Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

WindKnight

Quiet, Odd Sort.
Legacy
Jul 8, 2009
1,828
9
43
Cephiro
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Brian Tams said:
I'm going to make one point here and then be done.


Donald Sterling is not going to jail for his comments. He's not being persecuted by the U.S. Government in any form for his comments. His right to free speech is not being violated because of this.
But he's a rich white dude! He's being oppressed by facing consequences for his actions! And its so much worse than the 20 people china jailed for writing erotic gay fanfiction!
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
Windknight said:
Brian Tams said:
I'm going to make one point here and then be done.


Donald Sterling is not going to jail for his comments. He's not being persecuted by the U.S. Government in any form for his comments. His right to free speech is not being violated because of this.
But he's a rich white dude! He's being oppressed by facing consequences for his actions! And its so much worse than the 20 people china jailed for writing erotic gay fanfiction!
Yeah, no kidding. People act like he's being forced onto the street, when in reality he will be in line for a massive payday since he's being forced to sell the Clippers.

For reference, a shitty franchise like the Milwaukee Bucks was sold for over 500 million. And that's a team that finished with the worst record in the NBA this season.

Considering how the Clippers: A) Operate in a massive TV Market B) Have a large number of marketable players C) Are currently in the second round of the playoffs and just blew out one of the best teams in the NBA on their court, and I wouldn't be shocked to see the Clips go for over 1 Billion.

Such a travesty this is.
 

Riot3000

New member
Oct 7, 2013
220
0
0
WoodenPlanck said:
Kumagawa Misogi said:
Riot3000 said:
This is not a first amendment issue because this was the NBA's decision which is the the private sector that so many people jump to defense of. The same private sector that can fire you for seeing a picture of you with beer in your hands not drunk just a beer in your hands on facebook and those same people will say just deal with it but come to the defense of this bigot of the cognitive dissonance could feed the world.

Plus I am not calling this guy a victim you bring about this info of your stupid views of blacks and hispanics to your black and hispanic mixed mistress and not expect that to bite you in the ass.
I have a problem with the beer thing too, and I certainly don't agree with people having to sign their life and right to opinions/legal activities away to have a job. This is something that gained a high profile, so of course it will draw in both detractors and supporters. I haven't personally seen people arguing over what you brought up, nor do I hear about it often; but I will give you one non-dissonant example: I don't approve of what you pointed out either. The fact that these issues exist, and that there are many opinions about them suggest FoS is at the heart of this. Others have pointed out that part of the issue in question is where the line for 'private speech' and what responsible 'consequences' are in an age where privacy is receding into nothingness very quickly. I'd say that's a VERY important issue to tackle before it becomes a serious headache for all of society (probably a little late for that). I feel people who are arguing for Olin share this sentiment at heart and they may just not have put it into words.
My examples were not on this forum specifically but others and it annoys me that it is only a victim if its a guy like Sterling who really at the end of the day will still be pretty rich and have other ventures Clippers or not unlike average joe caught on facebook in my example.

The Sterling issue is a powder keg this whole recording was the last piece because his track record before hand is pretty messed up and it was the NBA again private sector exercising their right and putting it into to not want him there not the United States government.

I mean all this thing about sensationalist media is crazy because going off on how freedom of speech is threatened and throwing "political correctness" taking over that just makes you bedfellows with the group you are railing against.

If this came from a perspective of business\employer perspective then I feel this conversation would have some grounds instead of sensationalizing the sensationalizing.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
If there's one type of person I absolutely cannot stand it's those who cry about political correctness.Is it PC to not be a dick?Is it PC to expect people to treat others like how they would want to be treated?

Btw learn the history of the first two men before you start white knighting for them.
I think you missed the part where I blamed these assassinations on the PC crowd. In so much as we're crucifying anyone for their personal opinions and political donations, I simply put it to the Justice Squad that they, too, should be held to their own code of social justice. If we allowed employers access to everyone's social media and they could fire anyone that could even conceivably look bad, we'd have a global unemployment rate of 71%.

And you need to look up the term "white knight" before you use it. There's no one to save after these politically correct murders. I'm putting the finger on the people that put the arrows in them.


Kuchinawa212 said:
Welp people are entitled to their opinion. If that's not the company's opinion he shouldn't be that vocal about it.
He wasn't expressing it as the opinion of the company, that's the entire point. The reaction with all of these cases to resort to resignation/firing is out of the perception that personal opinions make the company look bad. The collective freak-out of everyone linking the individual to the company and translating that into boycotts and image destruction leads companies to just amputate and try to save face.

It's 100% the fault of people who can't tolerate other opinions. This is their victory over racism, and all .053% of the people in the world who think this makes a difference will savor every bit of it.

By the way, when you look closely you'll find that Josh was not logged into a company Twitter account, it has his name on it. You would have to know who he is or look him up to find out where he works and then invent your own reason for why you should boycott a game which in no way should represent one unpopular opinion.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Bluestorm83 said:
Did you even hear his comments?
Please don't lecture me until you understand what "being glib" is.

Now, unless any of that post addressed what progress actually comes from his actions, I don't think I have any more to say on the matter.

WoodenPlanck said:
It's more like there are laws, but lawsuits and court are a rich person's game.
Not as it pertains here.

Also, social policies exist (welfare state, social security, unemployment insurance, environmental policy, pensions, health care, social housing, social care, child protection, social exclusion, education policy, crime and criminal justice to name a few), it's just that mandating specific social interactions amongst individuals is meaningless.
It looks like you knew exactly which type of social policy I was talking about, then decided to play word games. Since you seem to know better, what was the point in "correcting" me?
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
there is an expression, missing forest for the trees. your missing the big picture and get stuck on a few examples and individualities.

the hidden eagle said:
I'm done responding to you since you continue to put words in my mouth.Point out the "multiple times" I said racists should be killed in this thread....oh that's right there aren't any.If I did what you're doing I could make you sound like a apologist who thinks nobody should be fired or punished ever for what they do or said.For example if someone said on Twitter that gays are evil and deserve or Hitler was a good huy while acting as the public face of a company,you'd probaly complain when he/she rightfully gets fired.

Hell going by your logic nobody should be fired ever.A employee is costing you money by shooting his/her mouth off?Who the fuck cares because their freedom of speech is apparently more sacred to you than the company's future.
ah, more baseless complaints and false equivalences. is that all you got, really?

the hidden eagle said:
Also your definition of the word terrorism is interesting....because apparently if someone is fired or banned from somewhere for saying offensive things,then they're the equivalent of people dying in suicide bombings.
you should look up the defintion, apperently you dont know it yourself.

here, ill do it for you:

terrorism
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


the hidden eagle said:
It's not a invasion of privacy if he asked to be recorded,and just like all information nowadays this particular recording made it's way on the internet.
if you recorded your sons birthday and then somone stole it and posted it on the internet it would still be invasion of privacy, just like it is in this case. this is a clear invasion of privacy as defined by law and if you say it isnt then you are factually wrong.

Kuchinawa212 said:
Strazdas said:
Makes plenty of sense. If you're a community manager at a company, which is pretty responsible for the way the public sees your projects, then maybe- JUST MAYBE- saying controversial things might be better expressed in private then on the net where everyone can see it. You can have opinions, express them openly but doesn't mean you're free of the ramifications of what you're saying.
no, that does not make sense. not if you want to live in free society anyway. and no, your job position should not affect when you choose to express your opinion and your opinion should not affect your job position. sadly there are too many people that think discriminating is a good thing as long as it agrees with their opinion, which makes situations like these.
and yes, freedom if speech does mean your free of ramifications.



Brian Tams said:
I'm going to make one point here and then be done.


Donald Sterling is not going to jail for his comments. He's not being persecuted by the U.S. Government in any form for his comments. His right to free speech is not being violated because of this.
his first amendment right is not being violated you mean. because right to speech is not limited to first amendment.

LifeCharacter said:
I love how you act like that was actually possible before civil rights, mostly because the places you'd be finding these bigots had laws that forced you to segregate your customers or simply cut out blacks or whites and be solely for the other one. You also seem to be pretending that that didn't actually happen on some misguided basis that we've apparently devolved to the mindless masses in the meantime instead of, you know, we're just a lot more capable of knowing about such instances of bigotry/"unpopuler speech" now and a lot more capable of knowing about such negative reactions. Do you think if someone in an area outside of Jim Crow Laws but amongst a population of racists came out and said they believe black people and white people are totally equal and need to be treated the same, all the racists would just be honorable people of the past and just say okay and do nothing more than just disagree?
i never said it didnt exist in the past and nothing you say here contradicts my statement.
So you think it's perfectly acceptable to utter something racist or homophobic; if someone next to you stood up and gave a long speech about it, you'd do absolutely nothing at the very best? You don't find anything wrong in thinking black people should be reenslaved, or that gay people are child-raping monsters? If you not only wouldn't do anything negative in response to this (and this includes criticizing them openly), but condemn anyone for so much as criticizing them, then yeah, we've got the complication that you think no one should ever be able to react negatively to someone else' speech.
Ok, i didnt expect you to not udnerstand the difference between tolerance and rights and agreement. you can criticize anyone all you want, im not agians you criticizing me here for example, as long as they does not become mob juistice and you dont try to make me loose my job because i said something you didnt agree with.

But, the problem here is not you and all the other sources of absolute morality disagree, it's whether the people agree as a whole agree. And the way to figuring out if they agree is to not ask them whether free speech should be without consequence, it should be if one particular type of speech that is highly offensive to them should be "punished" with criticism and disassociation. Which group do you think will be bigger?
so a solution to mob justice is... mob justice via democracy?

As for mob justice being mob justice and being always wrong forever and ever, would you consider it wrong if people boycotted, say, Apple for just dropping all subtlety and enslaving African children to mine and build the new iPhone, because all boycotts are "mob justice," and the only difference here is that it lacks any whiny "free speech is absolute and can never be met with any consequences" defense.
yes i would consider it wrong. If apple did that they should be challenged against it in court. if apple said that they should be challenged agianst it in conversation. they should not be ran out of business. you know, we invented law and court systems so we would have something better than mob justice.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
This is the last time I'm replying to you.You say I'm using false equivalencies?Then you're using hyperbole and engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

Comparing someone getting in trouble for what they say to terrorism is a fucking insult to those who have been killed in suicide bombings and other atrocities.Also the recording from Donald Sterling was'nt stolen so it looks like YOU are the one who is factually wrong here.

And last but not least freedom of speech never meant you were protected from the consequences of your speech,the only protection involves the government not being able to punish you for what you say.Then again it looks like I was right about you believing that a company should'nt be allowed to fire anyone who makes them look bad.
you said that 3 quotes before, and yet keep replying. not that it would stop me from correcting you, mind you.

i didnt compare it to terrorism. i merely pointed out that you likely didnt knew what terrorism is, given how you treated the word. and looks like you still dont know what the word means if this reply is anything to judge by. the recording was illegaly publicised, which makes it a crime, which makes you factually wrong. the only way i would be wrong about this is the laws would be different than they are. but since they are not, im not wrong about it. Whether it is a good or a bad thing we can discuss, altrough we both stated our opinions about that quite clearly by now, however that it is a crime that Sterlin is a victim of is a fact neither of us can deny.

no, freedom of speech is exactly freedom from consequences. because if there is consequences to your speech its no longer free. first amendment is protection from government. freedom of speech is not limited to first amendment.
 

Cliff_m85

New member
Feb 6, 2009
2,581
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Cliff_m85 said:
the hidden eagle said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Someone Depressing said:
Yes, it's his home. He can do what he wants in it. Cook meth, have sex with yeast-based products, plot to burn down the White House, whatever. It's when his bullshit is spouted all over the internert intentional or not, when it becomes a problem, because it's there for everyone to see.

Looks like Evolve, which I was kind of interested in, won't be played by me ever. Oh well, back to my cave.
I agree with the dude. His wife recorded him, obviously without his knowledge, and sent it around the world for all to hear. Let's ignore, for a moment, what was on that tape and think about context.

He was talking to his wife, which he assumed was a private conversation.
His wife SOLD the tape, where the drama started to take hold.
He's fired from the NBA (which is no prob, they have every right to fire him).
Some duder from a video game company says "Hey, it's kinda messed up that his wife secretly recorded him".
Video Game Company fires guy for simply stating an opinion with NO RACIAL attributes in it whatsoever.

Now it's obvious that what the NBA dude said was just stupid and racist, but two wrongs don't make a right. The wife/girlfriend was in the wrong as well.

I'm against the decision to remove the video game dude for stating his opinion on privacy.
Actually he was'nt recorded without him knowing about it.Donald was said to ask being recorded because he was afraid of forgetting things.

This is why it helps to have all the facts since it was the mistress and not his wife that leaked the tape allegedly.
So he asked to be recorded so as to remember, for himself, what he had said in the past? How does this change my opinion exactly?

Still seems like invasion of privacy.
It's not a invasion of privacy if he asked to be recorded,and just like all information nowadays this particular recording made it's way on the internet.
Arguably, let's put yourself in the position. Let's say, one night, you decide to get a bit kinky and make a sex tape with your partner. TECHNICALLY, that tape belongs to both of you. TECHNICALLY, your partner has the right to share it.

Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

We're glancing over one OBVIOUS immoral action because the victim is racist. That's simply not how it works.

I won't even get into why an older-adult who ASKED FOR HIS CONVERSATIONS TO BE RECORDED obviously has issues with memory or logic. That's obvious as well.

No excuse for his racist blather. No excuse for her sharing a private audio tape with other (esp. for $$$).
 

Spearmaster

New member
Mar 10, 2010
378
0
0
I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.
 

maxben

New member
Jun 9, 2010
529
0
0
Spearmaster said:
I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.
I call bull. You're basically saying: You don't want to put rubber in your salad, well then imagine if someone said that about fruits, vegetables, or cheeses, that would be a crappy salad. One of these things just doesn't belong. You CAN put a Jew, a woman, and a black person together in the same room, but you CANNOT put a bigot together with them (that assumes that neither of those is a bigot of course). And I guess the salad is then society? Society tastes better without rubber? I think I've lose myself there.

Anyhow, the concept of "tolerating intolerance" is so mind-bendingly paradoxical to what tolerance means from my moral perspective that I just fundamentally disagree with you regarding what morality even means. The consequences of the act is faaaar more important than the act itself, and complex utilitarianism is all that matters. If we treat humanity as various associations, as opposed to population, the bigot that is causing social harm to most associations should be caused social harm for the benefit of most associations, even if said associations are smaller in population than the bigot population.