Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[DrOswald]

You know something is wrong when people are actually defending a bigot's right to spew his/her hate without consequence.There's something very wrong with that.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

And before 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence', I should like to point out that a mob is a mob is a mob. It isn't rational, it isn't discriminating, it just stomps flat everything in it's path.

Wasn't so long ago that a lot of people lost jobs (and liberty) over answering questions like "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" or "Have you ever engaged in homosexual or bisexual acts?" the 'wrong' way; different mob, different agenda, same torches and pitchforks.

Are you prepared to make a similar statement if the tides of public opinion change (because they always do) and you're the one on the block?

First off that scenario is apples and oranges.Second there's a clear difference in HATE speech or spreading hatred and someone getting fired because of sexual orientation or political views,hell the latter is dicrimination in of itself.

Third I don't have to worry about any of that because it's a imagined scenario that has the same chance of happening as World War 3.Can we please stop trying to make up shit just to defend the privacy of one bigot who got exposed for what he really is?

You are seriously claiming that human kind has progressed so far in two generations that there is no practical chance of a McCarthy like situation ever happening again? Also, there is no practical chance of there ever being a World War 3? Wow, that might be the most naive thing I have ever read. I wonder what it is like to be you.

 

[Callate]

I don't see any sign that those who disagree are likely to warm to considering hypotheticals or considering the ramifications outside of this particular incident and the emotionally inflammatory context within which it occurred, but let me try this one more time, if someone will consider.

If an incident like this had happened sixty years ago, what Sterling said probably wouldn't have caused anyone to bat an eye. There were plenty of states pursuing segregationist policies, and plenty of politicians who proudly advocated them, and even any number of people who considered themselves more enlightened who would still gotten very uncomfortable at the idea of an African American family moving into their neighborhood. "Of course he doesn't want his girlfriend hanging around with negroes. Who would?" would have been the reaction from many.

...But that Sterling, a white guy, was in a relationship with a woman of mixed race might have caused exactly the same reaction on its revelation as what he said did today. "We can't be associated with that. What would it do to ticket sales? How will we be received in states with anti-miscegnation laws?"

When you say you're okay with breaking standards of privacy because the person being punished for the revelation of things that were intended to be private was a jerk, which is exactly what many people seem to be saying, you are explicitly endorsing the same means being used to punish people later who expressed things in private that fall out of grace, whether you agree that their actions or words warrant punishment or not.

Basically, you are presuming that you and yours will always be on the right side of whoever's holding the stick. History suggests to me that such an attitude is unwise.

If you can't see how such a thing might apply outside of Sterling's case, well, I've tried.

As I've said, given the publicity of the revelations, I don't know that the NBA could or should have done otherwise. That doesn't mean I'm required to cheer that publicity over trivialities, revealed through malfeasance, did what reaction to far more serious misdeeds could not. Believing that the ends always justify the means is all but guaranteed to eventually bite you in the ass.

 

[Ipsen]

Lol, he is absolutely right. The guy is a bigot and a dick. But he has the right to say what he wants in the confines of his own home and not face public consequences. You aren't going to change his opinions on certain races by banning Sterling from the NBA, and it's not going to make Josh Olin any less right to punish Turtle Rock. The right thing to do would be to let this slide by unnoticed, but the media has already got their dirty little hands on it. It's race, so it's a click through.

Also, anyone who thinks this is gonna stop anyone from buying Evolve... well you're a fooling yourselves. The fact that you would punish and entire game development team for the opinion of one man makes you little more than a child participating in kindergarten politics. In all honestly, the entire gaming community would be better off without you.

But Baresark! You're not going to change his opinion by keeping him in that position either!

...Okay, I can't land that point seriously at all.

I just want to note the tangential point that, as citizens, we were so quick to cut off the head of this organization while making no effort to change his views. But the fact that we feel we HAVE to kick this guy out so quickly highlights the amount of power we KNOW Sterling held. So it may be faulty, but I end up buying the notion that you CAN'T change this guy's views while he sits on the throne of 'Owner of a multi-million dallar professional basketball team'. Not because of the bigot themselves necessarily, but perhaps because of US, the people who DO find his words (and actions!!) abhorent, find ourselves incapable of teaching efficiently. So, at the least, his power is stripped, his ass curbed.

Pariah tendencies have gained significant momentum since the Sterling case, evidenced by Olin getting fired. While I don't think Sterling was in a teachable position, Olin might have been. For that matter, Olin also did not commit biggoted acts like Sterling did (as far as our knowledge!).

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.

I'll state that I'm trying to understand this situation from different angles, and I do think there's an issue if the recordings were obtained illegaly; I think that does prompt a loosely related but very affecting issue of privacy.

However...I still find myself unwilling to separate the issues. Which ultimately means I find the racist remarks ARE the greater issue, overshadowing the privacy issue.

Maybe because I wouldn't have the power to incite this move on my own, or even by the power of many people, I've come to think recently; without the NBA's own swift application of weight in admonishing this incident, I don't think much would have happened at all, let alone Sterling learning better social skills from the incident.

Or maybe I'm just happy to see the irresponsible powerful taken out of their seat, even at the expense of forefronting a privacy issue, legal matters be damned here. In the big picture, citizens handled a certain situation involving their culture, which turned out badly for one powerful individual (Queue victory fanfare for the people! Right?). While there's still another issue looming overhead (privacy), perhaps it's a bit much to juggle two large cultural issues effectively between nearly all people at once (in all honesty, what do I know? I'm just one person). At least there's awareness of that overshadowed issue, and there are those willing to question it's progress.

 

[TaboriHK]

Freedom of speech ceases to exist when you can't have it and keep a job at the same time.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the slightest idea what the word exploit actually means.

Slavery was exploitation. Owning a basketball team and paying the players millions upon millions of dollars isn't exploitation.

Wal-Mart telling their workers to go on food stamps as a "good way" to supplement their income is exploitation.

Hell, the NCAA, and the colleges that reap whirlwind profits off the likeness and talent of student athletes is exploitation.

But no, what you presume to be exploitation, couldn't be further from it.

Look up the definition of exploitation. I used it correctly.

So you're telling me people don't put up with something simply because they are getting money out of it? That people are willing to let something go on for as long as it's worth it to them?

And again, congratulations on dis tilling what I said into something I didn't say. I never claimed his mistress wasn't outraged with it to begin with, or blatantly ignoring the fact I myself had said he was a bigoted racist simply because it removes what little point you are trying to make with my post here. It started with your lazy, outright idiotic comparison, and led to you ignoring what I'm saying in favor of waving about the "dismissive racist" flag you so love to grip.

And no. She didn't reveal it to the people he talks about. She gave it to mass media to make news of it. And, as an aside, if someone does something out of spite, then typically that means they were affected or were the victim of something for them to respond against. She can be outraged. Yet for as long as he has been doing this around her, then pray tell why wait til now?


And please, do try to actually respond to a point.

You haven't made a point worth responding to. If I can boil down your remarks into "racism isn't as bad as pedophilia" and "she only wants money," then you might want to stop and listen to yourself, because you're not saying what you think you're saying.

And that mentality is why Sterling got in trouble.

 

[chikusho]

I take responsibility for it because I know that complacent attitudes will only allow this trend to spread. I take responsibility because I helped build the society in which violations of privacy are not only possible but often praised. I don't want violations of privacy to become the norm, so I take responsibility and do what I can about it. I can't do much, but I can try to counter the enthusiasm with which our ideals are cast aside.

How is "ignoring information" in any way "[taking] responsibility"?
Also, what trend are you talking about? Demanding that a proved bigot is made accountable for his bigotry? That's a trend I would very much like to continue, thank you.

And you threw away your ideals as soon as you were ok with what happened. You may not have done anything yourself, but you never said anything against it. You even defend it. You think your hands are clean because someone else got them dirty for you. But I am not worried about who's hands are clean, I worry about the direction our society is moving.

I also think this scandal is awful for a completely different reason, which is that this takes the spotlight away from the real, day to day racism in society. This guy is basically an old timey cartoon that gets all kinds of media attention, which leads to people becoming misinformed on what racism is really about.

Sure, and that is just fine. Go ahead and condemn and stay away from awful people. But the way we found out (or rather, how it became a big deal. Everyone apparently already knew it.) was a terrible, scuzzy, disgusting way. I am not ok with that.

Which is your right. However, it's still completely irrelevant.

The people who violated the ideal of privacy and the people who praise that action.

So the word you are looking for is "person".

 

[Kataskopo]

All right people, for all of you who can't understand the issue:

It's different in each state and in each country, but legally your employer can fire you because:

You fart too much.
You go naked to the office.
You say "lel my boss is a fagget" on Twitface.
You, in a public facing position, say "lel my boss is a fagget".
You go to a racist parade wearing your company logo and get noticed.

Do you guys now understand? From Eich to Sterling to this Twitter guy, you get fired when you do stupid shit in a work environment, or when you are in any way, shape or form join your actions with the company.

 

[Kataskopo]

Sterling, asshole that he is, was recorded without his permission in a place he had every reason to believe he would not be. His privacy was violated just as much as a woman who was recorded naked with a hidden camera.

And? The cat is out of the bag. Or are you saying that if you somehow discover that your girlfriend is cheating on you, you wouldn't take action because "oh noes privacy I should respect her."

Yes, it's bad that his privacy was breached, but what we discovered was a festering and putrid swamp, and the NBA took their right to association to remove themselves from him.

 

[DrOswald]

I take responsibility for it because I know that complacent attitudes will only allow this trend to spread. I take responsibility because I helped build the society in which violations of privacy are not only possible but often praised. I don't want violations of privacy to become the norm, so I take responsibility and do what I can about it. I can't do much, but I can try to counter the enthusiasm with which our ideals are cast aside.

How is "ignoring information" in any way "[taking] responsibility"?

I really can't even begin to understand what you are talking about here. When did I ever say we should ignore information?

Also, what trend are you talking about? Demanding that a proved bigot is made accountable for his bigotry? That's a trend I would very much like to continue, thank you.

The trend of our society abandoning the ideal of privacy. Did you even read my posts? Here, let me quote myself: "I don't want violations of privacy to become the norm". There were only 4 sentences in that section. I mention privacy violations twice in those 4 sentences. If we are going to have this discussion, I would appreciate it if you actually read what I was saying. I am not sure why you bother to respond if you don't.

And you threw away your ideals as soon as you were ok with what happened. You may not have done anything yourself, but you never said anything against it. You even defend it. You think your hands are clean because someone else got them dirty for you. But I am not worried about who's hands are clean, I worry about the direction our society is moving.

I also think this scandal is awful for a completely different reason, which is that this takes the spotlight away from the real, day to day racism in society. This guy is basically an old timey cartoon that gets all kinds of media attention, which leads to people becoming misinformed on what racism is really about.

Interesting. Not closely related to what we are talking about, but worth thinking about.

Sure, and that is just fine. Go ahead and condemn and stay away from awful people. But the way we found out (or rather, how it became a big deal. Everyone apparently already knew it.) was a terrible, scuzzy, disgusting way. I am not ok with that.

Which is your right. However, it's still completely irrelevant.

No, it isn't. This entire article is about privacy issues. The tweet was about privacy issues. The discussion in this thread is about privacy issues. Everything I have said to you has been about privacy issues. I really don't think it could be more relevant.

The people who violated the ideal of privacy and the people who praise that action.

So the word you are looking for is "person".

How many people in this thread alone have defended the violation of privacy? How many people in the media are praising the way this man has been outed? People is the word.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, it's bad that his privacy was breached, but what we discovered was a festering and putrid swamp, and the NBA took their right to association to remove themselves from him.

What do you mean "discovered"? From what I hear and read, all that was widely known before this incident. The only thing that baffles me is why nobody took action before this particular incident.

 

[Church185]

You're the problem bud, not the solution.

I do agree with the broader sentiment that his speech should be free, but not free from the consequences it brings. I would however expect that those with adequate brainpower use it critically instead of bleating along with the rest of the sheep.

You bang on about supporting his freedoms, but condemn my freedom to give my money to whoever I want for whatever reason I want. The hypocrisy is delicious.

 

[DrOswald]

Sterling, asshole that he is, was recorded without his permission in a place he had every reason to believe he would not be. His privacy was violated just as much as a woman who was recorded naked with a hidden camera.

And? The cat is out of the bag. Or are you saying that if you somehow discover that your girlfriend is cheating on you, you wouldn't take action because "oh noes privacy I should respect her."

Yes, it's bad that his privacy was breached, but what we discovered was a festering and putrid swamp, and the NBA took their right to association to remove themselves from him.

Let me quote the second half of my post that you cut off as a response:

"I am glad Sterling is getting his comeuppance, but from everything I have read this should have happened long ago and there should have been no need for his privacy to be violated. In a society steadily moving towards constant recorded surveillance this incident is extremely alarming. And the fact that so many are fine with the way this went down is deeply disturbing."

I don't expect them to ignore this information. I don't know where you are getting that idea. I never said anything even remotely near that idea. But just because Sterling is an ass does not mean it retroactively makes violating his privacy ok.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

You know something is wrong when people are actually defending a bigot's right to spew his/her hate without consequence.There's something very wrong with that.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

And before 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence', I should like to point out that a mob is a mob is a mob. It isn't rational, it isn't discriminating, it just stomps flat everything in it's path.

Wasn't so long ago that a lot of people lost jobs (and liberty) over answering questions like "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" or "Have you ever engaged in homosexual or bisexual acts?" the 'wrong' way; different mob, different agenda, same torches and pitchforks.

Are you prepared to make a similar statement if the tides of public opinion change (because they always do) and you're the one on the block?

First off that scenario is apples and oranges.Second there's a clear difference in HATE speech or spreading hatred and someone getting fired because of sexual orientation or political views,hell the latter is dicrimination in of itself.

Third I don't have to worry about any of that because it's a imagined scenario that has the same chance of happening as World War 3.Can we please stop trying to make up shit just to defend the privacy of one bigot who got exposed for what he really is?

Umm, the Westboro Baptist Church practices "hate speech" Donald Sterling was privately expressing his views. That on it's face is not hate speech, it's having a fucking opinion (pardon my French)

And you think just because something isn't likely to happen, that it isn't worth discussing? You are aware that rhetorical arguments, and thought experiments are core tenants of philosophical thought right?

Also, as a personal aside, presuming something is about as likely to happen as "World War III" (in the current geopolitical climate) is about as boneheaded a thing to say as can be imagined. I might be inclined to agree with you if the world was enjoying a period of relative calm and prosperity, but in fact the world is probably as sectarian and hostile as it's ever been in the modern period.

So, I wouldn't stake any claims based upon the sentiment that something like that might happen, because it just makes for an easily dismissed opinion coming from you.

WW3 won't happen for the sole reason that all the world powers aren't willing to nuke each other to hell.So no it's not boneheaded to suggest what you proposed has the same possiblity of happening as that.

Also a racist saying racist things is classified as hate speech under the law,it's only a problem if they do anything but speak.Donald Sterling evicted tenants based on their skin color,paid a employee a unfair wage while giving a huge bonus to another who was white.

Like I said before....somethign is wrong with the world when people start defending bigots,back during the Civil Rights Era this type of shit would'nt be tolerated.

Please, oh please, show me this "hate speech" law you speak of.

Oh right, you have no idea what you're talking about...

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

You know something is wrong when people are actually defending a bigot's right to spew his/her hate without consequence.There's something very wrong with that.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

And before 'freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence', I should like to point out that a mob is a mob is a mob. It isn't rational, it isn't discriminating, it just stomps flat everything in it's path.

Wasn't so long ago that a lot of people lost jobs (and liberty) over answering questions like "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?" or "Have you ever engaged in homosexual or bisexual acts?" the 'wrong' way; different mob, different agenda, same torches and pitchforks.

Are you prepared to make a similar statement if the tides of public opinion change (because they always do) and you're the one on the block?

First off that scenario is apples and oranges.Second there's a clear difference in HATE speech or spreading hatred and someone getting fired because of sexual orientation or political views,hell the latter is dicrimination in of itself.

Third I don't have to worry about any of that because it's a imagined scenario that has the same chance of happening as World War 3.Can we please stop trying to make up shit just to defend the privacy of one bigot who got exposed for what he really is?

You are seriously claiming that human kind has progressed so far in two generations that there is no practical chance of a McCarthy like situation ever happening again? Also, there is no practical chance of there ever being a World War 3? Wow, that might be the most naive thing I have ever read. I wonder what it is like to be you.

Naive?It's called living in the real world.The day people start getting lynched for their opinions is the day the world starts going to hell.

Haha, Iran just a few years ago hung a few gay dudes from a crane for their "opinions"

The world has already gone to hell. You've got my antenna up sir. I don't buy that you actually believe anything you say.

The United States, and to a broader degree, western culture, Anglo Saxon people, are a small part of the overall world. We have come within minutes of nuking one another on numerous occasions under much more peaceful pretenses. Also, WWIII doesn't necessarily = thermonuclear war. The nukes only come out when a nation that has them is on the verge of complete obliteration. If Ukraine kicks off a regional conflict, even if the big super powers get involved, it's going to be a mostly conventional arms war. No bio, no chemical, no nukes. Until there is no perceived choice.