Eidos Employee Fired Over "Hate Speech" on Facebook

[viranimus]

Clipped for space and cohesion

I seriously could never imagine the concepts could be so alien, but if it has to be broken down to this point I will try to assist for the clarification.(so here we go, killing not only a clown explaining a punchline, but an afternoon =/ ) First I will address your points.

Spoiler: Direct disection responses

This isn't so much 'dark' as it is 'sociopathic' though.

It is dark. Looking at it as sociopathic is inferring your own context on the situation. It might be misanthropic, but far from sociopathic.

What joke? "I" don't see a joke here. Jokes involve humor and neither 'this ***** has a month to live' nor 'this ***** needs to die' are funny.

You said it, I underlined and bolded it. Its you missing the punch line all together. Notice you didnt quote either joke from either line?

But it's not apparent. The context doesn't indicate any jest or humor - it just indicates that he wants to see this woman dead and doesn't care if others get killed in the process.

It IS aparent. While the concept might be alien to you what is stopping you from seeing it is you are assuming everything he says is to be taken literally, and it clearly isnt. That is the problem and misunderstanding.

Schadenfreude' is the kind of thing that makes us laugh at slapstick, not at people being shot and killed. If someone is laughing at people getting shot and killed I think that person probably needs a psychiatrist, at the very least.

That first quote by itself might have been more easily justified as 'dark humor' (even if it's still not funny) but it's actually the context of the second quote that makes the pair of them seem rather unhealthily invested in hoping this specific person gets killed.

NO. Again this is an incomplete understanding. Sure slapstick is a light hearted form of Shadenfreude, but that is NOT what it genuinely talking about. Here, some elaboration is in order.

"to observe or think about something with triumphant and often malicious satisfaction, gratification, or delight"

"the habit of dwelling with enjoyment on evil thoughts". The medieval church taught that morose delectation was a sin the appeal of sadism is morose delectation

debauchery and disorder in addition to sadistic enjoyment.

"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him."

Malicious satisfaction, Enjoyment of evil thoughts, Morose delectation, Sin, Sadism, debauchery, and apparently it is strong enough to piss God off to the point he stops looking at his enemy you are fighting for him to turn his gaze on you for being a prick and liking the killing too much. THIS is the essence of Schadenfreude. It is a wide array of levels with slapstick being pretty entry level. Ill put it in a tldr sort of way to make sure its fully understood.

Slapstick is to Schadenfreude what a bb gun is to the entire military arsenal of an industrialized nation including intercontinental ballistic nuclear warheads.

Now... If we are seriously going to have to do this, First thing is we have to get this failure to understand literal and figurative out of the way.

adhering to primary meaning of a term or expression. Meaning it is what it is, with nothing hidden and intended to be taken word for word at the most base of definitions of the words therein. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning.

expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous. Figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words, may involve exaggerations and These alterations result in figures of speech.

Spoiler: Examples of figurative language in use

Perhaps the clearest point to look at in examining this failure of understanding is where it happens the most. Religion. For some reason some look at religion and condemn it because they apply their demand for literal context on concepts that have always been figurative.

Examples, For Muslims completing Jihads through sacrifice and being rewarded with 72 virgins. That does not literally mean being rewarded with an abundance of people. It is a figure of speech denoting highly desired rewards beyond mortal capacity. Immeasurable entities that exist for no reason but to satiate your every whim and desire without hesitation or question.

When someone misapplies literal to the figurative, they see something like "God created the heavens and the earth" and envision an invisible man in the sky mixing up a celestial brew in a cauldron or the like, instead of understanding it is a use of figurative language written by people who didnt quite understand the science, but got the gist of "something was created out of nothing" and figuratively precipitated explaining the force of the big bang.

Another common one is Gods Tabula Rasa. Asking for forgiveness absolves you of your sins. If wrongly taken in a literal sense, it means I could shoot someone in the face, go and ask for forgiveness, complete whatever task of absolution and be forgiven and technically free to do it again. That is obviously wrong because it is meant in a figurative means. It basically says if you seek forgiveness, it can be granted. You ask for forgiveness and in exchange you live your life by the moral guidelines laid out which point you to community service, helping and loving others and the world you live in you can be "absolved" of sin. It is not because God strikes it from some imaginary score card that it is holding against you, it is because it is again an understanding of the figurative because if you do something that is regarded as mortal sin, Nothing will ever take that experience away from you. However if there is no hope of undoing past transgressions, why would anyone bother to try? That would mean once you sinned, even by accident, you would always be a evil person. By portraying this in this manner it lets the individual know that while they have made mistakes, if you work hard in outweighing the good you have done in life compared to the evil, that will allow you to mentally cope with the evil you have done as you work to tip your own internal scales back into favor, and takes it out of the individuals hand who may either forgive too easily, or never forgive at all. It is not a real thing, so much as it is a goal to strive for.

Very little in religion is intended to be taken as literal. By focusing on figurative it allows the message of the moral compass to remain relevant when times and circumstances change with the addition of new knowledge. Thats why we see an increasing backlash against religion in this day and age. People are increasingly lacking the ability to comprehend the figurative and recognize it when they see it, so they transpose their own demand for literal understanding and apply it to the figurative of religion which allows the literal to poke holes in religion and failing to have literal validity allows one who doesnt understand the figurative to dismiss the value of religion all together because "its not correct"

Now, with all that mess out of the way, let us get down to it. First, the joke, and this is to assist everyone who fail to see that this was NEVER intended to be taken as literal. It is so unbelivably simple. You only have to ask one simple question to respond to the very first thing stated.

"You just can't find good assassins these days!"

The question. How long has it been since the time when finding a "good" assassin out of all of the average and mediocre assassins all over the place was not only common, but easy? Thats it. Right there. It is just as simple as that. From a literal understanding, we know that "finding an assassin" is not a common task. They are NOT all over the place. How many people actually know where to go to hire an assassin in this era of history, much less a "good" one? The simple fact is if taken in a literal context, that statement is absurd and illogical. Knowing that, (especially with its reinforcement with an exclamation point) it is a direction to the reader that this statement is not intended to be taken in a literal context because in a literal context it makes no sense. By doing so, that also infers continued figurative context on the followup.

"I give this ***** a month before someone with better aim comes forth and does what must be done.

While the preceding statement infers a figurative and not 100% serious context to this statement as well, This statement also makes light of the situation on its own. The author of the statement clearly knows the story of events. They are fully aware of the people injured as well as the people killed. By making the statement "someone with better aim" suggests as if a failing of the shooters aim was the problem and why she wasnt dead as if someone else would have done better. Again this is not intended to be taken literally, but figuratively by making light of the shooters hit ratio. Given that the shooter injured some and successfully killed, from a literal context the shooters aim was obviously not the problem. That is an absurd statement that is not intended to be taken as 100% literally factual. By doing so it again reinforces that the entire statement is not intended to be taken from a literal context, but a figurative one.

So, the author has twice made light of death, desired death and the suffering of the injured by making clearly absurd statements. It represents that this individual is upset by the actions of the targets in this shooting. That is why the author takes schadenfreude from the ideas in this event and why he chose to reinforce that by making clearly absurd statements to vent frustration related to these people, but does so in a figurative and darkly humorous context by making light of the situation in jest that was not to be taken as a literal advocation of the injury or death of these people. Just an angry desire to see them no longer making people unhappy with their choice of actions and prefaced in jest so people would not assume, much as has been, that he was actually suggesting someone else or even himself to go back and get the job done right.

So now that the clown is not only dead, but pummeled to the point that there are not even enough chunks left over to shovel up into a body bag (another example of dark humor) I literally have explained this in every feasible manner. If it is something that is still alien, it may well be something you just simply have to chalk up to being beyond comprehension. Not that it isnt there or it is not blatantly clear, just some sort of block preventing the notice and appreciation of it. So you can respond however you wish, but there is literally nothing more I can do to make it any more apparent and to even try would be a waste of both of our time and effort.

______________________________________________________________________________________

As a secondary note, ive noticed this coming up too. Free speech and the argument of "free speech doesnt grant you freedom from the repercussions of speech" To which I have to say that is completely false and incorrect. Free speech cannot exist with conditions. By applying the expectation of penalizing speech, you effectively limit the freedom of speech under threat of consequence. It is somewhat odd to see people exhibit such a demand for everything to be taken literally, and then see attempts to twist the definition of words and phrases to mean something they do not, nearby. Free speech with consequences ceases to be free speech and becomes limited speech. You may not like how people use that speech, but that is a consequence of free speech that someone will say something offensive. If someone acts on their free speech adversely, then of course action should be taken, and yes their free speech can be used against them in that instance of evidence. But once it is moved from speech to action, it ceases to be speech anyway and thus not protected under free speech.

 

[CharlesA]

As a all-out french quebecker, I do support the independence full heartedly. It's not a hateful move, not a rebellion. We don't want it to hurt anglophones, we want it for ourselves. It's a question of pride, culture and identity.

To be perfectly honest, a vast majority of the hate speech comes from the anglophone side these days. It's quite scary and a bit unsettling, it's not like we want to hurt or attack anyone, just to do what we want for ourselves, take charge of our future. Nothing against Canada, it's simply not my country. Been to Ontario, been to BC and the maritimes, great times, it's simply foreign land.

Seriously, Independence is not the end of the world. The Scotts are working on it too, good for them.

About the Eidos thing, you can't blame them, that guy was a fucking idiot. Most gaming corporations established in Montreal are heavily financed and supported by the local government. Having an employee who publicly advocates the murder of the newly elected prime minister (with a healthy dose of sexism ugliness too) isn't exactly good for either business, public relations and internal relationships (a lot of the workers there are quebeckers).

 

[viranimus]

snip

To paraphrase the Bard: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Edit: Okay, so I guess such a long-winded reply warrants a little bit more response than that, so let me elaborate:

All of your unnecessary pedantry on linguistics doesn't really change the fact that your argument boils down to the persons intentions - which puts it on the same level as my argument. You've just buried yours under a lot more words.

Neither of us know for certain what his intentions were. You choose to focus on some of the words he chose as indicating intent in a certain direction. I say if you look at the rest of the words he uses they indicate a much stronger intent in a very different direction. Neither of us, however, exist in his brainspaces, so neither of us can say in any real definite way what he meant.

I do know that nothing in your argument convinced me he was joking.

Also, by your definitions there is no such thing as freedom of speech, because every country in the world has limits to what you can say and how you can say it. For instance, laws against libel, slander, and perjury are all common, as are - and this one is key - laws against making death threats against elected officials.

Uhm... No that is not true at all. You KNOW what he is saying because the means in which it was delivered. He clearly conveyed that intent with sentence structure, chosen words, punctuation.

If you are driving and pass a pink elephant on the side of the road and didnt notice it. It does not make the pink elephant "nothing"

It most definitely signifies something, and something of great importance that is being entirely too neglected. It seems as if some approach it from a stance of you cannot miss what you never had which points to why there is almost defiant refusal to see it.

You cant make the argument of being overly formal when the mass of words was only for your benefit to fully explain to an insanely detailed level because of the failing in comprehension on an incredibly simple concept that should be second nature and easily identifiable as a result of simplier attempts failing to register.

If you are unable to see how it is a joke, then you are right, logically you would not be convinced it was in anyway a jest. But it is not meant to be taken fully at face value. It was clearly indicated to not do so and not following along with that figurative directive does not erase its figurative nature or open it up for literal interpretation.

As for the add on about free speech. In a way I guess you are right. There is no true freedom of speech. However, with the examples of Libel, Slander, Perjury, what those all boil down to lies. In essence these are verbs and denote an action. The words themselves are not specifically guilty, but the actions are not protected by free speech and in direct violation of laws such as the defense against something that was not legal, which invariably is obstruction of justice and is intended in some way to infringe on the rights of others.

As for threats. Well that is a much more sticky situation. First it is something that case by case must be clearly weighed and balanced against free speech vs level of action, so the freedom of speech is also invariably weighed in the equation. Secondly at least in the US, it is a perversion and outright modification of the protection of free speech that is what? not even 100 years old? It clearly is not what was intended when the free speech was first granted or else it would have in effect made every revolutionary building the foundation of the US system of government in violation of it. Cannot speak for how it was built/developed other places, Only what I have proximal knowledge of. But Just because it is in law does not make it in any less a contradiction of established rights.

 

[SlamDunc]

Clipped for space and cohesion

"You just can't find good assassins these days!"

The question. How long has it been since the time when finding a "good" assassin out of all of the average and mediocre assassins all over the place was not only common, but easy? Thats it. Right there. It is just as simple as that. From a literal understanding, we know that "finding an assassin" is not a common task. They are NOT all over the place. How many people actually know where to go to hire an assassin in this era of history, much less a "good" one? The simple fact is if taken in a literal context, that statement is absurd and illogical. Knowing that, (especially with its reinforcement with an exclamation point) it is a direction to the reader that this statement is not intended to be taken in a literal context because in a literal context it makes no sense. By doing so, that also infers continued figurative context on the followup.

Actually hiring assassins these days is a rather simple task and the quality difference is apparent. The attacker in this case is not a professional. He was a man who was angry and decided to attempt to kill her himself. Poor assassins could be hired by simply going into certain bars or clubs in a city, especially in Quebec where there is a lot of organized crime. These people are criminals who will kill for the right price. If you want to hire a good assassin you would need to go to a major organized crime group and be willing to spend top dollar or go onto certain sections of the internet (Hidden Services) and be willing to spend thousands on someone who may never actually attempt to do the job.

In the far past assassins were probably harder to find without proper connections but more recently it was likely easier to get into dealings with organized crime rackets. And in this case especially there would have been groups of trained people who want to prevent the separation of a province and would have likely attempted to prevent this, just like the FLQ (Quebec IRA) assassinated the Liberal leader the last time the issue came up.

While the preceding statement infers a figurative and not 100% serious context to this statement as well, This statement also makes light of the situation on its own. The author of the statement clearly knows the story of events. They are fully aware of the people injured as well as the people killed. By making the statement "someone with better aim" suggests as if a failing of the shooters aim was the problem and why she wasnt dead as if someone else would have done better. Again this is not intended to be taken literally, but figuratively by making light of the shooters hit ratio. Given that the shooter injured some and successfully killed, from a literal context the shooters aim was obviously not the problem. That is an absurd statement that is not intended to be taken as 100% literally factual. By doing so it again reinforces that the entire statement is not intended to be taken from a literal context, but a figurative one.

This statement can easily be totally serious. The failed assassin was clearly unable to get in and get off the shot he wanted as his goal was to kill the newly elected premier and not some poor audio tech. Just because he killed one person does not mean he has good aim if that was not the person he was actually aiming for. If you walk into a crowd with a machine gun and want to kill one person only but end up cutting down 50 and not killing your target means that you have terrible aim. Out of the 50 kills you made not one of them was your target. You still have a 100% failure rate.

His claim that she will be dead within a month could also easily be seen as a threat or wishing violence upon someone, which is a threat too. Perhaps it does not apply to this person but saying that you want someone dead is just like saying that you want someone to go out and kill that person since your message is advocating their death and anyone who is willing to follow your message could go out and kill them on your behalf.

What people need to understand is that if you say it on the internet there is not a way to make it clear if you are exaggerating the situation for comedy or if you are serious about this. We simply do not have the context to know without knowing more about this man's personality. Perhaps he is like me and enjoys dark jokes about death and suffering but he could just as easily be a sociopath with intent to attempt to end her life at the end of that month if nobody else 'steps up' and completes the task. This is a particularly hot issue in our country because of the effects it would have on every person in the nation. It would not be surprising if angry people took arms against the separatists and this man is clearly supporting that action whether it is as a joke or as a serious belief.

In Canada we take this sort of thing seriously and you do not get to shout for someone's death and then hide behind free speech. Free speech does not and should not cover what you are saying if you are threatening someone else's safety. Her safety is more important than his right to shout hatred just like the safety of the gay community is more important than the right to scream 'death to fags' from your roof. At least it is in Canada and I hope to God it stays that way.

As for your method of replying big words and long winded paragraphs can not elaborate so much on the text he types. You cant know what he was thinking at the moment of posting and you cant really understand even an implied tone from such a short post. You are also rude to those who disagree with you and that is not really conductive to actually discussing this issue.

 

[viranimus]

I am really loathed to have to break down to dissection level another post in this thread, but it bears attention. Spoilering for space.

Spoiler: I hate these posts

Clip for cohesion

Actually hiring assassins these days is a rather simple task and the quality difference is apparent.

I am sorry but that is so incorrect. Finding an assassin is not merely some trek to some local bar where you will be tripping over viable candidates. Even going into one with such an intention and asking questions is likely to result in someone taking offense and beating the shit out of you for making such an insinuation. And to even suggest that the uninitiated could somehow find an ample supply of assassins to chose from that they would be somehow able to make a rational and informed decision on them is simply ridiculous. That does not even account for the vast multitudes of people for which getting to a "City" would easily be over 100 miles away. Im sorry but this suggestion is downright silly.

Just because he killed one person does not mean he has good aim

And just because he didnt hit anyone of relevance does not mean that aim was a factor in that. In any assassination attempt (or any highly complex action) there are multitudes of variables that can and often DO come into play.

His claim that she will be dead within a month could also easily be seen as a threat or wishing violence upon someone, which is a threat too.

No, because that was eliminated by saying "someone" meaning anyone other than him. Having an expectation that something will happen does not in any way shape or form mean you will make it happen or even want it to happen. The only way to obtain that is to assume it.

Perhaps it does not apply to this person but saying that you want someone dead is just like saying that you want someone to go out and kill that person since your message is advocating their death and anyone who is willing to follow your message could go out and kill them on your behalf.

You are correct, It doesnt apply to this person because this person at no time said they want them dead. They at no time suggested anyone to do it. To suggest that is to apply reasoning that is not relevant in this context. It is an assumption and it is fairly baseless.

What people need to understand is that if you say it on the internet there is not a way to make it clear if you are exaggerating the situation for comedy or if you are serious about this. We simply do not have the context to know without knowing more about this man's personality.

If anything needs to be understood it is that people on the internet need to have a greater understanding of the intricacies of how the English language works. The tools are there, between context, subtext inference, emphasis, structure, word choice, phrasing placement, alliteration, simile, comparative analysis between technical writing and "speaking in text" While it is true things like emotion or intention do not always translate into text, you cannot fall back on that as an excuse when clear ques are right there.

Perhaps he is like me and enjoys dark jokes about death and suffering but he could just as easily be a sociopath with intent to attempt to end her life at the end of that month if nobody else 'steps up' and completes the task. This is a particularly hot issue in our country because of the effects it would have on every person in the nation. It would not be surprising if angry people took arms against the separatists and this man is clearly supporting that action whether it is as a joke or as a serious belief.

It SHOULD be a hot issue. Much like you suggest you cannot know you also cannot punish someone for your interpretation of what they said when there is nothing that actually suggests any direct intention to action, and multiple points of reference rejecting it. Also if you enjoy dark jokes you also understand that you can support the idea of someone killing someone else, and still view it in a humorous context. They are not mutually exclusive propositions.

In Canada we take this sort of thing seriously and you do not get to shout for someone's death and then hide behind free speech. Free speech does not and should not cover what you are saying if you are threatening someone else's safety. Her safety is more important than his right to shout hatred just like the safety of the gay community is more important than the right to scream 'death to fags' from your roof. At least it is in Canada and I hope to God it stays that way.

Well, it is important to take things seriously, but it is also important to not over react or assume intention that is not present. If you support the idea of speech and censorship such is your opinion and prerogative. My only horse in this race is as it relates to how speech gets regulated and controlled and what is lost as a cost of that.

As for your method of replying big words and long winded paragraphs can not elaborate so much on the text he types. You cant know what he was thinking at the moment of posting and you cant really understand even an implied tone from such a short post. You are also rude to those who disagree with you and that is not really conductive to actually discussing this issue.

Ok. That is a direct insult. You are insinuating by using the phrases "big words" and "long winded paragraphs" to point to as you put it a "rude" arrogance and opinionated superiority. I am not being rude to someone disagreeing with me. If anything I have bent over backwards to be polite in the process of correcting something that is not even a matter of opinion. Just as it has been suggested you cannot always know someones intent in text, but if you go purely on what I have written without assuming intention you can at least consider the possibility that my intention is to honestly correct misunderstanding and misinterpretation. That is what I have been trying to do all this time, even if that honest attempt to assist is not appreciated such.


But it is highly conducive to the issue, because it cuts to the root of the issue that is being ignored and allowing the issue to be discussed on a level that is not even related to the actual issue. The matter should not be "should he or should he not" because it isnt about that, because there is clearly no indication that any sort of threat was made, and firing him is not only suspension of free speech, it does so only on the basis of incorrectly inferred context that is clearly not present. Really the only thing that has happened here is someone is being punished for making light of something in poor taste. Thats it.

As Edward Bulwer-Lytton suggested, "The pen is mightier than the sword" While that clearly points to the power of words to influence, it indirectly points to what gives that sword its power. The ability to be used in a versatile fashion with deadly accuracy or blunt and astonishing power. To be as elegant as threading the needle from 100 yards to the artistic mastery of ice sculpture with a chain saw. Words are power and grace and just like that of any tool, in the hands of one who either lacks respect or understanding of their power they can often become dangerous or have unintended effects. So too is the danger present when intended effects are misinterpreted. The failing is not in the words, it is how they are being seen.

 

[viranimus]

If you are driving and pass a pink elephant on the side of the road and didnt notice it. It does not make the pink elephant "nothing"

It most definitely signifies something, and something of great importance that is being entirely too neglected. It seems as if some approach it from a stance of you cannot miss what you never had which points to why there is almost defiant refusal to see it.

Let's torture this metaphor a bit.

I drove past your supposed 'pink elephant'. You brought me back to the space where the elephant was, and you're showing me it's tracks. There are indeed tracks there, pressed in the mud. I see elephant tracks, and I know that elephants are grey, so I feel perfectly justified in assuming the elephant that made those tracks is not pink - nothing in your evidence supports the argument that the elephant is pink.

Im sorry, but that is not really applicable to the metaphor. You are comparing something that is free form and without structure in experience, to something that is procedurally structured as in language. that is apples and oranges.

You cant make the argument of being overly formal when the mass of words was only for your benefit to fully explain to an insanely detailed level because of the failing in comprehension on an incredibly simple concept that should be second nature and easily identifiable as a result of simplier attempts failing to register.

I can make any argument I choose. Free speech.

Also, it's obvious that not one word of your argument was for my 'benefit.' Rather, you're being rude and condescending and insulting my intelligence - and that speaks to your character. You should be aware that it does not cast your character in a particularly good light.

Yes, yes you can, But it does not touch what factors were involved in developing that argument. Just means you can express whatever opinion you wish for better or worse.

Now on this rudeness thing. I do apologize you take it that way, however that is assumption and inference. I didnt spend the amount of time I did writing it out for my own benefit. I spent that time to try to clarify the matter and hopefully help you to see the points you illustrated that you were not catching. I cannot control how other people think. I learned long ago to try is futile. All I can do is say what is factual, even if it is unpleasant or brutal and hope that people understand the intention is to inform, not insult and potentially open eyes to previously unconsidered things.

Again, you are arguing intentions. Intentions are never clear unless they are your own. You say he intended one thing. I say he intended another. We both have reasons to believe our opinions, but neither one of us has definitive facts on the matter.

That is my point. I am not arguing intentions. It is not a matter of opinion. It is simply a matter of reading the statements being guided by the rules of the language and how grammar guides and dictates that direction. Yes if someone suggested the idea of someone dying, that would be a red flag for concern. However in the presence of something that illustrates where the statement is not to be taken seriously, it overrides that intention as being serious. Its not interpretation, It is to reading what reading the directions on a box are to cooking or the signs on a road are to driving.

I doubt you'll have an easy time convincing the Supreme Court that being arrested for threatening the President's life is unconstitutional. Feel free to try, though.

Yes, your most certainly dead on there. However, just because something would be considered constitutional, does not mean it is legal or not in conflict with the law. Just look at the 16th amendment of the US constitution that allows the government to levey income tax. It is accepted as a constitutional fact. However it is not nor has ever been because the amendment was never properly ratified. But as far as anyone is concerned, its constitutional. Trying to resist was the predominant factor in getting William Cooper killed in 2001 and others like him who failed.


Summarization:

Look.. Im done here. I have said what I wanted to say and did what I could to correct misconceptions and assumptions. I do sincerely apologize if my intent was taken as malicious. None was present. I respect others rights to difference of opinions where they happen. I hope that what I have said has expanded the way you consider things, as I know some of the points you made had be expand my perspective as well. So really I have nothing more to say on the subject. Wish this thread well and honestly look forward to the next interesting topic of discussion.

 

[viranimus]

It doesnt apply to this person because this person at no time said they want them dead.

This right here shows that either you don't understand what the guy said or you're arguing purely to be argumentative. I don't care how you parse his words, he made it pretty clear:

I give this ***** a month before someone with better aim comes forth and does what must be done.

I don't see how you can read that any other way than "this ***** needs to die"

Ok, on parsing... As I said in the other post... The use rules and proper use of the language are to reading what sign posts are to driving, directions are to cooking. They tell us how to do it and give us situational directions so we understand when unfamiliar or unique situations come up.


On the assumption of "this ***** needs to die" I can read that as a wounding, I can read that as put the fear of god into her, I can read that as martyrdom, I can read that as a lot of things if I do not look at the contextual guide points. To assume meaning with no direct evidence to suggest it is one of the reasons we strive for free speech. Just because someone says something we do not like does not mean they are wrong, or they plan to act on their thoughts that have been expressed or that we even understood what they were trying to get at. I mean its kinda going back and forth to switch between saying "we cant know their intention" when there were clear structures and signs, to turn around and assume intention based on interpretive context.

 

[viranimus]

snip

I thought you were abandoning thread? Do you want to debate or not?

I am.. I simply gave response to your post that came in while writing the other. Sorry. I really do not see much point where continued discussion would be productive on this point. I mean do you?

 

[viranimus]

snip

I thought you were abandoning thread? Do you want to debate or not?

I am.. I simply gave response to your post that came in while writing the other. Sorry. I really do not see much point where continued discussion would be productive on this point. I mean do you?

I could provide you with a deconstruction of why you came off as rude, obnoxious and condescending, I suppose.

LOL you could, but it would be preaching to choir. Trust me, I am very well aware of how I seem to people, and yep I know my grammar/word nazi'ism definitely doesnt endear me to most people. Again, sorry for the anal retention to detail. And as for me.. I am out and getting breakfast. Have a good one.

 

[jackinmydaniels]

Uh, hi, dumb ignorant American here so sorry I can't contribute a whole lot about the whole separatist thing but this guy is a moron. If you have even a lick of sense you should know by now that companies CAN and WILL fire your ass over Facebook comments, people seem to think that Facebook conversations are essentially the same as private conversations with your friends, problem is they are not, other people can see what you write and it'll probably get to your boss eventually.

So if your going to write shit like that make an alternate account or something, I wouldn't talk about how much I would want to assassinate political figure X if my boss was in the same room would you? So make sure that they can't see it you jackass.

 

[ATRAYA]

Okay, I'm American, and WHY HAVE I NOT SEEN ANYTHING ON THE NEWS ABOUT A FREAKING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON A POLITICIAN'S LIFE?

Yet, WE hear about every single mouse fart in the U.S. from most news stations. Weird, huh?

 

[ATRAYA]

Okay, I'm American, and WHY HAVE I NOT SEEN ANYTHING ON THE NEWS ABOUT A FREAKING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON A POLITICIAN'S LIFE?

Yet, WE hear about every single mouse fart in the U.S. from most news stations, even local ones. Weird, huh?

Captcha: Topsy-turvy. O.O

 

[Evil Smurf]

You are supposed to post stuff like that on political forums under an alias or use a trolling facebook account not your own.

And quebec is still on about the independence thing? dont they know they will become a 3rd world country within a year?

they have maple syrup, why would they care?

 

[Stripes]

If you advocate the assassination of someone who just survived an attempted assassination then you deserve the full force of the law upon you. People are dead because of that sort of talk. hate speech does not fall under free speech in my book, Eidos has every right to be rid of him.

 

[Darkmantle]

I understand firing the guy over it, this kind of thing can be a concern for the business, whatever. But criminal charges? Thats overreacting and just being silly.

Well no charges have been laid yet, So we'll just have to see if he's charged at all I guess.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Well, I didn't expect it would a quebec related thread and I didn't expect that the amount of bad racists comments would be non-existent. Unlike the failure from the mods that I will never forget... [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.104775-Quebec-Demands-French-First-Videogames?page=1]


Anyhow, The guy deserved to get fired unless Eidos want a PR related nightmare. I don't think the issue of seperation is a big deal since Le parti Québécois is in minority. Unless the canadian goverment fucks up pretty bad with relations, seperation will have few supporters. Miss Marois only got most of her votes since people are pissed off about the political shitstorm of the student strike that Jean Charest created.

At best, we will see effort to keep a french heritage culture where it belong. At worst, Marois will only shoot herself in the foot.

 

[KarlMonster]

Right. A number of people have opined that this was overreaction. That this was the guy's personal opinion, and not a declaration of intent. Or that it was just a manifestation of dark humor. Or that his comments should be protected as "free speech" if, in fact, Canadian laws protect free speech as we know it in America.

Except he shouldn't be. Nor should he be under investigation for making a threat. He did no such thing. Nor did, if I understand correctly, he say this in any official capacity, or on a company account. Now, not having seen his account, he may in fact have plastered his Facebook with reference to the fact that he worked for the company, and THEN he might deserve to be fired. But he still didn't threaten anyone

The truth is, your employer has no right to your internet activity, unless said activity happens on the job. If you use company resources to log on to facebook and rant about how much they suck, then yes, that's something to be fired over. However, they should not be allowed to police your thoughts or actions on your own time. And as much I need a job, were I informed my employment was conditional upon access to my internet accounts, I would refuse.

Now, not knowing the political situation in canada, I won't presume to say whether or not this man is JUSTIFIED in his offensive behavior, but he shouldn't be in this much trouble either way

Sorry Jack, I'm not picking on you personally. To best explain this, lets go back to what really happened. And the politics in question are irrelevant [though you wouldn't know that from reading this thread].

So how did this story get started? It did not start with an assassination. It did not start with an ill-advised Facebook posting. It started with Blake Marsh's boss reading his email in the morning and discovering multiple complaints. People had read his Facebook, and apparently were able to gather enough information from it to be able to contact Marsh's boss. Quoth the raven:

The comments were brought to the attention of Eidos Montreal General Manager Stephane D'Astous, who said there were dozens of emails about it waiting for him when he arrived at the office Wednesday morning. He consulted with a lawyer and then immediately fired Marsh, who had been with the company for four years. "I think he thought that social networking posts were private matters, but in fact, they're not," D'Astous said. "When you cross the line so clearly, like in this situation, and you associate yourself not just with your person but with your employer, that's totally unacceptable."

Either Mr Marsh had placed sufficient information about himself on Facebook for people to identify him as an employee of Eidos, or he had declared openly that he was an Eidos employee. Let's not mince words here; outraged readers were able to email his boss - though it would be interesting to see how many emailed him directly, rather than having their mails forwarded from a general mailbox.

Right there, Marsh is already in trouble. He was a video game tester, and it looked to me like he worked in a "relaxed" environment (his boss was wearing a black T-shirt in the interview). What is missing from the article is that Eidos has a zero-tolerance policy for threats and intimidation, so free speech or not, Marsh was already fired. [How'd you like to explain this away at your next interview?]

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

snip

as I said in my post, if he made clear his affiliation with the company, then yes, he ought to be fired.

I was talking in broad strokes, then brought up the specifics ads they related to him

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

snip

You do realize that this guy was condoning murder and advocating the assassination of an elected official, right?

And you do understand the difference between literal and figurative, right? He wasnt condoning literal murder. He was using figurative language and a dark sense of humor to vent a distressing situation.

But the fact that here we are with this pretty much reinforces and illustrates what I was saying, though I can see where you dont follow.

Companies don't tend to put up with bullshit or any behavior that might reflect badly on them. This isn't political correctness, it is about knowing who you work for when you speak on an open forum.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"Hate Speech" is analogous to "Free Speech."

Just Saiyan.

do they have free speech in canada o.o

Wow. I hate stereotypes as much as the next guy, but you guys are really playing up the "ignorant american" thing...

Free Speech is the freedom to say anything you like in public without fear of reprisal from the government. Your employer sure as shit is free to fire you, even for saying you like the wrong sports team, if they like and "Hate Speech" doesn't have to be tolerated by anyone, you just can't get arrested for it.

As for "do other countries have free speech?", I don't even... I mean Canada? Can you really watch the news and think Canada comes close in any way to Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc? Because those are what countries without free speech look like...

Thing is we don't have free speech in Canada. We have freedom of expression. You can't just say ridiculous things in Canada without responsibility.

If we had free speech in Canada would not have seen Ernest Zundel get arrested for passing out pamphlets claiming the holocaust didn't happen.

Remember when the Westboro Baptist Church was in Toronto? After a crowd of people jumped them and threw rocks at them, they were all arrested and deported.

Also Ann Coulter's Canadian speech tour was cancelled due to her words being borderline hate speech.

No we don't have freedom of speech in Canada. What we have is a system that makes people responsible for what they say past just firing them. But we're not as bad as Egypt.