@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.
Comments 1
Re: Random: Australian Man Sacked For Moaning That Pokémon GO Isn't Available In Singapore
@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