Random: Australian Man Sacked For Moaning That Pokémon GO Isn't Available In Singapore

Sonny uses complain. It isn't very effective...

This is why you make your posts visible to friends only when taking your gripes to social media. Employers pay attention to the things you publicly say on Facebook.

What a fool.He's lucky he only got sacked and not investigated by the government. I'd get locked up in the Bangkok HIlton by the Junta if I tried the same here.

To be honest, he got exactly what he deserved.

Man, if I had a dollar for every time a social media outlet has assisted in ending someone's job, I could probably retire early.

We need to bring back diaries for these loose canons. All the rant and raving you could want, without the immediate risk of getting fired/ostracized.

The best part is he brought in the fact that he wasn't a white Australian and therefore must make the situation about racism. Even better is the fact that he wanted others to make amends for HIS actions. Ha.

Even Sony plays Pokemon!!

I come from the land down under
where Pokemon GO and men blunder

I genuinely find this extremely worrying that you can be sacked from your job for doing absolutely zero wrong in your job but instead saying something in the "privacy" of your own life outside of work.

This borders on oppression of the working masses and censoring of free speech as far as I'm concerned, and in fact it crosses that line already, because this man has now lost his livelihood, his sole means of providing things like shelter, clothing, and food, simply for getting annoyed at something that has absolutely zero to do with his work and expressing his frustration online completely away from work.

What you say/do in your own time and in your "private" life, regardless of it now being tracked every single minute of every single day by whatever service online, should not be punishable by you being fired from your job, unless it is something either specifically about or directly related to your job. That litereally makes people afraid to speak openly and freely in any kind of public forum, just in case their only [current] means of income be stripped away from them.

This is terrifyingly worrying stuff that's going on in our modern "civilised" society, and we need to start taking a stand against this kind of thing these companies are doing—all of us.

"However in my defense, I was racially vilified for not being a 'white' Australian"

Insulting the country you're residing in, as well as its people, is completely stupid (unless it's in vogue), no matter what color your skin and eyes are.

@Tsurii Now, just imagine if you were fired from your job, or thrown out of your kindergarten school, for saying what you literally just said. . . .

Who's the a . . . idiot now?

Same applies to you too, @OorWullie

Because, that's pretty much exactly what just happened to the guy in the article; he made some stupid, ill-considered, but ultimately totally harmless comment (in the "privacy" of his own out-of-work life)—much like you just did—and now he's unemployed.

@Kirk

Tsurii isnt the idiot as nothing they said was inflamatory in any way.

If you say anything that brings your employer into disrepute it can be treated as gross misconduct, you might not like it but thats the way it is.

The guy slagged off the entire country on social media, it was only gonna go one way as soon as his employer became aware.

People have more opportunity than ever to make their voices heard since the dawn of the internet and social media but with that comes extra responsibility. It is not censorshiop it is just making sure you dont say anything bloody stupid that can come back to you and the company you work for.

Yay, more Pokemon Go articles.

You keep scraping that barrel, N Life.

@SBandy I do not care what you say in regards to why the company fired him; we all already know that's why they think they were justified in firing him.

What I am saying here is there is a very big issue with the corruption of the law and in our society in general when this is considered perfectly reasonable an action to take when someone makes comments in the "privacy" of their own life entirely outside of work and that are not illegal or breaking any laws, or even about their work or directly related to their work either.

It should be this guy's God given right, and indeed universally protected right, to be as much of a douche as he wants, within the boundaries of the law, and freely and openly express his opinion as such, without fear of persecution:

19. Freedom of Expression. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.

http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-16-30.html

This man has just been abused, persecuted, and oppressed, despite there being laws specifically put in place to protect him as a living, breathing, thinking, and feeling human being from this very thing ever happening to him.

Honest question here: is "sacked" a common non-American way to say "fired" (which is what we say here)? If so, interesting: never heard that before. You learn something new everyday. Beyond that, the internet sucks the brain cells from many a person's head when they go online. Personally, I don't understand the need to (over)share everything about oneself online.

@Kirk

Does that include hate speech? No social media is ever really private and its dangerous to think that way especially as the very name 'social media' pretty much confirms non private.

We have more freedom than ever when it comes to making are voice heard....and that can include more repurcussions good and bad.

The guy needed some self control.

@SBandy Within the law, YES, it does!

Like I just said and linked; it is every human being's universally protected right to be a hole, irrespective of whether it hurts your feelings or not.

We have more ways than ever to make our voice be heard, and more ways than ever to oppress it more than ever.

We're all walking on a razor's edge, in this supposedly "civilised" and "free" society, and people like you are helping sharpen it even further.

_{...dude, calm down with the swearing...-Megumi}

@ Kirk

I am going to respect your opinion. But I will quote this from the human rights link you posted:

"29. Responsibility. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms."

That guy didnt show any respect to the people and country he insulted all because he couldnt play a game. Also an employer has the same freedom an employee does and I would suggest they were being the responsible ones. They guy needs to learn and move on.

Cheers

@c1pher_c0mplet Yes, sacked and fired are the same thing.

But, funny that it would be called "sacked" here and "fired" in America. lol

@SBandy Yes, their right to free speech, and their freedom to speak freely—as just two of the universally protected rights we are supposed to all have. Not some douche corporation's "right" to fire you for simply talking like a hole.

We have a duty to other PEOPLE—WE have a DUTY to other PEOPLE—not a duty to CORPORATIONS.

And, saying something that's simply stupid, ill-considered, and douche, but not actually illegal or punishable by any law I know of (or even remotely close to it), is not an "abuse" of any other human being's protected rights—just in case you are seriously somehow confused about that.

And, personally speaking, I don't think this guy should just move on at all; I actually think he should bring legal action against his company for unfair dismissal. And, if he should lose the case, I think he should seriously consider looking into challenging the very law itself around this subject and bringing that under the spotlight—because I would say that whatever "law" was employed in deciding his "guilt" is very likely in violation of those universal rights afforded to all men under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, by the way, supersede all other pithy laws around business practices and the like.

Why would you get so mad about not being able to play a video game? It's really not an important problem. Especially since it'll be released there later anyway, so he'll get to play it eventually.

@Reath Because, human.

I can't even play this game because I'm using a Windows 7 phone which has the same features as an iPhone / Android.

@Tsurii YES, it does!

That's the whole point of a universal law that protects your right to free speech and expression.

You're so clueless about that which you speak that it's seriously not even funny—and it is indeed part of the problem in our modern "civilised" and "free" society.

Now, under your understanding of the "law", I guess I should be in prison right now for saying such a cruel and hurtful thing to you.

And, everyone voting you up is a moron.

I always knew Pokemon fans were nuts, & now we have the proof!

@Kirk

Ok then so you would have no problem if the reason he was sacked was because a lot of the people who he insulted and didnt respect in the very place he was residing complained to his company and demanded he be fired, as is their right?

@SBandy They don't have a "right" to have him fired for being a douche online about some random crap that is just a thrown out throwaway comment targeted at no one person in particular.

That's basically the entire point I'm making and arguing here!

So, YES, I would have a problem with that.

@Tsurii Sure 'nuf, boss.

@Kirk While I agree with you on some of your points,this case is different. He was a foreigner (outsider) living and working in his employers country,which is by all accounts is one of the strictest nations in Asia.It appears he was working in a fairly high up role,therefor representing his employer. If he disrespects his employer or country of employment on social media for all the world to see ,they are in every right to terminate his employment. To do it in your own country is foolish but to do it an another country is idiotic. As I said, if I done something similar in Thailand,like criticise the government, I can expect to be locked up for it. It's harsh but it's the rules of the country and you have to respect and abide by them.

@BensonUii lol.

@OorWullie I don't think you actually understand what I'm arguing here at all, based on what you just said.

You're just quoting to me how things work in business in general as you see them happening on a regular basis; I'm telling you there's something fundamentally broken here, and if you look to the real laws created to specifically protect all human beings from any potential abuses like this, you would understand similarly too.

His company firing him for what he said is what they thought was the appropriate thing to do (and apparently what you think too); I'm saying it violated his universally protect legal rights as a living, thinking, feeling, "free" human being on this planet as far as I can see, looking to those fundamental laws as the baseline guide.

Guys, censoring your swears with *s don't count....Please stop...

@Kirk

Are you the guy in question or something? He made the comment about the entire population and that is verging on something nasty. Plus how monumentally stupid do you have to be to make such a comment on social media?!

He was rightfully sacked for insulting the local population and that can be considered gross misconduct for bringing the company into disrepute and therefore a sackable offence.

End of.

People do NOT have a right to act like total jerks becasue they have freedom of speech. That is abuse of freedom of speech and leads to suicide from online bullying, hate speech and many other nasty things.

This is the last I will say on the topic as I do believe in freedom of speech just not an abuse of it.

@SBandy In some ways I wish I were; I'd probably be in a pretty intersting legal battle with my ex employer right about now.

Listen, you need to educate yourself better: Just because a company can write their own rules of "gross misconduct" into your contract, that doesn't supersede the frikin' universal laws afforded to all humans on this planet.

The company you work for could write into your contract that it owns your soul if it really wanted to, and if you signed the contract . . . well, do you REALLY imagine they'd own your soul just because you signed on the dotted line in order to get the job—like that signature means you simply have no rights to ever challenge anything in your contract hence forth?

The only reason you imagine they do is because everyone just believes they do, and that's why a guy has just been fired from his job for simply venting a bit of frustration online in his own time.

And, as long as we have more and more people like you, this kind of **** is only going to get worse.

END OF

Thank goodness we still have free-thinking people like @Kirk. Now, what this chap did (whilst in a foreign country) was unwise, and there is a certain amount of "When in Rome..." about it.

However, generally speaking, the worldwide assault on libertarianism is gobsmacking - freedom of speech, freedom of artistic expression and freedom to do what you like as long as you're not harming others. These are all things we are losing quickly, and I for one find that shocking.

@MetalKingShield This guy ^^^^ gets it.

And, those are all the things that are SUPPOSED to be protected basically by "on high" under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Sadly, not so much it seems.

@Kirk

From wikipedia:
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a UN General Assembly declaration that does not in form create binding international human rights law. Many legal scholars cite the UDHR as evidence of customary international law.

More broadly, the UDHR has become an authoritative human rights reference. It has provided the basis for subsequent international human rights instruments that form non-binding, but ultimately authoritative international human rights law."

It aint binding so in actual fact means very little except a bunch of nice ideas that by the way contradict themselves a fair bit.

@Kirk I understand your point, but let's look at things from a different perspective. If you were the employer that heard Sonny's speech, would you want to work with him?

Because I wouldn't. What he says outside of work reflects what kind of person he is. The employer didn't have to fire him. The employer chose to fire him, because he obviously isn't the type of employee he is looking for.

People really should think what they say in public. I think even you can agree with me on that point.

Folks, please stop saying social media is like the 'privacy of your own home' and similar.
It is not.
What you say, orally, in your house is heard by a handful, and is not put on record.
What you write on social media is read by anything from a handful to thousands of people, and is on record.
It is public.

@SBandy "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties." –

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=is+the+universal+declaration+of+human+rights+binding&oq=Is+the+Universal+Dec&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.6645j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Same difference. The UDHR just sounds cooler and more people recognize its name, but most of the same rights are protected under International Human Rights Law –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law

And, certainly in America, free speech is literally written into the constitution under the First Amendment:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

I think most countries accept that your right to freedom of speech and expression is protected as long as you are not breaking the law in doing so, which was not the case with this guy.

@KoopaTheGamer If I were AN employer and he worked for me, I simply would not give a flying **** if he went on a rant in his own time completely out of work. I do not believe how a human being acts in their own time, as long as it's within the law, should be any of my company's business whatsoever. He signed up to work for me, not to have his every living and breathing moment watched, dictated, and controlled by me. I think he should be free to speak and act as he wants in his own time, within the law. But, that's just me.

@Kirk
Your dead right - Fight the power

@Kirk

Yeh you will see that is also not actually binding if you read it.

I will finish with this as I have other much more entertaining things to do than continue this debate:

I am all for freedom of speech but not the abuse of freedom of speech where people think they can use it as a weapon to incite hatred and hurt on other people.

"Random: Australian Man Sacked For Moaning That Pokémon GO Isn't Available......."

That's a problem I'll never have.

@Kirk Although I agree with most of what you say, I do think that some of it was his own responsibility, and apparently he also thought so himself, since he owned up to it later on.

Freedom of speech: all for it, and also agreed on people not being disadvantaged for what they do or say on social media in general (and to an extent: for example, you also see people on social media going to parties and on holiday just moments after they called in sick) but this guy sure went the extra mile, beating his own chest and insulting an entire country/population in the same sentence. That was certainly quite a bit too much...

There are rules, yes, but they go both ways, and there are also manners and there is also a little thing called keeping things in the right perspective/context. And what he did is a very much out of proportion; this much anger over a bloody video game is really a bit laughable to say the least.

@ThanosReXXX Hey, he didn't have to be a douche, sure; but that's a whole other argument.

And, what happened to him is way more out of proportion to his "crime" than his reaction to not being able to play the game, imo. One reaction is just human; the other reaction is purely corporate. I know who's side I am on.

@SBandy I'm pretty sure if he actually went to court about it and decided to make a proper case out it, one revolving around his right to freedom or speech and expression in his own "private" time and within the law . . .

And, from what I know at least, the company would almost certainly have to show some kind of measurable proof that what he said was actually damaging to the company, most likely measured in terms of money lost, for it to be anything other than unfair dismissal.

But, no one even bothers to challenge their corporate masters these days.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE Yes. We get it. You hate Pokemon. Please stop trying to enforce your hatred on the rest of us.

@Kirk

Want to end on a nice tone. I have enjoyed this healthy debate with you and I wish you a good day.

We will have to agree to disagree on a few things which of course is our right

@Kirk Sure, they could have just had a private discussion with him and reprimand him, but unfortunately, in this day and age, the presence of companies on social media weighs in quite a bit, so if people complain or rant about companies, it could potentially damage them. If you're not working for a company, then that is something entirely different, but if you are, for all intents and purposes representing a company because you are one of its employees, then there is a point to it, how inhumane or unjust it may be.

And I'm certainly not pro corporation, which is one of the reasons that I started working for myself, but personally, I would never have gone that far.

@SBandy Sure 'nuff.

@TheHumbleFellow I'm not enforcing anything. Didn't express any hatred either. Fact. I just said it's something that wouldn't happen to me and it's true. And I could easily say your statement back to you with the opposite meaning.

@ThanosReXXX Most people wouldn't go that far. But I still do not agree with what happened to this human being here, and, ultimately, I do not think it is actually within the law either. It's simply accepted as "normal" business practice these days because no one ever really thinks to challenge it.

Now, if this guy were on a work night out, at a hotel that was paid for by his company during a business venture, using a work based account outside of work, specifically mentioned his company/brand and associated it directly with his views and opinions . . . when he went off on his rant, then sure, I'd totally get it. But in this case . . . nah.

There HAS to be a line, and in this case I believe the company absolutely crossed it, not the man (and, notice how I specifically did not say "employee", I said "man", because the man was in no way, shape, or form representing any company when he went off on his personal rant—existing in the same universe as a company you sometimes work for does not equal every single moment of your life, and everything you think, say, or do is now at all times directly tied to that company).

And, I'll tell you this for free: If everything we said and did outside of work were forever linked to the company we work for, my ex employer wouldn't have had to settle with me when it unfairly dismissed me for something similarly stupid I said and did outside of working hours. But, it did have to settle.

Guy should move to the US, he'd have a good shot at the Republican nomination for President at the convention next week.

@Kirk What swearing?

Other than the self-censored "***hole"—which you changed to "a hole", meaning the exact same thing in the context of those sentences—there's absolutely zero swearing in any of my posts.

And, the only reason I didn't fully censor "***hole" is because it's sometimes really hard to even read the sentence properly when you censor every single letter of a particular word.

But, I shall remember to fully censor my ******* swear words from now on, just for you, Sir *******.

PS. And, don't just assume those are real swearwords that I've censored either; you can't make that assumption unless you're making unfair judgements. They're simply words I've intentionally blanked to cause confusion to make my point.

@Kirk "Hate speech" such as slandering an entire country (although, if he does have a higher IQ than the current average in Singapore, he would technically be accurate on that count) is not protected by "free speech," at least not under the U.S. Constitution. Plus, as much as some people try to deny it, there is nothing private about the Internet. There's really no excuse for publically ranting like that.

@BulbasaurusRex You really have look up the law to see that not all douche speech about other countries and peoples, or whatever, automatically translates into hate speech as punishable by law—and this guy was severely punished for his speech (like illegally).

"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.

In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.

Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object." –

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

He's an idiot and shouldn't have said those things. However, I feel that he should have got a stern warning instead of losing his job.

@Kirk It doesn't have to break criminal law. In a civil suit, such a slanderous (or technically libelious) hate-filled rant would not be protected under First Ammendment rights, and I imagine it would be the same result if the guy tried to sue with such a defense under Singapore law.

EDIT: Looking at your edit, yep his rant still qualifies as unprotected hate speech under the very definition you posted.

Last I checked, freedom of speech is the right to say what you want without fear of governmental retaliation, not that an individual is free of the resulting consequences of their speech, so... a private entity is well within their rights to handle an employee's conduct howver they please. A lot of people put their place of employment on thier social media profiles and essentially by doing so you represent the company. Like the idiot girl that was a veterinarian and posted a picture on her private fb of her having shot a cat with a crossbow. That it was her private FB didn't mean squat when she clearly showed she had no problem harming animals when she was supposed to care for them.

@BulbasaurusRex OK, I was gonna talk about this and that and blah, blah, blah . . .

Suffice to say: If you actually think what he said is a genuine example of "hate speech", punishable under law (or in this case by loss of work), then our so called "free" society is in a lot more trouble than you seem to comprehend.

And it's partly your fault—which you probably also don't see.

You, and everyone like you, is fighting on entirely the wrong side of this war. And, make no mistake, it is a war; it's a war for our very liberty. It's a war we're all slowly losing, and much of it at our own stupid hands.

But hey, I should probably just be "fired" for saying so, and calling people stupid.

It's kinda lame that Nintendo didn't release it worldwide simultaneously. It would most likely be record-breaking in every possible parameter.

I think it was a poor decision or poor planning not to do that, I mean, not even Japan??! I just can't understand.

Meanwhile a lot of people who can't play the game right now won't feel the novelty or freshness people from US, NZ and AU are experiencing, since we can see all of it on the Internet. I'm from Brazil, by the way.

I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying it could have been so much better.

Thanks again, Nintendo...

@Kirk Did you even take a look at the quote you posted? His rant was clearly composed of "fighting words" against the entire race and country of Singapore, not a mere difference of opinion, so it is indeed unprotected speech by the very definition you just quoted.

@BulbasaurusRex Come on, man!

Both you and I know fine well he was really just ranting rubbish into the ether; and I don't have read his exact words to know this. The dude was venting frustration out into the Internet because he couldn't play a frikin' Pokemon game. If you actually believe there's some genuine malice and hate intended in that moment . . . well, again, we're all in trouble.

It's like if I was online right now and I said, "Christ, I wish all the morons online would just ******* implode into the stupid little piles of black & white ash they are, and all their family members implode too, so their line ends here! The world would be a better place for it!", I'm just ranting utter rubbish.

No one deserves to be punished for that kind of meaningless ranting junk said in the heat of the moment and fired off into the huge, congealed, faceless turd that is the Internet.

People should only be punished for ACTUAL hate speech, which deliberately incites hate and discrimination of others and even encourages potential violence towards them, and that kind of thing.

Can you REALLY not even tell the difference?

Came for the article, stayed for the thread.

Huh, Singapore doesnt technically have freedom of speech though. The government is free to bring someone down if someone's words are offensive.

And honestly, as a Singaporean, I am happy this way.
The strict law is in place to deter shitty behavior and nobodies' freedom should be an exception above the law. You let one go, you let all go.
We deal extremely harsh punishment to the lightest of crimes to prevent any future nonsense from happening. That's how crime rates are so low and Singapore continue to remain economically and physically secure on all fronts.

Trust me when I say that even though Singaporeans like to complain, we are mostly content with the competency our government.

@Risingelement Bring on the mind control boxes I say, and then everyone will conform even better. Then everyone will be [brainwashed into being] happy. And all will be fine and dandy in the world.

@Kirk This is all I have to say about the matter...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=SwYd5cRlROE

Of course, it's not exactly the same situation, but the ability to be fired for something someone says outside of their job environment applies just as well. This Australian guy basically got fired for venting his frustration in the wrong way, and not being PC.

@PlywoodStick Pretty good.

@Kirk It doesn't matter if he meant it or not. The fact remains that he still publically posted a bunch of racist comments about the country where he worked. It's one thing to let off steam in the privacy of your home, but you just can't do that where anyone can see it. After all, you'd still get arrested and convicted for verbal assault for publically threatening to kill someone even if you never intended to actually do it.

@3MonthBeef No, it's a common British euphamism. The American term is "fired." It's just that most Americans are aware of the British term.

The company had every right to take action and fire the employee. Does he have the right to speak his mind? Yes. HOWEVER, free speech is only to protect you from potential retaliation from the government (treason and threats to the president notwithstanding) and not from the reactions of fellow citizens or private entities such as one's place of employment.

If the idiot had any of his coworkers as friends on his FB, his words can be considered grounds for potentially creating a hostile work environment which is detrimental to the company. Like I said earlier, once you list your place of employement openly for others to see or have coworkers as part of your social media social group, you continue to represent your place of work even off the clock. And no company on this earth will tolerate an employee's potential to drag them down because said employee becomes flippant at the mouth.

Let me point back to my earlier example of the veterinarian that decided to post a photo of a cat she'd shot with a crossbow. It was on her property, it was on her own time... BUT, as someone in a field where you provide care and nurturing for animals, suffice it to say, bragging about killing a cat (which was someone's pet), does not instill confidence in the practice's clientele, much less the public as a whole. Needless to say the backlash that reulted because she thought her private doings were her business alone ended not only with her fired but even her alma mater distancing themselves completely. I mean, would you trust someone so callous and cold to represent your clinic and with your animals?

@BulbasaurusRex The problem is that pretty much everything you say is racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or a hate crime, or whatever these days. You say you don't find fat chicks attractive—soon that will be a crime too. It probably already is; you'd likely get persecuted and ostracised online and on social media if you said such a thing openly these days.

And exactly where is the line drawn that determines the "privacy of your own home" as far as you're concerned?

I guarantee you that's getting pulled back just a little bit further every day too.

@Kirk That may be so, but calling an entire race of people "stupid" for no real reason is racist no matter how strict the definition.

@BulbasaurusRex And yet, people wouldn't have said a word if he'd called the entire race smart.

And, context is everything: All American's are dumbasses.

Now, was I being racist, or just making a totally stupid point that I don't believe for a second (and I couldn't even write properly)? I certainly called Americans dumb (well, I would have if I'd spelled properly); that much is clear to read (it would seem).

What if I put it in the form of a joke:

9 out of 10 Americans are stupid. . . . I'm so glad I'm in the 1%.

Is that racist? Should all speech like this be banned? Should people be losing their jobs for this kind of thing? Should I be wiped from the Internet for writing such words? If that guy had made such a joke on his online account, without saying any of the other stuff, should he still have been fired? I mean, it's surely a racist comment (and joke); it calls all Americans dumb.

And, if the MOD touches this comment I guess it will tell you of their own capacity to understand context too—and maybe just indicate how "free" we truly are in this world. . . .

@TheWPCTraveler You should hear what a lot of Americans in the military really think when they visit the Middle East...

@Kirk Well, you used an apostrophe, which implies that our belongings or pets or whatever are dumbasses. If it's the first one, I would think it's funny, if it's the second one, watch out for animal lovers...

@PlywoodStick As long as they don't actually live there, I don't think they should care.

But, if they spoke their minds while on duty there, I don't think it would help their stated cause of "protecting democracy" there or somesuch. I'm pretty sure the arms manufacturers are happy to know that, though.

@BulbasaurusRex "Racist," yes.

That said, it is possible to make generalizations about the intelligence of a given race and ethnicity of humans, and draw conclusions regarding relative intelligence from that.
It would be "racist" if I said that Greens are generally dumber than Blues, but if I can back it up with statistical evidence, who are you to question the truth?

If the truth is "racist," then it is "racist." But it is the truth, and nothing but the truth.

@PlywoodStick Indeed.

@TheWPCTraveler Hah, can't protect something one doesn't truly have in the first place... I wouldn't give the details away in public, but let's just say it's not unusual for American military members to say things (in private) like this Australian guy said after visiting anywhere in the Middle Eastern countries, even where there's no conflicts going on...

Why did he label Singaporean 'stupid' when Singapore (probably) is not at fault for Niantic not releasing it there (yet). So who's stupid?

@PlywoodStick Eh, I wouldn't mind it. If they're spewing the truth of what they saw there, then by all means, let them spew it all over the place!

Besides, I'd rather trust a bunch of soldiers who had to defend the place or were at least stationed there, than a bunch of ideologues paid to run their mouths on TV...

@techdude Because he was just mindlessly and ultimately harmlessly ranting in his frustration. Just like you probably said "I hate you!" to your mum at some point as a kid when you weren't getting your way. That's all there really was to it, no more. And now he's unemployed.

And some people actually think that's a fair punishment for his "crime".

How totally and utterly ****** up is that!

People lose their jobs for much less, even here in the States where we supposedly have rights (less every year).

@TheWPCTraveler A lot of soldiers are surprisingly good story tellers. Artistic, even. Smedley Butler is a good example of a high ranking officer (Major General, the highest in the Marine Corps at the time) going off the official script after WW2, but there are plenty of lower and mid ranked people today who have all kinds of stories to tell. (Though most will keep what they've learned very close or locked up.)

@Qun_Mang And it's a very worrying thing indeed to me.

It still amazes me that @Kirk refuses to comprehend that all establishments, services and etc are well within their rights to maintain a "code of conduct" to ensure a fair and inclusive environment for all involved.

Read it again, because I find it interesting that logic that has been pointed out to you is completely bypassed in your quest to expose "conspiracies" against human liberties.

You are free to say whatever the heck you want. However, the first amendment is in place ONLY to protect you from government retaliation. The amendment garners you no ptotection against the reactions/consequences received from citizens and private entitites in response to what drivel comes from your mouth. Why this is so difficult for anyone to understand is beyond me.

I mean, moderators of a public speaking forum have every right to shut a user down in response to disruptive, hateful or unproductive contribution to the topic, doubly so if said conduct violates the ToS. Point blank.

Does someone on FB have the right to cry it is against free speech to remove their pornographic material even if it is limited only to their profile? No. Violates the ToS. What the man did is no different as a company has every right to ensure its employees remain professional at all times, even off the clock. Codes of conduct exist for a reason.

One accepts a position of employment, they accept the outlined Code of Conduct by default. You violate that code, you find yourself in the unemployment line. And nowadays, most places of work include policies regarding social media as well to protect themselves.

@PlywoodStick I stumbled upon a few stories about wars lately, but that must be because I've recently gotten into a rather complex naval warfare simulator.
It surprises me how amusing wartime events sound after the fact, especially considering how gruesome or disastrous those events may have been. Take, for example, that the German Empire were confident that they were actually winning the first World War in early 1918, so much so that they actually had a holiday to celebrate their impending victory. Or, how about the capitulation of quite a few Swedish kings? Surrendering to the Russians just a few miles away from Neutral (Ottoman) soil after fighting tenacious battles, what a thoroughly anticlimactic ending!

Or, how about the time when Australia lost against a bunch of emus. Actually, that's just hilarious no matter how it's put.

I really worry about humanity sometimes. All this over a game. Why do some people think you can do anything with no consequences?

@Kirk The unfortunate thing here, though, is that he himself dragged his employer into this by mentioning them several times and saying how much smarter he is and how the collective intelligence of that company would drop if he would leave. That wasn't just stupid, it was WAY beyond that.

But I guess we'll find out soon enough how well the company fairs without him. I reckon they will do just fine...

"And, I'll tell you this for free: If everything we said and did outside of work were forever linked to the company we work for, my ex employer wouldn't have had to settle with me when it unfairly dismissed me for something similarly stupid I said and did outside of working hours. But, it did have to settle."

Well, I suppose you were one of the few then. Even though there are sometimes court rulings that decide that there has to be some form of restitution, a company can still go to the supreme court or simply choose some other method to bug you (spreading payments etc).

In the end, the company is always the winner, since you still won't have your job back, so the satisfaction (if any) of being right is only a moral victory, and a very sour tasting one at that, so basically hardly worth the trouble in my opinion.

Better invest that precious time and energy in finding a company that does appreciate you, or start your own company, like I did...

@Kirk "I do not believe how a human being acts in their own time, as long as it's within the law, should be any of my company's business whatsoever" ah yes, because calling everyone from Singapore stupid (also known as "racism") is totally legal and within the law. That puts a bad light on the company and might deter potential customers, damaging the business. That's the reason why what their employees say on the Net is the company's business

Is this all because of Pokemon GO? It seems very possible to me that this man already had some frustrations towards the country.
But yeah... this is pretty silly.

I read "sacked" as punched in the nads or something. Silly British and your silly words...

@Captain_Legs Yes, it is within the law.

I can call you stupid if I want. I can call your whole family stupid. I can call your entire race stupid. That's not me being a racist; that's me being a douche. There's a huge difference, especially under the law—but I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand that, given what I just said.

And, since we're here: Who's fundamental rights are actually more important to protect here, those of the individual human being (or which you are one), or those of some stupid corporation and its bottom line?

Hint: It's the human's.

Tools like you are willing to sit here and slowly but surely give away all your basic rights and freedoms to appease some soulless corporation, by repeated inaction and acceptance of the corporate agenda, without even so much as a complaint; what the hell is wrong with you?

@Link41x He probably got that too. Why not; he's already being way OTT persecuted as it is. Let's just punch him in the nuts while we're at it.

@bogofet He certainly was being a douche.

@ThanosReXXX Well, if he specifically brought his company into it that's a different thing. But I didn't see anything where he brought his company into; just the whole nation he mentioned.

"In the end, the company is always the winner, since you still won't have your job back, so the satisfaction (if any) of being right is only a moral victory, and a very sour tasting one at that, so basically hardly worth the trouble in my opinion."

And that's largely true, but I did at least get some money out of them as compensation, and that probably annoyed them just a little bit.

I also likely could have been awarded more just to shut the hell up, if I'd been wise enough at the time to really dig in a see how far I could have taken things. Because, when all was said and done, they were absolutely in the wrong, and they knew it.

This thread just gets better and better because some butthurt individual(s) won't accept clear logic. Tinfoil hats must be in this season

@ShikabaneHime13 Yeah, I'm guessing you mean me. And, if you actually knew what clear logic was . . . well . . .

@MetalKingShield The guy didn't lose his freedom of speech. He was't arrested or black hooded. A company isn't obligated to maintain your emplyoment. They can't fire you (usually) without probable cause but a company has a right to protect its image in order to maintain client confidence and to keep making money. Want to say whatever with no consequences? Employ yourself and use outlets that you own and control to express yourself. Now when people start disappearing for saying something out of their butt then we can talk about freedom of speech being infringed upon.

@Kirk

As a law major and graduate of Harvard, I do know what logic is. You've done nothing but rant about unfairness when there is none to be found. You come across as an individual pitching a fit because the man was given no slap on the wrist and held to a higher standard. I certainly wouldn't want to be coworkers with someone that thought in the manner he did. And mind you it was all over a stupid game. His priorities are beyond skewed.

@ShikabaneHime13 No, you don't. You know what you've been told; and you think as you've been told to think. You just haven't been taught that part yet so you don't know any better.

And, of all the places to instil a certain way of "thinking"—I give you Harvard.

@Kirk

Having spelled out not once, not twice, but THREE times what freedom of speech entails, it has gone over your head like water off a duck's back. I even gave sound examples as to why an employer has every right to fire an employee for less than savory conduct. Is it my fault you don't like a company looking out for it's reputation? Not in the slightest. The man's rights were not violated at all but you can't seem to grasp that at all. You drag your employer's name through the mud, expect them to send you out the door

@Ryu_Niiyama THANK YOU!!!!

@ShikabaneHime13 (internet hug) May the universe bless you.

@ShikabaneHime13 You looking at this from the point of view of the corporation is likely why you presumably did really well in class.

I'll go make you a badge; you've earned it.

@Kirk

I look at it from the perspective of the Constitution. Which, might I remind you, you have yet to acknowledge properly.

@Kirk Have to correct myself there: he did NOT name the company, but I can imagine, having worked with Asian companies myself, that they are more invested in honorable and traditional behavior, so since they are a company from that country, they also feel grossly insulted and feel their honor and reputation as a Singaporean company are affected.

Overreacting maybe, certainly in Western eyes, but if we judge that as outsiders, then we are also judging a nation or a country, much like he was doing, whether it was a mindless rant or not.

@Ryu_Niiyama "Now when people start disappearing for saying something out of their butt then we can talk about freedom of speech being infringed upon."

And here's the real irony—you're not even joking.

That's when you think it will have gone too far, and not before—when it's sooo blatantly oppressive that even you might start to worry about it.

I rest my case.

@ThanosReXXX Well, I'm certainly not arguing what actually happened, or that they thought they were totally in the right in doing what they did. I'm arguing that we've reached a very dangerous and frightening place when/where the vast majority of people across the world actually agree with them and even defend them.

@bogofet Not really. I see a human as a human, with a right to be and act human, foibles and all, within the limits of the laws put in place to protect the life and liberty of all humans equally. If he broke an actual criminal law I'd have no issue with him answering to it. But, I don't think any reasonable person in here truly believes that's what happened. He had a stupid and ultimately harmless rant online—and now he's unemployed.

@ShikabaneHime13 Well, the constitution, if you mean the one used in America, is specific to America. I'm talking about human rights across the globe, and also at a level that supersedes corporate law too. This is precisely why things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exists (or International Human Rights Law); so tools can't so easily abuse the "law" to serve their own nefarious ends, and those "ends" are usually financial and usually in the service of some douche corporation (even when the company behind it and that company's agenda is not quite as obvious). Fundamental human rights around the world are greater than the American constitution, but it was a great idea for sure, and it really did work for a while, and in many ways still does work quite well. And fundamental human rights are far more important to preserve and protect than some corporate agenda—but Harvard is probably more likely to push the business side of things, seeing as it's just a bunch of rich and privileged elites patting each other on the back for the most part.

Yeesh. And this is why I refrain from posting on Facebook.

Social media seems so lame.

@MasterWario Now this I can agree with.

@Kirk What case are you resting council? If a person is harmed physically or detained against their will, then yes that is a an infringement upon their basic human rights. However termination of employment with no basis in discrimination is not an infringement of anything. No company is obligated to hire or maintain the employment of a person. They are only obligated to keep discrimination out of the hiring/firing process. When you agree to work for a company you agree to a code of conduct as well as production of work. In exchange said company provides you with income.

You violate that, you get promoted to customer. A person can be fired for sitting on their butt all day and a person can be fired for being a public butt. I think the point you are missing is that you can be a jerk all day and nobody including your job will care. However the second you put your jerkface on a public forum you can be tied to a company. That can impact revenue and a company isn't going to give money to someone that costs them money. That is how jobs work. Which is why many terrible people have jobs... They keep out if the public eye. Again, if you want to do whatever you want with no consequences do so with your own resources.

@Ryu_Niiyama "What case are you resting council?"

lol

I'm not a lawyer; you do understand that, right?

"No company is obligated to hire or maintain the employment of a person. They are only obligated to keep discrimination out of the hiring/firing process."

And, unfair dismissal is a real thing too, and it's not just about "discrimination". I didn't win a case of unfair dismissal against my last employer because of any "discrimination"—well, I am ginger—but I did win. Although, I can't even say for sure if it was classed as a case about "unfair dismissal"; I can't really recall anymore. And they actually settled, rather than me specifically "wining", but only because they knew they'd lose if it went to court.

Sonny used Uproar! It was so effective, he lost his job!

...No more Pay Days from Meowth!

But @Kirk, you've been continually spouting off at the mouth about "his right to say and post" whatever. No job, inside or out of America, is obligated to keep you on if you tarnish the company's image. His post got back to his employers and he was canned for it. Add that he insulted Singapore as a whole, well...he has no leg to stand on in his defense. And it was all the more amusing that he tried to say it was a racial issue that got him fired

@Kirk

That is a pile of rubbish. The company probably settled with you because of legal costs. It would be cheaper settling than going to court even if they did win.

Also I am guessing the settlement agreement included a section where the company doesn't accept liabilty and you were not allowed to talk about it. So I suggest again that you stop talking about it.

And the law, including employment law, adapts to change and that includes dealing with social media.

@Kirk ...That is your rebuttal? The part where I dinged your silly "I rest my case" one liner from your previous comment to me. Yes, I am well aware you have no formal training as a legal council.

Not wishing to get myself involved in the above but as someone who studied Law for a year at college, I have to agree with the points made by Shikabane, Bulbasaurus & Ryu.

Granted the guy in question is entitled to say & think what he wants as Kirk has mentioned but venting on a social media site & insulting a nation, knowing it was gonna be seen & drawn attention to around the world is beyond stupidity & the company were in their right to do what they did.

If the guy needed to vent, he could have found many alternative ways to do so; run, gym, have a brew,play something musical etc. We're not perfect & prone to outbreaks of any sorts of course but you misplace that trust placed in you by any employer / company & violate your contract t & c's, then you gotta accept the consequences for your actions.

Working as an SEN LSA, I've lost count the number of times I've asked students to stop & think about what you're gonna do in lessons & what the outcome will be. Only takes a few seconds but it sure can make a difference.
Hope the guy learns from his mistake.

@Ryu_Niiyama Brava that someone else is saying the exact same thing I've been screaming from the rooftops this entire time

@ShikabaneHime13 But, the job does have some legal obligation to prove you have "tarnished" it's image before it has a legal basis to fire you for tarnishing its image. It can't just fire you because it doesn't like the cut of your jib; that would be a classic case of unfair dismissal. And, I recall now that this was why my ex employer couldn't win against me, because despite me doing something it could likely claim was bad for its image or whatever, it knew fine well it could not prove such a thing in the slightest. Some douche in a office didn't like what he heard I'd done outside of work; but that didn't give him the right to fire me. Hence, it dismissed me unfairly; hence it ultimately settled. I personally see a similar example playing out here to be honest—except this dude probably ain't gonna win no case, because this dude ain't gonna fight for his rights.

A settlement means nothing. It is simply cheaper to keep from being taken to court. His words are the proof and he said that he was the smartest in the company and their IQs would drop once he left. In his case, he dug his own grave by serving the evidence on a silver platter

@ShikabaneHime13 Nice. . . .

And, it's often better for said company to keep from being taken to court because it would often be more damaging for said company's "image" (more so than anything the person supposedly said or did), if it gets out that said company is unfairly dismissing people on a whim—for simply having being flawed human beings—especially once it goes on public record that this is what said company is doing, which it would if it went to court at lost.

As I mentioned earlier, this part I did not see "he said that he was the smartest in the company and their IQs would drop once he left." But, if he did say that, I already said that is a different matter. If he literally brought his company into it, fine. But, I never saw that; so my argument is based around a guy going online and saying some country is full of dummies and getting fired for it, which most people in here think is perfectly reasonable, and legal, and I do not.

So, the real debate in here is bigger than the one specific example. It's about people being made to feel afraid to say anything even remotely edgy online, for fear of losing their employment, even when they are not at work and even when what they said has nothing to do with their work.

What a time to be alive.

@ShikabaneHime13 Seeing as this is the internet and rationality is a lost virtue, I usually stick to the gaming articles but it is scary sometimes what anons in the wild blue yonder believe. Don't let it get to you, I'm going to head out and play pokemon go. How about you?

But he wasn't fired on a whim. He engaged in misconduct that would be detrimental to his employer. An employer has every right to protect their assests at all costs.

By the way, reaching a settlement doesn't automatically concede wrongdoing. It's all about reducing cost. Just like Police Departments that settle in wrongful death situations. Your personal experience is not everyone's experience.

@ShikabaneHime13 I'm talking about me in that example, with them settling out of court rather than letting it go to court. I'm saying sometimes they don't only settle to save a couple of bucks in the short term. And of course settling doesn't always mean they were guilty; but it also doesn't mean they were just trying to save some time and money either.

"at all costs"

No, it really doesn't. But people like you would have everyone else believe it does. lol

@Ryu_Niiyama

A most excellent proposal. I think I shall step away and treat my children to some delicious pancakes and gaming for the rest of the day

@ShikabaneHime13 I want pancakes!

@Kirk,
You are NOT wrong here, but neither are most of the people that disagree with you.

I hate to launch into what will seem like a lecture and I apologize to anyone that may have made these points but I think it's important. Again, I am not trying to patronize but I think neither side is hearing the other as is common on message boards and that this is a worthwhile discussion in any context.

This argument is a small version of the same arguments which have been playing out since people within the United Nations drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after WWII and we should all know what we think about them as well as what we think of the United Nations. If I get anything wrong please comment. Maybe we can create a Nintendo Life declaration of our own.

The main thing to remember is that the United Nations is essentially an idealistic entity whose position has always been to steer world events and influence the quality of life for people around the world by facilitating discourse that, ideally, leads to common, core values. It then strives to build coalitions between nations willing to stand up for those values whether through new laws within those individual nations, or as a last resort, through allied military intervention through NATO.

The UN is not a "one-world-government" but different members see its role in that regard on a sliding scale of sovereignty. Some think it is the ultimate power while others think it is a lot of hot air. The truth is that the power they have to champion or enforce any of their positions relies entirely on the unity (complicity) of member nations who are still sovereign.

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by enough member nations it gained the force of international law which basically means NATO could enforce it. The thing is that a lot of nations didn't sign on. To return to this case, Singapore's independence is complicated by British colonialism and Chinese occupation and they did not really gain independence until around 1965 but, nevertheless, the nation is not listed among the signatories. Not to get into the nitty-gritty of this individual case but just to relate back to what started this discussion.

So the bottom line is that we have to decide whether the ones that do sign get to enforce their values on the rest of the world. Many Muslim nations in particular were not happy with the Western bent of the laws. They could argue the paradox: that the very act of writing it invalidated it because it took away any dissenters' rights just by existing.

We have to decide what we think of these laws, as Kirk seems to have done, and then decide how far we think the UN should be able to go in enforcing them.

Here's a list of the original signatories:
http://unethiopia.org/universal-declaration-of-human-rights-signatories/

Edit: I thought I should add a link to Amnesty International, which works to monitor and champion the human rights listed in the declaration:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/

@Mainsaile "Maybe we can create a Nintendo Life declaration of our own."

That would be funny; I wonder what it would say.

I really like your post by the way. And, in the case of should the ones that sign "get to enforce . . ."

Well, in this particular case, where it really is about fundamental rights that are genuinely about the good of all men, rather than an insidious corporate agenda pretending to be about the good of whomever—or at least I genuinely believe it is in this case, for the most part—yeah, I kinda would like to see this one enforced on everyone.

It's a bit like saying "Should we force everyone to love everyone else and stop killing in the name of money?"

I say yeaaaaah!

Note: I don't really mean "force"—or we're just as bad as the "bad" guys—but you know what I mean: We should be trying to live like that, and encouraging everyone else to do the same.

@Kirk

So if you worked for a UK website that dealt with the public and you slagged off essentially the entire population you would honestly expect your position to remain tenable?

Any sensible employer has a written contract of employment for an employee to sign and it usually includes a section about gross misconduct that will likely include not bringing said employer into disrepute. This numpty violated that contract and got fired.

@Kirk Oh I definitely agree. And even though it wasn't applicable in this specific case, which is why I corrected myself, I do feel that IF you as an employer have signed a contract and have agreed with the terms and conditions contained within it, then you should also be held accountable if you go against these rules.

Same as for example if there's a "no smoking inside the building" policy, then you agreed with that and you shouldn't do that, whether it is a rule or an actual law.

Like I said this wasn't the case here, but the topic was brought up in the discussion with all the others, so I just wanted to add my two cents on that.

@Kirk "I've parted ways with 99.co and would appreciate it if everyone could stop the witch hunt there and leave them alone, bombarding them with threats isn't helping." This is what he specifically said. His coworkers are being sent threats and clearly, the company's image is being tarnished. The company is doing the right thing to protect its image and its other workers. He made a huge mistake and he needs to own up for it.

@SBandy Not in this society, no. lol

But, that's the reality of what would likely happen.

I'm talking about what should happen, if the entire system weren't being slowly but surely corrupted and twisted to serve the corporations above all else.

And, again, I'm arguing he didn't violate his contract—unless, as someone else said, he did specifically mention and bring his company into it. But, I'm also arguing that the "rules" of the ever evolving "contract" is what is the real fundamental issue here. That's the thing I'm saying we need to start challenging rather than just blindly accepting as how it is, how it always was (it wasn't), and how it will always be (it will get worse).

If we don't stand up for our individual rights, and the rights of all humans . . .

The corporations and the mindless sheep on the Internet sure as hell aren't going to.

@Ryu_Niiyama - people are being arrested for saying stupid stuff though. Not in this case, but it's the general point some of us are making. For words to be illegal, it used to be that you had to threaten, harass an individual or genuinely incite something. Nowadays we have this dubious concept of "hate speech". Apart from the word "hate" being much overused, why can't I hate or dislike something? We're getting to the point where you can't criticise some things... but what if that criticism is true? This is the problem with political correctness. It's not about "just being polite"; it has a complete disregard for the truth.

It's difficult when you're discussing different countries because Singapore has always been strict, and (as I understand it) USA still has a high level of legal protection. I did say "When in Rome..." It's every country's sovereign right to set their level of freedom of speech, that's true. I won't attack Singapore, but nor will I take glee in the situation.

As I say, there is a global attack on freedom of expression in general, and I for one find it rather snivelling to defend it.

@MetalKingShield Exactamundo.

You get exactly what I'm saying here.

@Squall78 Nah, I say bombard them. lol

Ah, the irony. . . .

They fired him because they thought him spouting some junk online would tarnish their image.

No, obliterating someone's life for simply spouting some junk and worthless words online, that had no genuine bad intent at all, has done far more damage than his rant ever could have.

He's **** well learned his lesson; it's only fair these corporate devils learn a lesson or two also. And I don't mean the average Joes working for the company; I mean the guys drinking their champaign from crystal glasses and smoking five hundred dollar cigars at the head of the company.

But here's the great irony again: You feel more sorry for corporation, and some randoms receiving almost certainly hollow threats, than the human being who has actually lost his job—for complaining and going of on a largely innocent rant online.

@Kirk I actually agree with you. Thing is, if I was in that guys situation, I would want someone like you to believe in me, in humanity, to be merciful and be willing to forgive me and most of all, defend me. Instead of being bitter about it, if the company basically protected him, he'd feel true remorse and change his ways and endeavour to work for that company maybe for the rest of his life. If this was a friend this happened to, I would still stick up for them, especially when they're wrong.

I remember a story where a guy basically forgot to switch something off an a plant at night and left it running. In the morning he'd realised his mistake and went to the bosses office with resignation letter in hand. The manager let him off and said get back to work. The guy stunned said, "why aren't you gonna fire me?" (Bear in mind the mistake cost the company like 100 thousands or millions, you get the point) the manager said something like "well, to let you go now would be a waste, especially since I've just invested(insert huge amount here) in your training".

I'm paraphrasing the story but I think it communicates that we live in a mindset of quick fixes and if we don't like something of someone, we can just 'get' another one, instead of trying to work things out properly.

Catkillers, racism, freedom of speech, wt*???
If you work for someone, you have to play by their rules and if you don't they get rid of you. That's how it's always been.

I suggest never working for someone if their rules differ from your own too much. Find another job instead, or better yet, be independent / build up your own company. If it's not possible and you've tried very hard you are in the wrong place and most certainly with the wrong people and need to move away. Keep moving until you find what you desire. Don't get stuck and blame others for your own frustration and panic.

At least you can always come to visit and play Nintendo games with me.

@5t3v3n I like how you think.

@SKTTR "If you work for someone, you have to play by their rules and if you don't they get rid of you. That's how it's always been."

And so the black&white lie becomes more true every day.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario: Let's say you came to work for me, and I make you sign a contract where one of the terms states that when the time comes I will own your first born son, but it has little wink next to it, and so you sign the contract because you really want the job. And then, your first son is born, and I tell you that you have to hand him over to me as per the terms of the contract? Do you think I'd have a legal case? I mean, you did sign the contract. It did specifically state I would gain ownership of your first born when the time came. And a smiley face didn't really mean I was just kidding; that's just how you interpreted it. But, a contract is a contract, right? And once you sign it you surely sign away any and all rights to ever challenge anything in said contract, regardless of how unfair and even ridiculous it might be, right? Because the law is absolute, especially an employment contract written by some corporate douche like me (or more likely my douche corporate lawyer), and once you sign on my dotted line I basically own you, right?

What Nintendo games do you have?

I might take you up on that offer, especially if you're getting Breath of the Wild, and as long as you live within a bus journey.

@Kirk awe thanks, ditto (the face kinda looks like Ditto as well lol)

UK politics are rife with this stuff. Everyone tries to shift the blame onto someone else, and we expect them to pay, aslong as it isn't us.... Pointing the finger but not lifting a finger to help, isn't very, well, helpful. And doesn't instil anyone with confidence. Earlier in the post someone was saying (might'very been you) that if you are fearful of what you say outside of work (granted, they should have some common sense....) may get you fired, you and other people at the company, will just live in fear and won't have as much job satisfaction.

"And so the black&white lie becomes more true every day. "

Gray matters apparently ;P

@5t3v3n Well, grey will never go out of fashion . . . because grey's never been in fashion!

wow. People need to catch up with the modern world. Social media is NOT private, nor is it inherently meant to be private. That's what avatars and screen names are for.
Have something controversial or problematic to say? Say it under an avatar.

Considering how his comments negatively affected the reputation of his company and damaged their clients' confidence, they were in their right to fire him.

Unless he controls that temper of his, he'll find that the only places willing to hire him are fast food restaurants and retail chains (unless he starts bad mouthing them too).

@MetalKingShield Ok. I'm done with this convo as a whole but I'm replying to you because you are replying to a comment I made to you directly. As I have said repeatedly this guy, the guy the article is about and the majority of us are talking about, had no infringement upon his basic human rights. He had his employment terminated, which again an employer is not obligated in most countries to maintain. If employment was an obligation most folks could sit on their butt and get paid all day.

As for people actually being detained or whatever( which again is NOT this guy) yes that would be an infringement upon their rights. Almost everyone in this thread agrees on that point. So trying to tie this situation to a general discussion about human rights is a strawman argument and a logical fallacy.

As for hate speech... words have meaning. They are used to communicate, to demoralize or uplift or to incite (usually negative reactions). It is funny that you are complaining about the right to hate something or someone despite that what that means is the "right" and intent to cause some form of harm to another person or group of persons. Hatred is spread by word of mouth and it breeds some of the ugliest actions from humanity. Hatred is irrational and if strong enough can make the most "outstanding" citizen cause harm (notice I am not saying physical because there are many forms of harm) to others. YET despite all that, countries that have free speech allow people to verbally attack and harass others and their governments don't lock them up. So I don't know what you are talking about when you say that we have reached a point of not being able to speak our minds. Now if you mean that you can't say whatever you want and have people sit there and take it...then yeah you are right. However that is where the whole freedom thing comes in. It goes both ways. Also why do people drag out freedom of speech in defense of people that are jerks? Human decency is also a thing...it is rare...but it is real.

No action happens in a vacuum. A person can spout all the brain sludge they want but if you think that doesn't have an effect on someone else you are naive. Even if it is something as benign as now someone thinks that person is a moron. I wish the world were so simple.

Now of course if you spout something that can be used to show culpability for a crime then no that isn't protected. For the countries that do lock up people for what they say and there are not criminal proceedings in place...they don't have free speech and can't be used accurately in an argument about a person that got fired because he put his foot in his mouth in public.

Also please don't conflate criticism and hatred. Many people use that as a poorman's smokescreen to mask really negative intent. That's like saying "I was kidding" when someone takes offense to something you say. Still, a person is allowed to say that...but to think there aren't other repercussions is again, naive.

As I said more than once, you can be a jerk; If you want to be pathetically consumed with hatred and negativity that is on you. However no one is obligated to employ you, and you should not be surprised when someone says something back. After all that is free speech as well.

So again, guy had the right to say stupid stuff...employer had the right to terminate to protect company interests. Nothing of significant value was lost.

@Kirk haha very true!

(Putting the 'fun' in funeral clothing....:S)

@Kirk @Ryu_Niiyama I think we can all agree that irregardless of whose right of wrong; be careful of what you say, who you say it to, and what was your intention was. Ie to cause harm, defame etc. We may have a licence to speak, but it doesn't mean we have to 'kill' people with our words. Instead we should be giving people encouragement, love, forgiveness etc.

@allav866 or you know, not at all saying nasty things about any country ever? especially in a country you work in.

@DTFaux even if you give these ragers a private space to rant, they'd still prefer to do so publicly. That's why they're loose canons

@Utena-mobile "Considering how his comments negatively affected the reputation of his company and damaged their clients' confidence"

Did they really?

Can you show me the measurable evidence of this?

His company is ***** now, after firing him, or so it seems. But, I'm not convinced any actual damage was done to the company or its reputation whatsoever prior to this.

I'll believe it when I see it though. . . .

@Kirk

We do and should as human beings have the right to free speech and expression. However consequence gives our language meaning not the words themselves. The concept of a world where free speech should have no negative consequence is as absurd as one where such should have no positive consequence, we need both for language to have reference. All reactions to language are based on value judgements and just like the fact we all should have a right to free speech we all should have a right to prescribe our own subjective values.

Free speech does not give one the right to dictate consequence it just gives one the right to speak, society will always dictate the consequence. I disagree with a lot of consequences of language as does everyone on the planet, but as society dictates value and if your words are to call everyone in said society an idiot, I don't think you should be surprised if the consequences are not in your favor and that there is not going to be much room for philosophical debate.

A business has to be seen to align to the values of its market or influence them in order to be successful, he was fired to help solidify the view of the business as one that was aligned with the opinions of the people, if they did not it would be their loss and I cant imagine they were willing to fight the ideology of the people at the determent of their profit to defend their employees right to over react to the lack of release of a Pokemon game.

There have been many times in recent history where companies should have stood by their employees right to expression, this is not one of them and there are plenty of people out there who have lost their jobs for standing up for something that has actually value who truly deserve people like yourself to stand behind them. Personally I don't think this guy deserves such, he was just acting like a brat.

@Kirk I don't have to. It's right there in the article and in the link.

"As you could see in the same forum threads, a reckless act of insult by one individual has provoked the anger of hundreds – not just towards him as an individual, but also inspired categorical attacks on race and nationalities."
-99.co

"I've parted ways with 99.co and would appreciate it if everyone could stop the witch hunt there and leave them alone, bombarding them with threats isn't helping."
-Sonny Truyen

So.. Sacked means terminated..
I learned something today

@H_Hunter He should probably count himself lucky he wasn't actually "terminated"

Here's the first thing I thought of upon reading "sacked"...

@Utena-mobile Nothing in the article shows how his comments "negatively affected the reputation of his company and damaged their clients".

In terms of him being fired for this, it would almost certainly have to be measurable in a loss of money or something tangible like that.

And, it's likely his company would never have even known a single thing about it if some randoms hadn't taken it upon themselves to go and do some digging to find out who he worked for and then grass him up to his company just because they didn't like what he had to say, even though it really had no connection to his company whatsoever.

Note: That's what I've gathered happened anyway, based on what I read in the article.

And the second thing happened after he got fired, as far as I'm aware, for what many people clearly see as a total bull reason for firing him. But that's my interpretation of it. They may be threatening the company because of what he said and they're taking their anger at him out on the employees. I'm not sure about that part, although I originally interpreted it as the former.

@Kirk
If you don't want to see the letter that 99.co put out or the apology Sonny Truyen wrote as PR damage control that's on you. I read this article and the link and I'm seeing a company that is trying to salvage their reputation while dealing with the social and racial fallout of one of their (former) employees angry comments.

@Mainsaile Doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest for UN forces to be reliant on NATO, which itself has it's own interests, and may sometimes violate the same international law that the UN abides by? Who is going to prosecute the USA or NATO when they're the guilty ones? The answer right now is no one. The UN is powerless before them at the moment.

So even though the results of the Nuremburg Trials should be the gold standard, they aren't necessarily applied in practice due to economic reasons. And that same outcome goes for a lot of other things.

@Kirk regardless of how it was discovered, it WAS discovered, and it HAS negatively affected the company and their reputation.

Also, I would really appreciate it if you responded with a comment instead of stealth editing your previous statements.
(--_-- )

But like I said in my previous comment, if you don't want to see it that way than it's on you.
Anyways, I'm going to go and read some other articles. I don't live in Singapore, and I'm not personally affected by this, so I'm going to stop caring.

Just to check: Are the people on a witch hunt and bombarding the company with threats because of what he originally said or because he was fired?

@Utena-mobile I'm not "stealth editing" anything. Paranoid much?

If I edit a comment it's simply because there was a writing error I wanted to correct, something I missed from the original comment and decided to add in later (expanding on the comment rather than trying to change it trick you based on your reply or whatever), or I don't think it reads properly and conveys my original point correctly, so I tweak the text to say better what I was trying to say in the first place.

See, like I just did in this post too.

@Utena-mobile I can't see the letter; where is it? I swear I've looked at the article a few times now. I must be missing the obvious link or something.

Edit: Oops! I read your comment wrong there. I thought you were saying there was an actual letter than went into more detail on precisely what he said and clearly showed comments directly related to his company in his rant, thereby tying his comments directly to his company.

I can see his company giving their PR reason for why they fired him, based on their beliefs around what he said and what damage they think it has done or might do, as least as they have expressed it. But, I don't see any actual proof of that damage. I don't see any actual damage to the company that was caused as a result of what he said before he was fired, and therefore I don't see any real or fair justification for his firing.

But, maybe I'm missing something here?

@PlywoodStick,

Yes it does seem like a conflict of interest. It is a precarious relationship. I kind of made it sound like NATO is an arm of the UN and although it sometimes is used as one I didn't mean to.

@papershrimp Yes, but the very FACT that modern online society is full largely of a bunch of total sheep morons should maybe make some of the less moronic of us question their "judgement" in situations like this. Sometimes the social media generation of brainless sheep just do dumb stuff and react totally idiotically and disproportionally to situations that do not actually warrant it at all—because they're social media sheep who are easily told how to think, feel, and act by similar social media sheep, who are all jumped up on some OTT PC bandwagon. It's a vicious and dangerous circle of totally ignorant, sheepish idiocy. But, maybe you don't get that.

Of course, if I had a job at some douche company the dumb sheep would probably get me fired for saying that—and I'd clearly deserve it.

@Mainsaile I understand what you're saying, though. And that applies to Singapore too, since Islam has a big impact on pretty much every kind of public and private policy in every country it is dominant. The failure to separate religion and state has big consequences. I wanted to refrain from suggesting it before, but I wonder if Mr. Truyen has a slight case of irrational religious phobia going on...

Singapore authorities use caning. It is very effective.

@Kirk

Is it possible that you are just bitter because you got sacked for the same thing?!

Also it really does not take a genuis to figure out the potential ramifications of an employee spouting potentially racist remarks. Loss of customers and business therefore money and therefore ability to keep people in jobs all because one pleb can't control what they say on social media over a computer game!! Although clearly that was the straw that broke the camel's back and he had been harbouring feeling like this for a while...scary thought.

No one else here is coming accross moronic at all really.

@Kirk

@SBandy Possibly. But, to be fair, I'm kinda "bitter" about everything equally. lol

Unless I'm missing something here, you don't seem to get that this wouldn't have even had any connection with his company whatsoever if those handful of angry Internet nerds didn't specifically go looking for his personal details just so they could report him for the sole purpose of getting him in trouble because they didn't like what he had to say.

It would be like you going looking for some personal detail of mine right now just so you could post my comments to my friends and family, or whatever, for the sole purpose of peeing me off because I'm annoying you. And then, my family divorces me because they don't want to be associated with me, even though nothing I've said really has anything to do with them at all.

Note: Feel free to report me to my family. . . . I don't care. lol

Nothing to really do with his company or him doing anything bad to his company at all; everything to do with people coming up with evil ways to basically stick it to him—and stick it to him they did.

@SBandy maybe the guy just needed a place like this to vent his frustrations instead of on widespread social media. It might be because he hasn't got that many friends where he is, that he can confide in.... I feel sorry for him now

@5t3v3n

It is of course Kirk's right to do so, but not everyone has to agree with his views!

This has been an interesting debate!

@Kirk does being 'bitter' make you feel any 'better' though?....
If not, here's a snicker...(the bar not the snorts of derision )

@5t3v3n Well, I'd prefer the Snicker.

@SBandy I meant the Aussy guy but yeah same for mister enterprise .

"This has been an interesting debate!"
By now we should all be masters ;D

@PlywoodStick Nooo!

I've been fired for a long time.

@5t3v3n

Haha Whoops! Sorry Kirk!

Yes there are better places to vent your thoughts eg with your friends/family, a therapist. As soon as its online it is there for good.

The guy just clearly wanted out of the country. Maybe his subconcious drove him to do it as he knew what would happen with his job?!

@Kirk

Yeh but Kirk surely that is their right, isn't that exactly the kind of thing you have been championing?

@SBandy It's absolutely their right to be douches. But, unlike in the guy's case, their douche actions actually led to some form of actual/measurable harm coming to the person the were attacking. You see, the thing he is being accused of didn't actually happen, except to him. None of the douches suffered in any way, shape, or form—this guy's now unemployed. So, what's more dangerous and frightening here: A guy shouting off some ultimately harmless junk online, or a bunch of sheep being able to get someone fired for shouting off a bunch of ultimately harmless junk online? If there's laws that are supposedly in place to protect people from suffering as a result of "hate crimes" . . .

@Kirk I would've sent you one, but I can't seem to figure out how to send a pic..... Boohoo

@Kirk That's just a free "You're fired!" meme from Mr. Fake Wrestling Commentator to remind us that we can be preemptively fired before you even get the next job, after stating any dissenting opinion.

@PlywoodStick And he does it very well.

@Kirk

And that is what he invited on himself with those insulting comments. Is everyone supposed to just lie down and take it? Does he have more 'right' to express his opinions than those who were hurt by those comments?

He would still be in a job today if he had kept himself calm and said nowt. Every action has a reaction. He is an adult and should have acted like one.

The adult world isnt one for moany wee strops which is exactly what that was.

@5t3v3n lol

Hint: (img) Add the link to your pic in here, and turn the circle brackets into square brackets. (/img)

@SBandy No, they could call his stupid back, post gifs of him with silly text that says "Look at me! I'm a loud moron who's crying because I can't play Pokemon Go!", or something along those lines. That's a fair punishment for his "crime".

But, just to be clear here, my main issue is not with the sheep morons and their overreaction (they're just being daft human beings); my real issue is with the company and its part in this (they're acting like cold and calculating "machine men").

The sheep didn't fire him for simply saying something stupid but ultimately harmless; His company did that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo (about those "machine men")

@SBandy well he definitely wasn't a happy chappy where he was working, or his current life situation, which we can all attest to sometime in our lives.

People can and should feel liberated to get things off their chest.
But somethings that are on your chest, might be infectious green coagulated mucus that no-one wants to see, or hear your cocouphani like spouting nonsensical racket...

Spoken from experience ;D

@5t3v3n Well, in that particular situation (the green mucus and stuff) I think you probably should just get it off your chest. Rather that than let it kill you just to avoid kicking up a fuss (people be ******).

@kirk thanks!

@5t3v3n Better I am.

@Kirk

I explained above possible ramifications for the employer.

Lets say they gave him a final written warning and he stayed on. Then they lose business due to customer mistrust, suddenly they are no longer making a profit, cuts have to be made, redundnacies occur all because 'Mr Stroppy Pants' decided he would offend a nation on social media. The whole online team gets sacked as a result.

Would you be satisfied with that outcome?

Sometimes the company is not the Big Bad. There has to be repurcussions for actions.

Also something tells me that guy was getting the sack eventually, he seemed the type.

@SBandy Again, unless I'm missing something here, there was zero connection between him ranting online and his company—until a bunch of douches specifically decided to go find and create a connection.

So, the douches are at fault for turning this into something it wasn't. And the company is at fault for biting the hook and responding in a way that was hugely disproportionate to the crime.

I guess part of this balances on just how many people brought it to the companies attention before it fired him: Was it just a couple of people, or literally thousands. Because, if it had got to a point where thousands of people were up in arms at his comments, and all of them knew they were coming from someone who worked for that company, then at that point the company basically would have to fire him, because then it would have a legit claim that his actions were putting the company in bad light.

@Kirk tru be dat! But there's a time and a place (for me it's bathroom sink or bin) which is where some of those aforemented comments belong, not on speaker phone for all the world to hear.

I'm senseing a lot of green today.....

@5t3v3n For me it's just where I happen to be when I feel like coughing it out, usually sitting in front of my computer on some gaming site. lol

Note: I'd cough ACTUAL mucus in the sink or toilet—just to make sure this metaphor doesn't get all too confusing and gross.

@Kirk so the computer screen then? lol aka Hot Shots

Note: I hear you, no weird innuendos in sight.....

@Kirk

The company didnt get involved until it was reported to them and then they had to look into it.

And that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't put it on social media for the world to see. Ramifications.

@SBandy Well, wouldn't it be interesting to know just how many people specifically registered a complaint and reported it to the company?

A couple = no legit claim for dismissal as far I'm concerned, because that simply could not equal actual damage to the company.

Thousands = yeah, quite possibly good cause for dismissal, because that could ultimately cause a lot of damage.

But, a couple of people sneakily contacting the company in the hopes of getting the guy in trouble, and then someone from the company going to check the thread out online, seeing the angry comments (from both him and others), and then deciding that was enough to fire him; just no. That's just wrong in pretty much every way as far as I'm concerned.

@Kirk Just made an account to say, good on you. At least someone has a smart head on their shoulders.

You should start any conversation like this with, "Freedom of speech exists to protect speech you don't like. Something socially acceptable isn't in danger and doesn't need protecting."

It's a sad state of affairs when people start justifying taking away your basic rights. For crap's sake, Angela Merkel in Germany teamed up with Facebook so that any dissenting opinion on immigration was censored. "But it's a private company blah blah blah" and yet don't realize the danger of the government trying to silence it's own citizens. Communism anybody? While you're not directly told how to think (even that's entirely true), silencing any opposing view is indirectly telling people, "Your'e not allowed to say/think ___ about ___ because we don't like it." That's on a much bigger scale then this of course, but just an example of what's going on and that many people just go along with it.

Not to mention there's a bunch of terrible things on Facebook that are left up there no problem, but when FB disagrees with something (or gets paid off) THEN it's okay to shut down those voices. There's so many double standards that people are rightfully getting pissed off. You're only allowed to criticize one group because it's socially acceptable, but you can't criticize another for the same or worse because it's not socially acceptable.

And then to say, "well a lot of people called in and complained about what he said so it's fine" is horrible. You're literally allowing and encouraging an online lynch mob. Of course there's also a double standard there too where some lynch mobs are fine because they agree with it, whereas others aren't because they don't. When they thought a "hate mob" got rid of Alison Rap they didn't like it, but in this case it's perfectly acceptable! Even though the former wasn't a hate group, and she was a PUBLIC RELATIONS REP, that directly insulted customers on Twitter (along with other stuff that's too long to get into). But the big fat difference there is her job is to literally represent the company in a good light, talk to customers and keep them excited for their products. That was her job and she failed to do it well. You don't keep your job if you suck at it. Plus she actually can actually drive away business, rather than just any random employee. Not every employee is a PR rep so the rules don't carry over to this guy, it's not his job.

It's this whole garbage "feelings" generation. "It makes me FEEL bad, therefore it shouldn't exist". If something doesn't appeal to them or THEY find offensive, it has to be removed immediately. If anyone else uses the same thought process but not in accordance with their beliefs (whether there's legitimate reasoning/proof behind it or not) then it's wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk

@shmuga9 Well, you get an upvote from me.

"You should start any conversation like this with, "Freedom of speech exists to protect speech you don't like. Something socially acceptable isn't in danger and doesn't need protecting.""

I literally didn't say it much better than that.

@Kirk

It could have just been one complaint, thats all it would take for them to look into it.

If I punched my work colleague would there need to be more than them to report it before the company looks into it?

His outburst was on Facebook, he probably had the name of the company as the place that he worked. It could have been another colleague saw the post and reported it.

Do you REALLY expect the company to keep on a man who insulted their entire client base?! He was also just one week in the job for goodness sake!

Free speech means that yes you can say what you want, also means you are free to deal with what comes next.

@SBandy It absolutely could have been just one complaint for them to look into it; you're not wrong.

I'm saying that one complaint (if that's all it was), in this particular example and under these particular circumstances, really isn't, or at least shouldn't, be enough to justify a dismissal on the grounds of it being "damaging the company's reputation" and whatever other junk.

But, like you said, all those other things could have been factors too—maybe the company was clearly visible on his page, and his post suddenly spread to thousands of people, and many of them contacted the company and lodged complaints, and it all just snowballed till the company really had no other choice but to fire him—but I can't say that for sure, and I don't want to speculate too much here.

It's still a very slippery slope indeed.

@Kirk

Cool I think we have found some middle ground haha.

On that note I am now off to play Street Fighter 5.

Been fun!

@SBandy Coolio. Have fun.

@5t3v3n Pretty cool.

@Kirk awe thanks.... Though I've deleted it now lol

@Kirk

I do know your frustration, its not difficult to see that much of the ideology held in modern society is poisonous to the lives of others and the environment as a whole. Though really we are all sheep blindly following belief systems and it is ones interactions, which are largely out of our control, that shapes these beliefs and so I do not think its entirely fair to ridicule.

Rational intelligence is not much of a factor here as we are dealing with a moral dilemma, ones level of empathy is the stronger force. The actions of the individual in this situation where deeply unsympathetic, his sphere of compassion was centralized completely upon himself. He wanted, he did not receive and so unjustly took out his frustrations on those who co inhabit his environment which is not a healthy moral frame work to uphold in a society. Whether or not he exercised his freedom of speech or whether or not one agrees with the punishment, he should be considered wrong in his actions.

Where the punishment is concerned it is up for debate; whether the firing was justified. I personally believe within the corporate world one should not be exempt from morality as is largely not the case within the Neoliberal system we use. In most cases a lack of compassion shown within the corporate world yields greater profit which should be of much greater concern, this is a rare instance that this is not the case and action was taken to preserve profit.

Defending the right to free speech is a noble cause, most of the time, but defending ones right to express hate towards an entire population with absolutely zero grounds to base that hate on is a waste of energy and really such actions should be rejected not rallied behind at least from how I see it. You said yourself people are sheep, if people decide to spread mindless hate, others will surely follow and I cant see any value in that.

Just for reference, do you believe his actions should have gone by without any intervention or do you just think the firing was a bit over board and that there could have been a more fitting reaction? I myself am undecided on the firing but do believe some intervention was needed.

I guess something I just find really amazing is that in the USA, interest groups can actually pay the media to be covered while they slander others, and even incite racial epithets, whereas just about everywhere else, that can get you fired or worse.

It was just a few months ago that at a huge immigration issues rally in Washington DC, that a bunch of ultra nationalists were given a voice on major media channels to denigrate our international neighbors and show signs like "The flood of immigrants coming in from south of the border are filthy vermin that breed wantonly in our country and muck it up" (or something to that effect, I don't remember the exact words). And not one of those people involved were criminalized, nor were any of them fired from any of their jobs for it. In fact, some of them were paid to do that! They sure got a lot of criticism from the mostly Latin American attendees, of course.

So it's possible to literally pay people off to broadcast hate speech on live national TV, but when someone does it in this context, on an social media site, that gets them fired. It's surreal. Lots of people have thin skin, yet monetized hate speech is tolerated. Astounding.

@papershrimp What you say is generally sound, other than you genuinely believing he was actually spreading some kind of real "hate" here, as opposed to just venting off ultimately harmless junk that no one in their right mind would actually take seriously as some intended form of "hate crime" or whatever. And that's the problem I have with where most people in here stand on this particular situation. If this were some kind of real "hate crime", I'd agree with you all. It's not; and the notion anyone thinks that's actually up for debate just totally and utterly stuns me.

A "hate crime" is not defined as someone simply saying something you find offensive, even if it is calling a whole country of people dumb. That's just someone being a douche, and that's basically their God given right.

As @shmuga9 said:

"Freedom of speech exists to protect speech you don't like. Something socially acceptable isn't in danger and doesn't need protecting."

Him blurting out that all the people in some country are stupid while in the middle of an obviously frustrated and similarly stupid rant is basically nothing as far as I'm concerned. It would be akin to me blurting out "Christ, white dudes are **** sprinters!" or something along those lines—posting it as a random comment on my Facebook—while watching the Olympic Games and seeing the black runners dominating at the 100 meter dash. Or saying that the England football team is **** at football, that none of those morons can kick a ball, and that's why England hasn't won the World Cup in however many years. Or saying that Scotland is full of a bunch of gingers, and we all know gingers don't even have souls. Should I really be persecuted for that kind of blatantly throwaway junk?

I think a bunch of people online calling him a douche or whatever back, voting his comment thumbs down, and posting their own scathing remarks at/towards him, is basically all that should have happened here, and nothing more. And, I honestly think any genuinely reasonable and sane person would think similarly.

No one on planet Earth should lose their job for what he did as far as I'm concerned.

@Kirk Thank you for standing up for freedom of expression and free speech! There is an attitude starting here in America that "hate speech" should be illegal. Here, American colleges are setting up "free speech ZONES" for people to express themselves freely. These same places are also establishing "safe spaces", where no speech is tolerated, and if someone doesn't like what you say, you are kicked out of the safe space. People invented the term "microagression", which basically means anything that could possibly offend someone at some point. Colleges are setting up "speech codes" telling their students how to speak. It's truly sickening. There's a great organization dedicated to stopping these 1st amendment violations called FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). I encourage you to check them out if you haven't already.

Getting to the issue at hand, that company had no right to terminate him based on his comments. If he said, "I can't play Pokemon GO, therefore, my company is stupid," and they can prove that those remarks caused them to lose money or impact their brand, then he was fit for the firing. But he didn't. He said, "I can't play Pokemon GO, therefore my country is stupid." Not very nice remarks, but totally harmless. If I say something like, "Americans have whittled their options down to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, therefore I hate America!" my company has no grounds to fire me. If I was a campaign person for Hillary or Trump, then they could fire me. Making harmless remarks about a country in general is not grounds for termination, here in America, at least. Singapore kills people for drugs and canes people in public, so I don't really know if they have the same rules as us. So, for all I know, that was grounds for termination in Singapore. Not in America. If someone says something on social media, it should not be held against them when it comes to the issue of job security, unless it directly relates to the company and hurts either their brand or their profit.

We have a right to free speech. You have a right to be offended by my usage of free speech. You do not have the right to shut me up because I offended you. Someone earlier said it best: socially-acceptable speech doesn't have to be protected. It's the so-called "hate speech" that does. If he were making disparaging remarks against his employer, he can be fired. If he was inciting violence against his employer, he can be fired and prosecuted. But ranting on social media about Pokemon GO and making disparaging remarks against his country ought to be protected by freedom of speech.

I encourage everyone who agrees with @Kirk and I to check out thefire.org. They are actively promoting free speech of all kind on college campuses. Look up "whiny college kids" and you'll see why they are doing what they're doing.

@Kirk Just never sign contracts that you haven't read through or fully understand. My simple rule: If you don't feel like it don't sign! That's the world we live in. For me it's not about contracts anyway, all I need to know is cleared up in talking/asking.

My games list is on backloggery. I'm from Köln! And of course I'm getting Breath of the Wild

@happylittlepigs @Kirk
I love people like you two. Free speech is just as important as oxygen. Just as important as food. It is a simple human right, and how different are we than robots for being silenced for uttering something you would find in a hormonal teenager's diary? Trust yourselves, the universe will steer you the right way.

In other related news, I feel that compared to Hillary, Trump would be healthier for this country. Of course they're all terrible, but what other choice is there? Especially since Trump backs the Second Amendment, which also redirects back to human rights in general. Whereas Clinton would only propagate robotic behavior and obedience. The first of which direction is erasing out the Second Amendment.

Now, I was only able to say "they're all terrible" because the First Amendment exists. Something I think should be supported and built upon in the rest of the world. Namely China, which is a disaster as everybody knows. Until then though, we will continue to have situations like these. It simply will not cease because, human emotion. It is not a force that can be suppressed or "treated". All we can do is hope the human race rises to a higher place. A different level of intelligence. A day which I hope to last long enough to witness.

@ the idiots; just remember that the wolves eat the sheep.

That is all I have to say.
Carry on.

@Kirk

You might have a point there, its difficult, or at least I myself find it difficult, not to get swept up by these things in the climate we live in today especially when it comes down to "hate crimes". intention is difficult to access, particularly on the internet. I guess there is the likely hood of it being a idiotic tantrum, though still fairly subject.

On reflection Id say would have been better dealt with through reasonable communication from those who found offense and from there it would have been easier to access the actuality of the situation. So There was the fault of pride on both sides though he did wrong there was a possible channel of resolve that was skipped and those effected went straight for the jugular.

The main source of my contempt toward these sort of events, which are becoming ever more frequent, they tend to give fuel to parties with negative motivations to influence others especially when the topic of free speech is concerned and helps to increase the degrees of separation that such parties seem possessed in creating and in a lot of cases those who oppose such ideals have in recent times displayed a sort of apathy toward debate and though I do find time for debate on much of the bigger issues we face on this earth is long since passed and certain actions need to be dictated before the four horse men show up, on more controlled individual cases this is obviously not a manner in which such things should be conducted and in turn fuels that strength of the self proclaimed "oppressed" extreme right. Not to say both sides do not have their bad eggs or underplay the situations where labels are being used to actually oppress the event of reasonable debate.

People do need to stamp out their ridiculous notions of "us" and "them" that these sorts of events perpetuate, I have already seen mentions of Alison Rapp in relation to this that suggests this is the case here and the tit for tat continues, but admittedly I was too quick to jump the gun and cant apply with certainty any level of guilt that is deserved of the consequences due to the manner in which it was dealt with by those who opposed his actions, which is a shame as its not likely to come to light at this stage whether he was guilty or innocent and just a bit of moron who took his homesick pokemon blues out on the country he has taken to work, which is ridiculous but doesnt deserve what he got. I had led myself to believe we were on different pages which I dont think we are and even though I do enjoy the sound of my own voice there is no use debating ifs and buts it was a pleasure talking at you...
"In all this confusion I cant get no relief."

Working for a corporation, I know it is important to watch what you say even when you're out on your 'own free time.' For this fellow to make such inappropriate and provocative comments about Singapore, I would agree it's grounds for discipline and probably violated his company's Code of Conduct policy. In this case, the discipline was losing his job. Also, for all we know, he was probably on probation anyhow with his company and they didn't need this type of headache.

@papershrimp Totally hear you, and actually agree with what you've said.

@Porpoise Very well said.

@Kirk @3MonthBeef The interesting thing is although "sacked" is also used in America, I've never heard that term used before! It's always "fired". Anyhoo, thanks!

@SKTTR The frightening thing is that it's becoming harder and harder for the average person trying to find work to have that kind of genuine choice. People need jobs to live in this modern world, and most contracts are now beyond ridiculous, especially in professional industries (basically, anything beyond what amounts to slave labour).

It's like when I went for my Job at Rockstar North: I really needed to get a job as I hadn't worked for quite some time, and there were definitely a few things in the contract I simply did not agree with (like agreeing that Rockstar North would basically own any ideas I came up with while working there, even those I came up with in my own time outside of work), but, I really needed a job, and it was Rockstar North, which most people would cut off the right leg to work for.

Sometimes it's not quite as black & white as many people think, in terms of just being able to pick and choose the contracts you sign to get work, and it's becoming ever less so. We're very measurably being given ever smaller choice and say is such things, more and more ridiculous restrictions and expectations are being placed upon us, but we do have to earn to live. And I think that's why we need to fight ever harder to make sure not all of our basic rights and freedoms are being stripped away just because we have to very necessarily get a job. You shouldn't have to basically sign your eternal soul away to these corporations just to be able to live.

Ah, so more than a bus journey away. lol

@happylittlepigs Perfectly said.

@c1pher_c0mplet No probs.

@Kirk

Thank you. One of the reasons I thought my picture was a good switch.

Regarding the need to sign away our souls and rights to a corporation in order to eat, that is cruel and unjust. Nevermind, this entire world is unjust. And I am at a loss for information on what we can truly do about it anymore. It's not like the 20's or the 40's maybe, because the people are not as powerful as they have a right to be. This goes for the millions in the States, the millions in Britain, everybody.

Look at this guy in Singapore. He clearly did not appear to have a right to talk smack about his country, which didn't even concern his JOB, and now he's fired because some idiots were a little too nosy on social media, found his "rant" and immediately fired him. It brings to mind a father disciplining a child. It's like your only thoughts are "WHY".

And I need help here, because I am at a true loss for words on how to stop this. I don't know what my generation is going to grow up to be, I don't know if they're going to do a damned thing about anything. For all we know they could be worse than the Millennials, and as was previously discussed, everybody on the internet, (most everybody anyway), is a sheep. I have good confidence that most of those sheep are the Ys and Zs. Don't get me wrong though, a lot of those are probably the Ys, but that's besides the point.

Another reason why I'm thinking Trump will be the best for the States. Maybe if things turn a little better over here, it could rub off on the rest of the world. Nobody knows. And that's also why I'm skeptical. Nobody. Knows. A. Damned. Thing. Look, I'm sorry, but that just bothers me. It simply does.

...sigh...

...This reply was not nearly as good as the last one.

@Kirk I guess I'm very lucky to live in a country where I can say "No. I thought the job was good but now that I read the contract / now that I worked here for some time I realised it's not for me and I don't want to work for you under these circumstance anymore! Change it and call me, or good luck in finding someone else (who is stupid enough for this)."

In a more hostile country where people are enslaved to the point they need to do things they hate to survive I'd either starve to death, heist some banks, or find a better place to live. I can never be a slave cog in the machinery prolonging dreadful systems. That's a very unethical thing to do, for everyone.

Huh that topic got us in a hot direction. Too bad the bus ride's too long. ^^

@SKTTR I feel the same—except now I'm in a situation where I'm a man living in the UK who's turning 40 in October and looking for employed work again, and I find I'm either totally out of touch with the various technologies, programs, and techniques required to get a job in the industry I actually want to work in, video games, or over qualified and too old to get a job in most of the crappy 9-5 jobs I wouldn't choose to work in if I actually had any real say at this point, and most of those jobs are now zero hour contracts anyway, which is totally useless for anyone that isn't a teen or student. That's not a good situation to be in. It's the kind of situation where you suddenly realise you actually don't have much choice but to become a cog in the machine and agree to whatever terms and conditions these machine-men say or you'll end up totally penniless and constantly worrying about the future. Luckily, I can at least still claim working tax credit while looking for full time employed work in this country—we do have that at least—but it's not great.

And, bear in mind, I'm speaking from the point of view of a guy who has an Hons degree in Animation & Electronic Media and a post grad in Entrepreneurship; has over fifteen years of experiences in the games industry, working for the likes of Rare and Rockstar North; has created and released 7 of my own Apps across Android, iOS, and Amazon; has ran a successful Kickstarter; has published a short story on Amazon, and is just finished writing my first novella (which I'll try to find an agent and publisher for soon enough) . . .

Yet, I'm sitting here out of work—although technically "self employed"—and totally skint, applying for skivvy jobs like a door-to-door salesmen and a waiter, because I'm basically desperate now and really do need to start brining in some money.

And, I'll tell you this for free: I think one of the reasons I'm not still working in the likes of Rare or Rockstar (and also why I've not had more success with any of the other stuff I've tried), is directly linked to the kind of system we've created, the one described in the article above, where a guy can lose his job for simply and harmlessly venting some of his frustrations online in his own "free" time. We're all trapped in some messed up socioeconomic game, and if you don't know how to play by its rules, or maybe don't even really want to, you're kind of screwed to a large degree.

I think this modern "civilised" society we've built, which maybe appears to be largely working just fine and dandy on the surface (at a quick and casual glance), is actually pretty broken and slowly but surely crumbling away underneath us all. And I think some of us can just see that a bit more clearly than others because we're the ones under the surface clamouring to reach up out of the rubble and catch a breath of that pure air.

Now, how the hell am I gonna get to play The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild? lol

The problem with "venting" is that it is a very childish/stubborn thing to do, 'specially when it's about things like games. It's not about cutting off your freedom, it's about seeing that you can't cope with some things reasonably like a grown up man. No one needs a venting rager. There are better ways that are not as destructive. In very emotional moments one has to keep himself under control and be patient to find better, more gentle words, especially if they go out into the public awareness (of internet and similar things) but also in general. It's a thing many people learn very late, or never.

Everywhere, even here on this site, there is chat/forum etiquette that you have to respect and follow or you get "sacked". Those rules likely cut many of us from parts of our freedom of speech. As long as the rules feel good in a natural, human, fully aware sense we will have a good time and don't want to change them. All other rules are broken, there's no way around it, however hard you try to push them in anothers face. Whoever adopts to those rules has not earned himself anything better.

@Kirk slow down, this is Singapore you are talking about. He's lucky he just got sacked and not sued and jailed.
Plus the population is not big enough to support any company who gets boycotted by a fraction of the population.