Yeah mate, keep lowering that bar of professionalism. Dude asked a question and got humiliated for absolutely no reason on social media.
"Professionalism" would never demand monetary compensation if it was anyone else in this situation - the only reason money was involved here was because he was Indian or "PoC" as the white people call it. I'm not defending what they did, I'm saying the response to it is massively overblown.
Do you realise that this is the Indian equivalent of people throwing colours on you screaming "Holi hai" without your consent?
You can't tell me that you don't see the difference between insulting someone unprompted vs throwing something at them unprompted. Also, even if someone did throw color at me, there's no chance that I would expect ₹10,000 for it, let alone $10,000 (unless I was wearing extremely expensive clothes or something). Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't compensate him in some way, I'm saying that the level of compensation is so high only because he was Indian and apparently needed to be treated with kid gloves, which IMO is more offensive than the original tweet.
We should let this through cuz there is racism already?
No, we shouldn't call it out for being racism because it's not racist. They treat literally everyone like this. Does that make them assholes? Yeah, probably. Does that make them racist? Only if you believe Indians should be treated more delicately than everyone else.
In other words, call out racism when it's actually racism.
Again, you've not seen the amount of hate in replies.
I don't use Twitter, so I can't, but I'll take your word for it. I just don't see why Dbrand should be held responsible for Twitter being Twitter when their tweet was relatively low on the asshole scale. It's not like they said, "hey, dogpile on this guy".
The post wasn't even a joke. Cuz a line needs to be funny in order to be called one.
Do you think every joke that doesn't land fails to be a joke because it didn't get a laugh? By this logic, you could tell the best joke in the world, fail the delivery, and cause it to not be a joke.
The post was obviously a joke, just a pretty lame one.
Changing the way a line is worded doesn't change its meaning.
... What? I must be misunderstanding you; the entire point of using different words is to convey different meanings - surely you're not disputing that?
How did you figure out that "Group A can be/are mostly X"?
These two statements are different, so you can't ask that as if they're the same thing. And even if they were,
@m1tr expressly stated that that was their opinion i.e. it's anecdotal - they weren't making a scientific claim.
Or the difference between "group X can be A" and "group X are all A" or "group X are mostly A" ?
So in this case it would be "Some of the most easily butthurt people online can be Indian"? Despite the weird syntax, that does seem to be an equivalent statement for the first one yes, but not for the other two. Was this meant to be a disagreement, or... ?