufficient, but you say “perhaps” — so there’s a possibility that it was insufficient. All good so far.
Here’s where we diverge: “Is the incident worthy of a response [t]o the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.”
What have I asked for: “Sikhs [should] continue to press UPS for a more comprehensive and meaningful remedial response.”; “Sikhs [need] to continue pressing UPS for a more appropriate response, including a written apology to the Singh family and assurance that the employee was dealt with, i.e., terminated.”; UPS should “offer[] a written apology to the Singh family and indicat[e] that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS.”; “Sikhs should continue to press UPS for more action — a successful direct apology and a credible indication that the employee was terminated.”
If we agree that what the employee did was wrong, and that the company’s response may have been insufficient, why isn’t asking for a successful direct apology and an indication that the employee was terminated an appropriate demand for relief? If not, what would be appropriate? Everything else is, as you would say, “tangential” or secondary.
Please note that UPS has not directly or publicly apologized yet (though it is said that they tried to visit the house), and there is no indication that the employee was terminated (aside from hearsay you found on a message board).
Let my try a different approach — starting from what we agree with. You write, "Was this employee’s actions wrong? Yes." I agree. "Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps." I think it was insufficient, but you say "perhaps" — so there's a possibility that it was insufficient. All good so far.
Here's where we diverge: "Is the incident worthy of a response [t]o the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not."
What have I asked for: "Sikhs [should] continue to press UPS for a more comprehensive and meaningful remedial response."; "Sikhs [need] to continue pressing UPS for a more appropriate response, including a written apology to the Singh family and assurance that the employee was dealt with, i.e., terminated."; UPS should "offer[] a written apology to the Singh family and indicat[e] that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS."; "Sikhs should continue to press UPS for more action — a successful direct apology and a credible indication that the employee was terminated."
If we agree that what the employee did was wrong, and that the company's response may have been insufficient, why isn't asking for a successful direct apology and an indication that the employee was terminated an appropriate demand for relief? If not, what would be appropriate? Everything else is, as you would say, "tangential" or secondary.
Please note that UPS has not directly or publicly apologized yet (though it is said that they tried to visit the house), and there is no indication that the employee was terminated (aside from hearsay you found on a message board).
Let my try a different approach — starting from what we agree with. You write, “Was this employee’s actions wrong? Yes.” I agree. “Was UPS’s actions insufficient? Perhaps.” I think it was insufficient, but you say “perhaps” — so there’s a possibility that it was insufficient. All good so far.
Here’s where we diverge: “Is the incident worthy of a response [t]o the extent that you now demand? Absolutely not.”
What have I asked for: “Sikhs [should] continue to press UPS for a more comprehensive and meaningful remedial response.”; “Sikhs [need] to continue pressing UPS for a more appropriate response, including a written apology to the Singh family and assurance that the employee was dealt with, i.e., terminated.”; UPS should “offer[] a written apology to the Singh family and indicat[e] that the employee in question is no longer employed by UPS.”; “Sikhs should continue to press UPS for more action — a successful direct apology and a credible indication that the employee was terminated.”
If we agree that what the employee did was wrong, and that the company’s response may have been insufficient, why isn’t asking for a successful direct apology and an indication that the employee was terminated an appropriate demand for relief? If not, what would be appropriate? Everything else is, as you would say, “tangential” or secondary.
Please note that UPS has not directly or publicly apologized yet (though it is said that they tried to visit the house), and there is no indication that the employee was terminated (aside from hearsay you found on a message board).
oh – i'm sorry. does your entire 2 page post now boil down to the few sentences your quote in that paragraph? when i and many other first read it, we may have come away with some heightened sense of outrage and other, stronger sentiments, specifically, your implied and direct call for action if UPS does not meet your demands. it is there that i most strongly disagreed, and where i focused my criticism. hence my conciliatory, devils advocate statement of "perhaps."
i find it very amusing that you continue this debate, arguing policy style on specific points, wholly ignoring the overall arc of this conversation and the sentiments and ideas, implied and direct, that i've conveyed. it's almost as if…..you just don't get it, that you're incredibly dense. or, you just have nothing else to offer.
also – while i've offered you a perspective of where i'm coming from, why i disagree with you so that you might understand that your worldview isn't necessarily the only one or right, i note that you have not answered a single question and request i've asked of you in my last post. i didn't ever really take you seriously before, now even less so.
so, to end this as DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE:
i think UPS's statement is sufficient. you don't, and don't even feel it is an apology because it doesn't directly use the word "apologize." i think UPS reaching out to the family, something both parties acknowledge, was sufficient. i don't even believe that we should demand the employee be fired (which is why i don't even necessarily care all that much if he was fired, or that UPS break their policy of not discussing personnel matters publicly and tell us special Sikhs what they did in this situation). the drivers' action strikes me as ignorance, and if anything, rather than vengeance, i would have asked that the driver receive education.
in all, after what has happened to this point, UPS's response, the news attention, etc. – it's not very serious, and it is done. our collective energy can be focused elsewhere, to far more serious matters. let it go, brah.
oh – i’m sorry. does your entire 2 page post now boil down to the few sentences your quote in that paragraph? when i and many other first read it, we may have come away with some heightened sense of outrage and other, stronger sentiments, specifically, your implied and direct call for action if UPS does not meet your demands. it is there that i most strongly disagreed, and where i focused my criticism. hence my conciliatory, devils advocate statement of “perhaps.”
i find it very amusing that you continue this debate, arguing policy style on specific points, wholly ignoring the overall arc of this conversation and the sentiments and ideas, implied and direct, that i’ve conveyed. it’s almost as if…..you just don’t get it, that you’re incredibly dense. or, you just have nothing else to offer.
also – while i’ve offered you a perspective of where i’m coming from, why i disagree with you so that you might understand that your worldview isn’t necessarily the only one or right, i note that you have not answered a single question and request i’ve asked of you in my last post. i didn’t ever really take you seriously before, now even less so.
so, to end this as DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE:
i think UPS’s statement is sufficient. you don’t, and don’t even feel it is an apology because it doesn’t directly use the word “apologize.” i think UPS reaching out to the family, something both parties acknowledge, was sufficient. i don’t even believe that we should demand the employee be fired (which is why i don’t even necessarily care all that much if he was fired, or that UPS break their policy of not discussing personnel matters publicly and tell us special Sikhs what they did in this situation). the drivers’ action strikes me as ignorance, and if anything, rather than vengeance, i would have asked that the driver receive education.
in all, after what has happened to this point, UPS’s response, the news attention, etc. – it’s not very serious, and it is done. our collective energy can be focused elsewhere, to far more serious matters. let it go, brah.
oh – i’m sorry. does your entire 2 page post now boil down to the few sentences your quote in that paragraph? when i and many other first read it, we may have come away with some heightened sense of outrage and other, stronger sentiments, specifically, your implied and direct call for action if UPS does not meet your demands. it is there that i most strongly disagreed, and where i focused my criticism. hence my conciliatory, devils advocate statement of “perhaps.”
i find it very amusing that you continue this debate, arguing policy style on specific points, wholly ignoring the overall arc of this conversation and the sentiments and ideas, implied and direct, that i’ve conveyed. it’s almost as if…..you just don’t get it, that you’re incredibly dense. or, you just have nothing else to offer.
also – while i’ve offered you a perspective of where i’m coming from, why i disagree with you so that you might understand that your worldview isn’t necessarily the only one or right, i note that you have not answered a single question and request i’ve asked of you in my last post. i didn’t ever really take you seriously before, now even less so.
so, to end this as DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE:
i think UPS’s statement is sufficient. you don’t, and don’t even feel it is an apology because it doesn’t directly use the word “apologize.” i think UPS reaching out to the family, something both parties acknowledge, was sufficient. i don’t even believe that we should demand the employee be fired (which is why i don’t even necessarily care all that much if he was fired, or that UPS break their policy of not discussing personnel matters publicly and tell us special Sikhs what they did in this situation). the drivers’ action strikes me as ignorance, and if anything, rather than vengeance, i would have asked that the driver receive education.
in all, after what has happened to this point, UPS’s response, the news attention, etc. – it’s not very serious, and it is done. our collective energy can be focused elsewhere, to far more serious matters. let it go, brah.
sizzle, we could have ended this back-and-forth a while back. You think the apology is sufficient. As a result, in your view, anything further that I ask for is too much.
I don’t think an attempted, non-public apology and no indication as to what was done with the employee is good enough. That’s that. The “brick-wall” was thereby established.
I’m not disappointed in the fact that we’ve reached an impasse. I am disappointed, however, with the discourteous and sardonic way in which you regularly communicate your views. I read your personal comments on SM, which do help explain your perspective and maybe even your general personality. I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for another spirited discussion. Let’s see what happens next time
sizzle, we could have ended this back-and-forth a while back. You think the apology is sufficient. As a result, in your view, anything further that I ask for is too much.
I don't think an attempted, non-public apology and no indication as to what was done with the employee is good enough. That's that. The "brick-wall" was thereby established.
I'm not disappointed in the fact that we've reached an impasse. I am disappointed, however, with the discourteous and sardonic way in which you regularly communicate your views. I read your personal comments on SM, which do help explain your perspective and maybe even your general personality. I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for another spirited discussion. Let's see what happens next time
sizzle, we could have ended this back-and-forth a while back. You think the apology is sufficient. As a result, in your view, anything further that I ask for is too much.
I don’t think an attempted, non-public apology and no indication as to what was done with the employee is good enough. That’s that. The “brick-wall” was thereby established.
I’m not disappointed in the fact that we’ve reached an impasse. I am disappointed, however, with the discourteous and sardonic way in which you regularly communicate your views. I read your personal comments on SM, which do help explain your perspective and maybe even your general personality. I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for another spirited discussion. Let’s see what happens next time
a) you again ignored the questions posed to you that might bolster your credibility on these issues, which is kind of weak at the moment.
b) you think this discussion was about the impasse? from after my first comment, it was clear that you believe UPS's action weren't good enough and that i thought they were fine. this discussion centered on hypersensitivity and your conflation of name calling and hate crimes, which i criticized from the outset. i just reread your original post – it truly, and ridiculously, shoots for the moon. rather than tight commentary, you sloppily tried to apply an academic's comprehensive theory on bias-crimes to justify your outrage and emphasize and strengthen your point. it didn't work and i responded because it was offered a blog that purports to represent Sikh opinions.
c) it is truly remarkable that you closed out this debate by making it personal. you condemn my "discourteous and sardonic way," which is fine – i'm well aware that i am sometimes abrasive and blunt when i write blog comments, especially when they involve serious matters. however, you pass your judgement in the most patronizing and, quite frankly, outrageous manner by linking this style to my experiences as a Sikh, which you then linked to your conclusions of my "general personality." and then you offered your pity. i don't think we've ever met, so this all is based on my writing style and certain experiences that many Sikhs have shared. wow?
if i were to engage in the tit-for-tat style of debate you seem to enjoy, i could heap on my thoughts of your general personality and your intellectual rigor and abilities that i've gleaned from reading your posts and comments, such as these. but i'll pass, because that'd just be dumb.
until next time.
a) you again ignored the questions posed to you that might bolster your credibility on these issues, which is kind of weak at the moment.
b) you think this discussion was about the impasse? from after my first comment, it was clear that you believe UPS’s action weren’t good enough and that i thought they were fine. this discussion centered on hypersensitivity and your conflation of name calling and hate crimes, which i criticized from the outset. i just reread your original post – it truly, and ridiculously, shoots for the moon. rather than tight commentary, you sloppily tried to apply an academic’s comprehensive theory on bias-crimes to justify your outrage and emphasize and strengthen your point. it didn’t work and i responded because it was offered a blog that purports to represent Sikh opinions.
c) it is truly remarkable that you closed out this debate by making it personal. you condemn my “discourteous and sardonic way,” which is fine – i’m well aware that i am sometimes abrasive and blunt when i write blog comments, especially when they involve serious matters. however, you pass your judgement in the most patronizing and, quite frankly, outrageous manner by linking this style to my experiences as a Sikh, which you then linked to your conclusions of my “general personality.” and then you offered your pity. i don’t think we’ve ever met, so this all is based on my writing style and certain experiences that many Sikhs have shared. wow?
if i were to engage in the tit-for-tat style of debate you seem to enjoy, i could heap on my thoughts of your general personality and your intellectual rigor and abilities that i’ve gleaned from reading your posts and comments, such as these. but i’ll pass, because that’d just be dumb.
until next time.
a) you again ignored the questions posed to you that might bolster your credibility on these issues, which is kind of weak at the moment.
b) you think this discussion was about the impasse? from after my first comment, it was clear that you believe UPS’s action weren’t good enough and that i thought they were fine. this discussion centered on hypersensitivity and your conflation of name calling and hate crimes, which i criticized from the outset. i just reread your original post – it truly, and ridiculously, shoots for the moon. rather than tight commentary, you sloppily tried to apply an academic’s comprehensive theory on bias-crimes to justify your outrage and emphasize and strengthen your point. it didn’t work and i responded because it was offered a blog that purports to represent Sikh opinions.
c) it is truly remarkable that you closed out this debate by making it personal. you condemn my “discourteous and sardonic way,” which is fine – i’m well aware that i am sometimes abrasive and blunt when i write blog comments, especially when they involve serious matters. however, you pass your judgement in the most patronizing and, quite frankly, outrageous manner by linking this style to my experiences as a Sikh, which you then linked to your conclusions of my “general personality.” and then you offered your pity. i don’t think we’ve ever met, so this all is based on my writing style and certain experiences that many Sikhs have shared. wow?
if i were to engage in the tit-for-tat style of debate you seem to enjoy, i could heap on my thoughts of your general personality and your intellectual rigor and abilities that i’ve gleaned from reading your posts and comments, such as these. but i’ll pass, because that’d just be dumb.
until next time.
okay boys settle down! publius, it would have been good if you provided some more info on lawrence's legal analysis since it was the basis for the rhetoric that sizzle didn't like. sizzle, i hope youre not a lawyer – relying on hearsay in a thread for evidence? ouch!
the answer to your argument is here: "UPS Apology Not Enough – Bakersfield Sikh Family"
http://www.panthic.org/news/123/ARTICLE/4647/2009…
UPS apologized in person, but the family says this is not enough. so publius, your plea for a direct apology was satisfied, but the family wants a public one. sizzle, the apology may be cool for you but it's not for the family.
okay boys settle down! publius, it would have been good if you provided some more info on lawrence's legal analysis since it was the basis for the rhetoric that sizzle didn't like. sizzle, i hope youre not a lawyer – relying on hearsay in a thread for evidence? ouch!
the answer to your argument is here: "UPS Apology Not Enough – Bakersfield Sikh Family"
http://www.panthic.org/news/123/ARTICLE/4647/2009…
UPS apologized in person, but the family says this is not enough. so publius, your plea for a direct apology was satisfied, but the family wants a public one. sizzle, the apology may be cool for you but it's not for the family.
okay boys settle down! publius, it would have been good if you provided some more info on lawrence’s legal analysis since it was the basis for the rhetoric that sizzle didn’t like. sizzle, i hope youre not a lawyer – relying on hearsay in a thread for evidence? ouch!
the answer to your argument is here: “UPS Apology Not Enough – Bakersfield Sikh Family”
http://www.panthic.org/news/123/ARTICLE/4647/2009-01-02.html
UPS apologized in person, but the family says this is not enough. so publius, your plea for a direct apology was satisfied, but the family wants a public one. sizzle, the apology may be cool for you but it’s not for the family.
pardon. i didn't realize that FRE 802 extended to the comments section of TLH. but that's fine, we can strike it from consideration. it was a minor point anyways. my arguments still stand.
so UPS apologized in person. that is commendable. the family's request for a public statement is fine, but I don't think it is worth making hay over if UPS doesn't comply. while it would be nice, as a general rule, a company doesn't have any obligation or civic duty to bring negative attention to itself due to the relatively minor, isolated action of one bad employee in order to appease the feelings of a particular group of customers or raise awareness of that group. and it doesn't behoove us to express heightened outrage here in order to force a public statement because next time, when something more serious occurs, it'll be harder to rally support and be taken seriously.
pardon. i didn’t realize that FRE 802 extended to the comments section of TLH. but that’s fine, we can strike it from consideration. it was a minor point anyways. my arguments still stand.
so UPS apologized in person. that is commendable. the family’s request for a public statement is fine, but I don’t think it is worth making hay over if UPS doesn’t comply. while it would be nice, as a general rule, a company doesn’t have any obligation or civic duty to bring negative attention to itself due to the relatively minor, isolated action of one bad employee in order to appease the feelings of a particular group of customers or raise awareness of that group. and it doesn’t behoove us to express heightened outrage here in order to force a public statement because next time, when something more serious occurs, it’ll be harder to rally support and be taken seriously.
pardon. i didn’t realize that FRE 802 extended to the comments section of TLH. but that’s fine, we can strike it from consideration. it was a minor point anyways. my arguments still stand.
so UPS apologized in person. that is commendable. the family’s request for a public statement is fine, but I don’t think it is worth making hay over if UPS doesn’t comply. while it would be nice, as a general rule, a company doesn’t have any obligation or civic duty to bring negative attention to itself due to the relatively minor, isolated action of one bad employee in order to appease the feelings of a particular group of customers or raise awareness of that group. and it doesn’t behoove us to express heightened outrage here in order to force a public statement because next time, when something more serious occurs, it’ll be harder to rally support and be taken seriously.
Update: UPS Driver fired [source].
My hope was for a direct apology to the family (check), and for an indication from UPS that the employee was terminated (check).
Update: UPS Driver fired [source].
My hope was for a direct apology to the family (check), and for an indication from UPS that the employee was terminated (check).
Update: UPS Driver fired [source].
My hope was for a direct apology to the family (check), and for an indication from UPS that the employee was terminated (check).
Good to know Huston was popular.
Good to know Huston was popular.
Good to know Huston was popular.
@ sizzle
What blogs do you frequent these days ?
@ sizzle
What blogs do you frequent these days ?
@ sizzle
What blogs do you frequent these days ?
Just shows how pathetic americans are