why are multiple people sayingimplying that it was corrected immediately if nobody knows that is actually what happened or not ? Not implying anything . Just refusing to assign malice until there ' s proofYou don ' t think it is even a little strange that multiple people are going around presenting the same version of events that is both unsupported by the known facts and that serves to minimize the story and paint it as a nonissue ? Until there ' s proof otherwise , wouldn ' t that be the definition of a non issue ? Well that depends on what the measures are they took , how far removed from the incident they are , what training the employee received , if it was just one misguided employee acting on their own or an overall culture that permeates the organization , etc . , etc . Okay , until any of those things are clarified , there ' s no reason to imply there was maliceInstead of considering any of this and withholding judgement until we get some more info , people seem intent on minimizing it as much as possible and telling everyone to move alongUntil you can demonstrate malice , why not move on ? It ' s possible to revisit something if malice is discoveredWe know this how ? Maybe it was an african american employee greeting a good friend of his in the way that he typically would greet him if they were outside of workReally ? Okay , first of all , the example was put forth as the employee making a racist statement , but since you ' re now on the side of assuming lack of malice , I suppose we should USE THE FACTS TO MAKE A JUDGMENT . or does giving someone the benefit of the doubt on motivation only exist if you are shitting on a cop ? It exists in every situation . If there are facts that support malice , we can assign malice . If there are no facts , we can ' t . I don ' t know how much simpler this can beIf you automatically assume racism in the Target example without any context or evidence and demand the employee is fired as part of a correction with no consideration to motivation , you ' d need something similar to happen here for the analogy to hold . See above . Yes , if there was no malice , it should be up to the store and the public at large to use the facts involvedYou disagree ? Quote where you got that . I ' ve said over and over that we don ' t know so pretending that we do it bullshit . Again , if we don ' t know , making up scenarios benefits noone . Is this how it works for you ? You blindly imply facts that aren ' t supported by the story , then if I question you on them , you make up lies to attack and discredit me ? I made up no facts , I only refused to assume anything more than what we knew by the storyGood job , I guess . ThanksSince most of the rest of your post is making up more lies or dishonest implications about what you want to pretend I said , let ' s see if you can support this first one before wasting time calling you out on the rest . It ' s been simple so far