Page 15 of 38 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
17
25
... LastLast
  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    for one thing, "morals" are personal. So, while it might be morally reprehensible to me that someone chooses not to associate with someone over skin colour....it would be just a morally reprehenisble to them that I choose to assocciate with people regardless of skin colour.

    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.
    If you killed your brother and served your time for it, is it IMMORAL if mom no longer wants to invite you over for dinner? You already served your LEGAL punishment... why does mom get to "punish" you SOCIALLY after?
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  2. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I wouldn't consider it morally right or wrong.
    You don't consider it morally right or wrong that people could get together and use their numbers to force the exclusion of someone else? As in, that isn't subject to being either morally right or wrong in general, or that you think it's not morally right or wrong in this particular case?

    If it's the former I am deeply concerned; if it's the latter I am very confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    And why shouldn't the public be able to say "We don't want you to continue to support this individual?
    Again: I'm not saying they shouldn't be ABLE to say that. I'm saying they're not doing a morally good thing when they say that. "The public" isn't always morally right. In fact there's plenty of times where they have been and continue to be morally very wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    People do get fired for making the people they work with feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
    That's a very tricky area with lots of mines. People have historically used that to justify firing black people. They've used it to keep women out of the workplace. And so on. But the key thing here is something else: if he's a danger to other people, the legal system should step in and protect those people from him. If the legal system says he's not a danger to other people, he shouldn't be forced out. Could the legal system get it wrong? Absolutely. And guess what: SO COULD ALL THOSE PEOPLE AT WORK, TOO. But we need protections in place, otherwise we get authoritarian bullshit like the "one-percent doctrine" after 9/11 which was used to legally get rid of people for all sorts of reasons including ethnicity, religion, etc. just because "someone felt unsafe".

    Of course you want to combat a hostile work environment, but you also can't give people carte blanche for prejudicial action. If someone is a problem in the workplace, address it; if they're NOT but something comes to light without the information of which they'd never be perceived as a problem... that's something else. Because then the suspicion must be that they're NOT being removed because of problems in the workplace, but because of problems outside of the workplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Why are you trying to make this about morals?
    My concern from the start has been and always was whether or not it's morally okay to add social punishments to legal ones. Nothing else. So the question is why are you trying to making it about something else, when that was always what I was talking about, I guess?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Are you saying that if someone is convicted of a crime...that's the only penalty they should face?
    For that crime, yes. If there's other ancillary things that's a separate discussion. That is WHY we HAVE a legal system - to leave that up to others to punish, not society at large.

    If you think the punishment under our current legal system isn't enough... that's also a separate discussion. Certainly legal systems should be under constant review and reform, ever only asymptotically approaching an ideal of justice. But the recourse is legislative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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?
    Are you saying it WOULDN'T be morally righteous to invite them to Thanksgiving after they've served their sentence? What do you think is better for society - a world in which we have legal punishments and then reintegration into society, or a world in which we have legal punishments and then exclusion from society (at least in parts)?

    Of course it would seem like an INTUITIVELY difficult thing to do. But moral decisions often area. That's why religions need to invent all sorts of hocus-pocus to justify unintuitive behaviors like turn the other cheek or forgive your brother's murderer - because those are HARD to do naturally. But we have to ask ourselves what is best for a good society, and whether that's the first impulse or whether it's finding it in yourself to do something that goes against that first impulse because you rationally recognize its benefit.

    But let's be clear: pretending "like nothing happened" is a gross oversimplification, almost insultingly so. No one should pretend it didn't happen. It's about saying it DID happen but we can find a way to live together in a society anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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.
    Which only means you're saying nothing is punishment unless it's sadistic, i.e. the negative effect is the intent. Which is how almost NO punishment works, because the INTENT is retributive or deterring, and the MEANS by which those are achieved is the negative stimulus.

    I'd throw your Princess Bride gif back at you, but that'd be petty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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?
    In principle, yes. No one is saying she is required to act morally. Moral choices are often the really hard ones. Are you suggesting it wouldn't be at least morally more righteous to stay with him than it would be to leave him? Provided it's a decision that actually comes down to morals, and not, say, fear or whatever (which also happens).

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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.
    I know. But the example given there also WASN'T a legal matter. It was about presumption on my part, not about a legal case. Hence the irony of using one standard to attack the argument, and then abandoning that standard IN THE SAME SENTENCE to strengthen one's own argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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.
    I really don't get the hyperbole. Why create vitriol on purpose? Why imply that somehow civil courts aren't part of the legal system, and therefore I wouldn't consider it to fall into my argument?

    But I suppose you're saying that because I want a functioning justice system that intentionally insulates itself from interference by nonjudicial actors I must be a communist pedophile terrorist furry Nazi.

    See how productive that is?

    Dear gods.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    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?
    Do YOU need a legal professor to tell you that by invoking "innocent until proven guilty" you implicitly make it about a LEGAL determination and not a public impression, and that me saying this is a legal principle that does apply here does not mean I PERSONALLY think he IS innocent?

    The whole point was you can't retreat into "innocent until proven guilty" to defend your argument, then throw it out of the window when attacking someone else's. Either you invoke it and it applies to both, or you approach things differently to begin with.

    THAT was the irony.

    Or do you need a literature professor to tell you that's what irony is? In which case you're in luck!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thestrawman View Post
    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."
    Yes, pretty much. If someone gets convicted of murder, is legally punished for it, and then reenters society, I do in fact believe it is immoral not to want to associate with that person purely because they were convicted for murder. That doesn't mean you should be morally required to actively seek to associate with them either - it's not a binary world.

    That's WHY we have a legal system: to enact appropriate and proportionate punishment for transgressions that we as a society agree should not be left to the discretion of random members but to highly trained professionals. The reasoning being that it requires a great deal of training and experience to achieve the outcome that benefits society the most.

    So you must be disagreeing with something in that assumption. Do you think the legal punishment wasn't enough for the transgression? Do you think it shouldn't be up to legal professionals to decide and carry out those punishments? Or what?

    Or is it that you think you have your own sense of justice that should supersede the justice we societally agreed to implement?

    I'm happy to hear justification.

  3. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Do YOU need a legal professor to tell you that by invoking "innocent until proven guilty" you implicitly make it about a LEGAL determination and not a public impression, and that me saying this is a legal principle that does apply here does not mean I PERSONALLY think he IS innocent?

    The whole point was you can't retreat into "innocent until proven guilty" to defend your argument, then throw it out of the window when attacking someone else's. Either you invoke it and it applies to both, or you approach things differently to begin with.

    THAT was the irony.

    Or do you need a literature professor to tell you that's what irony is? In which case you're in luck!
    @Jastall's post didn't smack of invoking legal precedent. He was explaining his personal feelings and using public impression to support those feelings. It seems like you're laser-focused on the separation of legal precedent versus moral precedent and this (pretty obviously to me) is a situation where it doesn't matter. The damage has already been done and there's no amount of waxing philosophical about the vicious predation the court of public opinion has on high-profile creatives who fuck up their entire lives with boneheaded decisions that will change this.

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    for one thing, "morals" are personal. So, while it might be morally reprehensible to me that someone chooses not to associate with someone over skin colour....it would be just a morally reprehenisble to them that I choose to assocciate with people regardless of skin colour.
    But I'm not talking about personal morals, I'm talking about socially agreed-upon morality. If it was just all about personal morals, then anyone can do anything and not worry about justifying their actions - but that's very clearly NOT what the discussion is here. It's about a larger set of moral principles we at least in a general sense agree on. And where we disagree we can discuss it, but going "maybe racists are okay with what they're doing so there's no moral problem with racism" is a profoundly asinine take, no offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    If you killed your brother and served your time for it, is it IMMORAL if mom no longer wants to invite you over for dinner? You already served your LEGAL punishment... why does mom get to "punish" you SOCIALLY after?
    Yes, that would be immoral. It's an extreme case to be sure, but it's easy to be moral in the everyday cases - it's when it comes to extremes that moral fiber is tested the most.

    We can probably agree torture is immoral, too, for example. But what if there was someone who admitted he's planted a bomb that will blow up hundreds of innocents, but won't tell you where the bomb is. Would it be moral to torture them then, to try and get that information? My answer is NO. Not everyone would answer the same way.

  5. #285
    Is anyone in this thread really taking Biomega seriously or are we just poking it with sticks to see what weird thing it'll say next?

  6. #286
    The Lightbringer chrisisvacant's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Formerly SF. Now Sydney.
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    No. There is a difference between enabling and facilitating. There is NOT a difference in enabling and not punishing.

  7. #287
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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?!?!".

    Morally right/wrong =/= right/wrong.
    MMO-Champ the place where calling out trolls get you into more trouble than trolling.

  8. #288
    Immortal Darththeo's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    7,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Really? Any reason?
    Yes, 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?
    Honestly, no, I would just consider the person a racist and move on. The number of times at my job people have told me "Thank God, you're white" is far higher than I like (also funny to me as I have recent Native American heritage, so they racist people don't like me anyway). Unless, you are under a law that requires you to provide a service or be an equal opportunity employer, you have freedom to associate with who you wish.

    Unless their racism was causing harm, I do not have a problem with people being racist. I would try to educate them that they are wrong in their view, but at the end of the day, people are going to be racist to others.

    I guess you must have a very different moral system from me, or something.
    Take the number of people in the world that are capable of understanding morality. That's how many moral systems are in the world.

    No one's morals are exactly the same. There is a great deal of overlap, but not exactly the same.

    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.
    Nonsense. Again, people are not required to associate with someone. And legal transgressions often come with both social and legal punishments. Look at First Amendment Auditors or Sovereign Citizen movements where they break legal laws and those that share their stuff online get mocked for. They have both legal and social punishments. And in my state, an employer can fires someone who is incarcerated for a period of greater than 30 days during their incarceration and that person is denied an unemployment claim. That is a social punishment on top of a legal one which than has a legal one that impacts what they can do socially. Legal and social are not independent sphere.

    Can't wait for the next response going "so you're saying I should be put in jail for hating murderers?!?!".
    No, but you appear to be saying that I should allow murderers who served their time to socialize with me or hire murderers when my clients are similar to their victims.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  9. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Yes, any reason.

    Honestly, no, I would just consider the person a racist and move on.
    And that means you wouldn't consider racism morally wrong? Because there's no way I can conceive of to consider racism morally wrong but NOT consider the statement "I don't associate with certain people because of their skin color" morally wrong. I'm happy to be shown otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Unless, you are under a law that requires you to provide a service or be an equal opportunity employer, you have freedom to associate with who you wish.
    And as I've said about 15 times in this thread, I am NOT talking about the LEGAL RIGHT to associate with people or not, I'm talking about whether it's MORAL to choose not to associate with people for certain reasons (and the above example of skin color I thought was one where most people would easily agree is not a good moral justification; apparently I was mistaken).

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Unless their racism was causing harm, I do not have a problem with people being racist.
    I think those are separate issues. It's not about harm, it's about whether it's MORAL to be racist. "I have a problem with" is a bit of a vague metric. In general I, too, think that actions or attitudes that have no negative impact on anyone or anything in any way are usually not a concern for society at large. If someone is a racist but never harms anyone in any way, I am also fine with that. The problem is that "harm" is a very tricky concept, and it doesn't just extend to bodily or physical harm, and a society that tolerates intolerance could well be argued to be harmed by that intolerance even if it's not physical harm.

    But that's just an aside. Because even in the extreme case of someone being a racist purely in their mind and never letting it affect their choices or actions or have it affect anyone else, I'd still think their racism is IMMORAL. It has no practical effect on society in the case as described and so in terms of practical problems there aren't any, but that doesn't make it moral or amoral. It just makes it practically irrelevant.

    Let's be clear, though - those cases are almost purely theoretical. In practice it's basically impossible for someone to be a racist but that to NOT result in some effect outside of their own person or mind in any way. Be it through their voting or purchasing decisions, statements made, or whatever else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Take the number of people in the world that are capable of understanding morality. That's how many moral systems are in the world.
    On a philosophical level sure, but in practical terms we DO come to at least degrees of consensus about shared moral frameworks. That's always imperfect and fuzzy around the edges, but it's not like we can just go well shucks to each their own some find it moral some don't and leave it up to everyone individually. No society has ever worked like that, and it is unlikely any ever will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    No one's morals are exactly the same. There is a great deal of overlap, but not exactly the same.
    But that doesn't mean we shouldn't negotiate about those overlaps. In fact, that's where almost all of our moral debates take place. That's WHY I'm making a case here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Nonsense. Again, people are not required to associate with someone. And legal transgressions often come with both social and legal punishments. Look at First Amendment Auditors or Sovereign Citizen movements where they break legal laws and those that share their stuff online get mocked for. They have both legal and social punishments.
    I'm not sure I understand this. Of course it's happening. My point is it's IMMORAL to do so, not that it should be illegal, or that it isn't going on. It is. All the time. I just think it shouldn't be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    And in my state, an employer can fires someone who is incarcerated for a period of greater than 30 days during their incarceration and that person is denied an unemployment claim. That is a social punishment on top of a legal one which than has a legal one that impacts what they can do socially. Legal and social are not independent sphere.
    Again, I'm not saying we should make it ILLEGAL for people to mete out social punishments on top of legal ones. I'm saying it's IMMORAL for us to mete out social punishments on top of legal ones. Plenty of immoral things are perfectly legal, and there are many very good reasons for not making everything that's immoral also illegal. But that works the other way, too, and not everything that's legal is automatically moral just because it's legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    No, but you appear to be saying that I should allow murderers who served their time to socialize with me or hire murderers when my clients are similar to their victims.
    No, I'm saying that punishing them socially when they've already had their legal punishment is immoral. That doesn't mean you have to do anything - morals aren't binding. But would you not agree that if you went "I know you murdered someone, but you did your time and now I'll treat you as a member of society and not hold against you what you've already been punished for" that would be morally more righteous? And that we as a society wouldn't be better off as a whole and in the long term if we reintegrated deviants rather than excluding them?
    Last edited by Biomega; 2023-01-30 at 03:39 AM.

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    snip
    Okay. I think I can get through to you. Being a pedophile, like Justin Roiland, is not illegal on it's own. So, since it is not a legal issue it is perfectly fine morally to socially distance yourself from said pedophile.

  11. #291
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post


    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.
    Morally right according to you, perhaps, but I don't see why Adult Swim should be bound to this opinion of yours.

    I say morally the company should be free to dissociate themselves from a brand that they believe to be toxic, even if those reasons are purely monetary. To say otherwise would be to impose on any organization that they should be forced to associate with third parties that they want nothing to do with, which doesn't feel right at all.

    Also, did you miss the word probable there while typing your last two lines? I put it in italics this time. Then again I also put likely in italics too but apparently entertaining a hypothesis without accepting it is heresy.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    Morally right according to you, perhaps, but I don't see why Adult Swim should be bound to this opinion of yours.
    Which is why I'm providing explanation and justification for my position. I don't expect anyone to accept it just for its face value. That would be stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    I say morally the company should be free to dissociate themselves from a brand that they believe to be toxic, even if those reasons are purely monetary.
    I'm not quite sure what "morally free" means, here. If you're allowing for reasons that are "purely monetary" that means there are at least some reasons NOT morally justified (because then they wouldn't be PURELY monetary reasons). Certainly they have the legal right, but if you allow for a decision that's motived by money and not morals (i.e. purely monetary) why would they be exempt from moral judgment? If they make immoral decisions for monetary reasons, wouldn't that be immoral by definition? Or are you excluding the immoral, and purely talking about morally good vs. morally neutral?

    But my larger point is really that that's not how companies act to begin with (at least the vast majority of them). They make decisions first and foremost for financial reasons - those may or may not align with moral justifications, but do so because those morals tie into the finances. I.e. if they make a decision that's morally good, they're making it not BECAUSE it's morally good, but because a morally good decision makes their customers give them more money and/or because making a morally bad decision would make their customers give them less money. And the same is true in the inverse, i.e. that a morally bad decision might be made not because it's morally bad, but because it's financially rewarding and the customers will NOT withhold enough money to make it a net negative. That happens all the time in business, and it's why companies willingly pollute, or bribe, or break laws in all sorts of ways as calculated decisions based on what they think will or will not give them best financial outcome (and of course they don't always get it right, but that fact doesn't change the motivation). And, similarly, turn themselves green or donate to charity or make positive pledges that cost them money at first but generate money through customer goodwill later.

    Sure it's easy to frame decisions based on morality, but it's rarely (VERY rarely) the actual underlying motivating factor for a company. Especially a non-private one, which has investors and shareholders that may get angry if you just decide to give their money away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    To say otherwise would be to impose on any organization that they should be forced to associate with third parties that they want nothing to do with, which doesn't feel right at all.
    No one is talking about FORCING anyone. I've said it 15 times I'll say it 15 more - I'm not talking about LEGAL rights. I'm not saying people CAN'T make these choices. I'm saying that they CAN, and should continue to be able to, but that some of those choices aren't MORALLY GOOD choices. That doesn't mean they can't or aren't allowed to make them. Very, very different things.

  13. #293
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    You don't consider it morally right or wrong that people could get together and use their numbers to force the exclusion of someone else? As in, that isn't subject to being either morally right or wrong in general, or that you think it's not morally right or wrong in this particular case?
    In this case, I do not feel it is morally wrong for them to cut ties with Justin Roiland. I don't feel it is morally right either.

    I do feel it's an ethical action to take.

    That's a very tricky area with lots of mines. People have historically used that to justify firing black people. They've used it to keep women out of the workplace. And so on. But the key thing here is something else: if he's a danger to other people, the legal system should step in and protect those people from him. If the legal system says he's not a danger to other people, he shouldn't be forced out. Could the legal system get it wrong? Absolutely. And guess what: SO COULD ALL THOSE PEOPLE AT WORK, TOO. But we need protections in place, otherwise we get authoritarian bullshit like the "one-percent doctrine" after 9/11 which was used to legally get rid of people for all sorts of reasons including ethnicity, religion, etc. just because "someone felt unsafe".

    Of course you want to combat a hostile work environment, but you also can't give people carte blanche for prejudicial action. If someone is a problem in the workplace, address it; if they're NOT but something comes to light without the information of which they'd never be perceived as a problem... that's something else. Because then the suspicion must be that they're NOT being removed because of problems in the workplace, but because of problems outside of the workplace.
    I'm not talking about firing someone for being black or being a woman. I'm talking about firing someone because they are accused of very serious crimes and have engaged in inappropriate behviour with minors.

    My concern from the start has been and always was whether or not it's morally okay to add social punishments to legal ones. Nothing else. So the question is why are you trying to making it about something else, when that was always what I was talking about, I guess?
    You're still using that word "punishment".

    For that crime, yes. If there's other ancillary things that's a separate discussion. That is WHY we HAVE a legal system - to leave that up to others to punish, not society at large.
    I fail to see why just because the law has "punished" you...your employer should want to keep you on the payroll. Or that anyone else should want to forgive you.

    If you think the punishment under our current legal system isn't enough... that's also a separate discussion. Certainly legal systems should be under constant review and reform, ever only asymptotically approaching an ideal of justice. But the recourse is legislative.
    Again, it's not "punishment" to discontinue a relationship with another person.

    Are you saying it WOULDN'T be morally righteous to invite them to Thanksgiving after they've served their sentence? What do you think is better for society - a world in which we have legal punishments and then reintegration into society, or a world in which we have legal punishments and then exclusion from society (at least in parts)?
    No, I'm saying that it's not IMMORAL to invite them. It's up to mom if she wants to or not. Just like it's up to the employer if they want to keep you on the payroll.

    Of course it would seem like an INTUITIVELY difficult thing to do. But moral decisions often area. That's why religions need to invent all sorts of hocus-pocus to justify unintuitive behaviors like turn the other cheek or forgive your brother's murderer - because those are HARD to do naturally. But we have to ask ourselves what is best for a good society, and whether that's the first impulse or whether it's finding it in yourself to do something that goes against that first impulse because you rationally recognize its benefit.

    But let's be clear: pretending "like nothing happened" is a gross oversimplification, almost insultingly so. No one should pretend it didn't happen. It's about saying it DID happen but we can find a way to live together in a society anyway.
    Mom might not be ready to "live together" with you after you murdered her other son. Why shouldn't Mom be the one to decide if she is?

    Which only means you're saying nothing is punishment unless it's sadistic, i.e. the negative effect is the intent. Which is how almost NO punishment works, because the INTENT is retributive or deterring, and the MEANS by which those are achieved is the negative stimulus.
    I'd throw your Princess Bride gif back at you, but that'd be petty.

    Punishment - the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.

    Yes, when it's punishment...the negative effect is the intent. If I hurt you while defending myself...my INTENT was not to punish you... it was to protect myself. I'm not going to feel that bad if you do get hurt while I'm protecting myself...but it's not my intent to hurt you.

    Adult Swim is protecting their brand by severing their connection to him.

    In principle, yes. No one is saying she is required to act morally. Moral choices are often the really hard ones. Are you suggesting it wouldn't be at least morally more righteous to stay with him than it would be to leave him? Provided it's a decision that actually comes down to morals, and not, say, fear or whatever (which also happens).
    I'm suggesting it's mom's place to decide if welcoming her son's murderer back into her home is moral or not... not yours and not mine...mom's. Some people's morality dictates that they can never forgive their son's murderer. Some say that they can forgive... but they still would not want that person to come back into their life.

    I know. But the example given there also WASN'T a legal matter. It was about presumption on my part, not about a legal case. Hence the irony of using one standard to attack the argument, and then abandoning that standard IN THE SAME SENTENCE to strengthen one's own argument.
    You're free to give a man the presumption of innocence. If it was your company, you could choose to keep your professional relationship with him.

    No one else has any obligation to give him a presumption of innocence.

    I really don't get the hyperbole. Why create vitriol on purpose? Why imply that somehow civil courts aren't part of the legal system, and therefore I wouldn't consider it to fall into my argument?
    I belive that the conclusion I came to that you would be against victims using the civil courts to rectify an error they believe was made by the criminal courts was reasonable. It may not have been an accurate conclusion...but I do not believe it is outside the realms of reason for me to draw said conclusion.

    Since the "moral" thing for mom to do after you killed her other son was to forgive you and invite you home for thanksgiving dinner... the "moral" thing for the Goldman's to do was to accept that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering their son in a court of law. How terribly immoral it was for them to sue him. They should have just invited him over for thanksgiving dinner.

    How awful for Nicole Brown's parents to sue OJ for custody of their grandchildren. They must have done it in an attempt to punish him. They should have respected that a jury decided that he was not guilty of killing their daughter. Thanksgiving dinner.

    But I suppose you're saying that because I want a functioning justice system that intentionally insulates itself from interference by nonjudicial actors I must be a communist pedophile terrorist furry Nazi.
    See how productive that is?
    I don't believe that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from what I said. In fact, if you were to look through all of my responses to you....not once have I accused you of any kind of IMMORALITY. But let me be perfectly clear. I do not believe you are a communist (I don't really have a problem with communists but I understand it's a sensitive issue for some people). I do not believe you are a pedophile (I do have a problem with pedophiles...but I don't go around accusing people of being one all willy nilly). I do not believe you are a terrorist (Should I?). I do not believe you are a furry (not that there is anything wrong with that). And I do not believe you are a Nazi (there is definetly something wrong with that).
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2023-01-30 at 05:35 AM.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  14. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    In this case, I do not feel it is morally wrong for them to cut ties with Justin Roiland. I don't feel it is morally right either.

    I do feel it's an ethical action to take.
    But you're not for allowing that kind of behavior in general, without oversight? Or you are? I'm not entirely clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I'm not talking about firing someone for being black or being a woman. I'm talking about firing someone because they are accused of very serious crimes and have engaged in inappropriate behviour with minors.
    Yes, and those crimes will (presumably) be punished by the legal system. What is the moral justification for ALSO punishing them by firing them etc. Are you concerned that someone who is inappropriate with minors will also assault people of age in the workplace? Who should make that determination so that it DOESN'T just give people carte blanche to discriminate as they please like we KNOW they did under things like the one-percent doctrine? Do you think it's fine to just leave that to other employees or the employer without oversight or redress mechanisms? Do you think it's more moral to just go "let them figure it out, and fire whoever they want" or to have a system in place to provide checks and balances against abuse?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    You're still using that word "punishment".
    Yes. You putting it in quotation marks doesn't magically defuse the argument. You have a problem with the terminology, explain it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I fail to see why just because the law has "punished" you...your employer should want to keep you on the payroll. Or that anyone else should want to forgive you.
    I'm not saying they HAVE to. I'm saying it's not moral for them not to. They can still do that, and just not be moral. That's up to them.

    Nobody is forcing forgiveness on anyone either. But you'd agree, perhaps, that if they WERE to forgive that would be more moral than not forgiving? I want to be clear about that before going further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Again, it's not "punishment" to discontinue a relationship with another person.
    You are withholding/withdrawing a privilege they previously enjoyed in response to an action you perceive is deserving of that. Call me crazy but that sounds like punishment to me. Which is fine. You have that right. I'd just like a moral justification. Which you also don't have to give - as I keep saying, nobody can or should force people to be moral in their action. Doesn't mean they suddenly become moral that way, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    It's up to mom if she wants to or not. Just like it's up to the employer if they want to keep you on the payroll.
    I'm not sure why this is difficult. I did not ever anywhere say it wasn't UP TO THEM to do or not do it. I never suggested they be forced into any action or inaction of any kind in any way. And yet every second sentence we come back to this. Very confusing.

    I'm saying that them choosing to invite them after their punishment has been served is moral. And to exclude them is immoral. That's it. That doesn't mean they don't get to choose, that doesn't mean it should be illegal, it only means what I've said and keep on saying: that one choice is moral and the other is immoral. Only that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Mom might not be ready to "live together" with you after you murdered her other son. Why shouldn't Mom be the one to decide if she is?
    And for the 50th time, IT IS AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE HER CHOICE. I never said anything else, never indicated that it wouldn't be, in fact I've been quite emphatic in countless instances about making absolutely sure that I am not and never was in any way or anywhere advocating that people SHOULDN'T GET A CHOICE. This is becoming a rather unpleasant exercise in lack of reading comprehension.

    Just because I find a choice someone makes immoral doesn't mean I don't think they should have that choice. Not in any way, shape, or form. But just because I think they have and always should have a choice doesn't mean I'll stop morally judging those choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Adult Swim is protecting their brand by severing their connection to him.
    I agree. It's an easy, financial decision for them that neither surprises me nor falls outside of the norm. I still think it's immoral, but I also think that morality isn't what interests corporations unless it's tied in with financial considerations. What I'm criticizing isn't the company, it's the CUSTOMERS who dictate that choice to the company by converting their moral judgement into financial results for the company in question. The company merely goes where the money is. That's what companies do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I'm suggesting it's mom's place to decide if welcoming her son's murderer back into her home is moral or not... not yours and not mine...mom's. Some people's morality dictates that they can never forgive their son's murderer. Some say that they can forgive... but they still would not want that person to come back into their life.
    Doesn't work for me. We have at least SOME general basis for shared morality. It's not 100% across the board, but it's not every-morality-for-itself, either, because we share a society and that means we need to agree on some shared morals, too, to make that society work better. Problems like this need to be negotiated in that space, because they have serious implications for the rest of society. It's in all our interest to be more moral and more just, because that makes all of our lives better collectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    You're free to give a man the presumption of innocence. If it was your company, you could choose to keep your professional relationship with him.

    No one else has any obligation to give him a presumption of innocence.
    I also wasn't the one who brought it up. My point was that you can't use it to support your argument when it's about your side, and then in the same sentence ignore it when it's about another side. That's it. I wasn't talking about who is or isn't actually innocent - I was pointing out that you can't take a legal doctrine and use it when it suits you, then throw it away when it should also apply but doesn't suit you. THAT was the irony in the statement. Whether or not he is or isn't innocent or should be presumed so was beside the point in that particular statement. It was about the double standard only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I belive that the conclusion I came to that you would be against victims using the civil courts to rectify an error they believe was made by the criminal courts was reasonable. It may not have been an accurate conclusion...but I do not believe it is outside the realms of reason for me to draw said conclusion.
    I think you'll find that you didn't even understand the point I was making, given that you repeatedly came back to the issue of not letting people choose when I repeatedly and in no uncertain terms made clear that it was never about that. Perhaps reading things carefully first before making wild conclusions might be the better course of action here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Since the "moral" thing for mom to do after you killed her other son was to forgive you and invite you home for thanksgiving dinner...
    I didn't say anything about forgiveness, which is a separate process. You don't need to forgive someone for their crime to still treat them like a full member of society. Affording someone the respect and courtesy you would most human beings in a similar standing is not the same as forgiveness. All I'm saying is that we should accept that we have mechanisms in place that punish certain transgressions, and that we willingly and consciously abdicate our responsibility to punish those transgressions to that system. That doesn't mean that we on a personal level have forgiven them for those transgressions, it only means that we recognize it's not on us to punish them for them. And that we do all this for good reason. If you then ALSO forgive them that's morally virtuous, but not forgiving them is not immoral; continuing to punish them (directly or indirectly) when they've already been punished by the system we all have collectively set up to do the punishing, however, IS immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    the "moral" thing for the Goldman's to do was to accept that OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering their son in a court of law. How terribly immoral it was for them to sue him. They should have just invited him over for thanksgiving dinner.
    And again you're somehow pretending that civil court isn't part of the legal system. My whole POINT is that they shouldn't go outside the legal system to punish people. Civil courts ARE PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

    And you're surprised that you come to weird conclusions? You quite evidently don't even understand what's going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    How awful for Nicole Brown's parents to sue OJ for custody of their grandchildren. They must have done it in an attempt to punish him. They should have respected that a jury decided that he was not guilty of killing their daughter. Thanksgiving dinner.
    QED. You're using derision and vitriol to try and make an emotional appeal, because you don't understand the argument enough to make an actual rebuttal. How about you just can the waterworks, and bring some REASONING to the table? Then we can talk like adults.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I don't believe that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from what I said.
    Congratulations, you've identified that I was using this absurd string of buzzwords to hyperbolically illustrate that what you did wasn't a reasonable conclusion.

    Hallelujah. We got through in the end.

  15. #295
    I'll be honest all of this has kinda ruined watching the show a bit for me part of me kinda wishes they just cancelled the show if everything is true but at the same time part if me also wants it to continue on. I'm curious if they are going to address it on the show or if Rick and Morty will just have new voices.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thestrawman View Post
    Okay. I think I can get through to you. Being a pedophile, like Justin Roiland, is not illegal on it's own. So, since it is not a legal issue it is perfectly fine morally to socially distance yourself from said pedophile.
    Wasn't the girl he was being a creep to 16? I remember someone on the forums once mentioning that its like several years under 16 that makes one a pedo. Which I guess makes sense since people don't just magically evolve into a new form at 18. I don't remember the exact cutoff and I'm not going to bother looking it up I'm just pointing out there is a difference between being a creep and what you're calling him.

  16. #296
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    But you're not for allowing that kind of behavior in general, without oversight? Or you are? I'm not entirely clear.
    Yes, I am allowing for people to choose whether or not they want to continue relationships with people without any oversight. And so are you. You have said that they have every right to fire him. You don't think it's moral... but you agree they should be allowed to fire him. What oversight are you suggesting here other than your own morality?

    Yes, and those crimes will (presumably) be punished by the legal system. What is the moral justification for ALSO punishing them by firing them etc. Are you concerned that someone who is inappropriate with minors will also assault people of age in the workplace? Who should make that determination so that it DOESN'T just give people carte blanche to discriminate as they please like we KNOW they did under things like the one-percent doctrine? Do you think it's fine to just leave that to other employees or the employer without oversight or redress mechanisms? Do you think it's more moral to just go "let them figure it out, and fire whoever they want" or to have a system in place to provide checks and balances against abuse?
    You should stop using the term "punishment". It's not landing well for you.

    Yes. You putting it in quotation marks doesn't magically defuse the argument. You have a problem with the terminology, explain it.
    I have.

    I'm not saying they HAVE to. I'm saying it's not moral for them not to. They can still do that, and just not be moral. That's up to them.
    You're saying you don't think it's moral. I agree that you don't think it's moral.

    Nobody is forcing forgiveness on anyone either. But you'd agree, perhaps, that if they WERE to forgive that would be more moral than not forgiving? I want to be clear about that before going further.
    No, I wouldn't agree to that. It's not my place to tell people that they're not being moral if they cannot forgive someone.

    You are withholding/withdrawing a privilege they previously enjoyed in response to an action you perceive is deserving of that. Call me crazy but that sounds like punishment to me. Which is fine. You have that right. I'd just like a moral justification. Which you also don't have to give - as I keep saying, nobody can or should force people to be moral in their action. Doesn't mean they suddenly become moral that way, though.
    If the reason I'm withdrawing the privelege is to punish...it's punishment. If the reason I'm doing it is to protect myself... it isn't. If the person wants to feel punished...I can't stop them.

    Let me throw another example:

    A teacher sexually abuses a student. He goes to prison. His wife files for divorce. Is she doing that just to punish him? When he gets out, his children won't visit him because they don't feel safe. Is that punishment? The school he works for fires him... is that punishment? He has to register as a sex offender... is that done to punish him...or to protect other children? He's not allowed near a playground... unfair punishment?

    I'm not sure why this is difficult. I did not ever anywhere say it wasn't UP TO THEM to do or not do it. I never suggested they be forced into any action or inaction of any kind in any way. And yet every second sentence we come back to this. Very confusing.

    I'm saying that them choosing to invite them after their punishment has been served is moral. And to exclude them is immoral. That's it. That doesn't mean they don't get to choose, that doesn't mean it should be illegal, it only means what I've said and keep on saying: that one choice is moral and the other is immoral. Only that.
    And I disagree with your assessment that exclusion is a moral failing. In fact, I find the whole idea insane.

    And for the 50th time, IT IS AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE HER CHOICE. I never said anything else, never indicated that it wouldn't be, in fact I've been quite emphatic in countless instances about making absolutely sure that I am not and never was in any way or anywhere advocating that people SHOULDN'T GET A CHOICE. This is becoming a rather unpleasant exercise in lack of reading comprehension.
    I get that you understand it's their choice and that you just don't approve of it or think it's a moral action. I disagree with that assessment. That's what this comes down to. I don't agree with the premise that it's "immoral" for a company to fire someone they have a good faith belief of committing a horrible action.

    Just because I find a choice someone makes immoral doesn't mean I don't think they should have that choice. Not in any way, shape, or form. But just because I think they have and always should have a choice doesn't mean I'll stop morally judging those choices.
    You can go ahead and judge them all you want....but no one has to agree with your moral judgement.

    I agree. It's an easy, financial decision for them that neither surprises me nor falls outside of the norm. I still think it's immoral, but I also think that morality isn't what interests corporations unless it's tied in with financial considerations. What I'm criticizing isn't the company, it's the CUSTOMERS who dictate that choice to the company by converting their moral judgement into financial results for the company in question. The company merely goes where the money is. That's what companies do.
    And that's morally wrong... how? Because they want to continue to make money? Wanting to stay in business is a moral failing?

    Doesn't work for me. We have at least SOME general basis for shared morality.
    Apparently not on this issue. I think it's for the victims to decide if/when to forgive... not you.

    It's not 100% across the board, but it's not every-morality-for-itself, either, because we share a society and that means we need to agree on some shared morals, too, to make that society work better.
    Yes, we have to agree on some shared morals...but we do not agree on this one.

    Problems like this need to be negotiated in that space, because they have serious implications for the rest of society. It's in all our interest to be more moral and more just, because that makes all of our lives better collectively.
    Moral acccording to whom? You? You're the arbiter of morality?

    I also wasn't the one who brought it up. My point was that you can't use it to support your argument when it's about your side, and then in the same sentence ignore it when it's about another side. That's it. I wasn't talking about who is or isn't actually innocent - I was pointing out that you can't take a legal doctrine and use it when it suits you, then throw it away when it should also apply but doesn't suit you. THAT was the irony in the statement. Whether or not he is or isn't innocent or should be presumed so was beside the point in that particular statement. It was about the double standard only.
    I will always stand for the presumption of innocence when it comes to a court of law. I do not have to apply that doctrine in my personal life. There's no double standard.

    I didn't say anything about forgiveness, which is a separate process. You don't need to forgive someone for their crime to still treat them like a full member of society. Affording someone the respect and courtesy you would most human beings in a similar standing is not the same as forgiveness.
    Great, so as long as I treat a murderer with the same respect and courtesy as I would treat any other murderer...I'm being moral.

    All I'm saying is that we should accept that we have mechanisms in place that punish certain transgressions, and that we willingly and consciously abdicate our responsibility to punish those transgressions to that system.
    And I'm saying that we have never abdicated our right to decide who we wish to associate with and there is nothing inherently "immoral" with ending that association. If a friend does something I find morally reprehensible and it is not a crime... it is not immoral for me to end that friendship. Why would it be immoral for me to end that friendship if that morally reprehensible if it is a crime? Because it's not my place to "punish" them?

    And again you're somehow pretending that civil court isn't part of the legal system. My whole POINT is that they shouldn't go outside the legal system to punish people. Civil courts ARE PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
    Right, stupid me. That makes tons of sense. As long as I have something to sue over...I can punish people for as long as I want and never have to worry about the "morality"

    QED. You're using derision and vitriol to try and make an emotional appeal, because you don't understand the argument enough to make an actual rebuttal. How about you just can the waterworks, and bring some REASONING to the table? Then we can talk like adults.
    I'm using derision and vitriol? You've spent half your rant berating me on a personal level.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2023-01-30 at 08:37 AM.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  17. #297
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    Wasn't the girl he was being a creep to 16? I remember someone on the forums once mentioning that its like several years under 16 that makes one a pedo. Which I guess makes sense since people don't just magically evolve into a new form at 18. I don't remember the exact cutoff and I'm not going to bother looking it up I'm just pointing out there is a difference between being a creep and what you're calling him.
    The distinction is important because Roiland knew the girl wasn't of-age and did it anyway. He was openly calling her jailbait. I mean, it might not be illegal but it is, unequivocally, gross.

  18. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    Honestly, I'm not worried about whether he ends up convicted or not. It's awful, what he's accused of doing, but there are millions of people in America who've assaulted their spouse or worse and they all still work in their jobs.

    If someone wanted to drop a product because of someone behind the creation of that product that's perfectly acceptable. I, personally, won't touch anything Harry Potter because of JK Rowling. But it should be an individual choice, with no shame being attached to whichever choice someone makes. If you want to play Harry Potter I got no problem with that, it's my choice not to and I have no right to choose for you.

    We have a justice system in place to hold people accountable for the awful things they do, it makes no sense to punish people by taking their jobs as well. If we're gonna do that, then millions of people need to be fired today for a plethora of offenses and we need to drop any pretense of being based on a system of justice.

    Anyway, rant aside, I personally won't watch the show any longer after this. Not because I'm outraged, but simply because I don't believe the show will be anywhere near the same without his talents. It's the same as Futurama, I wouldn't have watched a new season without Bender or John DiMaggio playing Bender.
    I know this behavior makes you feel special but it's really mindless and pointless. If we stop consuming media based on the actions of the people involved, strictly, we wouldn't consume anything. People do fucked up stuff, they have weird opinions influenced by the stuff around them. I don't agree with everything artists say, especially ones like Lovecraft. Are you telling me you really don't consume any form of media if the creator/s have done things you morally object to? Might as well turn the computer off, throw your phone in the trash and stay home then.

    There is no excuse for what Roiland has been accused of doing. But to stop enjoying something because the creator is a reprehensible shithead is just dumb.

  19. #299
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Do you think a company should be forced to keep someone on payroll they no longer want to associate with?
    I don't presume to speak for him, but I think his point is that, had the company known about this stuff while the rest of the world didn't, they wouldn't have fired him. That they fired him out of fear of what public opinion could do to their profits, and that said public opinion shouldn't have such power, because it can lead to mob justice and innocent people getting burned at metaphorical stakes.

    And like others have said, I agree on principle, but for better or for worse, we live in a society. People, individually or collectivelly, are entitled to have opinions, which can be right or wrong, about other people. If you live in a village and everyone there hates you, chances are you are going to have to leave the place. The Internet and social networks have turned the world into a big village, in which anyone can be known (and judged) by almost everyone through artificial means, but with natural consequences.

    You are free to dislike elements of this, I certainly do, but arguing against it is futile. Hopefully someday we'll all evolve to a point in which technology and communication aren't misused, each and every one of us thinking critically and empathically before speaking for or against anything. But until then, we can only hope that the people who get burned at those stakes deserve it in some way...

  20. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by Forteofgray View Post
    I know this behavior makes you feel special but it's really mindless and pointless. If we stop consuming media based on the actions of the people involved, strictly, we wouldn't consume anything. People do fucked up stuff, they have weird opinions influenced by the stuff around them. I don't agree with everything artists say, especially ones like Lovecraft. Are you telling me you really don't consume any form of media if the creator/s have done things you morally object to? Might as well turn the computer off, throw your phone in the trash and stay home then.
    As a consumer you have every right not to consume something if you feel the creator's morals misalign with your own. It is perfectly acceptable to reassess your enjoyment of a piece of art retroactively if you find out later the person who created it was a total piece of shit. Yes, most humans are shitty and most humans do things that other humans would find reprehensible ... but that's not a free pass to throw your hands in the air and say "fuck it, art is art and humans are humans." The two are inextricably tied to one another and it takes Olympics level mental gymnastics to deny this plain fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Forteofgray View Post
    There is no excuse for what Roiland has been accused of doing. But to stop enjoying something because the creator is a reprehensible shithead is just dumb.
    Your inability to understand other people's scruples is not an excuse to chastise them. I disagree almost entirely with everything @VMSmith wrote in that post but you managed to take offense to the only sensible thing he said in it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •