Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Baresark]

You basically mentioned two very front facing individuals in the aforementioned situations. No one even knew this guy existed before this article, at least not the gaming community at large. And in 15 minutes, they will have forgotten about it till some "journalist" brings it up again. And I'll tell you why. His opinion is not incorrect. His example is definitely poor in the user of this opinion though We should not have to worry about though policing in our own homes. If you can't see that, then you are among the most short sighted people on this site.

Nice ad hominem by the way. You are really good at that.

The statement I quoted above makes me think you have completely forgotten that Adam Orth no longer works for Microsoft because of comments made on his personal Twitter account. He was an unknown at the time too.

You're confused. I don't doubt for a second that this guy will lose his job. Oh no, you called me out on a potential fallacy, my heart weeps. Fallacies are a ridiculous thing. There are a lot of them out there, but they are not always so clear. I'll use an example of the dreaded "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. I have been accused of this in the past because I cite specific examples from an individual. Only, a persons authority should not be ignored because the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy exists. I'm going to say the same thing here. Just because I called into question his very argument does not mean I am all of the suddenly guilty of Ad Hominem. It's all about the use of it, more so than the existence of it. But, that is fine. I mean, there is hardly a reason to continue any conversation with you when you have made your point beautifully. Go forth and preach to the choir, it seems like something you might be good at.

That said, it does come off a tad shortsighted to defend that position as he did. But, the internet is full of shortsighted people. People who cannot see beyond what they thing that very moment.

 

[Baresark]

Are you kidding me. I support your right and decision to not buy the game for any reason you choose.

Calling me a child and saying the gaming community would be better off without me because of that decision hardly seems like you support my right to make it.

The situation with the Evolve devs is kind of ironic when you think about it. The coach is going to get canned by the NBA because they want to protect their public image and their bottom line. The community manager is going to get canned because the devs want to protect their image and potentially their bottom line.

I don't understand why someone with a public platform that is entirely unrelated to politics, would use that public platform to spout off about politics. Especially when they have no idea what they are talking about. I realize it is his private twitter, but he is being followed by 150K people because of his job, and his Twitter is plastered with material from the dev studio and their upcoming game, indirectly getting them involved. Because of him, they are now damned if you do, damned if you don't when it comes to firing him. I'm sure there are people who won't by the game now because of what he said, and I'm also positive there will be people who don't buy the game if he gets fired. He has hurt his company either way.

My only response to that is that it was his private twitter account. He wasn't speaking as a representative of the company. Myself, I avoid putting my opinions on places like Twitter and Facebook. Facebook is for family, and Twitter is for people who are not me. You cannot accomplish much on Twitter with the 140 character limit. This brings to mind the whole #CancelColbert thing.

I do agree that he should have kept his mouth shut. And he deserves what he gets. But the overall arching point cannot be denied, clearly in my opinion. A person should be able to say whatever they want behind closed doors. But we all know the Sterling situation did not stem from that, it was by all account the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Lightknight]

Agreed. However, if he really did do things like sexually harass players or practice racial wage discrimination then his being banned from games wouldn't be unlike banning someone from games for getting in a fight or throwing something.

All the links I've seen either have him doing something illegal in industries outside the NBA for which he has already legally settled the issue or show that he is a racist a-hole. Something that I don't think anyone can justifiably argue against.

Ok, so we've agreed that the NBA can ban him because he hurt their image and by extension could hurt their business right?

Sorry if I seem so confused, arguments rarely ever get resolved on this site, and I just feel so lost once it does happen.

Is this real life?

If he did break the law in an NBA related location then probably. But that they're waiting until his racism finally gets attention means that they're doing it because he said what he said and now it's hurting his image. In a court of law they'd use his illegal activities while the truth is what he's said.

 

[PCPLX]

I bet that what this PR guy saw was a lot of people using current events as an excuse to scapegoat some rotten old fool for all racism and classism ever. Sure, the only thing old Americans love more than ignorance is voting, and that sucks and should be resisted so that when the Not-So-Greatest Generation finally dies we can start protecting social progress with policy more easily. However, turning into a hysterical mob to figuratively lynch a person is not an admirable thing under any circumstances.
It's not about the specific issues - just how much of a troll this wretched old guy may be on a personal level simply isn't the point. It's about the fact that, when you get down to the sheer violence of the thing, a liberal mob coming after someone who disagrees with their principles is uncomfortably similar to a conservative mob coming after someone with a different race or religion.
Pointing out that the lynch mob are also the bad guys (albeit for different reasons) does not make someone a defender of bigotry. If you really want to affect political change, go do something productive, instead of taking potshots at the scapegoat-du-jour from behind your friends.
God, it's like none of you people played Bioshock Infinite!

Donald Sterling is a bigot who had a history of racist actions.Just read the links people have posted in this thread and you'll see that this reaction is justified,the people who defend this guy are on the wrong side of the issue unfortunately.

I'd like to see where this "hysterical mob" is because I have'nt seen people rioting or calling for Donald Sterling's head lately.

I'm sure the guy is a terrible, terrible human being, but again (please actually read what I said before jumping to disagree with it) that's not really the point of what I am saying, or, I think, why this Evolve guy had something to say about it. Someone who takes issue with what's going on isn't necessarily defending bigotry, rather resisting public scapegoating, and the distinction is crucial. So why, you might ask, would anyone bother to do that? Because today it's someone who is obviously bad like this NBA character getting hung out to dry, but tomorrow it's someone who just doesn't like your policies. I'm not willing to accept that the way to fight hatred is with more hate. Seriously, go play Bioshock Infinite.

 

[Lightknight]

that would be the case.


if the NBA was a government association instead of a private one.

and no, the freedom of speech does not cover private businesses.

So, really, this is a guy being punished by the group he works with for things they do not tolerate.

The right to speak freely does not apply to private events. That's true. But what that generally means is you don't have a right to practice free speech in private locations. This is one reason why you can be banned from a message board for what you say.

But in general speech is often just the expression of belief and the freedom of belief (aka, the freedom of religion) is a protected status. For example, you can't refuse service to a person because they're Christian. You can refuse service if they walk into your business and start shouting things. From what I understand, this was a privately recorded conversation but clearly I was less informed about the extent of this guy's douchebaggery so maybe he did shout things in an NBA stadium and I just didn't know about it.

He generally says these nutbag things privately from what I've seen. Someone just finally caught him via recordings.

 

[Church185]

My only response to that is that it was his private twitter account. He wasn't speaking as a representative of the company. Myself, I avoid putting my opinions on places like Twitter and Facebook. Facebook is for family, and Twitter is for people who are not me. You cannot accomplish much on Twitter with the 140 character limit. This brings to mind the whole #CancelColbert thing.

I do agree that he should have kept his mouth shut. And he deserves what he gets. But the overall arching point cannot be denied, clearly in my opinion. A person should be able to say whatever they want behind closed doors. But we all know the Sterling situation did not stem from that, it was by all account the straw that broke the camels back.

It was his personal Twitter account [https://twitter.com/JD_2020], that just so happened to proudly claim he was part of Turtle Rock and half the tweets are about Evolve. The point I'm trying to make is don't shit where you eat. I also don't see the connection to #CancelColbert because that was obviously satire. I don't really sympathize with people who don't get the joke, and neither did Comedy Central [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBPgXjkfBXM].

I totally agree you should be able to say whatever you want behind closed doors, but as you've said this was just the straw that broke the camels back. IIRC the reason the tape got leaked in the first place was Sterlings half-black mistress was tired of his shit and recorded him saying racist things. Then that brought to light all of the other stuff the NBA didn't want people to know about him.

It sounds like we essentially agree, so why are we still fighting? And am I still a child?

 

[Callate]

People don't seem to understand that virtually no one is defending Sterling's racism. They're defending his privacy, and as tempting as it might be to intertwine the two, they're separate issues.

Would you feel the same way if Sterling was being fired after being recorded telling his girlfriend he felt the U.S. military should intervene in Russia? Or that the NBA was doing a poor job disciplining players that young people saw as role models? Or that he didn't see someone smoking marijuana as a big deal?

The principle that we should be protected in what we say to a private audience doesn't change based on whether we agree or disagree with what was said. It can't.

If Olin was defending a racist for being racist, he wouldn't call him an "old bigot". He would use one of the dozens of carefully codified terms that people use to pretend such behavior is laudable; he'd say he was speaking off the cuff, he was keeping it real, he was speaking truth to the PC police, whatever.

It is entirely possible to think that Sterling should have been fired for being an abusive racist scumbag and still think that he shouldn't have been fired because an illegally recorded conversation was made public. If you're unwilling to separate the two, you need to seriously ask yourself if you feel comfortable being held to being a public representative of anyone you work for 24-7-365 whether you manage a sports team or pull a night shift at Wal-Mart. Do you do nothing, say nothing, that you wouldn't want someone who could exercise authority over you to know about? Even if it isn't something you're necessarily ashamed of, just something that someone could hold against you in the wrong light? Search your locker at school because you play violent video games? Make you take an extra drug test because you got drunk at a party over a weekend? Date someone of the same sex, or a different race?

Stop thinking about the specific person of the racist manager Sterling, and start thinking of the greater issue, and see if you still find it indefensible. Not even concrete- just defensible. Because if you can't even recognize that there's something there worth discussion outside of racism, well, you aren't even engaging in the same conversation.

 

[Baresark]

My only response to that is that it was his private twitter account. He wasn't speaking as a representative of the company. Myself, I avoid putting my opinions on places like Twitter and Facebook. Facebook is for family, and Twitter is for people who are not me. You cannot accomplish much on Twitter with the 140 character limit. This brings to mind the whole #CancelColbert thing.

I do agree that he should have kept his mouth shut. And he deserves what he gets. But the overall arching point cannot be denied, clearly in my opinion. A person should be able to say whatever they want behind closed doors. But we all know the Sterling situation did not stem from that, it was by all account the straw that broke the camels back.

It was his personal Twitter account [https://twitter.com/JD_2020], that just so happened to proudly claim he was part of Turtle Rock and half the tweets are about Evolve. The point I'm trying to make is don't shit where you eat. I also don't see the connection to #CancelColbert because that was obviously satire. I don't really sympathize with people who don't get the joke, and neither did Comedy Central [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBPgXjkfBXM].

I totally agree you should be able to say whatever you want behind closed doors, but as you've said this was just the straw that broke the camels back. IIRC the reason the tape got leaked in the first place was Sterlings half-black mistress was tired of his shit and recorded him saying racist things. Then that brought to light all of the other stuff the NBA didn't want people to know about him.

It sounds like we essentially agree, so why are we still fighting? And am I still a child?

Eh, the way I see it is that we aren't actually fighting. And we can all be children at times, me included. I said some out of line things because thought policing(or any related matter) is a bit of a hot button topic for me.

#CancelColbert was far less satirical than people like to admit. I don't agree with any of that, but in the end poor Sui Park had folks over at the Huffington Post calling her opinion stupid. I don't think that was right of any "journalist", even if I think her opinion was just that. It's inexcusable for any journalist to do what they did and incredibly irresponsible for them to just throw any semblance of journalistic integrity out the window.

 

[Church185]

#CancelColbert was far less satirical than people like to admit. I don't agree with any of that, but in the end poor Sui Park had folks over at the Huffington Post calling her opinion stupid. I don't think that was right of any "journalist", even if I think her opinion was just that. It's inexcusable for any journalist to do what they did and incredibly irresponsible for them to just throw any semblance of journalistic integrity out the window.

While I think this is really off topic, I meant that the original tweet and the part of the show it was quoted from was satirical. I wholeheartedly believe that part of the #CancelColbert campaign was real, but I think it was propagated by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I don't think that campaign was satirical, at least not all of it.

 

[Callate]

He has a right to say racist things behind closed doors,and anyone has the same right to get tired of his crap and expose the filth being spewed for the public to see.

Well, first off, in this case it isn't even legally necessarily true that they have a "right" to "expose the filth". In California, both parties must consent to have a conversation recorded. The legality of that recording is still very much up in the air, according to the news sources I've been reading.

Secondly, what stands out to me is that several people have pointed to prior instances of Sterling's bad behavior- which the NBA apparently chose either to ignore or to sanction far more leniently. It should have been possible to adequately discipline Sterling long before this, yet for some reason, either the matter was indefinitely deferred or the choice was made not to.

Now he's banned for this. It's like Al Capone being brought up for income tax evasion. It's not the worst offense, it's just the most public one. This isn't something to celebrate- it's proof that "the system" isn't working.

What he said didn't defame the NBA or make his job harder to perform until it was revealed. And prior to that, he clearly held exactly the same opinions, but apparently no one thought it worth broaching.

People can and are fired for doing or saying things that are out of line based on the notion that there's nobody around. Why is Donald Sterling so special?

And there's no line there at all? He wasn't on the court. He wasn't on property owned by or associated with the NBA. He wasn't saying it to a player. He wasn't in a public venue, failing to take into consideration where he was and who might be listening in. He didn't say anything illegal, so there was no reasonable legal expectation of surveillance. Are we to presume that one can no longer scream "I hate you!" into a pillow in our bedrooms at home?

Police and public officials get caught doing something they're not supposed to all the time,because someone is recording their every move, yet I don't see anyone calling them a victim.

Police operate in public, on premises that are purchased and maintained with public, taxpayer funds, and on private property that does not belong to them. They serve a public trust and are given arguably disproportionate powers in doing so, powers that are ripe for abuse and which we do not freely allow to those who aren't members of law enforcement. Though public officials don't carry guns, they're otherwise similar- they wield powers in the public name, at the public's expense, at the public's behest.

If either of those groups fails in their duties to the degree of having their powers and/or employment revoked, it's usually because they have committed a crime while in the performance of those duties.

Sterling does not in any way compare.

To be clear, once the recording was made public, I don't know that the NBA could have avoided acting upon that revelation; at best, it seemed likely to significantly interfere with his job. But again, I'm quite disturbed that a possibly illegal recording was the impetus for the ban, rather than any of his other history. It seems likely the NBA's reaction is one of embarrassment more than righteousness.

Save your defense for someone who deserves it instead of a racist who got exposed.
This is not a issue of privacy and it never was.

If the principle of expectation of privacy on private property is so easily cast aside, it isn't going to be there when someone is punished for expressing a controversial opinion I do agree with.

I understand the righteous anger you feel at Sterling's racism, but it does not prove your point. No amount of outrage will.

 

[Vegosiux]

Oh sure, he's a victim, I agree. A victim of his own self-absorbed and bigoted ways.

 

[Baresark]

#CancelColbert was far less satirical than people like to admit. I don't agree with any of that, but in the end poor Sui Park had folks over at the Huffington Post calling her opinion stupid. I don't think that was right of any "journalist", even if I think her opinion was just that. It's inexcusable for any journalist to do what they did and incredibly irresponsible for them to just throw any semblance of journalistic integrity out the window.

While I think this is really off topic, I meant that the original tweet and the part of the show it was quoted from was satirical. I wholeheartedly believe that part of the #CancelColbert campaign was real, but I think it was propagated by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I don't think that campaign was satirical, at least not all of it.

It is off topic, and I take full responsibility for that. But I misunderstood. People were defending her stance saying it was satirical and not meant to actually see an end to the Colbert Report. But we are in agreement on that. The comment was satirical and taken out of context, and Sui Park just wouldn't admit it.

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

And going off that, this is exactly the case with Paula Dean. Shit man, I was upset when she called her black employee's "niggers" (being black myself) but I also found out that she did a whole fuck ton worse than that.

For starters she actually segregated the entrances black and white people can enter through. (Majorly illegal)

And I think at one point she wanted a "plantation style" celebration of some sort.

Yet here saying ****** was apparently the highest offense.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Dear Mr. Olin:

You are correct, sir, in that Mr. Sterling has the constitutional right to air his views, as do you. The government cannot take that right away. However, the NBA (a private enterprise to which Mr. Sterling belongs) also has the right to decide that his views may harm their objectives, and take actions against him; also, I, a private individual, have the right to decide that your views mark you as a mental reprobate, a clueless idiot, and an ignoramus, and to hope that Turtle Rock (a private enterprise to which you belong) find your views may harm their objectives and take actions against you.

Freedom is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

 

[Callate]

Like I said people are punished all the time in a workplace if they do something they're not supposed. That's why some businesses have hidden recorders and cameras just to make sure the employees don't do anything bad.

I'm not entirely thrilled with that, either; places that put their employees under that kind of scrutiny are frequently looking for excuses to fire them at their convenience that actually have nothing to do with the "infractions" for which they are officially cited. But that's in the workplace; the employees are aware that they're being observed and that such observation is a condition of employment. Indeed, there have been multiple cases in which employees sued their employer when they were under surveillance in a place they had an expectation of privacy (locker rooms, bath rooms) without their informed consent.

By all accounts, Sterling wasn't in his workplace.

What Donald Sterling said in his home does'nt matter since he was already reported to do some very racist things in the public sector in regards to giving someone a unfair wage and such.

And as I've said, if he was fired at that time, over those things, I wouldn't be uttering a peep. I'm not sorry to see him gone, just how it came about.

Meaning his privacy does'nt factor into it since his mistress who is half black decided to catch him saying some very racist things and leaked it to the press,none of it is illegal at all.

If she had just said what he had told her in private, that would certainly be her right. It would also be hearsay- and probably wouldn't have led to action, any more than Sterling's history of housing discrimination or allegedly bringing women into players' shower room.

This story is about a NBA team manager who got fired for being a racist so why are people turning it into a privacy issue? Are we going to do this everytime somebody does or said something bad and is recorded?

If it comes out down the line that he was aware he was being recorded and consented to it, I'll happily release my qualms, content that he was five kinds of idiot as well as being a racist.

Until then, if you are in an open, public space, it is reasonable to assume you are being recorded; if you are being interviewed on a news program, it is reasonable to assume you are being recorded; if you are on the sidelines of a nationally broadcast sports event, it is reasonable to assume you are being recorded; if you are in a store that has a sign that notifies you you are being recorded, it is reasonable to assume you are being recorded; if you are giving a speech to an audience, it is reasonable to assume you are being recorded, and so on.

If you are in the privacy of your own home, it is reasonable to assume you are not being recorded. Law enforcement requires a warrant to record you on private property. What someone says to someone else on private property is not "every time somebody says or does something bad"; it isn't even close.

How do I put this? Two wrongs don't make a right. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you let this genie out of the bottle, you're going to have a hard time getting him back in there. The father of the French Revolution died by the same guillotine to which he had sent those he opposed.

I am not content to believe that the route by which Sterling, however deservingly, came to be sanctioned will not be used against people who do not deserve it. Full stop.