I am by no means a racist, but shared similar thoughts about what is "said in your own home". I'm sure many of these reports and people reporting on this topic, go home and say racist comments themselves. This whole story is very odd. It's starting to look like a setup.
As far as Josh Olin and his position, being a community manager, there is an image that I'm sure the the developer or publisher wish to uphold. All positions that are in public relations or in the spotlight, they require people to walk a straight and narrow line.
I blame this whole thing on recording devices and twitter, not people.
See, but there is no difference between defending speech and defending racism. I know. I know. Logic says that there is a difference ... but only racist logic cannot see that it is the same thing.
So. Since, Hattor, you are defending a racist you are now fired from your job, all your possessions are going to be taken away, and you will be kicked out into the street.
You're probably a greedy, rich, white guy anyway.
This is a prime example of where common sense is not so common anymore.
Sterling had one person he was accountable to for his comments --> his girlfriend. Those comments are then released to the media as they were recorded. Sterling fired. I have no sympathy for Sterling,,, as I could not care about anyone who clearly holds the views that he does. However, the fact that he now has a lifetime ban in his chosen profession for comments he made in private is not a great precedent. It just opens the door for people to use blackmail.
As for Josh Olin's statement,,, I am a bit puzzled to why his comments are so controversial, and that he himself can be seen in a bad light. I say this because Josh refers to Sterling as an "old bigot", which is a clear indication that he does not support such comments.
I think Josh can only be found guilty of commenting on a matter over a very public medium.
No doubt Josh's "Victim" comment refers, not to Sterling's clear racism, but to be publicly outed as being so. The fact that Sterling is a powerful, wealthy man, laid him open. In my book Josh has been fired because he voiced an opinion publicly which could be easily taken out of context by those who wish the worse.. I'm guessing that Josh will from now on be very careful when it comes to personal use over social media.
As for Josh Olin's statement,,, I am a bit puzzled to why his comments are so controversial, and that he himself can be seen in a bad light.
It wasn't what he said more the fact there was a huge outcry from the community as a result , its the sort of publicity no company or studio wants or needs , whether Josh said it as a joke or not it came over as he was defending Sterling making racist comments hence the outcry and firing.
Josh has basically now made himself unemployable in the industry for a while now and has now upped the tally of tripA franchises hes been fired from to 3
Yes, I understand that an outcry can come about from such comments, and Evolve acted accordingly.
I guess what I am trying to say though is that his comment (in itself) did not deserve the repercussions. Taken out of context and sensationalized, his comment became a different beast to what was intended. It is one of my bugbears that people and media sensationalize stories, and by doing so the actual detail of issues are lost in the headline. See this most often in politics.
I just wish the "world" was a bit wiser when it comes to delivering and listening to news #utopianikknow . Alas, explaining and talking about an issue is much harder than creating stories to sell papers.
I get it though, as a community manager Josh needed to be mindful of not what his intentions were, but how they could be perceived.
Note: I have no idea why Josh has been fired in the past, so my comments purely go towards the current event.
Let's see how easy it is to get banned. What we need is some perspective. Let's start with perspective # 1.
Who finds this offensive ?
Well, if you do, we have bad news for you.
Texas vs. Johnson - You may not like seeing the flag of your nation being burned, but in the USA it is legal because it is deemed free speech. This is true for pretty much every Western nation on the planet.
- Perspective number 2.
Do you find the following offensive?
Of course not. It does not matter that, to some people, the Confederate flag does not represent slavery or racism, but rather, it represents resistance to an oppressive government. It is not offense to burn a Confederate flag because to the audience, the ONLY thing the Confederate flag can represent is racial hatred. AND WE ALL ARE VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS STRICTLY WHAT THE AUDIENCE PERCEIVES THAT MATTERS.
That in mind, let us take a gander at perspective # 3.
Do you find the following offensive?
Now, before anyone goes off half-cocked with claims that I'm a racist, you're going to have a VERY hard time making that claim stick. I know why and you don't.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY comes with a cost. It means much more than YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO INSULT OTHERS. It also means that OTHERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSULT YOU. No one here is saying that what Sterling said is "good;" in fact, everyone has said quite the opposite. The ONLY thing anyone has said is that people should not have their entire lives taken away from them simply because they insulted another group. You lose legal legitimacy when you act out of hatred for someone like this. You lose legitimacy because when people like that are in power, they can point to what you did to justify their oppression of free speech.
Perspective # 4 ... for those that doubt oppressors would use YOUR language against you, let us take a look at Comrade Vladmir.
Snowden asked: "Does Russia intercept or store or analyse the communication of millions of individuals?" He went on to ask whether increasing the effectiveness of internal security systems could ever justify such actions.
To applause from the studio audience, Putin responded: "Mr Snowden you are a former agent, a spy, I used to work for a intelligence service, we are going to talk the same language."
He said Russia did not have a comparable programme, stating: "Our agents are controlled by law. You have to get court permission to put an individual under surveillance. We don't have mass permission, and our law makes it impossible for that kind of mass permission to exist."
There is a difference between supporting the right for people to be idiots … and supporting idiotic statements. Obviously we have some people, at least in America, inebriated on the power that comes with success who have forgotten the distinction.
edit - added link to UK Guardian story ... and Texas vs Johnson Oyez link
Removed JD from the castle VIPs list. He violated the foot in your mouth clause.
My humble opinion on this incident: It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong or his comments are personal opinions, he got up in front of the internet and shouted his unpopular opinion for everyone to hear and unfortunately, he represents a company's community leadership, a very public position. The company has every right to terminate him given the PR disaster he's gotten himself into. You have the freedom of speech, but you still bear the consequences of what you say. This is business, the end.