I remember the subnautica devs caved to those nutbags over at reeesetera and fired their sound design guy.
... Why would that bother anyone? He said offensive things on social media; and social media workplace guidelines have existed in corporate America for over a decade now.
More like he was fired for wrong think. They can do what they want, but they did it after the lunatics at reeera made it priority number 1 in their life.
He was fired for making, at a minimum, racially insensitive comments. We don't really need to reclassify that as "wrong-think" unless we're somehow arguing that racialism and racism are things that can and should be tolerated in the workplace?
Sound guy just had different political opinions, so if he still holds those beliefs, there is nothing to be sorry about.
That's one way of looking at it, but anyone could use that argument. As you were just referencing James Gunn, one could argue that pedophilia laws are political in nature and that the entire concept age of consent is entirely socially determined and thus a political idea. Thus, they could assert that having contrary views is "wrongthink," thereby implying that employers shouldn't fire someone for holding said views.
Simply put, by your logic, employers could not police their own associations with employees based on public statements those employees make. Therefore, an employer who hires a Nazi, someone who advocated for child sex, or someone who publicly calls for all gay people to die of AIDS (again, just extrapolating from James Gunn, not saying he said this) or be expelled from the country; in your view that employer has no recourse having been made aware that their employee is publicly making said comments. Surely you agree with me that this doesn't make sense, right?
In fact, other developers for that studio used their personal account to make political statements that contradict sounds guys beliefs, yet they weren't reprimanded.
The only reason this dilemma exists is because you've falsely equated normal political discourse with racially insensitive and racially offensive discourse. It seems that you both acknowledge and ignore, simultaneously, (perhaps not consciously) the reality that certain topics are outside of what might be considered generally acceptable political ideas?
What he should have done was just post under a burner like KD, but just remember to switch back.
Or.. maybe not make racist statements, or again, statements that could be interpreted as racist?
Like, maybe he should re-evaluate the thought process that got him to this point?
Now is not a good time to attach your political beliefs to your public profile unless you are somehow a made man or your conform to what the media and reeesetera deems acceptable.
See, you
do acknowledge what is deemed acceptable, so clearly you're fully aware that his comments would very likely be viewed as offensive. So, it would seem your argument is that .. they
shouldn't be offensive? Or.. that his employer
shouldn't have fired him? I'm not really even sure.
I cant find that first tweet anywhere, but that second one he did say and I don't really have a problem with it. It's a factual statement to say that crime went up with refugees coming in.
Where? Absolutely not in the United States.
In Europe, it's a complex topic, and you could interpret the "factual statement" as being both true in some cases but also false in others; but on the whole, and most importantly, the statement is generally misleading in that it doesn't capture the complete picture of the problem.
But let's leave the question of fact to the side for a moment
(since it's largely a political and sociological question that warrants more attention than a single sentence affirmation or denial) and just ask ourselves,
what was really the point of his statement? What exactly is he trying to suggest here?
I can't say whether he's correct about the IQ statement. Maybe hes right, but I know that is a sensitive subject.
These kinds of arguments are ridiculous in that they presuppose we should be filtering out people based on their IQ. The folks making the arguments aren't publishing their IQ tests nor do they, consequently, seem to suggest we round up all people below a certain threshold of IQ? Like, why not just remove everyone under a 120 IQ? Because that might include them, of course.
So since we're not really trying to create a population of predominantly high IQ individuals (read "high" as significantly higher than 100); then aren't we really using a particular measure of IQ across political and cultural boundaries as a proxy for something else? ... you see the problem here, right?
So, and maybe you're not aware which is understandable, but these are repeated arguments we see from so-called ethno-nationalists. So that's why this person might get labeled as such when repeating their ridiculous assertions, and it's likely why he lost his job.
What we do know is violent crime did go up and he probably shouldn't have mentioned the iq thing or even posted that under his account that is attached to him personally. I don't think we can definitively say he's a racist, but hey, that's a low bar these days anyway.
But .. let's assume for a moment that he
were a racist; by your logic, would it actually matter? No, right?
So the whole point of determining where the threshold is for racism is sort of a red herring here because, it doesn't really make a difference in the moral framework you're putting forward, right?
The guy ended up getting a job right away anyway, so I don't think its fruitful to continue this conversation. It makes sense given subnautica was heralded for it's awesome sound design. I just haven't played a survival game that holds my interest amazing sound design or not.
Right...
