Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Vegosiux]

There will come a day again, when being openly Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transexual will get you fired for a job simply be being that way.

Because we assume it will impact sales.

There will be a day, when being religious, for any reason, and open about it by say wearing a symbol, will get you fired simply for being that way.

Because we assume it will impact sales.

There will come a day, when being black, in a primarily white community, white, in a primarily black community, asian, in a primarily white, or black community, will get you fired simply for being such.

Because we will assume it will impact sales.

And the law will side with the employers who fire these people, just as apparently the law sides with actions like these.

Not because any of these things are right, but because invoking the hatred of a large enough group, or groups, has, in this country, become a terminable offense.

And the worst part is, that the people who want equality, don't even realize that by perpetuating these things that do occur, we are never going to achieve equality. As we have decided that the best type of people to punish, are the people we disagree with the most in having the ability to keep a job for their specific opinions at that specific time.

The government can not get you fired from your job for the views you hold, however, apparently angry US citizens can. What is the Government if not anything other then "We the people"

The Government has gotten men and women fired for their views and choices. However too ignorant, and arrogant are we in our own pride, not to realize that this is not the way that we should punish people, and most certainly, not how we should continue to build upon America going forward.

Funny thing is that people have been fired for simply being gay or having a different religion,people have being fired for being a different skin color.

That has happened now and in the past.

I think the point there was, that the society constantly shifts. One day, someone else will be on top, and feel justified in "taking action" against people for their own reasons, by any means necessary. Maybe we'll be on the receiving end of those "actions" then.

Unless we quit spending so much time on telling ourselves why other people are dicks and why they deserve to get whacked and instead, I don't know, just go out there and try to make the world a better place to live in for everyone.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This level of hyper-sensitivity is getting a bit frightening.

I can agree with Sterling being banned, but the act of firing someone who said something marginally favorable about the guy who said bad is simply wrong.
Before someone starts whining, no it's not illegal. Not a 1st amendment violation. It's simply wrong and a detriment to society.

When a company feels the need to fire an individual because an innocuous thing they said could piss people off, it's a bad thing.
Simply put, it's intellectual stagnation. When only one side is allowed to express anything, ideas become less and less interesting and discussion becomes more and more of just useless circlejerking.

If someone isn't contributing anything and is just ranting as Sterling did, then firing them could be justified. But preventing a more than one sided discussion of the subject is a dangerous path to follow.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canadahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

You were saying something?

Is Donald Sterling a Canadian? Is he subject to Canadian law? Are we talking about Canada right now?

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

This level of hyper-sensitivity is getting a bit frightening.

I can agree with Sterling being banned, but the act of firing someone who said something marginally favorable about the guy who said bad is simply wrong.
Before someone starts whining, no it's not illegal. Not a 1st amendment violation. It's simply wrong and a detriment to society.

When a company feels the need to fire an individual because an innocuous thing they said could piss people off, it's a bad thing.
Simply put, it's intellectual stagnation. When only one side is allowed to express anything, ideas become less and less interesting and discussion becomes more and more of just useless circlejerking.

If someone isn't contributing anything and is just ranting as Sterling did, then firing them could be justified. But preventing a more than one sided discussion of the subject is a dangerous path to follow.

Hell he didn't even say something marginally favorable about him. He was slamming the 24/7 news services.

His crime was not foaming at the mouth while brandishing his pitchfork.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

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.

Actually I'm banging on about people blindly judging a situation based on what the herd thinks. You don't even understand why you are "using your freedom to give your money to whom ever you want for whatever reason you want"

You said "One less game I have to buy" because a person said something that confused you. You are "exercising your freedoms" based on your skewed perspective. THAT is what I'm banging on about.

like I said. He didn't support Sterling, he slammed the media. PERIOD. But you go on ahead and keep on demonstrating brother, I'm sure it'll do you a whole lot of good.

 

[wulf3n]

If there's one thing this issue has brought to light, it's how much I hate the phrase "freedom of Speech != Freedom from consequence".

If you truly believe that you're a horrible person.

Firstly in the First Amendment sense, "Freedom of Speech" is a protection against consequence, that's the whole point. Sure it's only from the Government, but it's protection from consequence none the less.

Secondly if a person was beaten to death for saying they support homosexual rights, you can bet your arse no one would be saying "oh they deserved it, Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence"

OT: Turtle Rock should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

This level of hyper-sensitivity is getting a bit frightening.

I can agree with Sterling being banned, but the act of firing someone who said something marginally favorable about the guy who said bad is simply wrong.
Before someone starts whining, no it's not illegal. Not a 1st amendment violation. It's simply wrong and a detriment to society.

When a company feels the need to fire an individual because an innocuous thing they said could piss people off, it's a bad thing.
Simply put, it's intellectual stagnation. When only one side is allowed to express anything, ideas become less and less interesting and discussion becomes more and more of just useless circlejerking.

If someone isn't contributing anything and is just ranting as Sterling did, then firing them could be justified. But preventing a more than one sided discussion of the subject is a dangerous path to follow.

Hell he didn't even say something marginally favorable about him. He was slamming the 24/7 news services.

His crime was not foaming at the mouth while brandishing his pitchfork.

He was fired for saying something that could damage his company's reputation.Let's not change the facts here.

Yeah, damage his company's reputation because people (like you) can't separate and hold two different concepts at the same time. It's because your critical thinking ability is not developed yet or is underdeveloped. The company punishing him for his tweet is a direct critique of YOU Hidden Eagle. The company is saying "Some people are not smart enough to understand what he just said, so we have to punish him, so we ourselves will not be punished."

To that I say, shame on you man. Learn to read between the lines so the rest of society doesn't have to suffer for their own elevated thought...

People like me?Nice Ad Hominem by the way,you think I give a shit what some random person on the internet thinks about me?

Maybe you should grow up some more instead of insulting people,yeah?

You think my opinion of you is meant to insult? It's simply my opinion. There again lies the problem with ALL OF THIS. It's the way I feel. It is YOU that feels insulted. It is YOU that cannot moderate your own beliefs in the vicinity of dissenting claims.

This is your cross to bear my friend.

And you do care, lets be honest. If you didn't, you wouldn't be trying so hard.

 

[mysecondlife]

Victim? Maybe.

But he's going to walk out rich, furthering his billionaire status. and I never come in defense of people who make more money than me.

So I don't care.

 

[wulf3n]

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.

There's something very wrong that you're not.

No one is defending a bigots right to spew hate without consequence. What they're defending is a persons right to speak their beliefs, without fear of persecution. It just so happens that in this case the person who was originally being defended is a bigot.

What's truly worrying here is how people don't see the parallels between their actions and those they're condemning. What people are essentially saying, "people can say what they want, as long as I agree with it".

 

[Aardvaarkman]

This whole thread is not about Sterling, it's about Olin's defending Sterling's right to privacy. Not his first amendment right, not his right to his beliefs. He was defending his right to privacy.

The same thing he is now the victim of.

How so?

Twitter is very much a public place, and is not private at all. The whole idea is that it is a platform for publicly broadcasting your thoughts. So, how exactly is Olin a victim of invasion of privacy?

 

[wulf3n]

Why is believing that someone who vocally expresses their hatred should experience some consequences so horrible, especially when those consequences come in the form of other people expressing their freedom of speech and freedom of association?

Because that same hateful BS has been used to punish innocent people throughout history, simply because they believed something that others disagreed with.

Am I a horrible person for criticizing someone and refusing to associate with them just because the person loses something from my actions (besides my wonderful association, of course)?

No, you'd be a horrible person if you in someway contributed to the "punishment" of said person. i.e. having them fired.

Criticising and arguing is good, that's what should be done. It's the whole person being fired thing that's wrong.

Highly specific consequences that were limited to the federal government and eventually applied to state and local governments.

It's still a freedom from consequence.

And if a person was beaten to death for saying they don't support homosexual rights, you can bet your ass no one would be saying "oh they deserved it, Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence," partly because of the whole illegal thing and mostly because that's a disproportionate response to it. Having to sell your team for hundreds of millions of dollars though, not so disproportionate.

Exaggerated as it may be, if you support "Freedom of speech != Freedom of Consequence" that's essentially what your're condoning.

Freedom of speech should be freedom of consequence, as no one should be punished for the beliefs, however wrong they may seem. That's not to say you can't argue with them, and try and change their mind, but if you feel they need to be punished simply because of something they believe you're probably not much better than they are.

Yeah, how dare they fire an idiot who poked the controversy bear.

How dare they fire someone who was advocating freedom.

Despite what most here believe, Freedom applies to all, even bigots. Lest one be a bigot themselves

How dare they value things like their image, and their game, and their profits over someone who's stupid enough to call the bigot of the week a victim.

If they care about their image they've gone about protecting it the wrong way. They've gone from having little to no negative feedback [regarding Olin's original tweet] to having a not insignificant backlash [following his dissmissal]

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Freedom of speech should be freedom of consequence, as no one should be punished for the beliefs, however wrong they may seem.

Why?

If you flip this argument, the lack of consequence also means that nobody should be rewarded for their speech - i.e: nobody should be promoted for eloquently expressing a company's values, leading to positive PR, or that no politician should ever be elected based on what they say.

And nobody is advocating that "consequences" include illegal actions such as assault or murder. (Except for "the hidden eagle" early in the thread who advocated the assault of bigots, but s/he seems something of an outlier or extremist on this matter.)

I'm also not sure why you have changed the debate to "being punished for their beliefs" - because that has nothing to do with the case at hand. He can believe what he wants all he likes - this problem has stemmed from his actions. For example, say you have a job as the PR agent for an organic food company. You can believe all you want that organic food is a complete scam. But if you say that organic food is scam when your job is to promote organic food, you'd better believe you'll be fired, with good cause.

How dare they fire someone who was advocating freedom.

They fired somebody for representing the company inappropriately. The guy was in a PR position. He's effectively speaking for the company. Why should the company continue to employ somebody who does such things? It has nothing to do with "freedom."

Despite what most here believe, Freedom applies to all, even bigots. Lest one be a bigot themselves.

So, you oppose the freedom of a private organisation to make their own decisions?

Nobody's freedom of speech has been violated here. He is perfectly free to speak, and the NBA is perfectly free to disown and disassociate with him.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I'm not a extremist,I simply believe there should be consequences for what people say.If bigots say things that are hateful then it's not my problem is someone takes it upon themselves to teach them a lesson.

But you said that people should be beaten up for it. In other words, assaulted. That is not only illegal, but morally wrong.

That is the kid of thinking that led to lynch mobs against black people and gays. It's inexcusable. Violence is not the solution. That makes the response even worse than the bigot, assuming the bigot was only uttering hateful speech, and not going around assaulting people.

If you think that the appropriate response to somebody speaking is violent assault, then yes, you are an extremist. At least in countries that are supposed to support human rights, and don't mete out justice based on vigilantism.

How about if a preacher in a small rural community publicly outed someone as a "heathen homosexual" - and then that person got "taught a lesson" by the townspeople? Would that be OK with you?

The only lesson this would teach is that violence is good, and everyone would suffer as a consequence.