This show can't seem to keep their show runners or writers. Apparently production has been a mess since season one. And the Anti-SJW movement is eating this story up.

Bro did a NYT op-ed on the incident. Peruse.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walter-mosley-quits-star-trek-discovery-using-n-word-writers-room-1237489

Producers CBS TV Studios responded to the acclaimed writer and author in a statement provided to The Hollywood Reporter: "We are committed to supporting a workplace where employees feel free to express concerns and where they feel comfortable performing their best work."

Author Walter Mosley penned an op-ed for The New York Times, published on Friday, in which he revealed that he quit his job as a writer on a television series after he was "chastised" by human resources for using the N-word on the job.

Although Mosley, who is black, did not reveal which show he departed, sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that it was CBS All Access' Star Trek: Discovery. That series, renewed in February for its third season with its third showrunner, has experienced serious issues of abusive language in its writers room in the past.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that season three showrunners Alex Kurtzman — who sources say personally recruited Mosley to the Discovery room — and Michelle Paradise were informed of the complaint via human resources but were not present for the incident in which Mosley allegedly used the N-word multiple times. Sources note that HR called Mosley to inform the acclaimed writer and novelist that typical use of that word was a fireable offense but there was to be no course of action taken against him. Instead, HR informed Mosley that a writer in the room was uncomfortable with it and effectively wanted to ensure he was aware of the studio's policy.

"Earlier this year, I had just finished with the Snowfall writers’ room for the season when I took a similar job on a different show at a different network. I’d been in the new room for a few weeks when I got the call from human resources. A pleasant-sounding young man said, 'Mr. Mosley, it has been reported that you used the n-word in the writers’ room,'" Mosley wrote in the Times. "I replied, 'I am the N-word in the writers’ room.'"

Mosley went on to explain that the individual in HR said that while he was free to use that word in a script, he "could not say it." Mosley then clarified, "I hadn’t called anyone it. I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all n---ers in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in n---er neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it."

Mosley wrote that he is unaware who complained about his use of the word. "There I was, a black man in America who shares with millions of others the history of racism. And more often than not, treated as subhuman," he continued. "If addressed at all that history had to be rendered in words my employers regarded as acceptable."

"There I was being chastised for criticizing the word that oppressed me and mine for centuries. As far as I know the word is in the dictionary," said Mosley. "As far as I know the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence assure me of both the freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness."

CBS TV Studios responded to Mosley's op-ed on Friday in a statement provided to The Hollywood Reporter: "We have the greatest admiration for Mr. Mosley’s writing talents and were excited to have him join Star Trek: Discovery. While we cannot comment on the specifics of confidential employee matters, we are committed to supporting a workplace where employees feel free to express concerns and where they feel comfortable performing their best work. We wish Mr. Mosley much continued success."

While Mosley did not say he was immediately threatened with termination, he ultimately decided to leave the show. "My answer to HR was to resign and move on. I was in a writers’ room trying to be creative while at the same time being surveilled by unknown critics who would snitch on me to a disembodied voice over the phone," he wrote. "My every word would be scrutinized. Sooner or later I’d be fired or worse — silenced."

Sources say Mosley — who had been on staff for three weeks — suddenly stopped coming in to the Santa Monica-based Secret Hideout offices that serve as the writers rooms for Discovery, Picard and multiple other Star Trek shows. Paradise and Kurtzman, who previously dismissed two Discovery showrunners after claims of abusive language and behavior, later learned that Mosley had quit the series without so much as a call to explain what happened. (It's worth noting that Discovery has a particularly inclusive writers room that includes three African American scribes, two Asian American writers, a Native American and Latinx woman, among others.)

Mosley ended his op-ed by saying, "The worst thing you can do to citizens of a democratic nation is to silence them." He elaborated, "And the easiest way to silence a woman or a man is to threaten his or her livelihood. Let’s not accept the McCarthyism of secret condemnation. Instead let’s delve a little deeper, limiting the power that can be exerted over our citizens, their attempts to express their hearts and horrors, and their desire to speak their truths. Only this can open the dialogue of change."

Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen Berg were fired ahead of season two in June 2018. At the time, sources told THR that the duo — who replaced original showrunner Bryan Fuller — had leadership and operational issues that led to their dismissal. Insiders stressed that Berg and Harberts became increasingly abusive to the Discovery writing staff, with Harberts said to have leaned across the writers room table while shouting an expletive at a member of the show's staff. Multiple writers are said to have been uncomfortable working on the series and had threatened to file a complaint with HR or quit the series altogether before informing franchise captain and season two co-showrunner Kurtzman of the issues surrounding Berg and Harberts. After hearing rumors of HR complaints, Harberts is said to have made imposing remarks to the staff to keep concerns with the production an internal matter. Harberts and Berg declined comment at the time.

Use of the N-word in Hollywood has been a recurring subject as other executives, including former Paramount TV president Amy Powell and Netflix PR chief Jonathan Friedland, have been dismissed over use of the term in the workplace.

Read Mosley's entire piece for the Times here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/opinion/sunday/walter-mosley.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

a couple youtubers and a dude on twitter isn't a movement.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>a couple youtubers and a dude on twitter isn't a movement.
>
>
>

depends on who you talk to.

the average person doesn't read any NYT op-ed

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

all I take from it is... POOPAMOUNT!

(NOPE, it count!)

"The worst thing you can do to citizens of a democratic nation is to silence them. And the easiest way to silence a woman or a man is to threaten his or her livelihood. Let’s not accept the McCarthyism of secret condemnation. Instead let’s delve a little deeper, limiting the power that can be exerted over our citizens, their attempts to express their hearts and horrors, and their desire to speak their truths. Only this can open the dialogue of change."

When you take away the context, these whiners can manipulate it into, "See! PC culture is out of control! The SJWs are trying to silence free speech! Even a Black guy says so!"

*nvm*

Not that *he* had merely used the word.

I get why they had to do it, though. It's an issue of fairness - if that's their rule that's their rule.

This is how even the most good intention, well meaning efforts to help black people can be twisted around to benefit white people.

Let's start with the basic premise of why did we originally ban the "N word" in polite society? I think the simple answer is to protect Black People.

And yet, here we are having an instance where a white person, more than likely if we had to guess, used the ban to threaten a black person's job. Even if we assume the complainer wasn't white, at the very least we know that the use of the word was used to threaten a black man's job.

If you take a step back and look at it, the rule being applied this way is so far from the original intent of such a rule. If we apply the original intent fairly, we would look at the context and speaker and say well this use isn't an issue because WM was telling a story and he himself is and older black person who knows damn well the history of the word.

But in our society applying the rule fairly means, well if white people aren't allowed to use it than neither should black people. What does it say that fairness means subverting the original intention of the rule and figuring out how to make it benefit white people.

Not to come at you personally but I am just becoming old an honery and feel like no matter what rules we pass ultimately if we don't change the power structure, the same people will benefit from the rules.

rant over.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Could it perhaps be the case that a hypothetical white writer who was fired for using the n-word in a business setting where black people were allowed to use it and frequently did so would have a legal case due to equal protection?

I’m not sure a policy that forbids certain speech by speakers based solely on race is legally defensible, but ianal.

*edit to add* Obviously the actual verbal/linguistic context matters for the harassment potential for various acts of speech, but I’d argue that the restriction on the n-word from white speakers in most corporate settings is absolute; ie a white person can face potential consequences for quoting it, calling another *white* person it, or even saying it or it’s analogues by accident eg the mlk coon slip weatherman incident). All this is simply to point out, it’s simply the word and not its verbal/linguistic context that matters when whites use it in many contexts, so it would be hard to launch a defense for a double standard policy towards black corporate usage that is verbal/linguistic context based. Black linguistic usage is largely in nearly the “worst” possible linguistic context for white speakers, ie to refer to generic black people, so the only “mitigating” context is race, not linguistic context.

BTW, equal protection applies to government action, not company policies. The claim would be discrimination.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

standard.

I can call my mom a b word* but you can't call my mom a b word. Whether it's a double standard or not it's fair.


*I'd personally never but for the sake of argument


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It seems that's not currently their rule, though. Whatever rule they choose to go with, they need to be consistent about it, which they seem to be here, which I applaud.

In other words, would self-hating blacks be allowed to proclaim that "blacks are inferior to whites" in a workplace setting, without consequence?

I'm not asking that rhetorically, just thinking aloud. This is legitimately interesting to me and I haven't given it much thought before now.

I think we'd have to look at the implicit idea you seem to be defending, that blacks can't be victimized by the (from a different speaker, clearly racist) expressions or epithets used by other blacks.

Or if you had a bunch of gays from one department in an office who referred to their group as "The Machinist F__gots". Could other gays feel victimized or impugned by this? Should this behavior be policed as it would from straight speakers, even without the need of an actual victim to speak up?

It's interesting. But I may be misinterpreting the issue somehow.

One example of why we *all* lose.

a right winger probably called hr on him too

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

I actually can't call it. I can see a millennial black kid from the burbs complaining about it just as well.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

it'll answer your own question.


>I actually can't call it. I can see a millennial black kid
>from the burbs complaining about it just as well.
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://www.Tupreme.com

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Politically charged language is best avoided as most these days are pretty fragile

This guy could have been making jokes about red hats or even just been using that phrase as a pejorative and gotten the same outcome

And a trump supporter or open source fanatic could find that language equally offensive in today's sensitive AF culture

The whole point is to have a space to exchange stories and ideas for the purpose of coming up with show ideas. If their was permission to use the word in scripts, how can he get in trouble for using it when discussing scripts?





**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

HR told him he could use it in a script, but he couldn't use it in the context of relaying a story about racism he experienced? That's a whole WTF moment.


>If their
>was permission to use the word in scripts, how can he get in
>trouble for using it when discussing scripts?
>

You're making senses but race and all the words attached to it are about emotions and feelings. It seems like the mistake is wanting to bring that into the work environment in the first place.

This outcome isn't supposed to make sense

Earlier this year, I had just finished with the Snowfall writers’ room for the season when I took a similar job on a different show at a different network. I’d been in the new room for a few weeks when I got the call from human resources. A pleasant-sounding young man said, 'Mr. Mosley, it has been reported that you used the n-word in the writers’ room,'" Mosley wrote in the Times. "I replied, 'I am the N-word in the writers’ room.'"