4 ms·

I suspect you'd agree that people are allowed to choose which companies they support (for whatever reason) and companies are allowed to fire people that cost th

I suspect you'd agree that people are allowed to choose which companies they support (for whatever reason) and companies are allowed to fire people that cost them money. If you believe those two then this is an obvious outcome.

plugger 5y ago
Agreed. Much like the conversation about Google censoring at the behest of the Russian government yesterday it all boils down to the money. Don't mess with the revenue stream. If you do, be prepared to be let go. It's that simple. It's nothing to do with freedom, free speech, etc. It's always about the money.
javajosh 5y ago
Perhaps it would hurt sales, like Orson Scott Card's anti-gay-marriage stance hurt Shadow Complex sales. But even so, I think it's possible to chew gum and walk at the same time, and I can enjoy Ender's Game while thinking Card is a backwards fool. Or enjoy Lethal Weapon while thinking Mel Gibson is a bigoted fool. Or admire George Washington, even though he owned slaves. We can't keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Even racists, misogynists and bigots have valuable things to contribute to society. Heck, approx 99% of humans living are bigoted and have "wrong views"; if you take human history, it's 100%. The people who are against gay marriage, and abortion, aren't taking those positions to be horrible people. They have heartfelt, if ignorant, reasons for it. I don't think we're doing anyone any good by taking people's livelihood away for sharing their personal political or religious beliefs. Probably gonna get downvoted. But that's okay. It's not my livelihood.
- plugger 5y ago
  > We can't keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater! "We" didn't do anything. The corporate board (I assume) made this decision, not us. The guy isn't facing charges, he's just been let go by a private LLC for saying something publicly that was perceived as reflecting negatively on the business. Like I said below, in effect corporate America has decided that taking left-leaning stances in the political arena is where their best chances of being and remaining profitable are. Sure, there are exceptions. I don't expect the NRA to become 'woke' as many conservatives would describe it. But a gaming studio? Their largely youth demographic would most likely be divided by this. That's bad business and it's unsurprising that he was terminated. About the only thing I find shocking regarding this whole situation is that this idiot posted his views in a public forum knowing full well his voice would be tied to the company he was working for given he was CEO. Have bad takes, fine. But when you start putting pen to paper in a public forum you need to understand that your words could be used against you. Public relations 101, it's as simple as that.
  - pbourke 5y ago
    Exactly this. Social media allows you to step in a pile of shit at the speed of light. If you are a public figure who is tied, by reputation, to a “brand” then you need to be aware of the circle of acceptable discourse for that brand and its audience. If you step outside the circle then the brand will quickly disconnect from you. Is it a pleasant way to live? No. Is it solely the fault of “the left”? No, it’s the way of everything now.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    See my response to the sibling comment to yours. It applies equally.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  No one lives long enough to read every book. And buying other authors' books does them some good.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  >Even racists, misogynists and bigots have valuable things to contribute to society. So do non racists, non misogynists and non bigots. Since I can only consume so much content I may as well spend my finite money to people I don't dislike. The impact on me of reading one versus the other is pretty minimal.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    It now dawns on me that you feel empowered to apply a purity test because of the apparently inexhaustible supply of candidates. Rationally, there are problems with this. First, talented people are rarer than you think. Moreover, the very nature of their talent is the kind of thing that tends to fail purity tests. Second, if your purity test is strict, then no-one can pass it. Are you a bigot? What about your hair-dresser, they are a known bigot, and yet you still go there? You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? If you weaken your purity test, to accomodate messy, practical reality, then what does that say about your motivation? Ethically, there's a big problem with this. People are valuable in-and-of themselves. Discarding people so easily is to devalue human life, and all the complexity that entails. If you yourself ever failed your own purity test, now or in the past, then why haven't you discarded yourself? If you haven't done that, then how committed are you to your brand of purity? Ethnographically, there's a problem with this. Most of the people in the world are deeply bigoted. Tribalism runs deep in our DNA. African tribes still hate each other, Asians famously dislike each other (and being mistaken for the hated group), and so on. Most of humanity, those groups you're trying to be more inclusive of, are excluded by your test. It is ironic in the extreme that humanism has become so intolerant of humanity.
    - marcinzm 5y ago
      That's basically saying "we shouldn't push society to change or improve because change means people are excluded." Which is a dead end approach to society. Culture and society shifts with time and it has since long before humans evolved. Change is messy but the alternative is perpetual status quo. Some people get excluded but right now people are excluded as well. >You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? You are now applying this retroactively which is not the discussion at hand. Please don't put together straw man arguments. edit: You're arguing absolutes when change is a gradual imperfect uneven messy process. It has always been and will always be. There are no absolutes because humanity is not a hive mind.

plugger 5y ago

Agreed. Much like the conversation about Google censoring at the behest of the Russian government yesterday it all boils down to the money. Don't mess with the revenue stream. If you do, be prepared to be let go. It's that simple. It's nothing to do with freedom, free speech, etc. It's always about the money.

javajosh 5y ago

Perhaps it would hurt sales, like Orson Scott Card's anti-gay-marriage stance hurt Shadow Complex sales. But even so, I think it's possible to chew gum and walk at the same time, and I can enjoy Ender's Game while thinking Card is a backwards fool. Or enjoy Lethal Weapon while thinking Mel Gibson is a bigoted fool. Or admire George Washington, even though he owned slaves. We can't keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Even racists, misogynists and bigots have valuable things to contribute to society. Heck, approx 99% of humans living are bigoted and have "wrong views"; if you take human history, it's 100%. The people who are against gay marriage, and abortion, aren't taking those positions to be horrible people. They have heartfelt, if ignorant, reasons for it. I don't think we're doing anyone any good by taking people's livelihood away for sharing their personal political or religious beliefs. Probably gonna get downvoted. But that's okay. It's not my livelihood.

plugger 5y ago
> We can't keep throwing the baby out with the bathwater! "We" didn't do anything. The corporate board (I assume) made this decision, not us. The guy isn't facing charges, he's just been let go by a private LLC for saying something publicly that was perceived as reflecting negatively on the business. Like I said below, in effect corporate America has decided that taking left-leaning stances in the political arena is where their best chances of being and remaining profitable are. Sure, there are exceptions. I don't expect the NRA to become 'woke' as many conservatives would describe it. But a gaming studio? Their largely youth demographic would most likely be divided by this. That's bad business and it's unsurprising that he was terminated. About the only thing I find shocking regarding this whole situation is that this idiot posted his views in a public forum knowing full well his voice would be tied to the company he was working for given he was CEO. Have bad takes, fine. But when you start putting pen to paper in a public forum you need to understand that your words could be used against you. Public relations 101, it's as simple as that.
- pbourke 5y ago
  Exactly this. Social media allows you to step in a pile of shit at the speed of light. If you are a public figure who is tied, by reputation, to a “brand” then you need to be aware of the circle of acceptable discourse for that brand and its audience. If you step outside the circle then the brand will quickly disconnect from you. Is it a pleasant way to live? No. Is it solely the fault of “the left”? No, it’s the way of everything now.
- javajosh 5y ago
  See my response to the sibling comment to yours. It applies equally.
pseudalopex 5y ago
No one lives long enough to read every book. And buying other authors' books does them some good.
marcinzm 5y ago
>Even racists, misogynists and bigots have valuable things to contribute to society. So do non racists, non misogynists and non bigots. Since I can only consume so much content I may as well spend my finite money to people I don't dislike. The impact on me of reading one versus the other is pretty minimal.
- javajosh 5y ago
  It now dawns on me that you feel empowered to apply a purity test because of the apparently inexhaustible supply of candidates. Rationally, there are problems with this. First, talented people are rarer than you think. Moreover, the very nature of their talent is the kind of thing that tends to fail purity tests. Second, if your purity test is strict, then no-one can pass it. Are you a bigot? What about your hair-dresser, they are a known bigot, and yet you still go there? You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? If you weaken your purity test, to accomodate messy, practical reality, then what does that say about your motivation? Ethically, there's a big problem with this. People are valuable in-and-of themselves. Discarding people so easily is to devalue human life, and all the complexity that entails. If you yourself ever failed your own purity test, now or in the past, then why haven't you discarded yourself? If you haven't done that, then how committed are you to your brand of purity? Ethnographically, there's a problem with this. Most of the people in the world are deeply bigoted. Tribalism runs deep in our DNA. African tribes still hate each other, Asians famously dislike each other (and being mistaken for the hated group), and so on. Most of humanity, those groups you're trying to be more inclusive of, are excluded by your test. It is ironic in the extreme that humanism has become so intolerant of humanity.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    That's basically saying "we shouldn't push society to change or improve because change means people are excluded." Which is a dead end approach to society. Culture and society shifts with time and it has since long before humans evolved. Change is messy but the alternative is perpetual status quo. Some people get excluded but right now people are excluded as well. >You like Shakespeare, a known anti-semite? You are now applying this retroactively which is not the discussion at hand. Please don't put together straw man arguments. edit: You're arguing absolutes when change is a gradual imperfect uneven messy process. It has always been and will always be. There are no absolutes because humanity is not a hive mind.