Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Aardvaarkman]

People need to understand the fact that they aren't allowed to say whatever they want without some sort of reaction be it positive or negative.

Yes and that reaction should be reserved for people that are actually affected. People that have nothing to do with the issue other than forcing conformity to their views should just live and let live.

Spearmaster, how were you directly affected by this issue?

If it doesn't directly affect you, why are you speaking about it? I guess we should stop talking about pretty much anything outside of our immediate vicinity, because pretty much every issue only affects us indirectly.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Just record any online multiplayer game, attach people's names to their gamertag, and publicize it. According to this thread's logic, +90% of the people captured on record deserve to lose their livelihoods.

 

[Jaegermonster]

This is indeed a long thread. A long thread full of people with rather frightening ideas. I am going to demonstrate a hypothetical situation parallel to the main point of "consequences for speech".

----

You go to a bakery in your town that makes excellent pastries. One of the people who works there you recognize as someone who lives in your neighborhood since you see them in their yard occasionally as you drive down your street.

One day as you are driving, you see that person has put up a sign in their yard endorsing a candidate for office that you know has a pro-life, anti-abortion agenda. You would never vote for that candidate because you are pro-choice.

You get mad and declare, "I will not buy any more food from that bakery because one of their employees has a different view point than mine". After thinking about it, you realize that is not good enough. So you drive down to the bakery and ask to speak to the owner. You tell them that since one of their employees endorses a candidate you do not agree with, you will no longer be buying their product. In fact, you are going to tell all of your friends, relatives, and anyone who will listen to not shop here because the bakery is endorsing one side of a polarizing issue.

Being put into a difficult situation and not wanting to loose business, the owner decides it is in their best interest to fire the employee to placate the anger customer.

-----

I feel this to be closely related to the issue being discussed and I find it alarming that many people on this thread seem to arguing in favor of this type of resolution.

There is another group of people who seem to be arguing that if the baker saw the employee's yard first, the owner should feel obligated to preemptively fire the person to avoid any controversy from the community rather than defend their employees as good worker should the need arise.

The fact that we have reached the point in our society where having a different opinion and wanting to talk about difficult subject matter is grounds for being terminated is disconcerting to say the least. The fear that the backlash will be so great that no amount discourse is enough to quell people's anger. That action MUST be taken. One life must be ruined so the other can be spared the horror of experiencing something THEY DON'T LIKE.

And on a side note, to the people who argue that privacy should not be awarded to those that don't have nice things to say. Think really hard about your life and if you ever said something mean or controversial. If someone made copies of your diary or journal and handed it out to people at your school or work. Should you be held accountable to public opinion for everything you wrote in there? Things written in anger or in jest and taken out of context.


Why do you need privacy? You've got nothing to hide, right?

 

[Ravage]

I can't stand people who defend bigotry or racism by using "hurr durr 1st amendment" like it's some sort of shield.If I had my way every bigoted or racist person would get fined for the filth they spew, and hardcore racists get the crap beat out of them by the group they throw bigoted slurs at.

Also to all the people who think it's petty to not buy something from a business because one of it's employees defends bigotry?You're wrong.Just like people have a right to be a bigoted fuck,everyone else has a right to not do business with them or anyone who defends this shit.

The 1st Amendment should not be used as a shield for every bigoted asshole out there.

"get fined"? "beat the crap out of them"? Do you hear how petty and childish you sound? Because you don't agree with someone's views you want them crucified from the sound of it. Imagine the type of world when you have the political correctness police walking around telling people how to speak, what to speak, what to wear, what to think, what propaganda to fall for, THAT'S the kind of thing you're condoning when you promote nonsense such as that. And you can't cherry-pick what rights anyone should have. This is the whole point of the 1st Amendment, so people such as YOU don't infringe on others' rights.

Besides that if you want to "fine" and "beat the crap out of him", we should also do it to all those negros (ohh I said the WORD) who call whites "crackers" and blame us for slavery and whatever other stupid damn illiterate comment they transpire about us, even though that was generations ago. Let's all go police every person who ever utters a comment that we don't agree with and fine the hell out of them. We should be like Nazi Germany and destroy and obliterate any information that doesn't coincide with our own views and beliefs.

In conclusion: just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have to "ban" it. But you don't have to support it either, and that's what makes this country great because we have that option due to the 1st Amendment.

And if you don't like it you can go to another country that also regulates "free" speech, such as CHINA.

 

[wulf3n]

Yes, "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" devoid of any other context or explanation would imply that it's their fault for whatever happens at a Klan rally.

But it shouldn't be. People should be able to express what they believe to be right without fear of harm or retribution, no matter the circumstance.

If I'm not allowed to read some douche on twitter being racist and then decide not to go to their business, then I'm being forced into something, which I feel is worse than just being afraid because I'm not immune to all consequences of my actions.

Wait are you still talking to me? when did I ever say people should be forced to do anything?

Sure I want people to agree with my point of view, but I don't want people to be forced into anything, that's exactly what I'm arguing against. By saying people are responsible for the reactions of others to their opinions, they're for all intents and purposes being "forced" to hold their tongue in order to avoid persecution.

Yes I want a world where people aren't treated differently because of what they say, but I would never force anyone to treat another in a way they didn't want to.

 

[wulf3n]

So you're just going to keep ignoring the fact that when that phrase is said, pretty much everyone understands that proportionality is implied to be a part of the consequence, that pretty much no one uses "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" the way you're pretending it's used?

"No one" is a bit of a hyperbole don't you think? and Honestly it doesn't really matter how people are using it, it's still an abhorrent concept. Just like if a bunch of white people started tossing around the word N****r as a term of endearment would that really be much consolation to any black people in ear shot?

The fundamental principle behind "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" is that people are responsible for the reaction of others, which I disagree with at a genetic level. My issue with the phrase first appeared around the incident where some guy made fun of Islam and caused a riot resulting in I believe a few deaths. A tragedy to be sure, but what I found most distressing is rather than blame those that committed murder everyone blamed the guy who made the joke with the argument Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence saying stupid things like he should be beaten and killed himself.

The misdirection of blame is what worries me.

 

[wulf3n]

Well the only person using it that way is you, and you're using it for the sole purpose of calling any use of "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" horrible. Quite honestly, if we're going to compare it to white people using the word ******, I'd say you'd be the white people of this analogy, since you're the one taking a phrase whose understanding most people seem to understand and using it in a completely different way. You're using the concept incorrectly, and I doubt it'd be easy to find someone to support your notion that "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" means condoning the Klan murdering people.

Wow, you missed the point so much I don't even know where to begin...

What I'm comparing to white people using the word n****r is the notion of what you want something to mean and what it actually means are often too different concepts.

You may want "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" to mean within proportion but the words themselves mean a person is responsible for any action that happens as a result of their words, and I've seen quite regularly people using it as such.

 

[wulf3n]

The problem is that the way I'm using is the way it's meant.

No you're using it how you want it to mean.

If you want to focus exclusively on semantics, then I'm just done, because you're appealing to something worthless in this situation. Go ask everyone in this thread if they mean what you say they must mean when they say "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence," because I don't honestly care about the supposed people you've seen use it in an absolutist, semantically perfect way.

Then why raise the issue in the first place? I'm starting to believe you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

And, of course, even if we take "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" to mean what you say, you'd still have to separate it from the implications and context present in this discussion; namely people explaining what they meant when they used it and giving other people the fucking benefit of the doubt that they don't blame the victim for speaking around a Klan member. But that'd probably detract from your ability to regard anyone who uses the phrase as such a person, so I doubt you'll indulge in such a thing, despite it seeming like the reasonable thing to do.

I don't know, people could just actually use the words that mean what they're trying to say? Rather than use a phrase that apparently means something different to these hypothetical people mean? You know how language is supposed to work?

But what is really surprising is your anger regarding the issue. If you truly felt what you were saying wasn't what I was referring to why think I'm talking about you?

Not that it matters, it appears you've just wasted both our times.

I'm done. Peace out!

 

[Vegosiux]

So there is no evidence of people being bullied here,people get fired or punished by their employers all the time for saying things that may reflect badly on them and the workplace.

There's something to be said about how it's rather disconcerting that how you look is more important than the quality of what you're creating in the modern society (I mean, that's the reason why advertising works...), but that's neither here nor there for the topic at hand.

Still, I'd be hard pressed to find any business I regularly make transactions with that I'd know for sure employs exactly zero bigots...I mean, I see this practice of "It's only a problem when there's a public backlash" to be rather bad. I mean, Sterling should have gotten whacked for his past shenanigans already. But I guess nobody cared then.

 

[tuliphead]

Why is Spike lee still working for the NBA if being a raciest get you fired

 

[Strazdas]

Who is bullied here?Because I don't see anyone being bullied.

Also I was waiting for someone to pull the "social justice warrior" card,what's next?You gonna complain about so called "political correctness" that does'nt exist except in the minds of those who think being a hateful asshole should be allowed with impunity?

Freedom of Speech only protects you from the government,it does'nt protect someone from being fired for stating a opinion that could be considered imflamatory or harmful to the place of work's image.

People need to understand the fact that they aren't allowed to say whatever they want without some sort of reaction be it positive or negative.

Olin is being bullied by his employer.

Political corectness has its flaws as well. such as trampling every discussion about certain words, even if that discussion is purely academic.

First amendment proctects only from government. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, government, corporate or individual. Olin did NOT state anything inflamatory or harmful.

Yes, people aren't allowed to say. they should be.

What the hell? Who has been "lynched" in this thread? Do you even know what "lynching" means?

I was speaking figuratively. Noone was physically lynched yet i hope, but there were some figurative lynching here.

How is it his personal account when he has Turtle Rock linked in its description, and he regularly posts company PR from it? In what way is he not speaking for the company? He uses the word "we" in his tweets to describe company activity.

It is his personal account with his name that he posts mostly his own opinions on stuff. of course since he does not keep his emplyer secret (nothing wrong with that) people ask him about his work, because games industry, so he posts stuff about it there too. Did he use "We" in his post about Sterling? no he didnt.

This does not make sense, because freedom of speech is not the freedom to choose consequences or lack thereof. Where the hell are you getting this idea from?

oi was explaining another posters point, because you have clearly not understood what he was trying to say.

Part of the human experience is that we can't control everything. If we were able to choose consequences, then I'm pretty sure that everybody would choose "being rich and popular" or "immunity from negative consequences" as a consequence of their actions. That's not how things work, outside of fantasy. Heck, even the rich, popular and powerful are regularly subject to unintended consequences of their actions.

Please explain where you get this idea that people should be immune from all consequences of their speech from.

Yes, we have a shortcoming that we cannot control many things. we are getting better at it, but far from perfect. and there is nothing wrong with everyone being rich and popular. but as you said, thats not how it works, because we got a system thats based on discrimination and abuse, but thats another topic and more suited for R&P.

people shouldnt be immune from all consequences, but they should be immunte to discrimination based on their opinion. As for why, would you like me to come and beat you up for this post? no? why? well heres your answer.

Second you act like this is the first time somebody got fired for saying something that is controversial and therefore moral outrage is appropiate when it happens all the time.

So, slavery is appropriate because it kept happening all the time. Racism is appropriate because it happens all the time. Sexism as well. Wow thats a dangerous viewpoint, watch out so you dont have any unpopular opinions ever.

Just record any online multiplayer game, attach people's names to their gamertag, and publicize it. According to this thread's logic, +90% of the people captured on record deserve to lose their livelihoods.

Hyperbole at it's finest...you can't tell who people are by their gamertag so what exactly is the point you're trying to make here?

i have bolded the part that you missed. read it again.

Well, it's not really that hard to separate bigotry out as speech, considering that hate speech laws already exist and have a pretty clear concept. Bigotry is more than just an unpopular opinion, it has a definition and everything. If, for some reason society twists itself into whatever it is you fear there will probably be a few more issues to deal with.

I live in a country that has hate speech laws. Keeping it short, they dont work and they regulate the wrong things to begin with. If you want example of regulating bigotry, current laws are anything but. and what EU is trying to do about it basically reads as "we will brainwash anyone that disagrees", so yeah, no thanks

So you're just going to keep ignoring the fact that when that phrase is said, pretty much everyone understands that proportionality is implied to be a part of the consequence, that pretty much no one uses "Freedom from Speech != freedom of consequence" the way you're pretending it's used?

what is proportionate? who gets to decide that? why is that correct proportion? what if i want different proportion? what if 1 million people want different proportion? For example the hidden eagle here thinks that beating them up is proportionate. Do we adhere to his proportions? or do we make our own? what about his beliefs then?
see, thats kind of unworkable.

 

[Spearmaster]

I have no horse in the race, aside from having a problem with the fact some are trying to turn this issue into some sort of censorship debate.

But it is a censorship debate

Mr.Olin was'nt fired because a literal mob was trying to punish him for having a different opinion,no he was fired because his tweet could've caused a PR nightmare for the game developer he worked for.There's no opression of free speech nor is there some doomsday prophecy where this one event will mean everyone will get lynched for not conforming to the majority view.

Mr. Olin's quote was not damaging to the company he worked for until the multitudes of people seeking to punish him for his views made it damaging to the company. Where was his statement damaging to the company without the zealous reactionaries?

So there is no evidence of people being bullied here,people get fired or punished by their employers all the time for saying things that may reflect badly on them and the workplace.

If there wasn't such a large outcry of boycotts for the game and he got fired I might agree with you but I doubt that his employer reacted to his comment but rather to the bullied threats of the reactionaries.