Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Spearmaster]

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.

Oh so black people are all racists now!

No, that's not really how I'm interpreting it. But nothing requires us to treat black people and racists the same. There are differences that are actually relevant. Like that racists tend to treat people badly without a reason for it.

Not true they make up several "moral" reasons for it.

It's absurd to think you can just swap in one noun for another regardless of any differences.

It's easy to see why what you've said fails: People don't have to think that you should treat black people and racists the same.

How does it fail? People are using a moral to rationalize treating someone poorly for what they are, its the same.

You have failed to establish that all moral reasons need to be considered equal.

I was not trying to establish that all moral theories need be equal. Just that the chain of logic that different groups and people use to justify their actions based on their morals are the same, just a different moral.
Making excuses for treating anyone poorly is just that.

This is as silly as saying "You're trying to convince me with words? You know who tried to convince people with words? Hitler!"

Only about as silly as "Oh you dislike a group for moral reasons, Ill dislike your group, take action against you personally for moral reasons...but its OK I'm better than you...why? ...reasons."

I just get tired of people claiming moral reasons for mistreating anyone, good or bad. When its OK to mistreat bad people we will start making people bad for moral reasons just to mistreat those we don't like, its how it starts.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

I'm not talking about liking, embracing or agreeing racists and the like, just treating them with decency. If you don't like rubber in your salad do you also go around slashing everyone's tires, burning all the rubber trees and claiming that rubber is evil and should not exist?

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.

Everyone is entitled to their own moral beliefs, that is fine, its when people use their moral beliefs as the reason for their moral beliefs being superior to those of others is when it becomes paradoxical. Morals are to arbitrary and subjective to use as a reason to treat others poorly. Only as a way to conduct yourself better.

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.

Well its easy to claim utilitarianism when you are in the majority, personally I find utilitarianism lazy and reckless for that reason. Its tough for me to embrace a moral code that says its OK to do anything as long as more people like it than are harmed by it.

Example: Utilitarianism says nothing is wrong, say you get 30 guys together to gang rape a woman, 30 guys gain pleasure from the act, only 1 woman is harmed. Utilitarianism says the act was moral. Not a code I can agree with.

Which is why I spoke about associations and not populations in my conception of complex utilitarianism. The 30 guys here are doing damage through the girl the whole association of women as a gender class. Similarly, if 90% are white and they want to attack all minority groups, by association utilitarianism they are causing MORE damage because the minority groups are diverse associations. A tolerant society must therefore allow for the most amount of happy legitimate associations as possible (what is legitimate is the real weakness of my moral theory by the way because how do you make a difference between essential categories like gender and non-essential categories like nerds?), and so a society of a million happy bigots is worse off morally than a society of 100 different happy associations with a total population of 1000.

That's all very interesting but what does it offer for a solution to say dealing with racist? Establishing a moral code is fine but I'm curious. How does a moral code allow you to deal with people who are deemed immoral by that code?

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

I know what bigotry is genius,

Apparently you don't.

and you implied that because I think racism and bigotry should'nt be tolerated I must be a bigot as well.I harbor no negative feelings towards a group because of skin color,religion,gender,sexual orientation which is what bigotry is.

And please don't insult my intelligence.

Did you click the link? You seem to be ignoring the literal definition of bigoted.

bigoted
big·ot·ed

adjective

Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

I know what bigotry is genius,

Apparently you don't.

and you implied that because I think racism and bigotry should'nt be tolerated I must be a bigot as well.I harbor no negative feelings towards a group because of skin color,religion,gender,sexual orientation which is what bigotry is.

And please don't insult my intelligence.

Did you click the link? You seem to be ignoring the literal definition of bigoted.

bigoted
big·ot·ed

adjective

Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So you wanna play the definition game?I can do that as well:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

It's funny how the word has different meanings that you conveniently leave out to paint me as something I'm not.

I noticed you actually included the part about "other characteristics". That applies to you because being a racist is one of the "other characteristics" so by either definition you fail to absolve yourself of bigoted behavior.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

I know what bigotry is genius,

Apparently you don't.

and you implied that because I think racism and bigotry should'nt be tolerated I must be a bigot as well.I harbor no negative feelings towards a group because of skin color,religion,gender,sexual orientation which is what bigotry is.

And please don't insult my intelligence.

Did you click the link? You seem to be ignoring the literal definition of bigoted.

bigoted
big·ot·ed

adjective

Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So you wanna play the definition game?I can do that as well:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

It's funny how the word has different meanings that you conveniently leave out to paint me as something I'm not.

I noticed you actually included the part about "other characteristics". That applies to you because being a racist is one of the "other characteristics" so by either definition you fail to absolve yourself of bigoted behavior.

Again with the labels I see....I don't hate bigots/or racists since you can't hate hatred.I have a intense dislike for them but that's all.

By your definition "treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred" so do you dislike them for no reason other than you just dislike them? You don't treat or view them with any fear or distrust? If not why do they need to be shut out of society?

Here's some advice,throwing around labels at people who disagree with you is not a smart way to prove your point.

Wow, I could say the exact same thing to you.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

I know what bigotry is genius,

Apparently you don't.

and you implied that because I think racism and bigotry should'nt be tolerated I must be a bigot as well.I harbor no negative feelings towards a group because of skin color,religion,gender,sexual orientation which is what bigotry is.

And please don't insult my intelligence.

Did you click the link? You seem to be ignoring the literal definition of bigoted.

bigoted
big·ot·ed

adjective

Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So you wanna play the definition game?I can do that as well:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

It's funny how the word has different meanings that you conveniently leave out to paint me as something I'm not.

I noticed you actually included the part about "other characteristics". That applies to you because being a racist is one of the "other characteristics" so by either definition you fail to absolve yourself of bigoted behavior.

Again with the labels I see....I don't hate bigots/or racists since you can't hate hatred.I have a intense dislike for them but that's all.

By your definition "treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred" so do you dislike them for no reason other than you just dislike them? You don't treat or view them with any fear or distrust? If not why do they need to be shut out of society?

Here's some advice,throwing around labels at people who disagree with you is not a smart way to prove your point.

Wow, I could say the exact same thing to you.

I don't go around throwing labels at people so no you can't say the same thing to me.

Well I was only describing your behavior, I didn't just up and call you a bigot for no reason.

I never said bigots and racists should be shut out of society,I said their views should'nt be tolerated,big difference there my friend.

Why shouldn't there views be tolerated? They are only views. Also how do you propose their views not be tolerated then? How do you accomplish this?

 

[Euryalus]

Cool, it looks like I have one less game to buy!

It's his right to be an old bigot, but it's my right to not support anyone who roots for him.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech without consequence. The NBA isn't the government, they can do as they please.

I'm late to this thread and you probably won't care very much. You've been quoted to hell and back by now I'm sure.

A law enshrining freedom of speech means jack shit if you don't have a culture that generally respects opposing (even terrible) views.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, but if you retaliate every single time someone has a "bigoted" (realistically any unpopular opinion) then the fear of speaking out will be the same as stifling it in some way.

Obviously its not to say you shouldn't boycott, or yadda yadda yadda, but... Have some prudence.

The community manager was fired for his ideas, views, whatever. Not his ability to perform the job, and That's the right of the company... But it's a shit general policy.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

I know what bigotry is genius,

Apparently you don't.

and you implied that because I think racism and bigotry should'nt be tolerated I must be a bigot as well.I harbor no negative feelings towards a group because of skin color,religion,gender,sexual orientation which is what bigotry is.

And please don't insult my intelligence.

Did you click the link? You seem to be ignoring the literal definition of bigoted.

bigoted
big·ot·ed

adjective

Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So you wanna play the definition game?I can do that as well:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

It's funny how the word has different meanings that you conveniently leave out to paint me as something I'm not.

I noticed you actually included the part about "other characteristics". That applies to you because being a racist is one of the "other characteristics" so by either definition you fail to absolve yourself of bigoted behavior.

Again with the labels I see....I don't hate bigots/or racists since you can't hate hatred.I have a intense dislike for them but that's all.

By your definition "treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred" so do you dislike them for no reason other than you just dislike them? You don't treat or view them with any fear or distrust? If not why do they need to be shut out of society?

Here's some advice,throwing around labels at people who disagree with you is not a smart way to prove your point.

Wow, I could say the exact same thing to you.

I don't go around throwing labels at people so no you can't say the same thing to me.

Well I was only describing your behavior, I didn't just up and call you a bigot for no reason.

I never said bigots and racists should be shut out of society,I said their views should'nt be tolerated,big difference there my friend.

Why shouldn't there views be tolerated? They are only views. Also how do you propose their views not be tolerated then? How do you accomplish this?

Genocide,slavery,the Holocaust,multiple cases of where people were killed because of their skin color,people being killed and persecuted for their relgious beliefs,sexuality,race, and so on are examples of the kind of harm bigotry and racist views have caused untold ammounts of people over the span of history.That's why they should'nt be tolerated,the ignorant can be saved but the truly hateful cannot.

Well that establishes a fear of wost possible cases when people act on their views but those are actions, those actions are already against the law and are not tolerated by society. Now what about people holding views that don't act on them? How do you go about not tolerating their views?

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

Do you even know what a bigot is?All you're doing is going"No,you are a racist!!" just because I have a different opinion on racism/bigotry than you do.

Playing the race card means this conversation is over.

When did I say anything race related? Is English your second language? I mean you have to have a reason for not knowing what bigot actually means, right?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigoted

I know what bigotry is genius,

Apparently you don't.

and you implied that because I think racism and bigotry should'nt be tolerated I must be a bigot as well.I harbor no negative feelings towards a group because of skin color,religion,gender,sexual orientation which is what bigotry is.

And please don't insult my intelligence.

Did you click the link? You seem to be ignoring the literal definition of bigoted.

bigoted
big·ot·ed

adjective

Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So you wanna play the definition game?I can do that as well:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

It's funny how the word has different meanings that you conveniently leave out to paint me as something I'm not.

I noticed you actually included the part about "other characteristics". That applies to you because being a racist is one of the "other characteristics" so by either definition you fail to absolve yourself of bigoted behavior.

Again with the labels I see....I don't hate bigots/or racists since you can't hate hatred.I have a intense dislike for them but that's all.

By your definition "treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred" so do you dislike them for no reason other than you just dislike them? You don't treat or view them with any fear or distrust? If not why do they need to be shut out of society?

Here's some advice,throwing around labels at people who disagree with you is not a smart way to prove your point.

Wow, I could say the exact same thing to you.

I don't go around throwing labels at people so no you can't say the same thing to me.

Well I was only describing your behavior, I didn't just up and call you a bigot for no reason.

I never said bigots and racists should be shut out of society,I said their views should'nt be tolerated,big difference there my friend.

Why shouldn't there views be tolerated? They are only views. Also how do you propose their views not be tolerated then? How do you accomplish this?

Genocide,slavery,the Holocaust,multiple cases of where people were killed because of their skin color,people being killed and persecuted for their relgious beliefs,sexuality,race, and so on are examples of the kind of harm bigotry and racist views have caused untold ammounts of people over the span of history.That's why they should'nt be tolerated,the ignorant can be saved but the truly hateful cannot.

Well that establishes a fear of wost possible cases when people act on their views but those are actions, those actions are already against the law and are not tolerated by society. Now what about people holding views that don't act on them? How do you go about not tolerating their views?

As long as the bigots/racists kept it to themselves there would'nt be a problem.

I had a racist tell me one time that if they didn't have to see "them" or deal with "them" there wouldn't be a problem. How is this different?

However if they start publicly spewing hate then others have a right to confront them.

Feel free to confront their views and ideas all you like but when someone gets fired for their views, you have, as a society, stepped into the realm of punishing the existence of their views, you are no longer confronting them. Just hope the same never happens to you.

How they're confronted depends on the person.

How does it depend on the person?

 

[Church185]

I'm late to this thread and you probably won't care very much. You've been quoted to hell and back by now I'm sure.

A law enshrining freedom of speech means jack shit if you don't have a culture that generally respects opposing (even terrible) views.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, but if you retaliate every single time someone has a "bigoted" (realistically any unpopular opinion) then the fear of speaking out will be the same as stifling it in some way.

Obviously its not to say you shouldn't boycott, or yadda yadda yadda, but... Have some prudence.

The community manager was fired for his ideas, views, whatever. Not his ability to perform the job, and That's the right of the company... But it's a shit general policy.

It's cool, I haven't actually been quoted for several days.

His statement was a reflection on the ability to do his job. He works in a front facing position, and is tasked with drumming up excitement in his community for the upcoming game. The moment he threw out his unpopular opinion, he lost his company sales. It would either be from the people who didn't agree with what he had to say, or the people who are now mad that he has no job. His words split the community. We ended up with 13 pages of comments here, there is no telling what happened on other sites or on the studio's forums.

I realize that he made the comments on his personal account, but that personal account was plastered with with links back to the main company. Had it truly been meant to be a private statement on a private account, it would have never made news. He wasn't fired for his views, he was fired for sounding off about his views in a way that could potentially make his company look bad. As I said to someone previously, you don't shit where you eat.

As far as retaliation goes, you are trying to create a bit of a paradox. You are saying that I should stifle my speech, so that other's speech isn't stifled. That I should behave a different way so other's aren't afraid to behave the way they feel necessary. I've never understood that train of thought.

 

[Euryalus]

I'm late to this thread and you probably won't care very much. You've been quoted to hell and back by now I'm sure.

A law enshrining freedom of speech means jack shit if you don't have a culture that generally respects opposing (even terrible) views.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, but if you retaliate every single time someone has a "bigoted" (realistically any unpopular opinion) then the fear of speaking out will be the same as stifling it in some way.

Obviously its not to say you shouldn't boycott, or yadda yadda yadda, but... Have some prudence.

The community manager was fired for his ideas, views, whatever. Not his ability to perform the job, and That's the right of the company... But it's a shit general policy.

It's cool, I haven't actually been quoted for several days.

His statement was a reflection on the ability to do his job. He works in a front facing position, and is tasked with drumming up excitement in his community for the upcoming game. The moment he threw out his unpopular opinion, he lost his company sales. It would either be from the people who didn't agree with what he had to say, or the people who are now mad that he has no job. His words split the community. We ended up with 13 pages of comments here, there is no telling what happened on other sites or on the studio's forums.

I realize that he made the comments on his personal account, but that personal account was plastered with with links back to the main company. Had it truly been meant to be a private statement on a private account, it would have never made news. He wasn't fired for his views, he was fired for sounding off about his views in a way that could potentially make his company look bad. As I said to someone previously, you don't shit where you eat.

As far as retaliation goes, you are trying to create a bit of a paradox. You are saying that I should stifle my speech, so that other's speech isn't stifled. That I should behave a different way so other's aren't afraid to behave the way they feel necessary. I've never understood that train of thought.

The train of thought is paradoxical, I'll give you that, but to delve into philosophy and talk a bit about Freedom and... lacking it I guess, might help me explain it a bit better (I'm rather shit at the whole clarifying so forgive me if I just make no sense rather than you simply disagreeing xD)

If you had true freedom in the sense of anything goes then nothing would go. There'd be no static "needs to be." If there were no "needs to be" nothing would exist because in order to do, "something" "needs to exist."

In order for anything to happen freely the stifling of freedom needs to happen on at least some level. Things need to exist. There has to be that restriction of "has to exist" in order for the freedom of happening to exist.

^Metaphysical analogy.

If there isn't a culture that respects someone else's beliefs, if there isn't prudence in action opposing speech, then it's pointless.

A fear of retaliation at the extremes of freedom of speech makes it the same as having no freedom of speech.

The same thing happens in countries that try to adopt Democracy without having a prexisting cultural understanding of Rights in the moral "philosophies" of the country. It's happened several times in some African countries.

In this particular example, the company acted financially smart, but consumers? They're going to boycott a company because of the views of an employee unrelated to the business. When they fired the employee they're going to boycott because of the practices of the business, slightly different.

With the Eich mozilla fiasco, I wondered whether a boycott was worth "hurting" mozilla since it wouldn't effect a change on either Eich's finances or his views, but they were boycotting actions rather than ideas. I don't know if that distinction makes sense.

I'm not saying don't speak out or act out, but ask yourself what specifically is being boycotted?