Gone Is the 'Just Joking' Era: Why Viral Remarks Outside the Workplace Are Now Costing People Their Careers

Lately a video from a FIFA World Cup match in Mexico travelled across the internet. It was not a goal, a spectacular save, or a memorable celebration that captured global attention.

Instead, it was a football fan sitting in the stands, looking into the camera of a Korean YouTuber and making a racist gesture by pulling the corners of his eyes. Seconds later, he laughed, perhaps believing it was a harmless joke.

The internet did not see it that way.

The video went viral, the backlash was immediate, and soon the man- identified as Ulises Fernando Bernal Miramontes- publicly apologised. His apology, however, did not stop the consequences. The professional body he headed, the College of Geomatics and Topographic Surveying Engineers of the State of Jalisco (Citgej), launched an internal review and eventually removed him from his position.

The incident could have remained just another story about racism in sports. But for many in India, it resonated because it came at a time when two other viral videos had sparked a similar debate: Can something you say or do outside the workplace cost you your career?
Recent events suggest the answer is increasingly becoming yes.

The 'Rs 370 Biryani' Controversy

One of the most discussed viral moments in India over the past few weeks came from comedian Pranit More's crowd work show. During an interaction with the audience, an IT professional named Himanshu Jangra narrated a personal story involving a date. In an attempt to be humorous, he made what later became known as the "Rs 370 biryani" remark, implying that the amount he spent on a meal should somehow be "recovered" through physical intimacy.

The audience inside the venue laughed. The comedian continued the interaction. At that moment, it appeared to be just another piece of dark humour in a live stand-up environment.

But once the clip reached social media, the context changed. Many viewers described the remarks as deeply misogynistic and degrading towards women. Within days, Jangra was being heavily criticised online. His employer reportedly terminated his services after being flooded with messages and viral clips linking the company to the controversy. An FIR was also filed in connection with the incident.

Everyone enjoyed the cringe content including the host Pranit More and many women in the audience. There are ten times more objectionable and cringe contents available on YouTube and Instagram by many female stand up comedians but lets reserve all our outrage only for this 370… https://t.co/MZRQcQoU0Q pic.twitter.com/dZZ86kB3pA

— NCMIndia Council For Men Affairs (@NCMIndiaa) June 9, 2026

Jangra later apologised publicly, saying he had become carried away while trying to entertain the audience. In an emotional conversation with his former employer, he admitted he regretted attending the show, saying that the controversy had affected his family, relatives, and mental health.

Stand-up comedian Pranit More mocked on girls when a person told that he served a girl biryani of ₹370.

₹370 Ka Biryani Khila Di Toh Vasool karne Ka Haq Mil Gya.

Yahi Soch Problem Hai... pic.twitter.com/YBN3PrYGfV

— Shailesh UP60 (@Shailes34135660) June 7, 2026

Yet, a significant section of the internet remained unconvined. Many users argued that he appeared to regret the consequences more than the comments themselves.

The KEM Medical Student Who Sparked Another Debate

The same comedy show generated another controversy that took a different, but equally serious, direction.

Sejal Pawar, an MBBS student associated with Mumbai's KEM Hospital and Seth G.S. Medical College, was captured during an audience interaction making remarks about the genitalia of male cadavers she had encountered during her medical training. The comments, which many considered insensitive and disrespectful towards the dead, quickly went viral.

Ek 370 ki biryani vasool raha tha
Log khi khi khi hanse

Ek dead body ka d*ck size dekh rahi
Log khi khi khi hanse

In sab logon ki comedy ho gayi
Social media outrage mein mara jaa raha pic.twitter.com/H4fE9chzgh

— Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj (@DeepikaBhardwaj) June 10, 2026

The reaction was swift. KEM Hospital launched an inquiry and constituted a five-member panel to investigate the matter. Preliminary findings reportedly confirmed that the person in the video was indeed the student. The institution described the remarks as inappropriate and unacceptable.

Pawar was placed on a 15-day forced leave, barred from entering the college campus and hostel, and restricted from participating in academic activities until the inquiry was completed. Authorities also said they were paying attention to her mental health after she reportedly became emotional during the proceedings and expressed regret over the incident.

For many observers, this was not simply about a joke. It was about professional ethics. If doctors are expected to treat human life and human remains with dignity, should a future doctor be judged for publicly joking about cadavers, even if the comments were made outside a hospital and inside a comedy show?

The Big Question: Why Are People Losing Jobs Over What They Say Outside Work?

These three incidents have one thing in common. None of them happened inside an office. None took place during working hours. One happened at a football stadium. Two happened during a stand-up comedy show.

So why are employers, universities, and professional bodies stepping in?

The answer lies in a transformation that has quietly taken place over the last decade. The idea that a person has one identity at work and another outside it is slowly disappearing. Today, every smartphone owner is a broadcaster, every stranger can record a video, and every social media user can become part of a global jury.

The workplace is no longer confined to office walls. In many ways, employees carry their organisations' reputations with them wherever they go.

If a video of an employee making racist, sexist, or offensive remarks goes viral, the employer is immediately dragged into the conversation. Companies are tagged on social media. Institutions are asked whether such behaviour reflects their values. Universities are questioned about the ethics they teach. Inaction itself becomes a statement.

For employers and institutions, acting against an employee is often less about policing private lives and more about protecting public trust.

But Didn't We Grow Up in a Very Different Work Culture?

This is where the debate becomes particularly interesting.

Many people belong to a generation that saw a very different workplace culture. Offices where bosses shouted at employees, managers publicly humiliated junior staff, or seniors used intimidation as a management style were not uncommon. In many sectors, these behaviours were normalised. People were expected to "adjust", "toughen up", or simply accept that this was how workplaces functioned.

Ironically, at a time when harsh behaviour inside the workplace often went unquestioned, society now appears far less tolerant of objectionable behaviour outside the workplace.
Why is a manager yelling at employees for years sometimes tolerated, but an employee making a racist gesture or a sexist joke at a comedy show can lose a job within days?

Part of the answer is that the standards themselves are changing. The same social shift that has led to conversations about workplace bullying, harassment, and toxic leadership has also led to less tolerance for racism, sexism, and public humiliation. Behaviour that was once dismissed as "boys being boys" or "just locker-room talk" is increasingly being challenged.

The modern workplace is trying to redefine not just how people should behave at work, but also what values they should represent outside it.

The Social Media Effect: Nothing Stays Private Anymore

There is another major difference between the past and the present: permanence.
Years ago, a crude joke made among a few friends disappeared with the evening. A tasteless comment at a public event was heard by those present and forgotten by the next day. Today, that same moment can be recorded, uploaded, clipped, translated, shared across platforms, and viewed by millions of people who were never part of the original context.

A football fan in Mexico likely never imagined his actions would be debated across continents. An IT employee attending his first stand-up show probably did not think his story would lead to an FIR and the loss of his job. A medical student participating in crowd work may not have expected her comments to become a national discussion about ethics in medicine.

But social media has changed the scale of accountability. It has also changed the speed. Public opinion often forms long before any institution completes its inquiry.

Is Society Becoming Too Intolerant?

Some would argue that people today are too quick to take offence and that every mistake is met with demands for punishment. They worry that fear of online outrage is creating an environment where individuals have little room to make mistakes or grow.

Others see it differently. They argue that society is not becoming less tolerant; it is simply becoming less willing to excuse behaviour that demeans others based on race, gender, or human dignity. They point out that what earlier generations accepted as humour often came at the expense of someone else's identity or respect.

The debate becomes even more complex when intent and impact do not match. A person may genuinely believe they are joking, but the people hearing those words may experience them as racist, sexist, or degrading. In the digital age, it is often the impact-not the intention-that shapes public reaction.

The New Social Contract

Perhaps these incidents are telling us that the rules have changed.
The Mexican football fan, Himanshu Jangra, and Sejal Pawar are not identical cases. One involved a racist gesture, another a misogynistic comment, and the third raised questions about the ethical conduct expected from a medical professional. Yet all three reveal the same underlying reality: society no longer draws a clear line between the individual and the institution they represent.

An employee is not just an employee. A doctor is not just a doctor inside a hospital. A public act is no longer merely a private moment. In a world where every action can be captured and broadcast instantly, personal behaviour increasingly becomes part of professional identity.

Perhaps that is why employers are acting faster than ever before. Not necessarily because they want to police what people do after office hours, but because in the age of viral videos, there are no true "after office hours" anymore.

The larger question, then, may not be why a racist gesture at a football match or a comment at a comedy show can cost someone a job. The more uncomfortable question is whether we have entered an era where every public moment is now part of our résumé-and whether society, employers, and institutions are still figuring out where accountability should end and forgiveness should begin.