Popular Video Game Distributor Fires Female Employee Over Claims of “Transphobia”

submitted by jet199 from (reduxx.info)

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]LtGreenCo 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Firing an employee because of the complaint of a fat brony tranny who isn't even with the company.

This kind of shit needs to stop. We really need a law that protects employees' personal opinions.

[–]Musky༼⁠ ⁠つ⁠ ⁠◕⁠‿⁠◕⁠ ⁠༽⁠つ 🐈 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

We really need a law that protects employees' personal opinions

We used to have the ACLU to fight this sort of thing, that's one reboot I actually want to see.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The capture of the ACLU is truly something to behold.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not a capture but an ideological generational shift. The ACLU has long had a very liberal lean, not necessarily in a bad way, and their ideology being based on some non-partisan ideals in the past. As the political nature shifts and the polarization of politics increased they naturally shifted more partisan as they never bothered to seek "political diversity" within their ranks.

Go to any kind of DEI meeting and mention that we should adjust hiring policies to better reflect the political party affiliation and they'll lose their shit. But isn't the whole benefit of diversify to bring in a wealth of different viewpoints and not necessarily different body types? After all one could argue that in an American context, some white male born and raised in Sweden is the more diverse candidate than some black female born and raised in a well off liberal American city? After all his background is more different. To argue for one over the other in terms of how they look, could be described as a kind of fetishizing no?

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

After all one could argue that in an American context, some white male born and raised in Sweden is the more diverse candidate than some black female born and raised in a well off liberal American city? After all his background is more different. To argue for one over the other in terms of how they look, could be described as a kind of fetishizing no?

You're still trying to appeal to the liberal morality with this line of questioning.

[–]LyingSpirit472 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Honestly, a law to protect personal opinions would go very poorly, very quickly- because whichever party's in power would only enforce it for "their side" and not to "the other side." Even if it said 'irrelevant personal opinions are protected, relevant personal opinions are not', if the left is in power right now, they'd read the law for how 'well, it is not relevant to the job that this elementary school teacher is a proud NAMBLA member and admitted non-gold star pedophile and indeed sends unsolicited dick pics to his students and flat-out tells them he'll flunk them if they don't sleep with him', while saying 'no, it is totally relevant to the job that this Walmart employee voted for Trump in 2016 because he was a Bernie bro who just didn't want Hillary to get her way'...and if the Republicans get in charge, it'd be "nope, it is completely irrelevant that this police officer is a proud KKK member who openly plans to kill as many innocent minorities as he can, but it's completely relevant that this McDonald's fry cook voted for Biden."

[–]LtGreenCo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think you're assuming a law can't be written that would offer at least a better alternative to Twitter witch hunts. I think it could be done and I think we need somebody to at least put forth something like this, even if it gets stricken down, to at least get the ball rolling and get the nation talking.

[–]jet199[S] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

UK law protects belief rather than opinion and TERFs got the right to believe in 2 sexes through that.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater

[–]tiny-brown-mug 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No, I agree. Something needs to be done here. People have been fired in the US over "offensive" on-line opinions, which is incredibly subjective. Women have been arrested in Europe for saying that men can not be women. It's getting ridiculous.

Maybe have it be very strict; if someone threatens to kill you, physically hurt you, or hurt your family, sure. Prosecute that. If they just have an opinion that you find stupid or ignorant, ignore it and move on with your life. Because this is having real-life consequences, and it's like China's Weibo. Only, according to one user on here, worse.

[–]LyingSpirit472 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Honestly, even that could be a problem, simply because we've passed that road long ago and made it a discourse "having an opinion that is stupid or ignorant is literally the same as if they threatened to kill me, physically hurt me, or hurt my family."

Hell, it may get worse before it gets better...like, I had to read the article because it's so bad that I nearly was convinced "the person complaining hit on her and she said no, so the trans person cried transphobia and got her fired for it"...which I'd bet COULD HAPPEN and work right now.

[–]tiny-brown-mug 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well, I think that being offended has become equal to being punched or beaten in some people's minds, which tells you how rarely some of these people get off of social media.

But either there need to be some ground rules about what can and can not get a person fired or (my advice) folks just need to get off of social media until things calm down. Because being fired for following Blaire White of all people is just stupid. So what?

I'm already weirded out that typing something into Facebook or Twitter while you're off the clock and sitting on your couch can get you canned. Your social media life and your work life ought to be separate.

[–]LyingSpirit472 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It should have ground rules, but honestly as long as people subscribe to the currently accepted logic of "if something you did causes someone to commit suicide, then it's the same as if you personally murdered them", then this will never happen.

People have to get back to the real fact there of "if someone commits suicide, that's their own fault. They did it, they had free will, they caused it, you didn't cause the death, even if you hand them a cyanide capsule and force them to eat it or you'd shoot them they still chose to take the capsule so you didn't kill them."

[–]tiny-brown-mug 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What gets me is that she was fired for using the platform exactly as it was intended; she followed people she agreed with and was terminated for it. That's ridiculous. I would argue that social media is so broken and weaponized, that there's no sense in being on it.

Just stick to anonymous places like this and maybe some weird, hipster sites like "space hey" or something, or an anonymous blog. Using anything as yourself just seems risky. And I agree, it shouldn't be that way. But it is, unfortunately.

[–]LyingSpirit472 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is that ignores that the people whining, like in this example, are the loudest, whiniest, most tech-obsessed, most terminally online people on the planet. These are the people who truly have nothing else in their pathetic life, and because they have nothing else in life, they can focus their entire purpose in life into finding you and enacting vengeance by any means necessary. No matter how anonymous you are, how many VPNs you use, they're the ones obsessed enough to find the smallest detail, the smallest place you slip up, and if they can't get one the ones obsessed enough to hack your blog's server or your VPN's server to find you and attack.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hey if you wanna give it a go be my guest. Doesn't have to be perfect or an idea but you've got to at least attempt a legally passable idea of how you'd define "acceptable" political speech for what is "unacceptable". I'm not sure it can be done.

After all if someone wants to post very publicly on Twitter something along the lines of "I work for Coca Cola and their secret formula is aborted fetuses" I think most all of us would agree that firing such a person is justifiable. Whereas "I support the Republicans, or I am not in favor of gay marriage" or whatever unpopular opinions as such should be allowed speech. The problem is where do you draw the line? Because it has to be something that is consistent, fair, and not open to too much speculation. And that's a really hard thing to do.

We're already at a point in the public discourse where useful idiots have essentially conflated the ideas of opposition with promoting violence. You're causing trans people to kill themselves if you express a critical opinion of trans-related healthcare that isn't 100% affirming of the person, because they've conflated the suicide rate with murder, and they've conflated hardline targeted bullying with broad criticism of an idea.

But legally where do you draw the line? Direct threats? Ok I'm fine punishing people to make violent threats towards others but again how do we draw the line there. I wish someone was dead is a very different thing to say then I'm going to kill someone. Both can be quite horrid things to say naturally, but one is a threat and one is not. One can make veiled threats without ever breaking the "rules". The very nature of speech is one of innuendo and sidestepping that can be interpreted in positive and negative ways.

How do we codify such things into a policy? Stronger employment laws I'm in favor of in general but you've got to be quite fair about it. You need to make some concessions for people hurting the public image of a company, but if you make it so they have to argue that in a court of law you are opening up the political machine to start deciding what is and is not legally accepted speech.

It's really an all or nothing approach to free discourse in the end I think. We need to be free to discuss any and all ideas, even uncomfortable or dangerous ones, because often it's exactly those things that nobody wants to say that are true.

[–]LtGreenCo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bottom line is I don't believe in corporal consequences for speech. Getting fired from a job I consider corporal punishment because it affects your livelihood which in turn affects your survival. I believe speech should have no consequences beyond social. Meaning, yeah your coworkers can call you a jerk but your boss can't fire you for being a jerk unless being a jerk is a direct hindrance to your job duties being fulfilled.

Using your earlier KKK cop example. If a cop is a KKK supporter, but performs his job duties without any evidence of racial discrimination, then I say let him continue to do his job. We should measure the fitness of a person and their worth to society on their actions not their words.

IMO I don't think it would be too hard to come up with a law based on those principles, but I'm not a legislator so it's above my paygrade.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think laws can be effectively utilized here without causing more problems. This sort of issue is basically what I consider the purview of a union. Unions are also susceptible to corruption same as the government but since they are an independent entity so long as membership isn't mandatory and the freedom of association of it's members are protected in law the union can be a very useful extra legal vehicle for dealing with legally permissable yet morally questionable decisions by employers.

[–]UncleWillard56 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Our goal as a company is to continue to foster a positive and safe environment for everyone..."

...but only if they drink the rainbow flavored kool-aid.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Seems like a real psychopath that even his friends are fed up with, spends his time filing these types of complaints. Good to see that the company is facing a backlash for firing the woman. Companies need to stop pandering to social media especially when it comes to their staff.

Video about the issue

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ticks all the boxes for crazy obsessed stereotypical unpleasant nerd.

[–]bife_de_lomo 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I liked Limited Run Games's product offering, it's a shame they'll be going on my boycott list.

[–]cephyrious 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"One person, who has a long history of harassment and bad behaviour, claimed one of our employees had a problematic tweet 6 years ago. Hm, nothing to do but fire the employee!"

[–]Fiyanggu 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Allowing the fringe crazies to dictate policy for the majority is just stupid. They should apologize and reinstate that employee immediately. And tell that tranny to go suck it.

[–]clownworlddropout 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Everyone would be better off if we let this retarded trend die, even the troons would be better off. Let's stop playing make-believe with people's lives!

Claims of transphobia need to be met with scorn, we need to demand a return to sanity.

[–]SMCAB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And this is exactly why you should strive to work your way up in a family owned business, or own your own business.

I can shit on the floor and find the tranny and make them clean it up with their mouth and I'd get a medal as long as my performance is in good standing.

There are plenty of places in the world where this shit doesn't and would never happen. Your happiness comes from what you choose to surround yourself with.

This is also the number one reason social media is such a fucking cesspool. A person like this doesn't deserve to have a platform for anything, not if this is the way they are going to go about it, acting like a little bitch complaining the world doesn't cater to his misguided and childlike sensibilities. Can't we just get back to where this fucking pussy freak goes back to cutting himself into oblivion while no one cares?

[–]IkeConn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bless it's heart.

[–]beazer12beard 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They had to go back 6 years to find a single tweet...that actually makes accusations of "cismen" not transwomen.

Looked through 1,677 followed accounts to find a handful of accounts they could use in their post.

And it's not even someone notable. It's just a random no name twitter user who casually mentioned in a reply tweet that she was looking forward to the Hogwarts game.

What a fucking stalker.

[–]jet199[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Apparently they could well be liable for being sued if they don't have a very specific social media policy in place.