UWE has my support for this move. As much as I love the music in the game and do acknowledge Si's amazing contribution, those comments are disgusting and having had the displeasure of working with someone only a fifth as bad and holding my breath for the next horrible they were going to say (because people like these don't keep to social media, though they might be more subtle in person), I am glad to see action taken in favor of a more welcoming work space.
Mind, I'm also not someone who believes in single chances; as per the reports, UWE talked with them about the tweets and they chose to stand by them. They made it clear they would be damaging to potential future colleagues and therefore had to go. Simple as that.
The idea that UWE did this for publicity or out of fear for mobs is, btw, preposterous. I mean, look at most of you being a mob just as much. A decision either way would've brought trouble for UWE; might as well stick to what they committed too.
Far, far cry from a mob. The majority here aren't even doing anything other than voicing their opinion(s) on the issue. The few that are being "mob" ish, are new accounts signing up to post their disapproval (which should probably have been done in a separate thread, but new accounts can't do that, so...)
Based on what I been reading. Simion did something on Twitter that could be offensive. People got mad. He got fired because of it. More people got mad. Imo, if it was very offensive then yes I can see why they got fired, but the people mad about him being fired are just annoying. They fired him for being rude. Meanwhile there are other companies who are actually being rude to their employees. There are cases of other companies getting in trouble for mistreating a certain group of employees. In fact, a giant disaster happened because of it. When the Triangle Shirt Sewing Building place in the U.S caught on fire. Hundreds of women inside died, because the doors were locked just so they couldn't sneak out before break time. And well, other reasons as well. This did call an outrage and improved worker safety. But here, a guy gets fired for doing something offensive and people are freaking out just like the building thing happened again. Stop calling UWE messed up for this when there are a lot more messed up cases than this.
Just because other companies are worse doesn't mean people can want a company that isn't quite as bad to be better. Does the western world give up on efforts to grant gay marriage equality in their countries just because some other countries throw gays off rooftops and that's worse?
I'm not good at wording things. I don't mean like give up. I mean just this whole thing is stupid it's UWE choice so people shouldn't act like they are the worst company
I'm not good at wording things. I don't mean like give up. I mean just this whole thing is stupid it's UWE choice so people shouldn't act like they are the worst company
The thing is, people like drama and also like the extreme sides of both sides. It's kinda unavoidable with the anonymity or rather impersonal nature of the internet where people's cohones grow extra large and shrink down when you meet these internet warriors in person...
Honestly, I had a lot more sympathy for Simon before I dug into the actual tweets in question. This isn't a one-time thing that people are blowing up about; it's a long-running pattern of behavior. Given that he basically said he wouldn't play nice with new hires, UWE's decision to let him go is completely understandable.
Honestly, I had a lot more sympathy for Simon before I dug into the actual tweets in question. This isn't a one-time thing that people are blowing up about; it's a long-running pattern of behavior. Given that he basically said he wouldn't play nice with new hires, UWE's decision to let him go is completely understandable.
I'm not good at wording things. I don't mean like give up. I mean just this whole thing is stupid it's UWE choice so people shouldn't act like they are the worst company
But I guess here we go again guys. So far it seems this year might just be another 2016.
2016 3.0. . . Oh boy
To a lot of people it is a stupid choice, and if UWE is content punishing one of their employees for what they think was a "stupid choice", then they are also allowed to reap the reward for such an action- such as the bad press they may have thought they were avoiding by disassociation with Simon. As for Simon publicising his termination, why not? If his public opinion was enough to get him fired, people would like to know. He didn't even allude to the reason he got fired, people are capable of reaching their own conclusions of the situation.
Also 2016 was a great year, more of that would be great.
The fact that not being allowed to a-okay genocide (because that's what happened during colonialism, among others in the Americas, Australia, and India) and eugenics (any of that racialized IQ nonsense) without consequence is considered censorship around here is... disheartening to say the least.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure censorship is only about government stuff, not what businesses do.
The fact that not being allowed to a-okay genocide (because that's what happened during colonialism, among others in the Americas, Australia, and India) and eugenics (any of that racialized IQ nonsense) without consequence is considered censorship around here is... disheartening to say the least.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure censorship is only about government stuff, not what businesses do.
Nobody has mentioned genocide or eugenics in this thread, and as the only person who has previously mentioned censorship in this thread, I can definitely define the context for it as being fired as consequences for an expressed opinion. Specifically, I am likening the punishment of an individual for their expressed opinion- to censorship. If you have an issue with my comparison, please attack that specifically.
The fact that not being allowed to a-okay genocide (because that's what happened during colonialism, among others in the Americas, Australia, and India) and eugenics (any of that racialized IQ nonsense) without consequence is considered censorship around here is... disheartening to say the least.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure censorship is only about government stuff, not what businesses do.
The context of free speech and censorship is not limited to what the government restricts. The First Amendment in the US Constitution specifically limits the government's actions to quashing speech, but the First Amendment is not the end-all-be-all authority on the concept of free speech. A company can take an action like this, and it absolutely is a form of censorship. Within the US, something like this is within a company's legal right to do, but that doesn't protect that company from the consequences of being viewed as quashing speech they don't like.
If a company has the policy of shutting down opinions that run contrary to what it deems acceptable, that company has a policy of censorship. Firing somebody for something they said has a chilling effect for that person's opinion, and is a policy of censorship.
The fact that not being allowed to a-okay genocide (because that's what happened during colonialism, among others in the Americas, Australia, and India) and eugenics (any of that racialized IQ nonsense) without consequence is considered censorship around here is... disheartening to say the least.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure censorship is only about government stuff, not what businesses do.
Nobody has mentioned genocide or eugenics in this thread, and as the only person who has previously mentioned censorship in this thread, I can definitely define the context for it as being fired as consequences for an expressed opinion. Specifically, I am likening the punishment of an individual for their expressed opinion- to censorship. If you have an issue with my comparison, please attack that specifically.
One doesn't have to. The moment one defends saying colonialism is a good thing, that includes a defense of saying genocide is a good thing. Same for racialized IQ stuff and eugenics. And a whole lot of other things. Pretending to not do so is dishonest, whether intentional or not.
An individual may be punished for their expressed opinion as long as the punishment is between private entities and within proportion. That is not censorship and so much as comparing it with censorship is fundamentally not understanding what censorship is. Or, for that matter, freedom of speech. Methinks that not wanting to be a team with someone who twice+ expresses that they do not value humans that aren't like them is not something you can call questionable.
A persons political views should in no way negatively impact their financial security. I am beyond appalled at the SJW crybullies who perpetrated this lynching, and am absolutely disgusted with these Devs for capitulating to the demands of a core group of bitter, self-righteous, unpleasable individuals. Whatever damage the Devs thought keeping the sound designer on would have caused pales in comparison to the damage they've just done to their brand and this game. You don't throw one of your own under the bus for tweets a snobbish , childish, Leftist minority things is "problematic" or "politically incorrect", no. You stand by them and maintain that their views at the end of the day has no bearing on the game itself.
What makes me even angrier is that the very same people that came after the sound designer consistently insist on injecting their politics into games, and shout you down if you disagree with them. However, they're allowed to preach their ideologies without fear of being fire while directly selling their ideology to their consumers. A sound designer who's political views literally had no impact on the game itself however gets fired for random tweets? I'm utterly enraged, and I can promise you that events like this will have the complete opposite political effect that the SJWs responsible for it want. People are getting "redpilled" from this, and will continue going further to the right everything SJWs overreact like this. Trump is going to get re-elected in 2020 thanks to things like this, so I really hope the SJWs cheering for this horrible decision have their fun while it lasts.
The political winds or shifting, this type of madness will no longer be tolerated in time.
The fact that not being allowed to a-okay genocide (because that's what happened during colonialism, among others in the Americas, Australia, and India) and eugenics (any of that racialized IQ nonsense) without consequence is considered censorship around here is... disheartening to say the least.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure censorship is only about government stuff, not what businesses do.
Nobody has mentioned genocide or eugenics in this thread, and as the only person who has previously mentioned censorship in this thread, I can definitely define the context for it as being fired as consequences for an expressed opinion. Specifically, I am likening the punishment of an individual for their expressed opinion- to censorship. If you have an issue with my comparison, please attack that specifically.
One doesn't have to. The moment one defends saying colonialism is a good thing, that includes a defense of saying genocide is a good thing. Same for racialized IQ stuff and eugenics. And a whole lot of other things. Pretending to not do so is dishonest, whether intentional or not.
An individual may be punished for their expressed opinion as long as the punishment is between private entities and within proportion. That is not censorship and so much as comparing it with censorship is fundamentally not understanding what censorship is. Or, for that matter, freedom of speech. Methinks that not wanting to be a team with someone who twice+ expresses that they do not value humans that aren't like them is not something you can call questionable.
Not only are you okay with censoring what the former dev had to say, you are putting words into his mouth and opinions into his brain that he never expressed. Nobody said anything about eugenics or genocide except you.
You're completely right, "he said". Therefore you're forming an opinion before hearing all sides of the story, which may lead to it being a little biased.
I also think firing someone due to personal matters is wrong, but I don't know how this matter was dealt with internally and what they did discuss before that decision was made.
Ok after hearing about this from mondaymatt i have to tell you it scares me because they got rid of talent so easy and as such I'm going to start wondering if the company will survive for instance what will they drop next oh the DLC is offence to alaskans what then?
Not only are you okay with censoring what the former dev had to say, you are putting words into his mouth and opinions into his brain that he never expressed. Nobody said anything about eugenics or genocide except you.
As a descendent of colonizers, colonized, and groups caught in-between, I believe defenses of colonialism (at least by people with no personal stake or appropriate knowledge) warrants something way worse than being told you're not colleague material. So, your accusation of me supporting censorship (which again, this is not) doesn't boo-boo me in the slightest.
Yeah, its a shame. And now this has grown into the female player model debacle. Charlie should take a hint from other companies and just duck and cover, wait for this to blow over before announcing measures to placate the whiny few.
At this point in time, I would even be satisfied if the male player model gets a head.
Such as it is, though the lack of an official statement from UWE does present the situation in which people have to draw their own conclusions. People's opinions will probably change again based on such when it does occur, but so far the public view of what's occurred is not doing them any favours.
I should have said informative or satisfactory response, I was incorrect in asserting that no official statement had been made. My bad.
I read the tweets, i'm shocked so little can get a person fired. Especially by outraged people that probably don't know Subnautica, will never play Subnautica and at the end don't give a shit about it.
Whoever did the firing has no backbone whatsoever.
Such as it is, though the lack of an official statement from UWE does present the situation in which people have to draw their own conclusions. People's opinions will probably change again based on such when it does occur, but so far the public view of what's occurred is not doing them any favours.
Game director Charlie Cleveland confirmed that Chylinski is no longer with developer Unknown Worlds, telling Kotaku, “Over the weekend we discovered that one of our team members had made many hateful statements online that are against our company values. After discussing the matter with him, we decided to stop working with him immediately.”
Game director Charlie Cleveland confirmed that Chylinski is no longer with developer Unknown Worlds, telling Kotaku, “Over the weekend we discovered that one of our team members had made many hateful statements online that are against our company values. After discussing the matter with him, we decided to stop working with him immediately.”
Though technically is correct in that it has done little to dissuade conjecture, I was wrong in stating there was a lack of official statement. My wording should have been a lack of informative/satisfactory official statement- thanks for catching that.
One doesn't have to. The moment one defends saying colonialism is a good thing, that includes a defense of saying genocide is a good thing. Same for racialized IQ stuff and eugenics. And a whole lot of other things. Pretending to not do so is dishonest, whether intentional or not.
An individual may be punished for their expressed opinion as long as the punishment is between private entities and within proportion. That is not censorship and so much as comparing it with censorship is fundamentally not understanding what censorship is. Or, for that matter, freedom of speech. Methinks that not wanting to be a team with someone who twice+ expresses that they do not value humans that aren't like them is not something you can call questionable.
It's nice to know that because I've stated my support for Simon's right to express his opinion, my opinion is worth nothing because I sympathise with someone who you allege supports "colonialism" (i.e. the root of all evil), the fact of which bringing up such is totally not a red herring in the topic of censorship. While freedom of speech is relevant to censorship, I would beg an explanation for how it invalidates my claim that attacking a person's economic situation (i.e. providing a legal penalty) is aliken to (not literally, but effectively) censorship.
The road to Reductio ad Hiterlum is a fast and rocky one, folks.
I would however love to see how that is handled when that shoe is on another foot, however. Say, right-wing owned coffee shop fires employee for posting that "conservative tools are destroying our planet" or "conservatives are responsible for the death of thousands of children due to school shootings".
Is it in the right-wing coffee shop's rights to do so? Sure. But imagine the backlash. A lot of people are probably angry just thinking about it right now after reading this.
But at the same time, if the employee is always posting about stuff from work and how he loves working there... I can see how they have an image to uphold (what they stand for).
And that has happened. Ppl have been fired for anti-Trump posts, anti-Obama posts, anti-conservative, and anti-liberal posts on their public social media. You might not hear about it because its not front page news, and really, neither is this current event. In the modern internet age, where Yelp and Steam reviews can sway a person's purchasing decisions, business owners will take action, even for minor things. Its the current state of things.
Ah the dangers of only having the outsider view, while drawing conclusions as if we were at the meeting \o/
Such as it is, though the lack of an official statement from UWE does present the situation in which people have to draw their own conclusions. People's opinions will probably change again based on such when it does occur, but so far the public view of what's occurred is not doing them any favours.
He does. Build a window in the scanner room, pilot one of the cameras and look in.
Yeah, its a shame. And now this has grown into the female player model debacle. Charlie should take a hint from other companies and just duck and cover, wait for this to blow over before announcing measures to placate the whiny few.
At this point in time, I would even be satisfied if the male player model gets a head.
For this, instead of my comment on official statements.
Comments
Far, far cry from a mob. The majority here aren't even doing anything other than voicing their opinion(s) on the issue. The few that are being "mob" ish, are new accounts signing up to post their disapproval (which should probably have been done in a separate thread, but new accounts can't do that, so...)
Just because other companies are worse doesn't mean people can want a company that isn't quite as bad to be better. Does the western world give up on efforts to grant gay marriage equality in their countries just because some other countries throw gays off rooftops and that's worse?
The thing is, people like drama and also like the extreme sides of both sides. It's kinda unavoidable with the anonymity or rather impersonal nature of the internet where people's cohones grow extra large and shrink down when you meet these internet warriors in person...
2016 3.0. . . Oh boy
Honestly, I had a lot more sympathy for Simon before I dug into the actual tweets in question. This isn't a one-time thing that people are blowing up about; it's a long-running pattern of behavior. Given that he basically said he wouldn't play nice with new hires, UWE's decision to let him go is completely understandable.
He said he'd treat them just like anybody else.
To a lot of people it is a stupid choice, and if UWE is content punishing one of their employees for what they think was a "stupid choice", then they are also allowed to reap the reward for such an action- such as the bad press they may have thought they were avoiding by disassociation with Simon. As for Simon publicising his termination, why not? If his public opinion was enough to get him fired, people would like to know. He didn't even allude to the reason he got fired, people are capable of reaching their own conclusions of the situation.
Also 2016 was a great year, more of that would be great.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure censorship is only about government stuff, not what businesses do.
Nobody has mentioned genocide or eugenics in this thread, and as the only person who has previously mentioned censorship in this thread, I can definitely define the context for it as being fired as consequences for an expressed opinion. Specifically, I am likening the punishment of an individual for their expressed opinion- to censorship. If you have an issue with my comparison, please attack that specifically.
The context of free speech and censorship is not limited to what the government restricts. The First Amendment in the US Constitution specifically limits the government's actions to quashing speech, but the First Amendment is not the end-all-be-all authority on the concept of free speech. A company can take an action like this, and it absolutely is a form of censorship. Within the US, something like this is within a company's legal right to do, but that doesn't protect that company from the consequences of being viewed as quashing speech they don't like.
If a company has the policy of shutting down opinions that run contrary to what it deems acceptable, that company has a policy of censorship. Firing somebody for something they said has a chilling effect for that person's opinion, and is a policy of censorship.
One doesn't have to. The moment one defends saying colonialism is a good thing, that includes a defense of saying genocide is a good thing. Same for racialized IQ stuff and eugenics. And a whole lot of other things. Pretending to not do so is dishonest, whether intentional or not.
An individual may be punished for their expressed opinion as long as the punishment is between private entities and within proportion. That is not censorship and so much as comparing it with censorship is fundamentally not understanding what censorship is. Or, for that matter, freedom of speech. Methinks that not wanting to be a team with someone who twice+ expresses that they do not value humans that aren't like them is not something you can call questionable.
What makes me even angrier is that the very same people that came after the sound designer consistently insist on injecting their politics into games, and shout you down if you disagree with them. However, they're allowed to preach their ideologies without fear of being fire while directly selling their ideology to their consumers. A sound designer who's political views literally had no impact on the game itself however gets fired for random tweets? I'm utterly enraged, and I can promise you that events like this will have the complete opposite political effect that the SJWs responsible for it want. People are getting "redpilled" from this, and will continue going further to the right everything SJWs overreact like this. Trump is going to get re-elected in 2020 thanks to things like this, so I really hope the SJWs cheering for this horrible decision have their fun while it lasts.
The political winds or shifting, this type of madness will no longer be tolerated in time.
Not only are you okay with censoring what the former dev had to say, you are putting words into his mouth and opinions into his brain that he never expressed. Nobody said anything about eugenics or genocide except you.
I also think firing someone due to personal matters is wrong, but I don't know how this matter was dealt with internally and what they did discuss before that decision was made.
As a descendent of colonizers, colonized, and groups caught in-between, I believe defenses of colonialism (at least by people with no personal stake or appropriate knowledge) warrants something way worse than being told you're not colleague material. So, your accusation of me supporting censorship (which again, this is not) doesn't boo-boo me in the slightest.
At this point in time, I would even be satisfied if the male player model gets a head.
I should have said informative or satisfactory response, I was incorrect in asserting that no official statement had been made. My bad.
Whoever did the firing has no backbone whatsoever.
Technically, we did get an official statement in that Kotaku article:
Though technically is correct in that it has done little to dissuade conjecture, I was wrong in stating there was a lack of official statement. My wording should have been a lack of informative/satisfactory official statement- thanks for catching that.
It's nice to know that because I've stated my support for Simon's right to express his opinion, my opinion is worth nothing because I sympathise with someone who you allege supports "colonialism" (i.e. the root of all evil), the fact of which bringing up such is totally not a red herring in the topic of censorship. While freedom of speech is relevant to censorship, I would beg an explanation for how it invalidates my claim that attacking a person's economic situation (i.e. providing a legal penalty) is aliken to (not literally, but effectively) censorship.
The road to Reductio ad Hiterlum is a fast and rocky one, folks.
And that has happened. Ppl have been fired for anti-Trump posts, anti-Obama posts, anti-conservative, and anti-liberal posts on their public social media. You might not hear about it because its not front page news, and really, neither is this current event. In the modern internet age, where Yelp and Steam reviews can sway a person's purchasing decisions, business owners will take action, even for minor things. Its the current state of things.
He does. Build a window in the scanner room, pilot one of the cameras and look in.
For this, instead of my comment on official statements.