[TV] Rick and Morty

[Jastall]

They well may, but the reason they ACT on it is because their job as a company is to make money, and if taking a moral stand COSTS them tons of money they don't usually do it. The reason they often DO is because it customers respond positively to it and/or would respond negatively if they didn't - either way is a monetary gain relative to the alternative.


No. You are saying it doesn't matter to your business decisions. That is not the same thing. If I don't call someone out for having a TRUMP IS THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS bumper sticker that doesn't automatically mean I agree with it. It far more likely means I don't give a shit about what they're saying.

This is exactly the kind of "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude that is causing so many problems.

"Doesn't align with company values" means nothing except "we have an out to get rid of people if we think they cost us money with their behavior", which is exactly how it works. If people continue making oodles of money for the company they'll keep them on - there's plenty of evidence for that, when you look at the numbers of scandals and legal convictions some business people have racked up. Clearly they don't care about morals per se - they care about morals as a mechanism that engenders goodwill among customers. If that's under threat, you get booted; if not, they make it work. But that's because of the CUSTOMERS' morals, not the company's. Let's be very clear about that.

And sure there will be the odd company in private hands that'll go "you know what, I don't want to stand for this" and will make a decision that knowingly costs them money (decisions that they made thinking they wouldn't cost them but then did don't count). But those are a tiny minority, a good number of which are still only doing it for virtue-signalling points, and in any event would have to be a privately owned company because otherwise shareholders might sue you for deliberately setting their profits on fire.


But that's my point - there's a difference between 'enabling' and 'not actively punishing'. We have a legal system to punish people for legal transgressions. If those punishments are not enough to provide in the classical doctrine of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence (upon which many legal systems, including the US, are ultimately founded when it comes to legal punishment) then they need to be reformed; not supplemented by the general public stepping in to punish on top of the legal punishments.

If it was some random employee you might have a point, and even then that's stretching it because I know that at my job I'd be, at best, suspended if I was accused of sexual assault and my bosses knew about it.

He's one of the co-creators of the show. A face of the brand. Associating with him while he has such accusations above his head goes above and beyond a simple business decision, it's a pretty important branding problem. Freedom includes the freedom of association, and the company no longer wanting to associate with a person that may have committed such wrongs is nothing out of the ordinary. This is a weird hill to die on. What should be the alternative, force the company to keep him until judgement is rendered?

Also, what tells you the people who made that decision were solely motivated by money? They likely were but we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. They might also just not want to have a probable sexual offender and pedophile as an employee.

[Biomega]

Sure, I am free to quit. I'm also free to go to management and say "I don't want to work with him". And Management is free to say "Hey, a lot of our employees are going to leave if we keep this guy employed and a lot of our customers might leave as well...maybe we should get him to leave instead".

That's right. In which case, again, they would do it BECAUSE IT WOULD COST THEM MONEY, not because they have a moral objection.

And it still wouldn't make what the other employees are doing morally okay, because banding together to shun someone isn't exactly the way moral righteousness is determined, is it.

It is not "extrajudicial punishment". It is a company making a choice to no longer have their brand tied to his.

Yes... for reasons that I explained have to do with customers making moral judgements. I'm not saying they don't have the legal right to fire him; they do. I'm saying it isn't automatically morally righteous of them to do so, just because he committed a crime for which he will (ostensibly) receive legal punishment. Just because the company allows itself to be instrumentalized by public opinion for their own personal financial gain doesn't mean they're not complicit in what the public is effectively doing - meting out additional extrajudicial punishment.

It doesn't matter if he did it in the workplace. It's a workplace issue if it affects the workplace. Having a highly visible representative of your company up on serious criminal charges affects the workplace.

How? If your argument is "it reflects negatively on the company" then this is just circular logic - it's just obscuring the fact that the company is acting for financial gain. If it affects his actual work performance and behavior relative to his coworkers, then that's a different matter, and would warrant responses irrespective of the legal crimes. But that's adding facts to the issue - we have no idea if this affected his workplace behavior or not, and in what way.

If someone was to be a model employee, behave properly, interact in all the right ways - and then it came out he committed some kind of crime outside of work for which he received legal punishment... what, exactly, justifies a workplace punishment if not knowing of that crime would not have changed the workplace one bit? I'm not talking about cases where someone was already a problem, or where someone committing a crime DID have some effect on how they behave at work - that's a different situation. I have no idea if this is the case here or not, but all indicators are that he didn't get fired because he was trouble to work with. Even if he was, plenty of people are and do NOT get fired purely for being no fun to be around. Which DOES make this extra on top, not just a consequence.

Actually, yes, I would include him getting shot in the street as a consequence that goes beyond legal judgement if the person that shot him was motivated by that. I would also say that the person that shot him in the street should also lose their job too. I wouldn't want to employ a murderer.

Let's just play devil's advocate, then: why wouldn't you want to employ a murderer? Assuming they had already received their legal punishment, of course, and were subsequently deemed fit by the legal system to reenter society. Why, exactly, would you not want to employ them? Morally speaking?

It doesn't make it morally wrong either. And whether or not you want to continue to associate with someone is not a legal matter. Adult Swim, Hulu, etc no longer to want to associate with him.

I have repeatedly said that this isn't about it being a legal matter. So thanks for repeating that, too, I guess?

I'm not saying people don't have a legal right to associate with them (there, said it again), I'm saying that shunning someone is effectively meting out social punishments on top of legal ones, and I'd like moral justification for that. NOT legal justification. Why do people think it's okay to outsource the punishment mechanism but then still get their punishment in afterwards (effectively, if not in fact)? Does that not go against the idea of outsourcing justice in the first place?

I don't consider it a punishment for a company to no longer want to tie their brand with his. It may impact him negatively...but that doesn't make it a punishment. A hurricane impacts people negatively...it doesn't make it a punishment.

Because a hurricane doesn't have agency or intent, and these people do?

What are you saying, people getting hit by lightning isn't considered evil so it's fine to go around electrocuting people? Or what? It's punishment because the negative effect is the result of INTENTIONAL ACTION in response to something. That's sort of the definition of punishment.

- - - Updated - - -

If it was some random employee you might have a point, and even then that's stretching it because I know that at my job I'd be, at best, suspended if I was accused of sexual assault and my bosses knew about it.

He's one of the co-creators of the show. A face of the brand. Associating with him while he has such accusations above his head goes above and beyond a simple business decision, it's a pretty important branding problem. Freedom includes the freedom of association, and the company no longer wanting to associate with a person that may have committed such wrongs is nothing out of the ordinary. This is a weird hill to die on. What should be the alternative, force the company to keep him until judgement is rendered?

Again - I'm NOT saying they don't or shouldn't have the LEGAL RIGHT to get rid of him. They do, and they should. I'm saying that doesn't make it MORALLY okay to do so, and people should stop pretending it does. Don't mix those two up.

Also, what tells you the people who made that decision were solely motivated by money? They likely were but we don't know.

Because that's an extraordinary claim that would require a more extraordinary burden of proof. Companies acting in their financial self-interest is so mundane a fact it's the null hypothesis here. If your claim is they did this to their financial DETRIMENT that would be an extraordinary case that flies in the evidence of the 294292357 CEOs and other executives that have conviction sheets a mile long and still happily enjoy employment because they happen to be in positions where them being deviants of whatever flavor DOESN'T cost their company money.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. They might also just not want to have a probable sexual offender and pedophile as an employee.

Right, so they're innocent until proven guilty, but he IS a "sexual offender and pedophile" BEFORE he's proven guilty.

I'd have an ironygasm, but I'm still in refractory mode for the day.

[eschatological]

Yes... for reasons that I explained have to do with customers making moral judgements. I'm not saying they don't have the legal right to fire him; they do. I'm saying it isn't automatically morally righteous of them to do so, just because he committed a crime for which he will (ostensibly) receive legal punishment. Just because the company allows itself to be instrumentalized by public opinion for their own personal financial gain doesn't mean they're not complicit in what the public is effectively doing - meting out additional extrajudicial punishment.

Customers are always making moral judgements. That's their right as customers. The whole Civil Rights movement was based on bus boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins against businesses that chose to segregate. What you seem to be saying is you don't agree with their moral judgement in this case, for some reason. Which no one here can understand, cause his behavior was abhorrent, and you seem to be one of those people who thinks people shouldn't protest because the legal process exists and we should just go pass a law in Congress.

Like, seriously, OJ was accused of killing someone outside of his "job" of being a movie star and a sports commentator for NBC Sports. He was found not guilty in a court of law. Should NBC be blamed for firing him, or movie studios for not hiring him for their movies any more? In the eyes of the law, he was free of any legal liability.

No? That's absurd? Yeah, of course it is. Why is it not absurd in this case? Because....you believe that Roiland's actions weren't immoral and illegal? Cause that's the only avenue I can see to say "let the legal process play out." People are capable of making moral judgements of what they want to consume or be associated with without a formal legal process.

[stross01]

Like, seriously, OJ was accused of killing someone outside of his "job" of being a movie star and a sports commentator for NBC Sports. He was found not guilty in a court of law. Should NBC be blamed for firing him, or movie studios for not hiring him for their movies any more? In the eyes of the law, he was free of any legal liability.

No? That's absurd? Yeah, of course it is. Why is it not absurd in this case? Because....you believe that Roiland's actions weren't immoral and illegal? Cause that's the only avenue I can see to say "let the legal process play out." People are capable of making moral judgements of what they want to consume or be associated with without a formal legal process.

OJ lost everything in civil court, being found unequivocally responsible.

[Kathranis]

Again - I'm NOT saying they don't or shouldn't have the LEGAL RIGHT to get rid of him. They do, and they should. I'm saying that doesn't make it MORALLY okay to do so, and people should stop pretending it does. Don't mix those two up.

What fucking world do you live in that you think morality has anything to do with the behavior of a corporation? It's a corporation in a capitalist society, it is motivated by profit, and advertisers and often consumers don't want to support or associate with sex creeps, alleged or otherwise.

Corporate behavior aside, there are social ramifications for getting caught doing something like soliciting minors. Surprise, if you're a shitbag people won't want to associate with you. Why do you think there should only be legal consequences for bad behavior?

Also, what has he done to earn forgiveness? Like, if he's guilty -- which is likely since he's voluntarily resigned and seemingly isn't fighting any of this stuff -- then there should be some apologies and acts of contrition at least before you can expect him to be accepted back in the good graces of society at large.

- - - Updated - - -

The biggest problem is he was a massive part of the show.

I haven't kept up with the latest seasons because IMO it fell off pretty hard, but it was pretty obvious to me in S3 and what I saw of S4 that Harmon was running the show and Roiland wasn't contributing much beyond ad-libbing. It was written almost entirely in Harmon's voice and not only that, was clearly a product of him working through his recent divorce.

[eschatological]

OJ lost everything in civil court, being found unequivocally responsible.

That happened years after his acquittal. But still, people rightly didn't call for his reinstatement to society's good graces.

[stross01]

That happened years after his acquittal. But still, people rightly didn't call for his reinstatement to society's good graces.

Just one year, a little less.

[Orange Joe]

There's a difference, though, between saying "I'm okay with letting the justice system handle punishment for that person" and "I'm okay with what that person did". Those are not the same thing, not even close, and not by any implication.

Just because I don't think I should be taking things into my own hands and add personal punishment to someone's legal punishment doesn't mean I endorse or excuse what they did to deserve that legal punishment. And even in cases where I might think the legal punishment was not proportional enough to the offense, the recourse is to vote and try to change the legal punishment, not to take punishment into my own hands. That's ridiculous and uncivilized.

Maybe that's just me, idk. Some people do seem to take an almost perverse pleasure in becoming the instrument of justice, if even only in a tiny way that mostly takes place in their own mind.

Do you think a company should be forced to keep someone on payroll they no longer want to associate with?

[Biomega]

Customers are always making moral judgements. That's their right as customers. The whole Civil Rights movement was based on bus boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins against businesses that chose to segregate. What you seem to be saying is you don't agree with their moral judgement in this case, for some reason. Which no one here can understand, cause his behavior was abhorrent, and you seem to be one of those people who thinks people shouldn't protest because the legal process exists and we should just go pass a law in Congress.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about his act in itself at all, and haven't really done so anywhere. Which is why it's so weird people immediately go to "...so you're saying what he did was okay", but it's not surprising they do that because that's sort of my point.

What I'm saying is we HAVE a mechanism to punish acts like that, and it's the legal justice system. He should (and probably will) be punished for what he did - BY THAT LEGAL SYSTEM.

My problem is that people think they have a MORAL RIGHT if not even a MORAL OBLIGATION to ALSO mete out social punishment on top of that. That is NOT saying I don't think he should be punished for what he did; I only think he should be punished in the ways we have come up with to organize, determine, and carry out those punishments, and NOT by random people with an at-best intuitive notion of personal "justice" who think they know what he deserves. There's a reason we have long-since decided to leave this up to professionals.

Like, seriously, OJ was accused of killing someone outside of his "job" of being a movie star and a sports commentator for NBC Sports. He was found not guilty in a court of law. Should NBC be blamed for firing him, or movie studios for not hiring him for their movies any more? In the eyes of the law, he was free of any legal liability.

That depends on what you mean by "blame". The OJ case is a strange one because of the prevailing "everyone knows he did it" mentality, but it serves well to illustrate the difficult choices we make in moral AND legal justice. Does our legal system get it right 100% of the time? Absolutely not. There's plenty of problems that need addressing, and even if we radically reformed the US legal system (and gods know it needs reforming) there'd likely always be some cases that just didn't quite work out perfectly in some way or another. AND THAT IS A CONSEQUENCE WE NEED TO WILLINGLY ACCEPT, if we accept that letting the guilty go free on occasion is preferable to punishing the innocent. If you want to argue for a different doctrine than 'innocent until proven guilty' (and you can, even in ways that aren't immediately and absurdly totalitarian, though it's a very complicated debate) that's a separate matter. But you can't have it both ways - you can't have 'innocent until proven guilty, except when, you know, we ALL KNOW he did it right?'. At least not in a moral sense.

But let's take an edge case. Let's say someone gets acquitted of murder, and then openly and freely admits their guilt - double jeopardy would protect them from (most) legal ramifications. Would it then be morally okay to punish them extrajudicially? Most people would probably say "yes" - I would not. And the reason is very simply that by accepting the moral standards of outsourcing justice to a legal system based on the necessity to (legally) prove guilt in order to justify punishment, we must also accept the failure cases. And we must accept that our covenant of refraining from personal justice for the good of society should hold even in those failure cases, because that is preferable to creating a society in which justice is NOT solely in the purview of a dedicated legal system.

I get that's a tough pill to swallow for Americans specifically. It's the whole idea behind characters like Batman, which repeatedly do exactly that: step in because the legal systems have failed (for whatever reason) and substituting their own, superior sense of justice for the social covenant of leaving justice to a system. It makes INTUITIVE sense because those stories tend to be easy to parse. We rarely if ever see a case of Batman getting it wrong. And even when he does, there rarely are substantial personal consequences. Nobody complains that they got beat up by Batman in an alley without a warrant or probable cause. Batman doesn't end up ruining someone's life by divulging their private information, or costing them their job, or marriage, or whatever else can go wrong when justice is miscarried that egregiously - and even if he were, it'd be handwaved away.
But that's not how the REAL world operate, and should operate. We MUST agree to let the system work it, and if the system isn't good enough, we IMPROVE IT - we don't just take matters into our own hands.

Because....you believe that Roiland's actions weren't immoral and illegal? Cause that's the only avenue I can see to say "let the legal process play out."

And that's the problem. People thinking the only reason someone would want justice to work within the justice system and not outside it MUST SURELY BE because they agree with the actions of the accused, or have some other kind of underhanded agenda.

The fact that you openly admit "that's the only avenue" you can see is exactly why this is such a big deal.

[Khaza-R]

I am all for combating over-sensitivity and mob mentalities. But this is not a such a case. This guy does deserves to be fired based off his conduct.

Sadly, I think the show will flop without him. Some kids cartoons have been able to pull of major VA recasts, but this is a show aimed at adults. Not sure it will be as convincing no matter how good the new VA are. Regardless, the show had a good run. I think its better to just end it and focus on creating something new entirely.

[Orange Joe]

That's right. In which case, again, they would do it BECAUSE IT WOULD COST THEM MONEY, not because they have a moral objection.

And it still wouldn't make what the other employees are doing morally okay, because banding together to shun someone isn't exactly the way moral righteousness is determined, is it.


Yes... for reasons that I explained have to do with customers making moral judgements. I'm not saying they don't have the legal right to fire him; they do. I'm saying it isn't automatically morally righteous of them to do so, just because he committed a crime for which he will (ostensibly) receive legal punishment. Just because the company allows itself to be instrumentalized by public opinion for their own personal financial gain doesn't mean they're not complicit in what the public is effectively doing - meting out additional extrajudicial punishment.


How? If your argument is "it reflects negatively on the company" then this is just circular logic - it's just obscuring the fact that the company is acting for financial gain. If it affects his actual work performance and behavior relative to his coworkers, then that's a different matter, and would warrant responses irrespective of the legal crimes. But that's adding facts to the issue - we have no idea if this affected his workplace behavior or not, and in what way.

If someone was to be a model employee, behave properly, interact in all the right ways - and then it came out he committed some kind of crime outside of work for which he received legal punishment... what, exactly, justifies a workplace punishment if not knowing of that crime would not have changed the workplace one bit? I'm not talking about cases where someone was already a problem, or where someone committing a crime DID have some effect on how they behave at work - that's a different situation. I have no idea if this is the case here or not, but all indicators are that he didn't get fired because he was trouble to work with. Even if he was, plenty of people are and do NOT get fired purely for being no fun to be around. Which DOES make this extra on top, not just a consequence.


Let's just play devil's advocate, then: why wouldn't you want to employ a murderer? Assuming they had already received their legal punishment, of course, and were subsequently deemed fit by the legal system to reenter society. Why, exactly, would you not want to employ them? Morally speaking?


I have repeatedly said that this isn't about it being a legal matter. So thanks for repeating that, too, I guess?

I'm not saying people don't have a legal right to associate with them (there, said it again), I'm saying that shunning someone is effectively meting out social punishments on top of legal ones, and I'd like moral justification for that. NOT legal justification. Why do people think it's okay to outsource the punishment mechanism but then still get their punishment in afterwards (effectively, if not in fact)? Does that not go against the idea of outsourcing justice in the first place?


Because a hurricane doesn't have agency or intent, and these people do?

What are you saying, people getting hit by lightning isn't considered evil so it's fine to go around electrocuting people? Or what? It's punishment because the negative effect is the result of INTENTIONAL ACTION in response to something. That's sort of the definition of punishment.

- - - Updated - - -


Again - I'm NOT saying they don't or shouldn't have the LEGAL RIGHT to get rid of him. They do, and they should. I'm saying that doesn't make it MORALLY okay to do so, and people should stop pretending it does. Don't mix those two up.


Because that's an extraordinary claim that would require a more extraordinary burden of proof. Companies acting in their financial self-interest is so mundane a fact it's the null hypothesis here. If your claim is they did this to their financial DETRIMENT that would be an extraordinary case that flies in the evidence of the 294292357 CEOs and other executives that have conviction sheets a mile long and still happily enjoy employment because they happen to be in positions where them being deviants of whatever flavor DOESN'T cost their company money.


Right, so they're innocent until proven guilty, but he IS a "sexual offender and pedophile" BEFORE he's proven guilty.

I'd have an ironygasm, but I'm still in refractory mode for the day.

TIL any reaction to my action is just extra judicial punishment.....

- - - Updated - - -

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about his act in itself at all, and haven't really done so anywhere. Which is why it's so weird people immediately go to "...so you're saying what he did was okay", but it's not surprising they do that because that's sort of my point.

What I'm saying is we HAVE a mechanism to punish acts like that, and it's the legal justice system. He should (and probably will) be punished for what he did - BY THAT LEGAL SYSTEM.

My problem is that people think they have a MORAL RIGHT if not even a MORAL OBLIGATION to ALSO mete out social punishment on top of that. That is NOT saying I don't think he should be punished for what he did; I only think he should be punished in the ways we have come up with to organize, determine, and carry out those punishments, and NOT by random people with an at-best intuitive notion of personal "justice" who think they know what he deserves. There's a reason we have long-since decided to leave this up to professionals.


That depends on what you mean by "blame". The OJ case is a strange one because of the prevailing "everyone knows he did it" mentality, but it serves well to illustrate the difficult choices we make in moral AND legal justice. Does our legal system get it right 100% of the time? Absolutely not. There's plenty of problems that need addressing, and even if we radically reformed the US legal system (and gods know it needs reforming) there'd likely always be some cases that just didn't quite work out perfectly in some way or another. AND THAT IS A CONSEQUENCE WE NEED TO WILLINGLY ACCEPT, if we accept that letting the guilty go free on occasion is preferable to punishing the innocent. If you want to argue for a different doctrine than 'innocent until proven guilty' (and you can, even in ways that aren't immediately and absurdly totalitarian, though it's a very complicated debate) that's a separate matter. But you can't have it both ways - you can't have 'innocent until proven guilty, except when, you know, we ALL KNOW he did it right?'. At least not in a moral sense.

But let's take an edge case. Let's say someone gets acquitted of murder, and then openly and freely admits their guilt - double jeopardy would protect them from (most) legal ramifications. Would it then be morally okay to punish them extrajudicially? Most people would probably say "yes" - I would not. And the reason is very simply that by accepting the moral standards of outsourcing justice to a legal system based on the necessity to (legally) prove guilt in order to justify punishment, we must also accept the failure cases. And we must accept that our covenant of refraining from personal justice for the good of society should hold even in those failure cases, because that is preferable to creating a society in which justice is NOT solely in the purview of a dedicated legal system.

I get that's a tough pill to swallow for Americans specifically. It's the whole idea behind characters like Batman, which repeatedly do exactly that: step in because the legal systems have failed (for whatever reason) and substituting their own, superior sense of justice for the social covenant of leaving justice to a system. It makes INTUITIVE sense because those stories tend to be easy to parse. We rarely if ever see a case of Batman getting it wrong. And even when he does, there rarely are substantial personal consequences. Nobody complains that they got beat up by Batman in an alley without a warrant or probable cause. Batman doesn't end up ruining someone's life by divulging their private information, or costing them their job, or marriage, or whatever else can go wrong when justice is miscarried that egregiously - and even if he were, it'd be handwaved away.
But that's not how the REAL world operate, and should operate. We MUST agree to let the system work it, and if the system isn't good enough, we IMPROVE IT - we don't just take matters into our own hands.


And that's the problem. People thinking the only reason someone would want justice to work within the justice system and not outside it MUST SURELY BE because they agree with the actions of the accused, or have some other kind of underhanded agenda.

The fact that you openly admit "that's the only avenue" you can see is exactly why this is such a big deal.

All you are saying is no one has the freedom of association that you have to accept and tolerate a person cause only the legal system can punish people

[Biomega]

What fucking world do you live in that you think morality has anything to do with the behavior of a corporation? It's a corporation in a capitalist society, it is motivated by profit, and advertisers and often consumers don't want to support or associate with sex creeps, alleged or otherwise.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying the corporation should make morally considered decisions. I'm saying they're NOT making morally considered decisions, only financial ones.

What I'm saying is that CUSTOMERS are the ones making this about morals. THEY are the ones thinking it's morally right, even morally required, that the guy be fired. It's THEM I disagree with, and the people who ARE saying that the corporations are just taking a moral stand (which, again, I am not saying).

Corporate behavior aside, there are social ramifications for getting caught doing something like soliciting minors. Surprise, if you're a shitbag people won't want to associate with you. Why do you think there should only be legal consequences for bad behavior?

I'm not saying that either. I'm specifically saying that if you're being punished by the legal system, why should you ALSO be punished by society on top of that? Isn't the whole reason we HAVE a legal system so society DOESN'T need to do that?

I'm not talking about things purely within society - if it's a purely social transgression, by all means, apply purely social punishment. That's your "shitbag" example - if you're an ass to people, people will respond with social sanctions. But just as nobody goes "so, you were rude to me so I'll be rude to you and also you get 2 weeks in jail" i.e. adding legal punishment to social transgression + social punishment, so nobody should (morally) go "so you spent 2 weeks in jail for tax evasion, now you can't work here anymore also you're evicted and I won't let you shop at my grocery store". Even if they're legally allowed to do so, that doesn't make it morally okay.

Also, what has he done to earn forgiveness?

Who is talking about forgiveness? Are you already on the stance of punishment being the DEFAULT? That's kind of the point I'm making - that it's NOT, or shouldn't be (morally speaking). No one is trying to excuse or forgive anything here. We have a legal system. By all means, punish him to the full extent of the law. Where is that notion coming from that UNLESS you punish socially him IN ADDITION TO THAT, that is somehow "forgiveness"?

Like, if he's guilty -- which is likely since he's voluntarily resigned and seemingly isn't fighting any of this stuff -- then there should be some apologies and acts of contrition at least before you can expect him to be accepted back in the good graces of society at large.

We haven't even gotten to that part yet. But putting aside the fact that this, too, is an implicit understanding that there MUST BE some kind of social punishment ON TOP OF the legal one... if he WERE to not apologize for his actions (and it's way too soon for all that, there hasn't even been a trial yet; let alone that he may well have apologized already I have no idea if he did or didn't) then there'd be a separate issue of THAT being a purely social transgression - and you can punish him socially for being a dick and not apologizing, but not for the act itself, which was a legal matter for which he will (presumably) receive legal punishment.

- - - Updated - - -

All you are saying is no one has the freedom of association that you have to accept and tolerate a person cause only the legal system can punish people

I mean, I've said like 10 times over the last few posts that I'm not saying anything about "freedom of association" which is a LEGAL right - I'm talking about MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Is it MORALLY OKAY to be doing it, not AM I LEGALLY ALLOWED TO.

The fact that so many people not only fail to see the distinction but have the first thing popping into their heads be "oh so you're saying WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to hate him?" is precisely why this is such an important issue, and precisely why we outsource our legal problems to highly trained professionals. Intuitive "justice" from random people who can't or won't think about it for more than five seconds just cannot be a good way for society to handle transgression.

[Orange Joe]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying the corporation should make morally considered decisions. I'm saying they're NOT making morally considered decisions, only financial ones.

What I'm saying is that CUSTOMERS are the ones making this about morals. THEY are the ones thinking it's morally right, even morally required, that the guy be fired. It's THEM I disagree with, and the people who ARE saying that the corporations are just taking a moral stand (which, again, I am not saying).


I'm not saying that either. I'm specifically saying that if you're being punished by the legal system, why should you ALSO be punished by society on top of that? Isn't the whole reason we HAVE a legal system so society DOESN'T need to do that?

I'm not talking about things purely within society - if it's a purely social transgression, by all means, apply purely social punishment. That's your "shitbag" example - if you're an ass to people, people will respond with social sanctions. But just as nobody goes "so, you were rude to me so I'll be rude to you and also you get 2 weeks in jail" i.e. adding legal punishment to social transgression + social punishment, so nobody should (morally) go "so you spent 2 weeks in jail for tax evasion, now you can't work here anymore also you're evicted and I won't let you shop at my grocery store". Even if they're legally allowed to do so, that doesn't make it morally okay.


Who is talking about forgiveness? Are you already on the stance of punishment being the DEFAULT? That's kind of the point I'm making - that it's NOT, or shouldn't be (morally speaking). No one is trying to excuse or forgive anything here. We have a legal system. By all means, punish him to the full extent of the law. Where is that notion coming from that UNLESS you punish socially him IN ADDITION TO THAT, that is somehow "forgiveness"?


We haven't even gotten to that part yet. But putting aside the fact that this, too, is an implicit understanding that there MUST BE some kind of social punishment ON TOP OF the legal one... if he WERE to not apologize for his actions (and it's way too soon for all that, there hasn't even been a trial yet; let alone that he may well have apologized already I have no idea if he did or didn't) then there'd be a separate issue of THAT being a purely social transgression - and you can punish him socially for being a dick and not apologizing, but not for the act itself, which was a legal matter for which he will (presumably) receive legal punishment.

- - - Updated - - -


I mean, I've said like 10 times over the last few posts that I'm not saying anything about "freedom of association" which is a LEGAL right - I'm talking about MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Is it MORALLY OKAY to be doing it, not AM I LEGALLY ALLOWED TO.

The fact that so many people not only fail to see the distinction but have the first thing popping into their heads be "oh so you're saying WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to hate him?" is precisely why this is such an important issue, and precisely why we outsource our legal problems to highly trained professionals. Intuitive "justice" from random people who can't or won't think about it for more than five seconds just cannot be a good way for society to handle transgression.

You are asking about the morality of someone not wanting to associate with another person..... of all the shit to pull morality into you do it here..... carry on man go fight the good fight in this silly crusade of yours...

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That's right. In which case, again, they would do it BECAUSE IT WOULD COST THEM MONEY, not because they have a moral objection.

Which is why they are doing it. They're annoucement didn't make a moral judgement. They just said they will no longer associate with him.

And it still wouldn't make what the other employees are doing morally okay, because banding together to shun someone isn't exactly the way moral righteousness is determined, is it.

I wouldn't consider it morally right or wrong.

Yes... for reasons that I explained have to do with customers making moral judgements. I'm not saying they don't have the legal right to fire him; they do. I'm saying it isn't automatically morally righteous of them to do so, just because he committed a crime for which he will (ostensibly) receive legal punishment. Just because the company allows itself to be instrumentalized by public opinion for their own personal financial gain doesn't mean they're not complicit in what the public is effectively doing - meting out additional extrajudicial punishment.

And why shouldn't the public be able to say "We don't want you to continue to support this individual?

How? If your argument is "it reflects negatively on the company" then this is just circular logic - it's just obscuring the fact that the company is acting for financial gain. If it affects his actual work performance and behavior relative to his coworkers, then that's a different matter, and would warrant responses irrespective of the legal crimes. But that's adding facts to the issue - we have no idea if this affected his workplace behavior or not, and in what way.

When have I obscured the fact that the company is working for financial gain?

If someone was to be a model employee, behave properly, interact in all the right ways - and then it came out he committed some kind of crime outside of work for which he received legal punishment... what, exactly, justifies a workplace punishment if not knowing of that crime would not have changed the workplace one bit?

"Punishment"

I'm not talking about cases where someone was already a problem, or where someone committing a crime DID have some effect on how they behave at work - that's a different situation. I have no idea if this is the case here or not, but all indicators are that he didn't get fired because he was trouble to work with. Even if he was, plenty of people are and do NOT get fired purely for being no fun to be around. Which DOES make this extra on top, not just a consequence.

People do get fired for making the people they work with feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

Let's just play devil's advocate, then: why wouldn't you want to employ a murderer? Assuming they had already received their legal punishment, of course, and were subsequently deemed fit by the legal system to reenter society. Why, exactly, would you not want to employ them? Morally speaking?

Why are you trying to make this about morals?

I'm not saying people don't have a legal right to associate with them (there, said it again), I'm saying that shunning someone is effectively meting out social punishments on top of legal ones, and I'd like moral justification for that. NOT legal justification. Why do people think it's okay to outsource the punishment mechanism but then still get their punishment in afterwards (effectively, if not in fact)? Does that not go against the idea of outsourcing justice in the first place?

Are you saying that if someone is convicted of a crime...that's the only penalty they should face? You kill your brother, go to jail, and when you're released you should get invited back to thanksgiving dinner like nothing happened? Is it an unfair "punishment" if I no longer want to associate with someone that killed their own family?

Because a hurricane doesn't have agency or intent, and these people do?

What are you saying, people getting hit by lightning isn't considered evil so it's fine to go around electrocuting people? Or what? It's punishment because the negative effect is the result of INTENTIONAL ACTION in response to something. That's sort of the definition of punishment.

The INTENTIONAL ACTION isn't punishment. It is to protect their own brand by removing their association with his. The negative impact on him is a BYPRODUCT of that decision...not the INTENT of that decision.

Let me use a different example. If you are injured when you are being mugged...was the mugger intentionally trying to "punish" you... or was he merely putting his own agenda ahead of yours?

Again - I'm NOT saying they don't or shouldn't have the LEGAL RIGHT to get rid of him. They do, and they should. I'm saying that doesn't make it MORALLY okay to do so, and people should stop pretending it does. Don't mix those two up.

Why isn't it MORALLY okay? If he were married and his wife left him over this...would you question if it was MORALLY okay for her to do so? Would that be "extrajudicial punishment" too?

Right, so they're innocent until proven guilty, but he IS a "sexual offender and pedophile" BEFORE he's proven guilty.

I'd have an ironygasm, but I'm still in refractory mode for the day.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal matter. It means he can't be convicted of a crime until a jury of his peers has concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed it. No one else has to assume he's innocent. OJ was acquitted in criminal court...does anyone really believe that he's innocent? In civil court, he was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. But I suppose you have a problem with that as well.

[Orange Joe]

Trying to bring morals into association is just asinine. It's not morally right or wrong to want/not want to associate with anyone for any reason.

[Biomega]

Trying to bring morals into association is just asinine. It's not morally right or wrong to want/not want to associate with anyone for any reason.

Really? Any reason?

If I went "that person there has a skin color different from mine, that's why I don't want to associate with them", you're saying that WOULDN'T be morally reprehensible?

I guess you must have a very different moral system from me, or something.

And before someone goes omg he's equating racism and pedophilia or whatever, I'm not saying there are NO morally justifiable reasons for not wanting to associate with someone, either. Just like I've repeatedly said that it's totally fine, even preferable, to have purely social punishments for purely social transgressions. My problem is individuals meting out social punishments for LEGAL transgressions for which there was ALREADY a legal punishment. And, specifically, that I think it's (generally) IMMORAL to do so, not that it should be ILLEGAL.

Can't wait for the next response going "so you're saying I should be put in jail for hating murderers?!?!".

[VMSmith]

I guess you must have a very different moral system from me, or something.

All these people you are arguing with sound to me exactly like the yokels that cackle with glee when someone they don't like gets imprisoned and they pipe up with "He'll be meeting Bubba soon!". It's not enough for there to be legal consequences, for these people, they want vengeance.

And I get it, that's a very human desire. But I don't find it to be a moral desire.

[eschatological]

Is it MORALLY OKAY to be doing it, not AM I LEGALLY ALLOWED TO.

The fact that so many people not only fail to see the distinction but have the first thing popping into their heads be "oh so you're saying WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to hate him?" is precisely why this is such an important issue, and precisely why we outsource our legal problems to highly trained professionals. Intuitive "justice" from random people who can't or won't think about it for more than five seconds just cannot be a good way for society to handle transgression.

Yes, it is morally okay to not want to consume the product of a sex creep.

Yes, it is morally okay to fire someone in your employment for being a sex creep.

How is this difficult?

"Moral righteousness" isn't ipso facto a negative thing....unless the moral righteousness is unfounded and therefore unjust. Are you saying it's unfounded and unjust? Because it hasn't gone through a legal process yet?

Human beings are capable of making moral judgements. Sometimes, those moral judgements are wrong. I think JK Rowling is a transphobic piece of shit, for example, because I think her moral judgement is asinine and based in nothing. So is that the argument you're making here? That the moral judgement to fire someone for being a sex creep is wrong?

[Thestrawman]

Really? Any reason?

If I went "that person there has a skin color different from mine, that's why I don't want to associate with them", you're saying that WOULDN'T be morally reprehensible?

I guess you must have a very different moral system from me, or something.

And before someone goes omg he's equating racism and pedophilia or whatever, I'm not saying there are NO morally justifiable reasons for not wanting to associate with someone, either. Just like I've repeatedly said that it's totally fine, even preferable, to have purely social punishments for purely social transgressions. My problem is individuals meting out social punishments for LEGAL transgressions for which there was ALREADY a legal punishment. And, specifically, that I think it's (generally) IMMORAL to do so, not that it should be ILLEGAL.

Can't wait for the next response going "so you're saying I should be put in jail for hating murderers?!?!".

Do you think maybe if you had a coherent argument that didn't change every post, and wasn't built on top of moon logic people might understand what you mean?

From my understanding you are saying "It's immoral for you to not want to associate with a convicted murderer because he has to face the legal ramifications of murder."

[Relapses]

Right, so they're innocent until proven guilty, but he IS a "sexual offender and pedophile" BEFORE he's proven guilty.

I'd have an ironygasm, but I'm still in refractory mode for the day.

Do you need a legal professor to tell you that actively referring to the minors you're texting as "jailbait" is... well, probably not a good idea? It's not implicit pedophilia in the court of law, I guess, but it's not a good look. If it were just the legal ramifications, Roiland may have had an out. But the legal stuff coupled with the bombshell pedophilia claims are enough to lead the entire entertainment industry to essentially do to Roiland what they've already done to Weinstein and Kevin Spacey.