Current Events > The title of CEO needs to be cancelled, it's problematic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Its cultural appropriation

Current Events Officer

Current Evens Oligarch

The CEOs should only be allowed to pay themselves the median salary that their workers get. Also, no bonuses.

No

Full_Pokedex posted...

No

Please explain

No_U_L7 posted...

Please explain

No

Full_Pokedex posted...

No

Then youre flat out wrong

Its the definition of cultural appropriation

Payzmaykr posted...

The CEOs should only be allowed to pay themselves the median salary that their workers get. Also, no bonuses.

yeah supposedly like in japan , even huge companies, ceos aren't paid nearly as much as. u.s.

...how the fuck is Chief Executive Officer cultural appropriation. I mean, I've heard some really stupid takes over the years but my god this is one of the dumbest. A Chief is the person in charge, as in they hold higher standing than the rest of the crew. This doesn't just apply to CEOs, but Petty Officers, Chefs, etc.

If you want to say its stupid because they get paid more, than I argue that they earned that right. Should they get paid as much as some do? No. But at the same time, they are at the top of the food chain overseeing the entire business, and their face is associated with the brand and they take the majority blame if something goes wrong.

AirJordan2345 posted...

yeah supposedly like in japan , even huge companies, ceos aren't paid nearly as much as. u.s.

No one gets paid like we do in the US (and I'm not just talking about ceo).

Requiem posted...

No one gets paid like we do in the US (and I'm not just talking about ceo).

you mean like regular workers?

Ivany2008 posted...

...how the fuck is Chief Executive Officer cultural appropriation. I mean, I've heard some really stupid takes over the years but my god this is one of the dumbest. A Chief is the person in charge, as in they hold higher standing than the rest of the crew. This doesn't just apply to CEOs, but Petty Officers, Chefs, etc.

If you want to say its stupid because they get paid more, than I argue that they earned that right. Should they get paid as much as some do? No. But at the same time, they are at the top of the food chain overseeing the entire business, and their face is associated with the brand and they take the majority blame if something goes wrong.

Chief is a title culturally appropriated from Native American culture. Your justification is thats how its been used for a long time. Just because its been wrongly used for a long time doesnt mean it isnt wrong

https://www.insightintodiversity.com/words-matter-dei-expert-lee-bitsoi-explains-why-chief-should-be-eliminated-from-diversity-titles/

Fire chiefs about to get wrecked.

Chris Evans Onlyf****?

AirJordan2345 posted...

you mean like regular workers?

Yeah, we actually make more money than workers in other nations for comparable jobs.
It's just that we pay so much more for the higher paying ones, so we end up with a greater income gap.

Chief comes from French. So basically the OP wants to stop the French from being involved in companies as CEOs.

Payzmaykr posted...

The CEOs should only be allowed to pay themselves the median salary that their workers get. Also, no bonuses.

Definitely. Also, politicians should be paid the median income of the district/state they represent.

they had chieftens elsewhere in the world

No_U_L7 posted...

Phrase is a title culturally appropriated from Native American culture. Your justification is thats how its been used for a long time. Just because its been wrongly used for a long time doesnt mean it isnt wrong

https://www.insightintodiversity.com/words-matter-dei-expert-lee-bitsoi-explains-why-chief-should-be-eliminated-from-diversity-titles/

Except.... it isn't. The term CEO wasn't created in North America. It was created in Australia in 1914. Now, it may have been done to shun the Native culture in that country, I don't know. But it has nothing to do with Native Americans. America didn't start using it until 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer#:~:text=In%20draft%20additions%20to%20the,first%20attestation%20being%20in%201914.

Now, if we go back further to the 1700s then we can look at the origins of Chief Executive Officer itself which is for the head of each of the 13 colonies of the United States. Again, I'm not American so I don't know if that was used against the Native population, but I have my doubts.

CEO in general is used worldwide these days. Essentially you'd be asking millions of companies to change the job title to something else, and that by the way is very expensive. Your not just changing a name, your changing everything associated with that name. So any instance where that name exists now has to be changed to something else. Newsletters, business cards, advertisement, service e-mails to clientele. Depending on the company it could be anywhere from a couple hundred bucks to a few million with brands like Wal-Mart and Mcdonalds.

Oh look No_U making a blatant troll topic and people actually biting

Quaxlyote posted...

Oh look No_U making a blatant troll topic and people actually biting

And yet many agencies are replacing the word chief

https://tinyurl.com/42bazsne

CEOs should be in prisons

Ivany2008 posted...

Except.... it isn't. The term CEO wasn't created in North America. It was created in Australia in 1914. Now, it may have been done to shun the Native culture in that country, I don't know. But it has nothing to do with Native Americans. America didn't start using it until 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer#:~:text=In%20draft%20additions%20to%20the,first%20attestation%20being%20in%201914.

Now, if we go back further to the 1700s then we can look at the origins of Chief Executive Officer itself which is for the head of each of the 13 colonies of the United States. Again, I'm not American so I don't know if that was used against the Native population, but I have my doubts.

CEO in general is used worldwide these days. Essentially you'd be asking millions of companies to change the job title to something else, and that by the way is very expensive. Your not just changing a name, your changing everything associated with that name. So any instance where that name exists now has to be changed to something else. Newsletters, business cards, advertisement, service e-mails to clientele. Depending on the company it could be anywhere from a couple hundred bucks to a few million with brands like Wal-Mart and Mcdonalds.

So youre saying its ok to be culturally insensitive if its too expensive otherwise?

Our CEO is lovingly referred to as "the final boss".

https://www.theonion.com/ceo-s-skill-set-transferable-to-any-job-that-requires-d-1850571849

Quaxlyote posted...

Oh look No_U making a blatant troll topic and people actually biting

Discussions are a thing of the past here. This boards new sport is trying to get someone disciplined so they can be the one to post is suspended topics.

*edit for typo

No_U_L7 posted...

So youre saying its ok to be culturally insensitive if its too expensive otherwise?

What I'm saying is take the stick out of your behind and stop giving a shit about something that might have been culturally inappropriate 300 years ago but isn't looked at it like that anymore. I doubt 99 percent of the population knows where most of the acronyms they use on a daily basis come from or what they mean, but its a generic term these days.

The struggles of our ancestors are not always directly linked to our struggles. So we should focus on our struggles, the here and now, rather than live our lives in the past. You want to remove the cultural appropriation? Then stop associating it with being culturally appropriate, and regard it for its current meaning, which in the case of a CEO would be the head of the company, the person who makes all the decisions.

Chief comes from the French term chef, which originates from the Latin word caput, both of which refer to the head of a group. During the colonization of North America, European settlers used the anglicized version of the term chief to describe the leaders of the Indigenous nations they encountered

Just because we called them Chief doesn't mean that further use of the term Chief is culturally appropriating ANYTHING.

Devilanse333 posted...

Discussions are a thing of the past here. This boards new sport is trying to get someone disciplined so they can be the one to post is suspended topics.

*edit for typo

We can only hope it's TC this time.

"Cultural appropriation" is a buzzword concept that needs to die.

Ivany2008 posted...

What I'm saying is take the stick out of your behind and stop giving a shit about something that might have been culturally inappropriate 300 years ago but isn't looked at it like that anymore. I doubt 99 percent of the population knows where most of the acronyms they use on a daily basis come from or what they mean, but its a generic term these days.

The struggles of our ancestors are not always directly linked to our struggles. So we should focus on our struggles, the here and now, rather than live our lives in the past. You want to remove the cultural appropriation? Then stop associating it with being culturally appropriate, and regard it for its current meaning, which in the case of a CEO would be the head of the company, the person who makes all the decisions.

If its not looked at as culturally inappropriate then why are some places removing Chief from their job titles?

No_U_L7 posted...

And yet many agencies are replacing the word chief

https://tinyurl.com/42bazsne

No_U_L7 posted...

If its not looked at as culturally inappropriate then why are some places removing Chief from their job titles?

Cuz they are dumb and don't understand