A professional, objective, apolitical future for The Escapist...
- Thread starter NinjaDeathSlap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
End of the day, its a business. If a persons outside behavior compromises his work or the company he works for, and in this case the behavior in question can be seen as transphobic and devisive (not controversial, just flat out disrespectful), then this must be put into consideration from simply a cold ruthless business perspective.
Watch the guy...people most certainly can change, but if he hasn't, or confirmed to a more professional representation of himself, then the guy should (and will) get sacked.
Quite simple really.
Should then a person never have a opinion outside his work? of course that is fine in spirit, but a journalist/actor/etc has decided to take a public figure life that will be judged. You trust a journalist due to who he is as a person..otherwise a computer with clever algorithms can spit out articles.
I say give the guy a chance, but if this continues..then..well, escapist will cut loose any liability. There is a -lot- of talent out there just begging for the chance to be the next sterling/biscuit/credits/etc. cutthroat business wont tolerate too much straying from social norms. (unless they are gawker of course..in which case, that is a prerequisite)
Watch the guy...people most certainly can change, but if he hasn't, or confirmed to a more professional representation of himself, then the guy should (and will) get sacked.
Quite simple really.
Should then a person never have a opinion outside his work? of course that is fine in spirit, but a journalist/actor/etc has decided to take a public figure life that will be judged. You trust a journalist due to who he is as a person..otherwise a computer with clever algorithms can spit out articles.
I say give the guy a chance, but if this continues..then..well, escapist will cut loose any liability. There is a -lot- of talent out there just begging for the chance to be the next sterling/biscuit/credits/etc. cutthroat business wont tolerate too much straying from social norms. (unless they are gawker of course..in which case, that is a prerequisite)
I have never seen a creationist go "I don't know much about evolution" either. Indeed, it often is the opposite, where their ignorance is presented as fact in spite of actual evidence. Such as the examples showed. On gender identity, he is wrong. However I can't say that is intentional denigration as comes off more as ignorance not malice. The "I don't agree you are what you say you are, because I don't believe what you say you are exists, so you are dumb" seems the line of thought. I don't see him saying such people are horrible immoral monsters or lesser human beings, merely dumb for having a different opinion then himself, which while ironically un-self-aware still doesn't seem malice towards transpeople so much ignorance and refusal to take in contrary information. Call him out, certainly, try to engage and correct the ignorance if you can, but I still can't say I support removal off ignorance and political difference alone. Granted, he is walking a paper thin line in that regard to me and one good twitter ragefest would be enough to convince me otherwise, but for now I can't.Silvanus said:
Explain that to any creationist, hell, any religious person, global warming denier, etc. Stubborn ignorance is still just ignorance, not malice. Even intentional ignorance is just ignorance, not malice. When we realize that information comes from other sources, and knowledge only comes from sources we trust (knowledge being what we know, not necessarily what is fact), saying ignorance is malice is saying that they are immoral for not believing someone who supports your position. They are factually wrong, and they are ignorant. But being malicious is an incorrect claim.MarsAtlas said:
I would agree. And it is because of my experiences with religious people of a similar mindset that I have to take the stance I do. Ignorance is just ignorance. When the basis of other opinions, it ripples down, but while one can call someone wrong for arguing with bad information, one can not call them immoral for that alone. Stubbornness doesn't respond well to dictates, and stubborn ignorance doesn't respond to dictated definitions that thy don't already accept. It is a pain in the ass, it is annoying, it is stupid even, but immoral it is not. Nor, for that matter, can I see that sort of stubborn ignorance by itself be reason enough to call for his head.
I know creationists who have ben con artists and swindlers. But I have also known the stubborn faithful who have believed them because of their ignorance and because they reacted poorly to attempts to inform them. I can't call an aged grandmother malicious because she doesn't know better and doesn't trust the messenger trying to teach her otherwise and I can't call this guy malicious because he is responding to a twitter conversation on the topic with the investment you'd expect of a political conversation on twitter. Now, if he uses it to justify attacking people, he uses it as excuse to not help people, he uses it as a means to devalue their rights as humans, then things change. Him disagreeing with what people call themselves because he doesn't believe in gender identity and instead sticks with gender dichotomy is archaic, but I can not call it malicious in nature.
To quote Lizzy, who is coming to The Escapist as a content creator:
This guy may have some radical beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily have to come out in his works. Nor do his beliefs make him bad at making things. Lovecraft was a massive racist (and possibly beat his wife, memory is shaky on that one). Orson Scott Card is a homophobe yet he writes solid sci-fi. As somebody mentioned Doug Tenapel made Earthworm Jim, one of my favorite alltime platformers.
How many people here use Java?
If he's a bigot in his content, then by all means get him out. If he starts insulting people for not agreeing with his articles get him out. But give the guy a chance, come on.
Talk about tolerance.
This guy may have some radical beliefs, but that doesn't necessarily have to come out in his works. Nor do his beliefs make him bad at making things. Lovecraft was a massive racist (and possibly beat his wife, memory is shaky on that one). Orson Scott Card is a homophobe yet he writes solid sci-fi. As somebody mentioned Doug Tenapel made Earthworm Jim, one of my favorite alltime platformers.
How many people here use Java?
If he's a bigot in his content, then by all means get him out. If he starts insulting people for not agreeing with his articles get him out. But give the guy a chance, come on.
Talk about tolerance.
This thread got impossible to read after a few walls of text so I'm not sure if other trans people have responded. That being said I do have something important to say.
This guy stated the XY = Male and XX = Female, because it's only biology. Ohhh kay.... Then explain this: There are females who are born physically female with XY chromosomes. Males are born some times with YY chromosomes. And some males like me are born male yet have XX for a chromosomal set up. By and large people like this aren't trans and show no outward sign of their chromosomal make up. Some of us are transgendered, hell not even all transgendered people fall into the "want a sex change surgery" category. That's leaving aside his thoughts that being homosexual, trans, or bisexual is a choice. Which I happen to believe it isn't but I also believe it's not all about biology either. The human mind is too complex to hone how we form our sexuality and gender identity on a basis of "it's this one thing!" It's too many factors really to calculate, or possibly properly identify.
Now this guy is a conservative some say. Well I know far too many conservatives who are accepting and perfectly nice people. This guy isn't a conservative he's a bigot.
If he can keep his bigotry out of his content then I'm fine with that. If he'd at least say he accepts people for who they are and how they are then he'd look a lot better in just about everyone's eyes.
As a more or less middle ground libertarian my thought is this: Moviebob was obnoxiously left-wing, this guy looks like he might be obnoxiously right-wing. The only but in my mind is this; I've seen more conservatives who can stay off of political subjects than liberals, so I have a little glimmer of hope for the new hire.
This guy stated the XY = Male and XX = Female, because it's only biology. Ohhh kay.... Then explain this: There are females who are born physically female with XY chromosomes. Males are born some times with YY chromosomes. And some males like me are born male yet have XX for a chromosomal set up. By and large people like this aren't trans and show no outward sign of their chromosomal make up. Some of us are transgendered, hell not even all transgendered people fall into the "want a sex change surgery" category. That's leaving aside his thoughts that being homosexual, trans, or bisexual is a choice. Which I happen to believe it isn't but I also believe it's not all about biology either. The human mind is too complex to hone how we form our sexuality and gender identity on a basis of "it's this one thing!" It's too many factors really to calculate, or possibly properly identify.
Now this guy is a conservative some say. Well I know far too many conservatives who are accepting and perfectly nice people. This guy isn't a conservative he's a bigot.
If he can keep his bigotry out of his content then I'm fine with that. If he'd at least say he accepts people for who they are and how they are then he'd look a lot better in just about everyone's eyes.
As a more or less middle ground libertarian my thought is this: Moviebob was obnoxiously left-wing, this guy looks like he might be obnoxiously right-wing. The only but in my mind is this; I've seen more conservatives who can stay off of political subjects than liberals, so I have a little glimmer of hope for the new hire.
Sorry to show case myself as an absolute dunce, but who is this guy and why should I care? From this thread I've gleamed that he is apparently a new content contributor that has nothing to do with "geek culture".
I'm rather ignorant of the change of management at the moment. Aside from the observable impacts, such as people leaving/getting fired. It feels like there's some kind of apocalypse going on that I haven't bother to check up on.
I'm rather ignorant of the change of management at the moment. Aside from the observable impacts, such as people leaving/getting fired. It feels like there's some kind of apocalypse going on that I haven't bother to check up on.
What I view it as is simply pandering to different audiences for different properties (an audience that largely doesn't even come here).G.O.A.T. said:
Essentially, I'm of the viewpoint that recent events aren't actually about "separating content from political or contentious issues."
It is VERY odd that he'd be a contributor on a site that largely holds political leanings FAR to the left of wherever he is.
I've never actually read any of Lovecraft's work, but from what I've heard he wasn't one of those people who separated beliefs and work. Aren't his works filled with racism, both subtle and overt?JemothSkarii said:
Yes. Much of his celebrated work is about "Them" living amongst us, and the horror of interbreeding.FirstNameLastName said:
There's also the odd bit like "He was ugly and degenerate, even for a negro" and so on that pops up.
Oh yes, his racism did show in his work. Some of them at least, haven't read Lovecraft in a while. He also wasn't a great technical writer. But it didn't stop his work from being considered a classic and a cornerstone of horror.FirstNameLastName said:
Yes, many of his stories were outright racist or xenophobic, and his poems even more so, to the point that even as a product of an era where such beliefs were more acceptable, he was remarked by his contemporaries as being a very paranoid man with racist beliefs that were notable even for his time period.FirstNameLastName said:
He did, after all, write this little gem:
On the Creation of Niggers
by H. P. Lovecraft
When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Iove's fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a ******.
by H. P. Lovecraft
When, long ago, the gods created Earth
In Iove's fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a ******.
not all of his writings contained racism or xenophobia, but they were a remarked element of many of his works.
So what your saying as long as he doesn't say anything negative, you're fine. Which ignores that fact that all decision to do with him will go through his perception. The outcome will be coloured by this perception.Areloch said:
Let me give you an opposing view. Steve Jobs, by all reports, a terrible boss. He treated his workers as he did the consumer - very restrictive, uninterested in what others had to say and generally promises of quality were off.
Tim Cook comes along and promotes his ideal of using renewable energy, supports making your own choice of sexual orientation, increases Chinese labour rights and does significant research into helping disabled people use their products. The last is a very costly and the shareholders have been calling him out on it. He said (paraphrased - 2 years ago) that if you are only in the company to make money instead of also helping society then they could leave.
Tim's stance on his beliefs almost lead me to by an Apple product (I still cant until they deal with their restrictive hardware and software practices, but I might forgive them because that was all Steve Jobs being, probably rightly, paranoid and crazy). I would never have conceived of by one because of Jobs' character and now I am considering because of Cook's.
I will be interested to see what happens but this is probably not a good sign. I have yet to met a person who can decide against their beliefs without outside pressure
I'm not contesting his importance to the literary landscape, I just feel he seems rather out of place in a list of people who's beliefs didn't influence their works.JemothSkarii said:
Overall, while I have no bone to pick with this new guy, and I'm sympathetic to the idea of holding the work above the person, I have my doubts that he'll remain apolitical. I don't really know the guy, but isn't he only really known for right-wing political writing? If so, then I feel that telling people not to pre judge might be pushing the limits of the concept.
This was basically my point. It's hard to be sure of what's going to happen. He might actually say some things that add usefully to on going debates at the very least.FirstNameLastName said:
Still his statements on chromosomes just irritated the hell out of me as a physical male with XX male syndrome
Oh, probably should clarify. I was using Lovecraft as an example of political views in writing that became successful. Ayn Rand is also debatable.FirstNameLastName said:
ANYWAYS
I find that just because somebody writes predominantly one thing doesn't mean they're incapable of others. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he can reign his political beliefs in.
If he doesn't, the community will crucify him and he'll get no views.
It is too soon to judge, but the site he writes for, everyjoe.com, isn't exactly filling me with optimism as his writing pretty much drips with his beliefs. His coworkers are people like Tom Kratman, known neo-conservative writer somewhat infamous in literary circles for writing an entire series that was basically just post-9/11 graphic revenge porn against Muslims and regularly insulting Europeans and European politics.FirstNameLastName said:
Still, he shouldn't be judged solely by the company he keeps or just on past history, his writing may be just fine, but he sounds like he's just going to be the political inverse of moviebob, except slagging off progressives rather than "conservabros".
I'm not going to be too hard on his contributions here until I see what they are, but I totally understand why this forums notable LGBT and trans posters are already chiming in with disgust.
He'll probably get fired if he does go of on a bigoted rant and then the community crucifies him.JemothSkarii said:
And has his willful ignorance led to demonstrable harm then? Because I don't see "I disagree with your assessment of yourself" as harm, and unless I missed something, that is the extent of what he has done.MarsAtlas said:
And has his belief in a dichotomy gender identity led to such demonstrable bodily harm? Don't get me wrong, stuff like anti-vaccine rhetoric is a horribly destructive one, but I think the direct relation to health and safety would sort of reveal the added importance in relation to how harmful denial is, especially since it relates to childcare practices. A gender dichotomy belief on its own doesn't have that same danger. Unless I am missing something or his lack of belief in a transpeople radiant is causing actual harm. Note, this does not include actions committed against people because of the belief, just the belief itself as that is all that has been shown thus far from the tweets.
Perhaps. From what I was shown, it was him arguing with someone on twitter though. Consider how often you reject statements and claims from people in these forums yourself, even with links to back them up. I'd say it is a stretch to call it fanaticism for not changing his opinion because of a twitter comment.
Yes, actually. And while I see him arguing with individuals or mocking the concept he disagrees with, I fail to see him Justifying attacking people, using his dislike of their opinion on the issue as excuse to not help them, or as a means to deny them basic human rights. Perhaps I am missing something, I tend to not get all image and video links to go through to my browser, but the entire summary of the guy's stance seems to be "I don't think someone calling themselves one thing means they are that thing because biology". And while his stance is wrong because biology has more grey to it that, I don't think having that opinion nor mocking the perception of the alternative is the same thing as saying group X doesn't deserve the same basic human rights or that group Y shouldn't be helped if in trouble.