Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Church185]

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.

At first, I was like "WTF did I just read?"

Then I read it again, and it still just sounds like a weird justification for silencing some people, but not others.

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.

More justification for why his speech is sacred, but mine isn't. You could say that I feared all of the negative feedback I got for my initial comment on this article, but I don't see anyone jumping to my aid saying no one should retaliate. In fact, I have tons of people telling me that I'm part of the problem and that I should shut up. It's cool, they are welcome to, but I bring it up to point out that we can't have a double standard on freedom of speech and expression.

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.

But the employee still brought this controversy on his employer. Had he not gotten on his corporate painted soap box, he would still have a job. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it, but now he gets to reap what he sowed. Because of his actions, his company got dragged into the middle of a conflict that they wanted nothing to do with.

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?

Specifically what was being boycotted (at least on my end) was the ignorant support of a person who most people would agree is horrible. He defended freedom of speech while freedom of speech didn't need defending. The NBA isn't the government, and the owner signed a contract that said he could be booted out of the NBA if he did stupid stuff that would embarrass them. Unlike the government, they don't need legally obtained proof, they just need the threat that his actions could lose them money. Now that I think about it, that community manager probably signed a very similar contract. I expressed myself the only way I can, with my speech and my wallet.

EDIT: It should be noted that because they decided to can him so quickly, and my general interest in the game that they are making, boycotting them is no longer necessary. In fact, this whole episode has now given me another reason to buy the game, simply to counter balance all of the other people now boycotting the game because they support the community manager.

Trying to convince me what I should and shouldn't speak out against is probably a pointless venture.

 

[Vegosiux]

.However in the private sector that belief means absolutely nothing as people can and have been fired for saying something that damages their company's reputation or sales.

Ironically, in the private sector the overwhelming majority of wealth is held by the kind of people you despise. You know, rich white old farts who think they're so much better than everyone because they're rich and white.

 

[Something Amyss]

snip

there is an expression, missing forest for the trees. your missing the big picture and get stuck on a few examples and individualities.

You mean the examples you gave which were factually wrong. I can't help but notice you edited that down so people couldn't see context. Yes, your examples were false, completely untrue. In the real world, these movements did suffer exactly what you proposed, and we got a different outcome: change still happened. You are wrong, and I can see both the forest and the trees, TYVM.

If you're going to make an argument, make sure you know what you're arguing. The "forest" is the overall push for civil rights, and that overall push was met with hostility, violence, legislation, prison time, rape, murder, and hate. You proved the opposite of your point by illustrating how a movement faced with those things can progress (And in fact, have).

 

[Loonyyy]

marthin luther king would have died in jail.

God dude, do you even read what you write? Are you living in some sort of a fantasy land? Even if it weren't disgusting and racist to compare Martin Luther King to repugnant pieces of shit like Sterling, Martin Luther King (And many others) DID face violent retribution for their temerity in standing for equality. Compared to that, what Sterling got is tame.