from the get-fired-in-140-chars-or-less dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A Subnautica developer has reportedly been fired over controversial comments he previously posted to Twitter, with the game's sound designer Simon Chylinski tweeting that he has been ousted from his position at Unknown Worlds Entertainment.
Chylinski has come under fire recently after a number of recent comments he posted to Twitter were placed under the spotlight. The sound designer took to Twitter yesterday to post an update on his status with Unknown Worlds Entertainment, tweeting: "so. i just got fired.. :("
Isn't it illegal to fire someone for their political views in California? Unknown Worlds Entertainment may be in for one hell of an uncapped damages lawsuit.
Source: http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/366749-subnautica-dev-fired-controversial-twitter-comments
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @07:30PM (55 children)
Isn't it illegal to fire someone for their political views in California? Unknown Worlds Entertainment may be in for one hell of an uncapped damages lawsuit.
Just like almost every other state in the union, California is a "right to work" state, which means employers can terminate you for any reason at all, or even no reason, as long as it isn't something discriminatory against a protected class. Right wingers are not a protected class, the way women or black people are. So yes, an employer can can your ass just because they don't like your Twitter posts.
It's weird how right-wingers are usually the ones whining about "too many" regulations on businesses, and also about our litigation-happy culture, but then when this bites them in the ass, they get mad, whine about discrimination, and want to sue.
I work in a place where I probably wouldn't make any friends if I let some of my opinions be known. So, I keep my mouth shut, and I also don't post shit on the Internet under my real name for anyone to find with a Google search. Posting controversial stuff on Facebook and Twitter is completely stupid: anyone (including employers or potential employers) can read it, and worse, they can dig it up years later, when you may have changed your views.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:37PM (16 children)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101 [ca.gov]
For someone so proud of "keeping his mouth shut", you sure managed to produce a lot of text about something you have no clue about.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @07:42PM (10 children)
That just takes me to a blank "code search" page. Try again.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:45PM (9 children)
Blame SN's crap parsing of ampersands.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101 [ca.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:51PM (3 children)
How about you just summarize and we'll believe you? link still no linky
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:55PM (2 children)
Here's the content, posted throughout the comment thread for every armchair member of the California State Bar. Feel free to just Google a string from it to find the source on California's government website.
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
(Score: 5, Informative) by shipofgold on Friday February 16 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
This isn't about supporting a political party or supporting political views....
This is about bringing unfavorable publicity to an employer. Yes, expressing your views may be freedom of speech in that you won't have the government at your door looking to arrest you, and supporting the Republican party is not grounds for firing, but bringing a shitload of criticism about you (and perchance to your employer) is grounds to can your ass.
Nothing to see...move along.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @11:28PM
Bingo! You win a prize, Shipofgold [xkcd.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Friday February 16 2018, @08:19PM (4 children)
Blame submitter for not knowing anything about link shortners and resubmitting the same crap with the same failure again.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:19PM (2 children)
Pay attention retard, first link was SN's parsing issue, second link was California's website's handling of request data.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:29PM (1 child)
Correction: it's not even California's website for the second issue. It's still SN's shit programming. After fixing the ampersand in the URL, it included it in the visible portion but removed it from the HREF tag.
Seriously, I'd link you guys to Perl's documentation on escaping/unescaping so you could fix this amateur hour nonsense, but the fucking URL probably wouldn't work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday February 16 2018, @11:18PM
So, why don't you just go find another site to troll on.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:24PM
The links are actually different. Unglaze your eyes, notice the difference between "§" and "§", and stop trying to defend the shit programmer here who doesn't understand URL encoding.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday February 16 2018, @07:56PM (4 children)
Looks like you tried to link to 1101 (which didn't work BTW) on this page, which doesn't say anything about terminating employment for political activities. You probably wanted 1102, which does say that employers may not "coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity."
But that's irrelevant, too, because the Twitter posts in question weren't political - they were racist.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:02PM (2 children)
It's supposed to link to 1101-1106 actually. The first link issue was Soylent's shitty parsing modifying the string "§", the second one seems to be a problem with the way California's state website handles request data.
Either way I've posted the relevant text about half a dozen times by now so it should be clear what I intended to link. And care to provide which of these tweets were "racist"? To save us some time, nationality is not race, and religion isn't race either.
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:14AM (1 child)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the one musing about whether it would be good to ban black people from competing with white people in sports is not about "nationality" or "religion."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday February 18 2018, @12:33AM
"I was trolling. But now that I think about it, yes men will tend to do better. But black ppl tend to do better in running. So should we ban black ppl from competing against white ppl because of this?"
And if so then it's fundamentally incorrect to claim this is racism, the subtext is clearly the exact opposite. Should we ban black people from athletic events that, statistically, black people do better at? He's not implying a yes here, but a no.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @10:04PM
But that's irrelevant, too, because the Twitter posts in question weren't political - they were racist.
Not necessarily: if some political candidates running in a race make racism a political issue (for instance, one candidate is an overt racist and has a campaign promise to pass racist legislation, and the other candidate opposes this), then racist speech supporting the racist candidate could be argued to be "political".
Really, almost anything could be "political", no matter how benign or offensive, if politicians make it a political issue. This seems like something this law could be argued up to a high court over. If some political candidates want to exterminate some race of people, and some employee posts a bunch of stuff publicly supporting this, and gets fired, could they argue this law forbids this firing over a "political" issue? Remember, this really was a real political issue not that long ago across the pond.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @07:39PM (15 children)
I'd also like to comment on his "tweet":
Funny how he talks about "3rd world tier IQ", and write a post this ignorant-looking. What kind of moron writes stuff like "now u r"? Did he never learn to capitalize words at the beginning of a sentence, or how to spell "you" or "are"? Maybe he should go take a remedial English class before making insinuations about other peoples' IQs.
Oh, here's another one:
"But street poo and rigid cast system in India didn't come from the west."
So he doesn't know how to spell "caste".
Perhaps his employer really fired him because he can't write worth a damn, and they want employees who can read and write proper English.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:43PM (5 children)
> What kind of moron writes stuff like "now u r"?
Someone nearing Twitter's retarded character limit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:47PM (4 children)
So, it could thus be possible that everybody who posts on Twitter is a retarded moron.
But we already knew that! :-)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @07:57PM (3 children)
Personally, I think usage of Twitter is a perfectly acceptable thing to use to discriminate against employment candidates.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @09:40PM (2 children)
And use of Facebook and YouTube.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)
YouTube might be OK. You can convey very useful information there in a format that has inherent advantages over text or photos, and YT gives individuals a way of making videos available on the internet for free and without having to deal with server bandwidth issues they'd have with private hosting.
For instance, if someone makes a YouTube channel with well-made videos teaching how to do surface-mount soldering, I would consider that a useful thing (and there are lots of videos just like this). Videos teaching people how to fix particular issues on their cars also abound there, and are very helpful.
This just isn't like stupid Twitter, where all you can do is write short text messages artificially limited to an arbitrary short length, which encourages bad writing and a complete lack of depth of thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @06:32AM
The usage of YouTube comments, on the other hand, should be a jailable offense.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @07:46PM (7 children)
Also I gather the fellow is Polish and has likely learned much of his "English" in the same or similar illiterate contexts.
As a 'sound designer' proper literacy probably isn't really a job requirement.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @07:53PM (6 children)
Is he Polish? I couldn't tell from the article. "Simon" doesn't sound like a terribly Polish name to me, and tons of Americans have Polish surnames without having any connection to the country besides having some great-grandparent or something who emigrated from there almost a century ago. I just assumed he was an American with that name.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @08:26PM (1 child)
Quote - In one such tweet, posted in response to an article shared by InfoWars editor and conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson discussing "Islamic no go zones," Chylinski tweeted: "ppl arn't blank slates that can be reprogrammed simply by being in a new country. importing random ppl from the 3rd world is also importing 3rd world tier crime rates and IQ. now u r dealing with 3rd world levels of dysfunction, condolences from Poland, but we tried to warn u." \Quote
""Simon" doesn't sound like a terribly Polish name to me,""
It didn't sound out of line to me, I expect Poland to feature most of the same names as surrounding countries, as so many of them are ultimately religious names from the Bible (Thomas/Paul/John/James/Simon and so on) but I'm certainly no authority on things Polish so I looked it up. It is indeed one of the more popular boys names in Poland, although it looks like he probably anglicized the spelling from "Szymon."
http://www.behindthename.com/top/lists/poland
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/penpals/stats.php3?Pays=POL
http://culture.polishsite.us/articles/art359fr.htm
Several different sources with minor disagreement but all place it in the top 10.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @08:32PM
Good catch, somehow I missed or forgot the "condolences from Poland" bit. You're probably right about the Anglicization part.
(Score: 1) by Crash on Saturday February 17 2018, @08:47AM (3 children)
Destructive Creations, of Hatred [hatredgame.com] fame, are also Polish.
It would seem white supremacist sociopathic ideologies aren't the exclusive purview of America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:35PM (1 child)
Are all the enemies black or something? What's racist about "kill all humans?"
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday February 18 2018, @12:27AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 17 2018, @10:29PM
You know that those Nazi guys were German, right? Those fellows who carved Africa up among them at the 1884 Berlin Conference were French, Belgian, Italian, English, German, Austro-Hungarian, Dutch, Italian, etc, too; That was a white supremacist doozy.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Friday February 16 2018, @08:13PM
He's actually complaining about Indian programmers taking our C++ jobs. What a twist!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:40PM (13 children)
I was gonna say wrong as some initial searching returned "political affiliation" as a protected class, but this has a nice table breakdown by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
So TL:DR these are the protected classes in CA:
Race, color
Ancestry, national origin
Religion, creed
Age (over 40)
Disability, mental and physical
Sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions)
Sexual orientation
Gender identity, gender expression
Medical condition
Genetic information
Marital status
Military and veteran status
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:46PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @09:42PM
He could cite potus as an example of wrongthink, twitter and mental disability connections.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:47PM
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101 [ca.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:49PM (9 children)
Wrong.
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:56PM (2 children)
Ah, strange they don't put that in the list I found (gov site). I'm not certain whether non-political tweets counts here, he wasn't engaging in any politics aside from general opinion about the world. The legal definition might be much more narrow, otherwise everything could fall under "politics".
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
The legal definition might be much more narrow
That's what I'm thinking. Otherwise, all you have to do is find a political candidate somewhere who's an actual Nazi (like the guy in Ohio or Wisconsin or something now, I just saw an article a few days ago) who espouses some obviously horrific things, then make posts supporting those same things (which are blatantly racist/sexist/supporting genocide etc.), then when you get fired claim it was "political". Any opinion at all can be construed to be "political".
Surely what the writers of that law really meant was that an employer couldn't prevent you from running for political office, or demanding that you vote a certain way.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday February 17 2018, @06:45PM
s/guy in Ohio or Wisconsin or something/elected officials in D.C./
:-)
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @09:26PM (3 children)
Since when is hateful speech a "political activity" or "political view"?
Hate speech coming from the highest office doesn't make hate speech okay. Nor does it make it a political view.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 16 2018, @10:11PM
Hate speech coming from the highest office doesn't make hate speech okay. Nor does it make it a political view.
It may not make it OK in your view, but how on Earth does it not make it a "political view"? If the hate speech is not only made by a politician, but it's a big part of his campaign, then of course the hate speech is a political view. You (and I) may not like it, but if the voters really are voting for someone because of their hate speech, then it absolutely is a political view.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:58AM
How about we get to basics. You are simply fudged up and do not belong in a society with Free People. Hate speech is not a thing. ALL speech is ok. The only acceptable response to speech you disagree with is to speak your objection. I know some of the folks here live in shitholes without the Right to speak freely, but here in America we believe we have an absolute Right to speak, assemble, petition our government, print stuff, etc. and CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW bridging those Rights. If it isn't controversial speech it doesn't need protecting. Nobody ever got sent to the camps for agreeing too strongly with the current official Party Line. It is speech that sends pussies to their fainting couch that requires protection.
Most of what what this guy was fired for tweeting is best described as painful truths. If you import too many shitholians your country turns into a shithole. That is simply reality. Haiti isn't a shithole because of some mystical radiation seeping from the land, it isn't blighted or suffering some extraordinary natural disaster. If the current inhabitants were removed it would be a tropical paradise again in a few short years. It is a shithole because it is filled with Hatians. And if you relocate large quantities of them they will bring their defective customs and patterns of thought with them. Same goes for most other shithole countries.
If small numbers are introduced into a developed country there is some evidence that after several generations many can be assimilated, but we aren't discussing small numbers. And in the case of Europe this guy was discussing Islam is a complication. No program of assimilation that doesn't involve conversion can make them suitable as citizens in a civilized land.
Company is in CA but if this guy is not in the U.S. he probably can't sue. Sad.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:45PM
Since Hitler.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @11:41PM (1 child)
Hmmm...Let's see.
1101.a -- The employee wasn't forbidden or prevented from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming a candidate for public office. -- He was fired for being an asshole and shown the door. [xkcd.com] No violation on that count.
1101.b -- The employee's political activities or affiliations were neither controlled nor directed. -- He was fired for being an asshole and shown the door. [xkcd.com] No violation on that count either.
TFS could easily be changed to:
Obnoxious asshole fired for being an obnoxious asshole. No film ever.
and still be just as accurate.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:42AM
When you can’t attack the argument, you attack the man instead.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:19PM
Or when what is considered PC has changed.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 16 2018, @09:50PM (2 children)
http://www.warplife.com/ethics/reputation.html [warplife.com]
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 16 2018, @09:51PM (1 child)
This Time For Sure:
When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners.
As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well.
I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.
John J. Chapman
Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:11PM
Thanks for that. It's a clarion call. At first I thought it might be Teddy Roosevelt, but the date places it as his contemporary. We desperately need the animating spirit of that time back, now.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @11:25PM (2 children)
And that's because you're not an idiot.
Simon Chylinski wasn't fired for his beliefs, his principles or because of his (self proclaimed) proclivity for trolling. He was fired because he was too stupid to separate his personal life from his professional life.
Perhaps he should move to Alabama and run against Doug Jones in 2021. He might even win, not in spite of his tweet history, but because of it.
It's not that hard. I don't use the handle 'NotSanguine' anywhere else but here (well, I used it at that other place too). Yes, SN staff, and presumably anyone who hacked the DB could probably figure out who I am IRL pretty easily. However, I keep my social, political and other personal opinions/beliefs to myself in the professional arena. Mostly because they aren't relevant to my professional life.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @09:32PM (1 child)
NotSanguine, ladies and gents. He thirsts for your blood, thus his dislike of speech used freely.
Also note that his earlier retort to claimed facts by the ex-dev was to completely dismiss them... using mere ad hominem.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 17 2018, @10:55PM
Interesting that you employ the same tactics of which you accuse me. Please review my posting history [soylentnews.org] and show me where I've expressed anything even remotely like what you claim.
You won't be able to because I've never expressed such a thing.
In fact, I've even mentioned just that in this thread [soylentnews.org].
It's actually kind of cute reading your weak attempt to be derisive. Surely you can do better that that, can't you?
Kissy kissy honey!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 17 2018, @02:43AM
"As long as". Political viewpoints are one of those protected classes. But having said that, a claim his opinions on homosexuals, Third World poor, etc are protected political speech probably wouldn't fly with a jury. And Subnauticawould then be able to argue that all this behavior happened while he simultaneously made clear that he worked for them. Even if California weren't an "at will" state, there are exceptions made for employees who make asses of themselves in public while identifying as employees of the company.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:36PM (7 children)
While this is obviously a PR move it is illegal to fire an employee for political affiliation. That isn't quite what happened here but it feels close enough. What someone does outside of school / work should not be accountable. Since companies will just find reasons to fire someone anyway, it just might take a little longer, the real answer is true privacy and anonymity.
I feel for any company that has to tolerate negative press over a stupid employee, but I don't see an easy way around the problem. The only reasonable measure I can imagine is for them to put out a press release saying they in no way condone the statements, but those statements were made by the employee as a private citizen. Maybe add in a "if this person ever advocates such positions on behalf of UWE please let us know as that will be a violation of the employment contract." A nice big fat warning that the person will get fired if they cross the line, I bet a lot of people would be satisfied by such a public threat!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:42PM (3 children)
I was wrong, political affiliation is not protected so I guess employers can fire someone just because they don't like what they say. Queue need for privacy and anonymity, let employers judge employees for what they do on the job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:52PM (2 children)
You were right the first time.
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
1101.
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:03PM (1 child)
Not necessarily, political affiliation is protected (good) but the idea that the tweets fall under that category is definitely debatable.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:18PM
Political affiliation without speech or action is meaningless. It's like saying, "It's OK for you to be a Christian as long as you don't go to church or pray to Jesus."
It seems to me the pendulum has swung far enough, far too far, and now must swing back to a place where people are once again tough enough to hear words and opinions that might hurt their precious feelings. Freedom of speech does not at all mean that we have to like, or at least not find objectionable, what we hear; in fact, it is, always has been, and absolutely must, must be the exact opposite.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 16 2018, @07:44PM (1 child)
You're correct. The simple solution is to fire them because their public racist comments creates a hostile workplace, or because their coworkers' productivity is impaired by having to work with someone who insults them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:27PM
Comments were made about the USA.
The guy lives and works in Poland.
He's not working with anyone affected.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:15PM
If you look at the relevant wording of CA employment law (helpfully posted numerous times here), even if you assume (and that's a dubious assumption, IMHO) that Chylinski's rantings are "political speech," what you are suggesting would, IMHO, actually violate California employment law, as they would then be attempting to direct or control an employee's political activities.
As I said previously [soylentnews.org], this guy was fired because he was too dumb to keep his personal life separate from his professional life. What's more, as I pointed out elsewhere [soylentnews.org], the company thought he was an asshole and showed him the door. Which is (for many reasons and in many places) ample reason to terminate someone's employment.
Whatever you think about freedom of expression (and I'm a huge advocate of that, including and especially unpopular speech), no private entity has a responsibility to listen to, support, or give you a platform to spew whatever you want.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday February 16 2018, @07:42PM (5 children)
Isn't it illegal to fire someone for their political views in California?
Prove that he was fired over this. I'd bet that the company can point to a lot of other undesirable behavior as well to justify his termination. Or maybe it's just that they're "rightsizing" his team. And, if all that fails, I'm sure they could find a couple of non-work tweets sent during business hours and hang him for misutilization of company equipment. Although I don't understand why the conservatives are up in arms... They were always all in on gaping "right to work" laws. A union might have protected him. Sad.
That is all.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:45PM
But now THEY are under attack!
Same with racism, its just a few bad jokes, locker room talk! Oh wait, now people are being mean to us! Muh oppression!
It'd be funny if it wasn't such a serious problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:28PM (2 children)
It's more difficult than you think. To look good in court the company has to issue warnings beforehand, set up a correction plan, and only if all that fails they can fire. Otherwise the company is an easy prey to an attorney. Most likely the firing occurred in a fit of rage expressed by one of senior members, and that was enough to overcome all the HR paperwork.
Also, I am not sure if the "racist" is a term in law books. Especially in politics. Politicians do "racist" things all the time. Just recall the muslim ban. In politics the truth of the speech is more important, and that's how his speech should be qualified by professionals. But putting the same speech on Twitter is not a wise move, as offensive properties of his writings there overcame the political statement in them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:41AM (1 child)
islam isn't a race. muslims aren't a race. get your story straight. it wasn't racial discrimination, it was religious discrimination. BIG FUCKING difference. jesus.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:32PM
That is correct, but to further refine what the ban actually was from what the parent blurred it to mean, it was not a "muslim" ban but a ban on travel from a handful of countries where radical Islamic terror groups are known to operate. The list was Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It did not include Saudi Arabia, where the center of Islam, Mecca, is located, nor did it include the most populous muslim nation, Indonesia.
So it cannot be construed as a "muslim" ban because that is not what it was. You would only call it that if you were trying to stir up religious hatred and smear a government that is trying to do its job of protecting the nation from terrorist attack.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @09:33PM
Also . . . prove that what he was fired over was political views or political activity.
When did offensive hate speech become political? (Yes, I know such speech comes from the highest office.)
From what I read of googling some tweets, it didn't seem political. Just stupid and hateful. I wouldn't think that 'stupid and hateful' should be the hallmarks of a certain political view. But maybe I'm wrong.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday February 16 2018, @07:58PM (3 children)
If an employee says "I work for X and support Y controversial stance", what is the company X supposed to do if they don't want to have anything to do with the expressed opinion Y? It seems to me they wouldn't be wrong to assume many people are going to associate the company X with the opinion Y and treat this employee as a kind of spokesperson, particularly if they have never heard of this company X (or at least its stance about opinion Y) before.
I'm not trying to argue with whether Y is "right" or "wrong", but what happens if the company X just genuinely wants nothing to do with the opinion Y the employee is expressing? If they can't distance themselves from the employee, are they forced to just release a statement clarifying their position, or what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:24PM (1 child)
I think it is a stretch that a reasonable person would assume that an employee of X believing Y means X endorses Y, but X should be justifiably afraid of the professionally umbraged and their screaming disciples asserting that link on twatter, facebook and the evening news.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:42PM
While "reasonable person" kind-of works as a standard for legal issues, it means absolutely nothing outside that specific area :/ "Professionally umbraged and their screaming disciples" aren't even a requirement for resulting brand damage.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:37PM
Then a competent PR person at the company would issue a statement saying that company X supports Z, not the opinion Y. Why? Because if that company had never been heard of before, and the employee expressing opinion Y had stirred up controversy, then it's a free, easy opportunity for the company to get exposure by saying that's not what the company believes (as if a company, as a collection of people, could be said to believe anything).
The practice of free speech and many other constitutional rights has gone dangerously wrong in the US. Many have been falsely led to believe those rights ensure a soft, warm, fuzzy security blanket. They don't. They are meant to constitute something very much more like the Iron Throne from Game of Thrones.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Friday February 16 2018, @08:37PM (5 children)
I don't understand this tendency to use Twitter, etc, as some sort of stream of consciousness. It is not necessary to publicly broadcast every thought that you have -- especially if that thought is controversial. Would you walk down the sidewalk blathering stuff at total strangers? No? Then why do it globally?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:45PM (1 child)
> Would you walk down the sidewalk blathering stuff at total strangers?
You may have picked a wrong site to ask that question :) Takes no effort at all to imagine half the regulars here doing that :D
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:40PM
Soylent is what free speech should look like: opinionated, smart people from all parts of the spectrum (including a few off the z-axis) saying things that bite and slice and leave everyone else smarting---but thinking new thoughts that had not previously entered their personal bubbles.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday February 16 2018, @09:35PM (1 child)
"I don't understand this tendency to use Twitter, etc, as some sort of stream of consciousness."
An exaggerated sense of self-importance?
A forum like this is bad enough, but at least it kinda, sorta resembles a conversation. Twitter is like thousands of people all talking at the same time, and no one is actually listening. I've never seen the point.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:04AM
digital tourette syndrome.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 16 2018, @09:55PM
Give it a try. It works for me [warplife.com].
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Redundant) by bradley13 on Friday February 16 2018, @08:52PM (19 children)
"ppl arn't blank slates that can be reprogrammed simply by being in a new country.
Western dirt is magic dirt. Stand on it, and you magically adopt Western norms of behavior. Didn't you know? Of course, it's a stupid idea, but there you are, that's what progressives believe.
So I agree with what he said in this particular tweet. However, I also had a look at his Twitter feed, and - geez - is this guy full of himself. The kind of guy who corners you at the office party, bombarding you with his wisdom until you manage to find some sort of escape, gnawing through the nearest wall if necessary. If he's half as arrogant IRL as he appears to be on Twitter, the company may have just taken the excuse to get rid of him.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 16 2018, @09:26PM (15 children)
Stand on it, and you magically adopt Western norms of behavior.
Any non-Western norms that are harmful are already illegal. If they're not harmful, why do you care?
Enforcement of those norms is handled by the police, not magic.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday February 16 2018, @09:52PM (8 children)
"Any non-Western norms that are harmful are already illegal."
First, no, they aren't. For example, it is a Western norm that the political system should be independent of religion. It is not illegal for an Islamist to believe that Islamic law should take precedence over secular law. This is, however, harmful.
Second, the fact that something is illegal doesn't prevent people from doing it. Consider two crimes that are widespread within certain immigrant communities: female genital mutilation and forced marriages. These are not only illegal, they are gross violations of human rights. The immigrant communities know damned well that these things are illegal, but they value their culture (ahem, from which they fled) above the laws of the countries that took them in. This is harmful and illegal.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 16 2018, @10:02PM (2 children)
it is a Western norm that the political system should be independent of religion
Holy crap, someone really needs to let the Christians know that!
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Saturday February 17 2018, @12:02AM
It's an Enlightenment ideal. Don't worry though, the US no longer seems to be teaching those values. Progressive dogma seems dominant at the moment, opposed by 'conservatives'. Traditional liberal and libertarian ideals are thin on the ground, and the Enlightenment ideals get lip service then are treated like obstacles.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:47PM
The US does a much more thorough job of separating church and state than many European countries do. France is the only one I can think of that might be on par, there.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:11PM
Consider a human rights violation that is widespread in the US and not illegal due to religion (which often hides behind extremely sketchy medical arguments): Male genital mutilation. But it's the scary immigrants who are the real issue.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
tell that to some of the hasidic jew, mennonite, amish, hutterite, mormon etc communities that more or less have their own de facto religious court systems in their communities...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:47AM
unless their activities contravene some actual law, if they choose to further govern themselves religiously, they're protected in doing so. separation of church and state provides that. thats part of what makes your country great. embrace it. especially if you don't like the religion. anything less and your country becomes nazi germany.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:35PM (1 child)
"This is harmful and illegal."
Go fuck yourself. Devarim chapter 22, verse 28 allows men to take female children as brides, via rape.
Devarim also says to kill anyone that entices you to follow another god/ruler/judge.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @09:38PM
Try studying the original Hebrew instead of some translated translation of a translated translation that some uppity King commissioned in response to an earlier English copy which included political commentary in the margins.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday February 16 2018, @10:35PM (3 children)
Expectoration. (Spitting) *is* illegal in some US states and Singapore.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25291274 [bbc.com]
https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/02/23/roadshow-spitting-from-a-car-is-not-a-good-idea/ [mercurynews.com]
How about:
Littering.
Using the fire escape for your garbage, rather than putting it in the bin.
Leaving shopping trolleys outside your building (both a failure of public transport and of shops allowing trolleys out of the carpark)
Some of these *are* illegal, some are just culturally unacceptable.
What are western norms, anyway? Hypocrisy? Domestic Violence? Sleeping with your secretary? Going to (the correct) church?
Which bits do you want immigrants to adopt?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:09AM
In the US, guns are like xml. if youre not getting the results you want, you just need more guns.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:50AM
greed, avarice, narcissism. you know, the backbone of american "culture". anything more or less is anathema and not the american way. the business of america is business. make america greedy again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:32PM
None of those are intrinsically western, you will find similar flaws in any culture, historic or current.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @11:37PM
No. Enforcement of the law is handled by the police. Enforcement of societal norms is generally handled through social pressure. Of course, many immigrants stick to their existing social circles from their home nation, and don't integrate into greater society to be influenced by the host nation's social pressures.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:47AM
Good thing the police are so effective at preventing grenade attacks in Sweden and acid attacks in the UK.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 17 2018, @02:54AM (1 child)
OTOH, Western economies are that magic. Participate in a Western economy and you can instantly increase your earning power by thousands of dollars a year. That's why so many people want to come, no matter whether or not they've adopted so-called Western norms of behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:27AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 18 2018, @02:44PM
Maybe so, but it's the wrong excuse. Fire the guy for not doing his actual job, if that's the case. If he does do his job, then learn to avoid him at the company party and don't otherwise engage him socially.
A workplace is not a fucking coffee klatsch. It is not at all necessary for everybody to be one big happy family that all believes the same things or sings the same tune. Intellectual and moral pussies are those who believe it should be.
Washington DC delenda est.