[TV] Rick and Morty

[Darththeo]

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.

Because you aren't actually thinking on the subject as I later explain why to you.

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).

If someone has the legal right of association, than they cannot be morally wrong for exercising said right.

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.

There are tons of racist people who do not discriminate professionally or cause any harm. Literally, there are far far more racists than you think there is.

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.

It isn't. Because it is immoral to force someone to associate with another person. You cannot force people to interact without a valid reason.

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.

And it is immoral to force people to interact with people without valid reasons. People do not have a right to be employed. People do not have a right to be friends with someone.

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?

Except it isn't immoral at all. You are again arguing while saying you aren't, you must interact with people you don't want to associate with otherwise your immoral. You are taking a right, and telling people they are immoral for exercising said right. It is the same problem I have with people saying someone is immoral because they kill in self defense or in war.

[Al Gorefiend]

Rick & Morty already did a fine enough job cornering the market on nihilistic misanthropes who enjoy cartoons. I did like R&M, but the sheer popularity just made it inevitable it'd pick up a crowd of people that, idk, make me embarrassed by guilt of association if I called myself a R&M fan in the same room as them.
Maybe it's the elitism the show promotes, like constant validation you reserve the right to be an asshole if you think you're smarter than everyone else (this same shit is rampant across MMO-C, too).
Maybe it's frequency bias, from seeing the show constantly promoted and advertised and quoted and referenced all across social media and within the walls of tattoo shops, video game outlets and dispensaries the world over. It's become the poster child of the digital age stoner or 20s-something burnout lifestyle, with merchandise sold wherever you'd go to buy vapes, bongs, fake piss and acid tabs under the table

[ClassicPeon]

I never really got the point of why people should be fired for these things(I get why the company would, but I don’t get why people are calling for it). What does him loosing his job do for anyone? How does it help the situation?

[LemonDemonGirl]

Doesn't Roiland also voice Lemongrab from Adventure Time?

[Cynical Asshole]

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".

Literally nobody cares. Nobody will stop watching Rick and Morty because the main voiceactor did something shady. Just like nobody other than a few Leftist activists and virtue signalers care about JK Rowling's involvement in video games and books.

Companies tend to have kneejerk reactions as soon as something negative starts circulating about an employee of theirs, and in the vast majority of cases, NOBODY other than a few idiots on social media give a shit about it. And the companies go as far as to lose big chunks of money by firing very important employees and pissing off a lot of people who were invested in that employee and the character they happened to play as, and making even more waves than just by ignoring the whines. (ie. Disney and Johnny Depp, effectively cancelling the entire POTC franchise).

Companies lack spines. The best way of dealing with social media whiners is to just ignore them, especially when not ignoring them runs the risk of losing even more customers than ignoring them.

As a living classic once said on his stream, "Just make a good product. That's the only thing people care about."

[Orange Joe]

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...

Which is irrelevant cause it's well within their rights to do.

[Fabinas]

I really cba to read binary logic arguments that disassociate law and moral.

In a very simplistic way of expressing it :

Law is the way of society to deal with actions that actively or passively hurt or damage its members.

It's the members that decide what is good or bad, what is damage and what not.

The compass to this, in most societies is one thing: Morals, which are connected to sentiments of human beings

What law punishes is not only because there was damage in society, that needs to be rectified and balanced by a reaction, but because the said damage is considered also immoral. Law gives physical AND moral punishment at the same time.

Law integrates the societies morals, it's actually a way to enforce them. Hence when in older times (or not so old, see Britain) when homosexuality was considered unlawful, it was because the society was finding it IMMORAL. Not because it actively or passively damaged something, but because it went against the presiding morals of family, reproduction etc.

And if i read once more the word "outsourcing" for justice...

Justice is not a service that you "outsource". It's one of people's powers that is designated to certain people with the ability to understand and govern it. Justice is an integral part of maintaining a society and it is not given outside of it.

You either don't understand Law or you troll.

[Mehrunes]

I would also like to know why adult swim doesn't get a choice in the matter?

Apples and oranges comparison. There's no meaningful relationship between a fan and the creators of a show. Meanwhile a showrunner has a legally established employment relationship with the TV station hosting their show. And while in US legal protections of employees are more imaginary than unicorns, in the rest of the western world labor law actually fulfills what is one of its core functions and protects the employees, so firing someone merely accused of a crime without an actual verdict wouldn't fly unless the crime was obvious (like getting caught in the act). And since this isn't a US forum, you're going to get perspectives affected by that.

[Orange Joe]

Apples and oranges comparison. There's no meaningful relationship between a fan and the creators of a show. Meanwhile a showrunner has a legally established employment relationship with the TV station hosting their show. And while in US legal protections of employees are more imaginary than unicorns, in the rest of the western world labor law actually fulfills what is one of its core functions and protects the employees, so firing someone merely accused of a crime without an actual verdict wouldn't fly unless the crime was obvious (like getting caught in the act). And since this isn't a US forum, you're going to get perspectives affected by that.

Show me one place he couldn't be fired for hurting the companies image and possible brand damage. See just because workers have rights in other countries it doesn't mean they can do anything and not get fired.

[Jastall]

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.


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.


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.

You seem to have a very hard time differentiating "I disagree" and "it's morally wrong". Those two are not the same thing at all. Someone making a choice you wouldn't have made for reasons you don't follow does not necessarily makes them morally lacking.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You seem to have a very hard time differentiating "I disagree" and "it's morally wrong". Those two are not the same thing at all. Someone making a choice you wouldn't have made for reasons you don't follow does not necessarily makes them morally lacking.

Well, it's fine for him to say that he personally feels it's "morally wrong"...morals are personal. Where he gets into trouble is when he pushes his moral values on everyone else.

[Fabinas]

Well, it's fine for him to say that he personally feels it's "morally wrong"...morals are personal. Where he gets into trouble is when he pushes his moral values on everyone else.

There are also group morals. Some of them are almost society wide (for example, paedophilia is abhorrent by almost all society members, bar the ones who want it, practise it or believe in it).

His problem is thinking that because law punishes something, there should be no moral punishing as well.

To bad he forgets that the subject at hand is something that is moral in its core, therefore both legal and moral repercussions can and should occur. Also, what i mentioned above about the connection of law and moral, in short law being an expression of morals of society.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

His problem is thinking that because law punishes something, there should be no moral punishing as well.

I don't really like the term "moral punishments"... I think it more accurate to call them "social consequences". Many of those consequences may come with negative impacts... but they aren't really "punishments"... and many are entirely amoral. Adult Swim, Hulu, et al are, at least in part, cutting ties with Roilland to spare themselves some social blowback that could jeopardize their bottom line.

But otherwise I completely agree with you... his problem is that he believes that the only "punishments" should be legal ones and that any other negative consequences are "immoral".

[Finlandia WOAT]

Always amusing to see people argue for the right of the rich and powerful to follow different standards than the rest of us.

At the garbage fast food job I worked at in college, you could fired if you told a rude customer to piss off. You would get fired if you no callled/no showed. You'd get fired if you were late to work one too many times. So spare me the moral whinging over Roiland losing his job because he's a pedo and in legal trouble for domestic assault.

I should clarify- *must* Adult Swim cut ties with Roiland? No. *Can* they? Obviously. What else is there to argue?

[Endus]

If someone has the legal right of association, than they cannot be morally wrong for exercising said right.

This is a fundamentally silly statement.

You've got the legal right to tell a lost toddler that their mommy and daddy abandoned them because they're such a terrible child and ruined their lives.

You're an enormous asshole for doing such an immoral thing.

You've got the legal right to attend your local KKK chapter's meetings. Doing so is a moral failing, unless you're secretly working against them somehow.

Etc.

The idea that "it's technically legal, so it can't be immoral" is so obviously ridiculous I shouldn't even have to make this post.

There are tons of racist people who do not discriminate professionally or cause any harm. Literally, there are far far more racists than you think there is.

And learning that an employee harbors racist views still counts as just cause to fire that employee basically everywhere, even where you have to have cause to fire someone. It isn't based on whether they've acted on those views while on the job in some way (though that obviously demonstrates they have those views, and thus cause).

Except it isn't immoral at all. You are again arguing while saying you aren't, you must interact with people you don't want to associate with otherwise your immoral. You are taking a right, and telling people they are immoral for exercising said right. It is the same problem I have with people saying someone is immoral because they kill in self defense or in war.

I disagree (as above) with your claim that legality means it can't be immoral. But in this context, firing a guy for things they said, it's entirely about the context of those things.

Firing an employee for saying they love their gay son? Well, you'd have to be a homophobe to choose to fire someone over that, so there's the immorality right there.

Firing an employee for saying they hate their gay son for being gay? Totally justifiable; homophobia isn't tolerable and the employee has demonstrated a deep failure of moral and ethical character that justifies their firing.

The employee, of course, has the legal right to be as homophobic as they want to be. But everyone else, including their employer, is free to respond accordingly to that. Which includes them losing their job over it.

Hell, look at it the other way around, and consider an obviously-illegal-and-heinous act being legalized. Imagine Republicans pass laws legalizing child pornography. Is making child porn and engaging in the (now legal) harm and abuse that requires now perfectly moral, because it's legal?

[Darththeo]

You're an enormous asshole for doing such an immoral thing.

Being an asshole isn't immoral.

You've got the legal right to attend your local KKK chapter's meetings. Doing so is a moral failing, unless you're secretly working against them somehow.

Even if you attend to report on?

The idea that "it's technically legal, so it can't be immoral" is so obviously ridiculous I shouldn't even have to make this post.

It's really isn't. And isn't exactly my argument, because the argument is "legal right" ... not legal.

And learning that an employee harbors racist views still counts as just cause to fire that employee basically everywhere, even where you have to have cause to fire someone. It isn't based on whether they've acted on those views while on the job in some way (though that obviously demonstrates they have those views, and thus cause).

Actually, I believe Montana and a few other states it is illegal to fire without a work related cause.

Firing an employee for saying they love their gay son? Well, you'd have to be a homophobe to choose to fire someone over that, so there's the immorality right there.

Firing an employee for saying they hate their gay son for being gay? Totally justifiable; homophobia isn't tolerable and the employee has demonstrated a deep failure of moral and ethical character that justifies their firing.

These are technically the same thing. If one is moral, so is the other.

Hell, look at it the other way around, and consider an obviously-illegal-and-heinous act being legalized. Imagine Republicans pass laws legalizing child pornography. Is making child porn and engaging in the (now legal) harm and abuse that requires now perfectly moral, because it's legal?

It is almost like you made a strawman of my point. I am not just talking about "legal", but a "right of the person." These aren't the same thing. You would have to say Republicans made it a RIGHT to have child pornography, not just "Legal"

[VMSmith]

At the garbage fast food job I worked at in college, you could fired if you told a rude customer to piss off. You would get fired if you no callled/no showed. You'd get fired if you were late to work one too many times.

All of these things are job performance issues, none of them have anything to do with your personal life and choices outside of work.

So spare me the moral whinging over Roiland losing his job because he's a pedo and in legal trouble for domestic assault.

This, however, has nothing to do with his job and is simply punishing him because we don't like him or what he does in his own personal time.

As has been argued, the legal right to administer this punishment absolutely exists, but is it moral to do so? I fall on the side of believing this is moral outrage and vengeance, which we typically like to think of as being a right-wing characteristic. But, as seen in this thread, left-wingers also possess that desire for vengeance when someone steps out of their moral lines. I decry it on both sides while simultaneously acknowledging those people's right to feel and do so. I just find no profit for society in demonizing and ostracizing those who step out of line, preferring instead to rehabilitate them and keep them as productive members of society.

To wit: I'd rather graciously effect a change in Dave Chappelle's thinking and behavior through example and patience, rather than demand his blacklisting. The first has the potential to improve our world, the second will lead Chappelle and those who think like him to reinforce their hatreds and bigotries. Shaming people has never improved the world nor changed a mind.

[Endus]

Being an asshole isn't immoral.

Hard disagree. Baffled how you think it's not.

Even if you attend to report on?

Addressed by the last half of what I said there.

Actually, I believe Montana and a few other states it is illegal to fire without a work related cause.

All of Canada is that way. Bring a racist is a work-related cause.

These are technically the same thing. If one is moral, so is the other.

They clearly aren't. Ignoring content and context isn't a counterpoint.

It is almost like you made a strawman of my point. I am not just talking about "legal", but a "right of the person." These aren't the same thing. You would have to say Republicans made it a RIGHT to have child pornography, not just "Legal"

Doesn't change anything meaningful. You have the legal right to tell a lost toddler their parents died because they hate their child so much. Doing so is still immoral.

And same point about new law; are you suggesting slavery would be moral if re-enshrined as a Constitutional right?

- - - Updated - - -

This, however, has nothing to do with his job and is simply punishing him because we don't like him or what he does in his own personal time.

Nobody wanting to work alongside the abusive shithead is perfectly valid. That's not a "punishment".

To wit: I'd rather graciously effect a change in Dave Chappelle's thinking and behavior through example and patience, rather than demand his blacklisting. The first has the potential to improve our world, the second will lead Chappelle and those who think like him to reinforce their hatreds and bigotries. Shaming people has never improved the world nor changed a mind.

Chapelle isn't owed any of that grace or patience, is the thing. And frankly, you're wrong that shaming doesn't work. It may not change individual minds, but it shields society from those same. Worked with slavers, worked with Nazis, is currently working with the remaining racists and homophobes. Chapelle is, quote frankly, not worth the effort. If he doesn't want to change, that's fine, he can fuck off forever.

[Darththeo]

Hard disagree. Baffled how you think it's not.

Because I think everyone is an asshole. And yes, that includes me.

Addressed by the last half of what I said there.

Actually, it isn't. It is just reporting, not "secretly working against them."

All of Canada is that way. Bring a racist is a work-related cause.

Even if it doesn't happen at work? If so, that's a shitty law.

They clearly aren't. Ignoring content and context isn't a counterpoint.

They clearly are. They are both "I feel X about my kid because the kid is gay." The only difference is the X, which isn't meaningful.

Doesn't change anything meaningful. You have the legal right to tell a lost toddler their parents died because they hate their child so much. Doing so is still immoral.

No, it isn't.

And same point about new law; are you suggesting slavery would be moral if re-enshrined as a Constitutional right?

We are talking about the exercising of a legal right. Just making something legal doesn't make it a legal right.

Also, slavery was never defined as a "legal right" in the Constitution, just that slavery existed. Also, I hate to tell you, slavery is still Constitutionally legal ... only as a punishment for a crime.

[Endus]

Even if it doesn't happen at work? If so, that's a shitty law.

Personal character is always relevant to your employment. And we're not talking laws, were talking things like professional ethics standards.

They clearly are. They are both "I feel X about my kid because the kid is gay." The only difference is the X, which isn't meaningful.

This is like trying to argue there's no difference between "I like to hit my kid" and "I like to hug my kid", because both are just "I like to X my kid" and X isn't meaningful.

False on its face, in other words.