Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Spearmaster]

I'm sure Turtle Rock would do just fine,and like I said many times before people have been fired for what they say over the internet.Why aren't they being interviewed?Because it's not as head line worthy as the community manager who made a foolish and somewhat ignorant tweet when he did'nt have all the facts of the person he was speaking for.

Well that all depends on the content and context of what they said doesn't it? Also what is "foolish and somewhat ignorant" about someone believing that someone has the right to their own opinion in the privacy of their own home? What fact was he missing? Where did he defend what Sterling said? He only defended the fact he could say it and have privacy in his own home to say it privately.

But of course people have constantly ignored that and label me as some sort of dictactor who thinks slavery,sexism,and racism are okay and hates different opinions.I don't even know why I bother sometimes....

Well people have a way of over reacting to simple things people say on the internet don't they? I'm sure Olin agrees with you.

except unlike some here I take ownership of what I say and won't back down no matter what.

You mean kind of like how Olin did.

He said Sterling had a right to be a bigot in his own home..except that isn't the case when there are plenty of cases where Sterling was a bigot outside his home as well.Olin did'nt have all the information which his firing sort of preventable.

But he didn't defend his bigotry outside of the home did he? He called him a victim for the invasion of privacy that was used as the primary case against Sterling.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I really don't like the precedent that this is setting.

If you're homophobic, you should be fired.

If you're racist, you should be fired.

If you don't think people should be fired just because of their stance on social issues, you should be fired.

Basically it's coming down to firing people who have a minority opinion on sensitive issues. I strongly disagree with both the stance of the Mozilla CEO and that of the racist employer, as well as Orson Scott Card, but I don't think that having an unpopular opinion means that they don't have the right to do their job.

We're all fine and dandy on this because it's in regard to progressive social stances that have become majority opinion. What happens when it's used to stifle future societal progression? If you're vocal about social change, and the majority of people disagree with you on it, there'll be pressure for you to lose your job.

This isn't about protecting the rights of individuals anymore, as seen with the case of Olin, he didn't express any belief that some people were lesser than others (in fact saying that he's not condoning what the CEO said), he expressed his opinion on what people should be able to express privately without losing their job.

So he was fired

 

[Spearmaster]

I'm sure Turtle Rock would do just fine,and like I said many times before people have been fired for what they say over the internet.Why aren't they being interviewed?Because it's not as head line worthy as the community manager who made a foolish and somewhat ignorant tweet when he did'nt have all the facts of the person he was speaking for.

Well that all depends on the content and context of what they said doesn't it? Also what is "foolish and somewhat ignorant" about someone believing that someone has the right to their own opinion in the privacy of their own home? What fact was he missing? Where did he defend what Sterling said? He only defended the fact he could say it and have privacy in his own home to say it privately.

But of course people have constantly ignored that and label me as some sort of dictactor who thinks slavery,sexism,and racism are okay and hates different opinions.I don't even know why I bother sometimes....

Well people have a way of over reacting to simple things people say on the internet don't they? I'm sure Olin agrees with you.

except unlike some here I take ownership of what I say and won't back down no matter what.

You mean kind of like how Olin did.

He said Sterling had a right to be a bigot in his own home..except that isn't the case when there are plenty of cases where Sterling was a bigot outside his home as well.Olin did'nt have all the information which his firing sort of preventable.

But he didn't defend his bigotry outside of the home did he? He called him a victim for the invasion of privacy that was used as the primary case against Sterling.

Except that does'nt matter since this sort of thing would've come to a head sooner or later.I saw someone use the perfect analogy on another forum regarding this privacy issue.

Did Olin say Sterling should not be removed for his comments? What Olin was saying is that the public had no right to the private comments he made in the privacy of his own home. On a side note I believe Sterling can seek damages for the recorded conversations being leaked to a third party without his consent. I hope that person has a good lawyer.

If a serial killer was caught talking about how they're going to kidnap,torture,and murder women in a phonecall and someone took it to the authorities,does it matter that the serial killer was recorded without his permission?Same thing applies here since the cat is out of the bag in regards to Sterling's comment about not allowing black people to attend games.

Well I'm pretty sure that unlawful recorded conversations are inadmissible as evidence in court so the serial killer thing doesn't really work because if that was the only evidence the serial killer would walk. His boss might fire him...but then he could seek damages in a law suit and become a rich unemployed serial killer.

Why does it matter if his recordings were leaked without his knowledge,is everyone going to now complain about every corrupt politician or criminal being wired tapped while discussing their illegal activities?

Well should everyone be wire tapped and recorded then? Is it OK if someone recorded all your private conversations and gave them to your boss, family and the media?

 

[Spearmaster]

I'm sure Turtle Rock would do just fine,and like I said many times before people have been fired for what they say over the internet.Why aren't they being interviewed?Because it's not as head line worthy as the community manager who made a foolish and somewhat ignorant tweet when he did'nt have all the facts of the person he was speaking for.

Well that all depends on the content and context of what they said doesn't it? Also what is "foolish and somewhat ignorant" about someone believing that someone has the right to their own opinion in the privacy of their own home? What fact was he missing? Where did he defend what Sterling said? He only defended the fact he could say it and have privacy in his own home to say it privately.

But of course people have constantly ignored that and label me as some sort of dictactor who thinks slavery,sexism,and racism are okay and hates different opinions.I don't even know why I bother sometimes....

Well people have a way of over reacting to simple things people say on the internet don't they? I'm sure Olin agrees with you.

except unlike some here I take ownership of what I say and won't back down no matter what.

You mean kind of like how Olin did.

He said Sterling had a right to be a bigot in his own home..except that isn't the case when there are plenty of cases where Sterling was a bigot outside his home as well.Olin did'nt have all the information which his firing sort of preventable.

But he didn't defend his bigotry outside of the home did he? He called him a victim for the invasion of privacy that was used as the primary case against Sterling.

Except that does'nt matter since this sort of thing would've come to a head sooner or later.I saw someone use the perfect analogy on another forum regarding this privacy issue.

Did Olin say Sterling should not be removed for his comments? What Olin was saying is that the public had no right to the private comments he made in the privacy of his own home. On a side note I believe Sterling can seek damages for the recorded conversations being leaked to a third party without his consent. I hope that person has a good lawyer.

If a serial killer was caught talking about how they're going to kidnap,torture,and murder women in a phonecall and someone took it to the authorities,does it matter that the serial killer was recorded without his permission?Same thing applies here since the cat is out of the bag in regards to Sterling's comment about not allowing black people to attend games.

Well I'm pretty sure that unlawful recorded conversations are inadmissible as evidence in court so the serial killer thing doesn't really work because if that was the only evidence the serial killer would walk. His boss might fire him...but then he could seek damages in a law suit and become a rich unemployed serial killer.

Why does it matter if his recordings were leaked without his knowledge,is everyone going to now complain about every corrupt politician or criminal being wired tapped while discussing their illegal activities?

Well should everyone be wire tapped and recorded then? Is it OK if someone recorded all your private conversations and gave them to your boss, family and the media?

Considering I have nothing remarkable to share in regards to a private life I don't see why anyone would record me saying something.

I'm sure someone could eventually find something to leak that could do your reputation, relationships or employment harm in some way. If not you perhaps you family or friends. Concidering nobody has impunity for anything they say in your view.

Also the recorded tapes would'nt mean the killer walks,how do you think police trace phone conversations or jailhouse phone calles.That stuff is perfectly legal and like I said before nobody would be raising a fuss if Sterling did more than talk about not letting black people attend basketbal games.

In the U.S. legal system they have to get warrants to do such things before they do them. Even if they did you are beyond the scope of this conversation because such surveillance is only done to protect the public's well being, not an accusation I've heard for Sterling's case.

So I'll asked again:are we now going to complain about every politician or criminal who got caught saying something they did'nt want people to hear?

Saying something they preferred the public not hear and saying something in the privacy of their own home are not the same thing, that's a false equivalency.

At what limit does the sanctity of privacy give someone impunity to do or say something as long as it's in their home?

As long a nobody is being harmed or having their rights violated and no laws are being broken they should have complete impunity in the privacy of their own home. Its actually the law. That's why, in Sterling's case, it was an unlawfully recorded conversation. He got what he deserved for his public statements alone but that does not make the illegal recordings OK, the ends do not justify the means, not even in hind sight.

Should that hypothetical killer be allowed to snatch women and torture them as long as he does it in his house?

Again the hypothetical killer is outside the scope of this conversation because he is actually breaking the law. Now your just trying to draw out a false equivalency.

 

[Something Amyss]

Point 1: The actions are meant to punish him for his opinion and use him as an example.

And possibly to insulate others from his abuse (especially since this didn't occur in a vacuum), but go on....

You seem to think that punishment is the end, when that is a false and hurtful view that does not benefit anyone.

Punishment is the desired result here, not the end. But let's move on a little.

It most cases, it only serves the strengthen the feelings of people who have negative opinions about other people based on race.

It also isolates them from the population at large, allowing the population to progress beyond that point. I mean, this is a large part of how we progressed out of things like overwhelming racism: by making it socially unacceptable. Those who are hardcore will dig in, but they become a smaller and smaller group.

Of course, we can argue whether this is right or wrong morally, but I didn't go there. We can also introduce emotion if you please, but I didn't go there, either. I'm not really here judging right or wrong.

But your opinion of punishment for punishments sake is literally what is broke about the entire US prison system.

Please don't put words in my mouth, lie about me, or make accusations. I addressed specific claims you made, and my assertions ended at it getting the intended result. That's not praise for "punishment for the sake of punishment" or an endorsement of anything about our justice system.

It's what happens when nothing but emotion is observed by people such as yourself.

Come on.

Point 2: They are fooling themselves because most people do not care about the opinion of the community manager enough to skip a good game.

You said stop anyone. So you meant "fail to stop enough people to make a difference?" or what? I'm still confused. I'm not sure anyone was claiming this would be massive, though again, if you could point out actual examples that would be super. As you've misrepresented me multiple times in this post, I won't hold my breath, but perhaps someone did.

The only claims I'm seeing prior to when I posted were self-relevant and self-reflecting. Therefore, this seems moot.

If you can't see that, then you are among the most short sighted people on this site.

Do you really need to keep taking personal shots?

Now, I won't address what should be, but I will address what is. While it may or may not be right to not have expectation of "privacy" in your own home (though this was a phone call), we lack an actual reasonable expectation of privacy in our own homes, especially when dealing with communications media. I'd also point out that thoughtcrime refers to thought and isn't at issue when you're communicating ideas to others, and the reasonable expectation of privacy similarly shouldn't extend to things you tell other people. Probably even if you ask them not to tell, which wasn't the case here. It's not thought policing to deal with the things people say.

But don't worry, in your observance of the emotional need for punishment, I'm sure this guy will get fired for his opinion. And I'm sure we will all be better off for it, at least in the views of some folks.

I'd be careful of chucking stones there, friend. You seem to be displaying a very similar emotional need.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well I'm pretty sure that unlawful recorded conversations are inadmissible as evidence in court so the serial killer thing doesn't really work because if that was the only evidence the serial killer would walk.

The police can't tap him or record him without a warrant. Not only can they use a private citizen's evidence, it's not uncommon for the authorities to look the other way with regards to the crime. Don't get me wrong, though: breaking the law to catch a killer or rapist or child molester is still breaking the law, and there's no guaranteed protection from prosecution for your own crimes, but even if you go to jail the evidence may still be admissible.

 

[NiPah]

A lot of people outraged by this don't understand just how screwed our (US) job system is, just wait until HR calls you into the office because someone overheard someone complain about a new supervisor and you were in the area.

This doesn't set a precedent, the precedent has been dead for years, Olin has no protection (aka unions) so the moment his employer thinks they will get more money by firing him he's shit out of luck.

I remember when I had seasonal work at college bookstore and they advised me to put a "not the views of the company" type disclaimer on any facebook posts I do when talking about work, not to prevent being fire but to prevent being sued...

The world is pretty fucked.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

I'd imagine we'd do it the same way we decide the proportionality of punishments of crimes. We don't kill someone for stealing a wallet because we've reasonably determined that that's a disproportionate punishment for the crime. So... don't really see the issue you have here, unless you see some difference between the two situations or just consider them both wrong for some reason.

with crimes we are constantly changing the proportion seeking to find the correct one and are constantly debating that it is not working.
Its even worse with speech. its very hard, or at least relatively much harder to determine actual damage of speech, whereas a damage done by a thief can be easily calculated. its also much harder to find proportion, because there are many different opinions, some even claiming that it is you who should be punished instead, meanwhile when it comes to stealing or murder vast majority agree on who should be punished. this is the same reason we have outcrys every time somone gets fined more for downloading a song than murdering people. we have proven that proportionate punishment is not something we are good at, and to apply it to such a tricky subject would be a hell to manage.

Except that does'nt matter since this sort of thing would've come to a head sooner or later.I saw someone use the perfect analogy on another forum regarding this privacy issue.

If a serial killer was caught talking about how they're going to kidnap,torture,and murder women in a phonecall and someone took it to the authorities,does it matter that the serial killer was recorded without his permission?Same thing applies here since the cat is out of the bag in regards to Sterling's comment about not allowing black people to attend games.

More amazing logic! if i kill you now, it doesnt matter, since everyone dies sooner or later.

And yes, since the killer was recorded without permission such evidence would be inadmissable.

Also the recorded tapes would'nt mean the killer walks,how do you think police trace phone conversations or jailhouse phone calls?That stuff is perfectly legal and like I said before nobody would be raising a fuss if Sterling did more than talk about not letting black people attend basketbal games.

So I'll asked again:are we now going to complain about every politician or criminal who got caught saying something they did'nt want people to hear?At what limit does the sanctity of privacy give someone impunity to do or say something as long as it's in their home?

Should that hypothetical killer be allowed to snatch women and torture them as long as he does it in his house?

Yes it would. the tapes are inadmissable evidence, and would not be used in court. Police has to get warrant before wiretapping. of they wiretap without a warrant they are likely going to be jobless because they were brekaing the law. to get a warrant you got to have some proof of activity already. Jailhouse phone calls is another matter, these are allowed to be legally recorded.

Thats the thing though. If sterling was acting racism he would deserve consequences. he does not for only speaking. Nor does he loose his right to privacy just because he spoke some racist crap.

If the politician was recorded illegaly, nothing is going to be done about it other than the person who recorded it paying a fine for breaking the law.

You are mixing two things here: speech and action. dont mix them. we are talking about speech.

 

[Spearmaster]

Well I'm pretty sure that unlawful recorded conversations are inadmissible as evidence in court so the serial killer thing doesn't really work because if that was the only evidence the serial killer would walk.

The police can't tap him or record him without a warrant. Not only can they use a private citizen's evidence, it's not uncommon for the authorities to look the other way with regards to the crime. Don't get me wrong, though: breaking the law to catch a killer or rapist or child molester is still breaking the law, and there's no guaranteed protection from prosecution for your own crimes, but even if you go to jail the evidence may still be admissible.

Yes you are right, the defense could try and suppress it but even without the recording they still have the witness testimony of the conversation. I Guess there is no 100% guarantee either way. Doing further research the laws concerning recorded conversation vary state to state quite a bit.

 

[Pr0]

I find it amazing how well defined the opinions of a site full of people who otherwise accept the lifestyles and opinions of others, no matter how weird they may be to the societal norms, are, in regards to this subject.

Are you gay? That is so awesome, good for you.

Are you a feminist with a heavy handed opinion about how men view or objectify women...you should get a Nobel Peace Prize!

Are you a brony? Cool man, friendship forever!

Are you a transgender young Republican fighting for your rights to use a female bathroom even though you're pre-op? You go girl! Don't let anyone get in your way!

Do you have certain unpopular opinions about people not of your own ethnic group? DIE IN A FIRE.

I think the point I'm making here and I agree with Josh Olin somewhat. You cannot have an open an tolerant society without that right to tolerance cutting both ways.

The first amendment is commonly used as a shield for everyone that has an opinion, life style, or a certain set of societal ideas that may not be popular or common to the "norm" why is this a mutable circumstance in of which it only applies if its things that "we" are willing to tolerate?

Tolerating bigotry is like tolerating anything. I pity bigots, I'm sorry they have so much negative hate towards others that may or may not be grounded in any factual basis, but I tolerate their right to like whatever they like and hate whoever they want to hate. Cause if I don't, then I'm being a hypocrite when I ask people to tolerate my own idiosyncrasies...which, in all fairness aren't that extreme, but still apply.

In short, our intolerance of bigotry is just as much a programmed response as bigotry itself. Analyze how you deal with things you do not agree with think for a moment who made that decision for you.

In reality, my uncle, who happens to be an 83 year old New York Jew, is probably the most racist guy I've ever met. I don't love him any less for it, I just accept that this is the kind of man he grew to be and that these are things about him I cannot change. On the other side of the coin, hes taken great care of my aunt, his shiksa trophy wife, and not only that but bought a house for my mother, took care of my grandmother every day during her last days on earth with us and is generally a stand up guy that will do anything for family not because he has to but because thats just what a man does....at least in the world he was brought up in.

Should I hate him because he says rude things about Hispanics? Cause I don't, I simply don't hold his opinions myself, and tolerate his right to be who he is, as long as who he is isn't harming anyone else.

Anyways just my opinion. But when you let tolerance morph into intolerance simply to show how tolerant you are, you're not actually tolerant...you're being a fascist....and I say that with all due respect.

 

[Church185]

But did he not lose his position with Turtle Rock BECAUSE of the statement? And did Turtle Rock not just publicly state that they do not agree with his sentiment, which is why they terminated the community manager?

Which means that, if you were originally planning to purchase the game out of interest, you can still do so without supporting negative sentiments?

You would, however, still be supporting a game that glamorizes the hunting of aliens.

Aliens have feelings, too.

The post you quoted was WAY before the update talking about how the guy had been canned. When I wrote it, the article was just about him tweeting about it.

Though, I am considering buying the game again, cause I have to indulge in fantasy violence against aliens. Wonder what that would be called? Planetism? *shrugs*

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I knew someone would bring up the PC card.

Obviously the fact you complain about black on white racism when I freaking said ALL bigots and racists would get punished for their actions means you did'nt read my post.Also you're a hypocrite since YOU are telling me to go somewhere else because YOU don't like what I have to say.

If you have a problem with me saying bigots and racists deserve whatever happens to them then tough shit.And go complain about how the "blacks are mean and terrible people" because I don't want to deal with that crap.

On second thought...maybe you're one of the people I'm talking about,your use of the word negroes and complaining about black people certainly sets off some red flags.If so I must've struck a nerve then.

The difference between Donald Sterling's punishment and ban from the NBA and what you're suggesting is that you're suggestion is an ACTUAL VIOLATION of the 1st Amendment. Look, I don't like Racists either. I went to school with several bigoted people and I live in an area with at least two people who are actually scared of the Hispanics who live down the street, but fining someone for speaking is out of the question. Free speech is something that has to be tolerated, regardless of whether we want to hear it or not. Racism is something that we all have to change in society through education and integration, not forced government fines and violence (Heck, that's how we go into this racial mess to begin with)

 

[SlothDeVidya]

the supposed privacy of his home.

Ha, nice.

You know, after all the articles about the big scary NSA that have been featured on this website, this seems a wee bit hypocritical to me.

What the fuck does "supposed privacy" mean?

Is it meant to say that privacy only applies when people are saying things you like? Do people you don't like not get privacy? Are violations of privacy only important when they happen to someone that isn't you?

Nice to know that this website can be trusted to defend privacy right up until something they don't like is said. Now all the NSA has to do to get the internet on it's side is change "We have to violate your privacy to stop the terrorists" to "We have to violate your privacy to stop the RACISTS!"

People can be punished for what they say,just recently a teenage girl got in trouble for jokingly making terrorist threats to a airliner.That sort of thing is what I support,making people be accountable for their actions and words.

Just like you can't make terroristic threats and not expect people to take you seriously,racists and bigots should'nt expect to spew their hate without someone doing something about it.

I think you should look into what the word "speech" actually means, it doesn't mean "anything that comes out of your mouth"

A bombing threat isn't speech, it's a statement of intent, which is very different from speech. She wasn't punished because what she said wasn't socially unacceptable or because it wasn't nice.

She was punished because she made a statement of intent to cause harm to other people.

Now if she'd said something to the effect of "I wish I could blow up this plane because everyone here is an asshole/sinner/degenerate/filthy casual that deserves to die" That would be speech, and she could not be punished for such a remark, because it is simply a statement of her thoughts and opinions, without any implications of intent to break the law. (The airline could still refuse to let her onto the plane, though only if such remarks are prohibited by the agreement that she signed when she bought her ticket)

What Donald Sterling said IS protected speech, no matter how much we don't like it, he never implied intent to break the law, he merely expressed his, entirely repugnant yet sincerely held, opinions of black people.

That is not a crime, you cannot be legally punished for hurting people's feelings.

Note "Sincerely held", deliberate lies aren't speech either, which is why libel laws can exist.

Of course the NBA still has the right to ban him from the game, because they're a PRIVATE ORGANISATION with every right to control who participates in their game. (The matter of the violation of his privacy and the betrayal of his trust by a third party is a separate issue, the NBA has the right to act of information available in the public sphere, even if it was put into the public sphere by illicit means)

So no, you CANNOT be punished for what you say (by the government).

The first amendment is there for the exact purpose of defending unpopular speech.

If we go back on that then civil rights would never have gotten off the ground, the government would simply have punished everyone that talked about it.

But they couldn't, because despite segregation being enshrined in law, and despite racism being the social norm, you CANNOT legally punish people for speaking. Not. Ever.