wood burning stoves 2.0*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Outsourcing and Abuses Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of OCM Java EE 6 Enterprise Architect Exam Guide this week in the OCMJEA forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Outsourcing and Abuses" Watch "Outsourcing and Abuses" New topic
Author

Outsourcing and Abuses

Tanveer Rameez
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 11, 2000
Posts: 158
what do u make of this guys?
US radio jocks air abuse call (with transcript): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/988029.cms

Call center bashing it seems has become a popular pasttime..an outlet for the frustuation and having a bad day. Can't shout back at ya boss or wife...abuse the call center gals instead..afterall they r responsible for wrecking the country's economy...
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

I dont know whether moderator will like this thread.


Groovy
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Pradeep Bhat:
I dont know whether moderator will like this thread.


That gets aired and people think its brilliant? Well, if rotten.com gets 250,000 hits a day, why not?! :roll:


[ flickr ]
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24183
    
  34

I made the mistake of listening to the recording. It's quite upsetting. It's not funny even in the slightest "guilty pleasure" way that Howard Stern is funny sometimes. What I'm hearing in this is just hatred, pure and simple, and it's hatred of a sort that I'm personally lucky enough to rarely witness.

I think anyone who would do this is a dangerous psychopath. The US Federal government and many state governments actually have specific "hate speech" laws under which I believe someone could be prosecuted for this behavior.

In any event, the behavior of this one idiot in no way represents the behavior of the average American; and contrary to what the article says, nobody's ever heard of these third-rate backwater hacks.


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

I'll take a hint from EFH and skip the listening.

This topic is nonetheless on high alert with me. Any act that gets recorded amd made available on the internet is not de facto fair game in MD, especially if used to support a sweeping generalization about Indians, Americans, women, or who is wrecking whose economy.

I won't be online much until about 4 pm CST, but if I see anyone taking the bait on this thread it's going away.
[ January 12, 2005: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Jessica Sant
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 4313

I've never been a fan of those prank-call radio shows. They all suck, they're all mean, and there's no need for them. I'm definitely taking EFH's hint and won't listen to it (not that I planned on it before reading his post).

I'll keep an eye on this thread too.

People are idiots, on all sides. Hopefully everyone recognizes that and can move on.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/11bpo.htm

An abusive call made by two prominent radio jockeys to a call centre in India has outraged listeners and prompted demands for the duo's resignation.

The live call, made during the Philadelphia-based morning show of RJs Star and Bucwild, ended with one of the RJ's repeatedly calling the female call centre employee a 'bitch' and a 'rat eater' and threatening to choke her.

Star, whose real name is Troi Torain, initiated the call under the pretext of inquiring into an order he had placed for a product known as 'Quick Beads', hair beads marketed primarily to girls outside the black community (Star and Bucwild are black).

This is not the first time the RJ's have provoked listeners. In 2001, after the death of the R&B singer Aaliyah, their show attempted to make light of the tragedy by playing the sound effect of a plane crashing, along with the sound of a woman screaming.

That segment, according to some reports, drew as many as 80,000 signatures to a petition and led to the duo being fired from their station at the time, New York's Hot 97 FM. Their latest segment has inspired a number of bloggers and online activists to rally against Star and Bucwild, initiating a letter-writing campaign to the station, WUSL-FM (Power 99), as well as to its corporate parent, Clear Channel, and the Federal Communications Commission, which monitors the broadcast media.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
soumya ravindranath
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 26, 2001
Posts: 300
Hi,

I did listen to the clip and I have some doubts about it being 'live' The caller (Star) is a man, right ? Why is the Call-center girl addressing him "Ma'm" ?! (If I am not mistaken more than once). And secondly it sounds more like a cut & paste piece with breaks in speech ...

Anybody else felt this ?

Soumya.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
The US Federal government and many state governments actually have specific "hate speech" laws under which I believe someone could be prosecuted for this behavior.


I have no desire to listen to such a thing, but a "hate speech" law would be a direct frontal assault on our Constitution's right to free speech.

Would I be subject to such a law when a moron cuts me off in traffic (South Florida drivers...another topic...) and I give them a "hate speech"?
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
I think they are getting away with a rather easy a-day suspension, and at the end, a lot more publicity that they don�t deserve!
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24183
    
  34

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

I have no desire to listen to such a thing, but a "hate speech" law would be a direct frontal assault on our Constitution's right to free speech.


I did a quick Google on the topic and it seems that Herb's right: there's still no Federal hate speech law. There are, however, laws on the books in a number of states, including California and these scumbags home state of Pennsylvania.

Freedom of speech is already limited -- the classic "yelling 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater" comes immediately to mind. Every freedom comes with responsibility.

Yelling at someone for cutting you off in traffic is not hate speech. Yelling at someone because of their ethnicity or creed, with a specific intent to cause them emotional distress, may be.

As longtime denizens of this forum may recall, I personally cherish my right to air my political grievances in public. But there are limits to everything.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Limiting hate speech would be a violation of the 1st ammendment. In this case, they made the mistake of issuing their hate speech over the public airwaves. If they had stood on a street corner and done it they would not have violated the law.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

Yelling at someone for cutting you off in traffic is not hate speech. Yelling at someone because of their ethnicity or creed, with a specific intent to cause them emotional distress, may be.

As longtime denizens of this forum may recall, I personally cherish my right to air my political grievances in public. But there are limits to everything.


So, yelling at the traffic offender because I hate them, and telling them that I hate them, and admitting that I am trying to cause them emotional distress because I hate them is not "hate speech"?

Yet, if I walk up to Michael Moore, disagree with him vehemently because of his creeds and someone infers that I intend to cause him distress, that is a hate crime? This limitation on creed attacks seems to strike at the heart of the purpose free speech. The potential for abuse is much greater than with other restrictions on free speech.
Jerry Young
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 77
Tom is all right, it seems to me.

One has all rights to hate and discriminate, as long as within his boundaries.

It's your right to like or hate a certain group of people based on whatever reason.

But the issue gets complicated when you express your such feelings through or upon public resources.

As in Tom's example, in a theater yelling "fire" while without one. Actually not only this; during performance you probably are required to be as quiet as possible. I am sure if you keep talking, even not very loud, while others are watching you'll also in trouble, no matter what you talk.

It really has nothing to do with your right to talk; it's just that you talk in the wrong place.

It's something called "guest" and "host". In a host's place a guest has better follow the host's instructions.

The complexity comes in the case of so-called "public places" or "public resources" --- people of conflicting interests are tied together by all kinds of tricks to build so many "public stuffs", that they have to feed so many representatives to fight for them to get back as much as possible from the "public stuff".

The solution, of course, is not to have so many public stuffs. A drastic reduction of public stuffs will do it; the only losers are professional piliticians.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Yet, if I walk up to Michael Moore, disagree with him vehemently because of his creeds and someone infers that I intend to cause him distress, that is a hate crime?
In theory, a hate crime would be walking up to someone and saying you despise them because of their race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability. In practice in the US, hate speech must be actively associated with the commission of another crime in order to be brought up to the level of criminal activity. For example, if I am beating the hell out of a gay gentleman while calling him a "dirty c***sucking homo" then I could be tried under the hate-crime laws which may increase the length of my sentence. Removal of the physical assault would also remove the criminality of the speech.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Actually not only this; during performance you probably are required to be as quiet as possible. I am sure if you keep talking, even not very loud, while others are watching you'll also in trouble, no matter what you talk.

In the US, this would not be criminal activity but would be likely to get you thrown out of the privately owned theater. If you refused to leave, then the police could arrest you for trespassing, not for your speech.

It is a good thing that talking in a theater is not a crime or my daughter and her friends would all be in prison. Anyone who has been with a gaggle of pre-teen girls knows that asking them to be quiet for even a few minutes (let alone 2 hours) is asking way too much!
Jerry Young
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 77
I guess people tolerate kids more than they tolerate adults :-). But even kids know there is a limit how much and how loud they talk in a theater, so even if they talk more or louder than normally expected from an adult, they usually don't talk so much more or so much louder to risk being throwing out :-).

In here usually it's something called civility or civilization that governs. I have seen a young mom leave a cinema voluntarily because her small kid made so much noice and she could not control him; ans she said sorry to people around her. What would happen if she didn't leave and her kid continued that behavior? I don't know in America; but long time agon in another country I have seen a similar situation. Another man was so annoyed, and after a few fruitless complaints to the mom, he slapped the kid in the face, and when the mom protested, he slapped her as well. And no other people witnessing this said a word. Without civility, law will not be able to be enforced simply because eoforcing any law will be unaffordable.

The reason we come together to make some law is because we all know in most times and most places and for most people civility governs well.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
In the US, the man would have been arrested for assault. The proper procedure is to ask the theater manager to remove the noisy people.
Gerald Davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 872
[MD is not an approrpiate forum for threats]
[ January 12, 2005: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
Jerry Young
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 77
While in some other country, what's important is your social status and your physical strength in the case of equal social status . Kind of jungle principles govern.
Jerry Young
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 77
In US, a man beating a woman or a kid would be seens shameless and disgraceful, and be belittled even by his peers.

And generally in western culture, bullying people who are not physically as strong as you are usually is seen disgraceful and shameful, especially bullying women and children.

But in some other cultures, men beating women and kids is, or used to be (more politically correct) nothing abnormal.

What a bunch of cowards.
Jerry Young
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 77
And in this case, the guy being rude to the service represenative,
publicly showing oneself being a rude and nasty guy...

I guess it's really a rarity, if it's thue, rather than a commonality in US.

There are such people in all countries; in US, in terms of ratio of such people to the whole population, I believe there are much fewer such people than most other countries.

Or in other words, US is a much more civilized country than most other country, but it does not mean it has no bad apples.
Steven Bell
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 1071
I would say this example shows a couple things that are not bad.

1:
After the radio jocks 'stunt' there was a huge public outrage. That would tend me to think that the general population finds this activity horrible.

2:
The free market working. These guys have already been fired from one job. My guess is in addition to their suspension (which I think was pretty light) they were told 'screw up one more time and your gone'. If they get fired from this job the chances of another station picking them up are pretty slim.

Generally I think the idea of 'hate speech' as a crime is a bad idea. Punish a person for their actions, not by trying to get in their head and figure out why they did something.
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Limiting hate speech would be a violation of the 1st ammendment. In this case, they made the mistake of issuing their hate speech over the public airwaves. If they had stood on a street corner and done it they would not have violated the law.


OTOH you're also violating the rights of others if you in any way make them listen to you.
In civilised society the rights of the individual must always be ballanced against the right of all others.

Strictly speaking any law is a limitation of your first ammendment rights as you could claim that anything you do is an expression of your freedom. According to such a broad interpretation murder is free speech because it expresses your dislike for the person you kill in a way of your choosing.

I've not listened to this recording after the warnings about its graphic nature but I can understand why people react agressively to callcenter people (especially if those callcenters are offshored and you're in a neighbourhood with high unemployment in part because the largest company in town just offshored their own callcenter...).
I've experienced one too many callcenter where you're just sent from one person to the next without ever getting any real help at all.


42
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
OTOH you're also violating the rights of others if you in any way make them listen to you.

I';m not sure what you mean by "make them listen to you". If you mean tie them in a chair then you are correct. But I can stand on a street corner and go on about any subject I like.
Madhav Lakkapragada
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 03, 2000
Posts: 5040
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/jan/11bpo.htm

[snip]
That segment, according to some reports, drew as many as 80,000 signatures to a petition and led to the duo being fired from their station at the time, New York's Hot 97 FM. Their latest segment has inspired a number of bloggers and online activists to rally against Star and Bucwild, initiating a letter-writing campaign to the station, WUSL-FM (Power 99), as well as to its corporate parent, Clear Channel, and the Federal Communications Commission, which monitors the broadcast media.


This is so pathetic. Previously, NBC late night host (from NY) ???forgot that guys name??? did something remotely similar regarding 'computer support call outsourced to India' . That was extremely mild compared to this. Though, it was funny, I thought it was in bad taste personally, although at the end I was able to let it go. But this far exceed that and I do think its hate based (crime or not I don't know).

So anyone else cares to send a letter/email/call to FCC ?

Indecent and Obsene broadcast prohibited at all times?

Can I quote anyone (general public) here who thinks this was indecent or obsene ?

- m


Take a Minute, Donate an Hour, Change a Life
http://www.ashanet.org/workanhour/2006/?r=Javaranch_ML&a=81
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: Outsourcing and Abuses