Naturally, whether genuinely racist or not, calls for Heir's head have come forth. There's even a petition to get the man fired (I sent an e-mail to Bioware and as of yet don't know if he's still employed). However, after getting over the visceral reaction of loathing a man that seems to loathe you merely for your skin and gender, a more somber analysis (hat tip to Honey Badger radio) is required. For if we merely insist SJW's get theirs in return, we miss a much larger and more important threat to all of us - the freedom of speech.
Tempting as it may be to get your pound of flesh against somebody who hates you for irrational reasons, the larger issue here is one of the freedom of speech. And disgusting as you may find Mr. Heir's comments, he does have the right to say what he wants (or perhaps not in Canada, given the latest ruling by the Canadian Human's Rights commission). Regardless, simply turn the tables and let us revisit Mr. Brendan Eich. Eich was the former CEO of Mozilla until it was discovered he made a political donation to a campaign to ban gay marriage. For him exercising his right to the freedom of speech he was summarily fired...and we all stopped using Firefox as a browser. But while we can highlight a tit for tat exchange between leftists and rightists getting fired for their political views, the larger point though is that Americans (and Canadians) EFFECTIVELY do NOT have the freedom of speech. Not because of government or a tyrannical state, but because of....
employers.
I have argued before that people either HAVE the freedom of speech or they DON'T. And it doesn't matter if it's the government infringing upon your freedom of speech, but ANY entity in a position of power over you. And so while the government may not care if you ramble off racist tweets, sexist YouTube videos, or controversial Instachats, your employer might, and that effectively infringes on your speech.
We've seen this in another arena as well, not just with employers, but also college campuses. Though colleges are NOT the law and they are NOT your employer, because they are the only way by which you can get a degree, and thus employment, you are effectively answering to a defacto fourth layer of government. This allows colleges to not only force you to attend a kangaroo court if falsely accused of rape and force whatever kind of political indoctrination upon you, but if you violate their speech codes you get punished, expelled, you career ruined, etc. Again, (and TRULY ironically) you don't have the freedom of speech ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS!
In short, because of these "quasi" layers of government in the form of employers, colleges, even social media giants (with their "community guidelines), nobody REALLY has the freedom of speech. And since nobody has the freedom of speech, great ideas, controversial ideas, and ideas that will genuinely advance and progress society (not to mention ideas we'd like to just talk about without the fear of consequences) cannot come to the forefront or be advocated.
This is why, in my humble opinion, legislation should be passed that prohibits employers (and colleges) from firing (or hiring) people based on what they say on the internet or in public. It is none of their business, it does not concern them, and if employers TRULY cared about CSR or "virtue signaling" their liberal credentials they would advertise the fact they do NOT investigate, monitor, or inquire about your internet or social life. The only form of "justice" or comeuppance would come in the form of the market place of ideas and debates on the internet. Racists, communists, facists, homophobes, etc., would all be outed and publicly shammed/ostracized. So distasteful would their ideas and commentary be, they'd have to turn off the likes/dislikes ratio and comments and deal with the hate mail in private. And people would choose with their time and dollars whether or not to deal with these people. Besides which, there is a huge benefit to letting people TRULY have the freedom of speech - they'll show their true colors. And if you can find out somebody doesn't like you because of the color of your skin, or they intend to blow up a building because they don't like a particular religion, it makes you wonder why Facebook, Google, Youtube, etc. have community guidelines at all. Because I for one (not to mention the FBI and CIA) would like to know who these people are. So please let them exercise their freedom of speech uninhibited.
24 comments:
If they fire him or not is their problem. If I am going to buy their stuff while they support a bigot who hates me for the color of my skin is my problem.
I won't buy their stuff.
If his employer sees enough people not buying their stuff, they should make the best business decision they can. Find out why, and fix it. If that means making better stuff, then they should do that. If it is determined they have one (or several) employees actively doing things to hurt their sales, they should fix that.
Telling your customers they suck and shouldn't buy your product is no different than sabotaging a production line or torpedoing a marketing campaign. Bad faith actions cause damage, and any employer should be able to rid themselves of that employee.
"This is why, in my humble opinion, legislation should be passed that prohibits employers (and colleges) from firing (or hiring) people based on what they say on the internet or in public. "
Well it depends. Keeping in mind that many Corps have morals clauses in contracts, your suggestion hampers the execution of such provisions. Lets say I am a significant investor in Corp X. Corp X sells woman's apparel. Corp X's CEO does a Anthony Weiner that goes viral. As a consequence the stock loses half of its value and damages my portfolio.
You don't think I have cause to call for his head on a platter??
"defacto fourth layer of government. "
"This is why, in my humble opinion, legislation should be passed that prohibits employers (and colleges) from firing (or hiring) people based on what they say on the internet or in public."
But you're now creating a bigger government that is impugning on the rights of private companies, even if such actions by employers may seem perfidious.
The solution is for employers to simply ignore the SJW lunch mobs and defend their employees. Which is unrealistic but still better than your proposed legislation
I believe in a clear demarcation between one's personal life and one's business life, so I don't want people shadowed by corporations and government on their off hours.
He must be terrible to be around in a workplace since he undoubtedly spends too much of his time virtue signaling and looking for something to be butt hurt about.
My solution is to personally not buy products made by assholes and to avoid dealing with them in any way, shape, or form.
Leave a bloke alone
Let him drink tears
More laws? No thanks.
How bout I just take my white money and spend it somewhere else? I'm not even gonna make a big deal out of it or request his termination. I agree that he shouldn't be fired. They should keep him! They're perfect for each other. Some people say it punishes the other people working on Mass Effect if I don't buy it.
Well, too bad. Freedom hurts so good baby. They don't seem to have a problem with his views, so carry on with ya bad selves.
And I gotta say just once more: More laws, Cappy? You fall off your motorcycle without a helmet or something? And at that, a law that would force me as an employer to tolerate views of my employees that might hurt business? Negative Ghost Rider.
This is dangerously close to the loser Republican position in which we are encouraged to not win the battle because of a principle. In practice, what this means is that we've been losing both the battle and the war.
Win the battles. Win the war. Then you can magnanimous.
Cappy,
The problem with trying to make corporations tolerant of free speech, in a world in which your performance review can be twisted up, down, sideways to Sundays, is that your manager can hide the real reason for your firing (your speech) behind a bullshit litany of complaints about your job efficiencies.
How can you prove that you were fired for your expressed opinions? You can't.
When grocers in Quebec tried to unionize a Walmart store, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company shut down the entire store. In their explanation, they cited "market conditions." They could just as easily have fired the rabble-rousers trying to unionize -- Walmart has anti-union manuals on taking care of unionizing efforts -- under the rubric of "they weren't doing their job."
In the real world, all the cards are stacked in the corporation's favor.
Which is why I want to start a corp.
-- G. Nikolic, www.qedbook.wordpress.com
Cappy,
The problem with trying to make corporations tolerant of free speech, in a world in which your performance review can be twisted up, down, sideways to Sundays, is that your manager can hide the real reason for your firing (your speech) behind a bullshit litany of complaints about your job efficiencies.
How can you prove that you were fired for your expressed opinions? You can't.
When grocers in Quebec tried to unionize a Walmart store, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company shut down the entire store. In their explanation, they cited "market conditions." They could just as easily have fired the rabble-rousers trying to unionize -- Walmart has anti-union manuals on taking care of unionizing efforts -- under the rubric of "they weren't doing their job."
In the real world, all the cards are stacked in the corporation's favor.
Which is why I want to start a corp.
-- G. Nikolic, www.qedbook.wordpress.com
Cappy,
The problem with trying to make corporations tolerant of free speech, in a world in which your performance review can be twisted up, down, sideways to Sundays, is that your manager can hide the real reason for your firing (your speech) behind a bullshit litany of complaints about your job efficiencies.
How can you prove that you were fired for your expressed opinions? You can't.
When grocers in Quebec tried to unionize a Walmart store, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company shut down the entire store. In their explanation, they cited "market conditions." They could just as easily have fired the rabble-rousers trying to unionize -- Walmart has anti-union manuals on taking care of unionizing efforts -- under the rubric of "they weren't doing their job."
In the real world, all the cards are stacked in the corporation's favor.
Which is why I want to start a corp.
-- G. Nikolic, www.qedbook.wordpress.com
Cappy,
The problem with trying to make corporations tolerant of free speech, in a world in which your performance review can be twisted up, down, sideways to Sundays, is that your manager can hide the real reason for your firing (your speech) behind a bullshit litany of complaints about your job efficiencies.
How can you prove that you were fired for your expressed opinions? You can't.
When grocers in Quebec tried to unionize a Walmart store, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company shut down the entire store. In their explanation, they cited "market conditions." They could just as easily have fired the rabble-rousers trying to unionize -- Walmart has anti-union manuals on taking care of unionizing efforts -- under the rubric of "they weren't doing their job."
In the real world, all the cards are stacked in the corporation's favor.
Which is why I want to start a corp.
-- G. Nikolic, www.qedbook.wordpress.com
Cappy,
The problem with trying to make corporations tolerant of free speech, in a world in which your performance review can be twisted up, down, sideways to Sundays, is that your manager can hide the real reason for your firing (your speech) behind a bullshit litany of complaints about your job efficiencies.
How can you prove that you were fired for your expressed opinions? You can't.
When grocers in Quebec tried to unionize a Walmart store, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company shut down the entire store. In their explanation, they cited "market conditions." They could just as easily have fired the rabble-rousers trying to unionize -- Walmart has anti-union manuals on taking care of unionizing efforts -- under the rubric of "they weren't doing their job."
In the real world, all the cards are stacked in the corporation's favor.
Which is why I want to start a corp.
-- G. Nikolic, www.qedbook.wordpress.com
Cappy, you went too far with the legislation.
BUSINESSES create jobs and therefore have the right to fill job positions IN ANY WAY THEY PLEASE. We need LESS employment regs, not more.
Love you anyway.
Your example of "freedom of speech" extending to non-governmental agencies (that would be, other people), identifies the boundary between contradictory rights; the right of individual speech vs the right of free association. Other people, both as individuals and in corporated/cooperative mutual association, have the contrasting rights to both individual freedom of speech and the distinct right to freedom of association, both of which extend to direct physical expression and indirect application. People as employers have the right to not be associated with speech that they believe is counter to their best self-interests. You cannot, qualify boundary conditions in advance of their expression. The only way "rights" work is in their proportional conflation with individual responsibility for the means and manner we each choose to express our rights. Freedom of speech exists, freedom of expression does not.
What seems to missed is the core of the issue, that countries founded and formed by white people have attempted to atone for past racial sins by absorbing people of pigmentation from within and abroad, and too often these ingrates have been ungracious and self righteous when all too often where they are from are not exactly exemplars.
so while Bioware will not fire Manvheer Heir, neither will ever get my money again and they can both kiss my ass.
"Legislation should be passed"
NO!!!!!!!!
I agreed with everything you said until then. Yes, it's all very unfair but we're free marketeers! This is just the minuscule bad stuff that comes with an overwhelmingly good system. Just accept it as life.
Plus, Brendan Eich looks like he's doing ok. His new browser is pretty good.
Nonsense. What we have here is the typical leftist double standard. The blacks and browns and other colours can say what they want with impunity, and Whitey goes to the woodshed if he does the same. It is now an accepted state of equilibrium that is becoming even more tilted against whites. In order to get any change you have to make it painful for abusers or they will just keep doing what they do. Or - like this greasy mudflap - they'll start pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. This 'turn the other cheek because we're better than them' is a losers strategy. I want that mutt's scalp, and I damned well expect the sanctimonious SJW wanks to take it for me.
Screw this rot about freedom of speech. It's about code of conduct. Hate speech in the workplace is legal grounds for dismissal. I would get fired for it, you would - and rightfully so. If you engage in speech that reflects badly on your employer you can get canned too. That is fair and just. I want to see this mutt get his pink slip by the end of the week.
F*ck him. I signed the petition, I complained to his employer. Let him get a dose of his own medicine. He can drink his own tears. Zero fucks given.
As an aside, there is one university standing up for higher education:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-24/university-chicago-tells-millennials-look-elsewhere-if-they-need-safe-space
Will yelling WHITEY in a crowded theatre prevent anyone from getting to the exits when the inevitable fire breaks out?
How about some other word then?
The difference tells you everything you need to know about protected classes.
Alinsky's Rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
I'm with anonymous 1135 am. There's no reason to hold our opponents to a less demanding standard than they hold us.
I think the problem is aside from the racism that he used his business twitter account to post yet the company took no action against him.
Oh, good. It's yet another commentary on the situation that completely misunderstands the First Amendment and the concept of "Freedom of Speech".
To put it succinctly, the Fist Amendment protects you from (among other things) being arrested by the government specifically because of something you said. In regards to free speech...that's it. That's all it does.
It does not protect you from public backlash. It does not protect you from being fired from your job. It does not protect you from boycotts. It does not protect you from criticism or consequences.
If you're yelled at, boycotted, fired from your job, have your show canceled, banned from communities or otherwise criticized, your rights have not been violated. Anyone claiming they have been is grossly misinterpreting the concept for the First Amendment.
Freedom of speech in no way guarantees a platform. Nor does freedom of speech mean protection from consequences. Manveer Heir has made any number of hateful posts on Twitter and elsewhere, and it is reflecting badly back on Bioware.
Already there are a lot of videos and blogs going up that are critical of Mass Effect Andromeda, and Manveer's outbursts are being cited as part of the issues with the game. Those of us who don't appreciate this nonsense along with the rest of the politically correct B.S. surrounding and associated with this game (amongst other issues such as the very outdated graphics)intend to vote with our wallets by NOT purchasing a copy.
Think of it this way... if you owned a business and one of your employers said and did things that were rude and alienated your customers you would fire them, right? I would certainly hope so if you care about keeping the doors of your business open. So why should treating someone like Manveer be any different?
Ultimately that's why proposing LEGISLATION forcing employers to put up with this kind of crap is both hypocritical and stupid beyond belief. It's hypocritical in the sense that having to legislate speech even if it is for the sake of protecting one person's opinions over another means it is inherently not free! As far as the stupidity, I would hope that would be self-evident... but if it means that it restricts a company from dealing with a special snowflake such as Manveer who is potentially ruining their image and sales, it means that employers are going to become even more picky on whom they hire.
Post a Comment