IQ is cultural.
Otherwise we would all be admitting that the Chinese are the superior race

@Vits
"a statistical fact"
Dear god... then you go on the proclaim how an large part of the human population should be looked down upon, or for whatever idiotic reason you bring up that "statistical fact", because of "low iq". Stats consist of analytical data, with many varying factors to determine said stat. So to claim a stat to be factual in itself is asinine. I really don't care about this either way, I just hate to see people misuse statistical data, and I hate it even more when you people misuse statistical data to force some idiotic bigotry you believe in.

OT
I think they used the wrong word. I was thinking, stupid instead of insensitive. He's clearly not that bright and I don't think he should have gotten fired over that.

@Vits-the developers free to fire this dude because of those comments they don't want their company attached to this type of discriminatory Behavior

I mean that person's free to think what they want and say what they feel like..... At another company.

I would do the same thing. (Thankfully I've never had to fire anyone from my business.....yet)

fiveby9 couldn't have said it any better, it's all about having the "right" opinion which is simply toxic. This is where america is heading, simply sad.

@EatCrow: "There should be no consequences for inconsequential comments."

So you should be forced to employ people you can't stand and who you feel hurt your company's image? Interesting...

And define "inconsequential". If even just one person doesn't buy the game because of a dev's social idiocy, that is consequential. Or perhaps a potential job candidate is lost because they see this. Or maybe it gets used as evidence of behavior in a discrimination lawsuit later. Plenty of OBVIOUS avenues for consequence here. Think like a business owner.

Sorry people, but the reality is your social actions have always impacted your employability. And blabbering on social media is a social action. Nobody wants to employ a jerk, and what constitutes a jerk is rightly subjective.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to share thoughts without consequences. To say otherwise exposes a grave misunderstanding of the concept itself. By your logic, freedom of speech exists where your government executes you for it, as this is a consequence.

I'm surprised your post has so many upvotes, to be honest.

Besides, how does this benefit anyone? You can't punish someone into changing their mind about something. Is he to remain unemployed? Go homeless? For some naive idea about corporate freedom?

This person is a known developer for a company, which means this person under that profile that he or she was using, is representing their company.

Had this person said these things under a profile that was not in anyway linked to the company he works for , then there wouldn't be a problem.

There is freedom of speech and then there is just plain stupid.

Cool so you’re fine if I go through your comment history and send it to your employer?

Alright. I’ll get right to it.

@AnubisG

First off doctors are bound by a code of ethics so if they violate that then yes.

Let me put this into practice. In Nazi internment camps lots of completely inhumane "medical research" was done on unwilling participants do you personally think that is correct and acceptable if it cured cancer?

@SPARTAN

freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Freedom of speech by law, only prevents the government from persecuting people for expressing their opinion. Freedom of speech is in no way required to be adhered to by the individual, and any indivual or company....Since they are now considered individuals...Is free to dole out any consequence it feels suitable for someone expressing an opinion....as is their right under free speech laws.

People act like the company here doesn't also have a right to express how it feels about this man's opinions, where I see it as them doing just that by diaassociating themselves from him.

Freedom of speech has to go both ways, and that's something a lot of people often forget. In any case, when it comes ofnthe rule of law, freedom of speech is only relevant from the government doing something about the man's opinions.

"Go ahead, say whatever you want" says man holding a gun who will shoot you if you say something he doesn't agree with.

Well hopefully someone will sue a company and win for discrimination or however lawyers would spin it.

@Anu- yes but you have to understand is the board of directors of the hospital is free to hire or fire who they feel like it many times.

I don't know why anyone believes that Simply Having a really good job or important job somehow means that somebody is allowed to keep you hired regardless of what you say 😂😂😂
28514; yeeeeea no, the world doesn't work that way buddy.

If I hire someone and it's my company and they have these views I very much have no problem firing them because I do not want that type of attention or stigma attached to my company.

If you have those views trust me you're free to continue to have those views and I'll even put in a great recommendation but you're not going to be working for my company.

@Spar- "without consequences" it means without consequence in regards to government agencies if you're actually freely expressing it in a way that is not to purposely deceive.

Soooo no, it does not actually mean you're free to have any type comments you feel like it will working at a company because freedom of speech does not actually supercede a company's rights if they decide to hire you (or fire you because of those views).

It is not a free pass to say anything and then have zero consequences whatsoever in regards to another company.

The part about 0 consequence has to do with government, that has nothing to do with a company that decides to hire you especially if that is a privately owned company in which you're literally writing in a contract that you can be fired at THEIR discretion.

@Rain- good read, best comment here.

@ rainslacker

The problem with that is that it represents a form of discrimination. The current laws are extremely inconsistent when it comes to discrimination. Why can the government force a private entity not to discriminate on the basis of things such as race or religion, yet people are not protected from discrimination on the basis of their political views?

If an individual person or company can discriminate against someone for their political views they should also be free to discriminate for any other reason they choose.

Either private companies should have the right to discriminate for any reason (and only government institutions be forced not to discriminate) or private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against somebody for their political views.

This guy lost his job for tweeting statistical facts from the Department of Justice website.

Facts Trump feelings.

No, that's complete nonsense. The dichotomy is not public/private, but professional/private.

What is said when at work, or as a representative of your workplace is professional (I mean, using a professional social media account, as opposed to a private one). Everything else is private.

Enough nonsensical rhetoric. This decision is indefensible.

yeah be a good boy and shut up! Its a fantastic world we live in when we cant even share a "controversial" opinion without the thought police coming in to take our livelihoods away.

Whats next? putting people in jail for wrong think?

Freedom of Speech is dead

@Sono421

"but firing someone for having different beliefs to your own is simply wrong. How is that any different then firing someone for the religion they believe? I'll tell you.. it isn't, just because he has in their eyes the "wrong" opinion he is being fired, and that in and of itself is wrong. Pure liberal sjw garbage, we need to move past this phase in time already it's only toxic. "

So when Trump fires judges and other political appointees who don't agree with with his opinions that's wrong?

Exactly what the PC, Liberal, Feminists want...for ALL opposing views to be SILENCED and demanding people keep it to themselves.....
Yeah.....no thanks.

comunistic USSR totally would have agreed with you.

You can still express opinions, but they need to be respectful and not targeted...although there are cases of targeting...like someone saying they dislike a politician. It's usually the people that say things in inciteful ways that causes problems, although there are timetimes when things get blown out of proportion on extremely volatile issues of the moment which tend to only be relevant for a couple weeks.

More generally speaking though, if you are publicly associated with a company, it's usually just better to keep it to yourself. For the most part, the people on the internet aren't your friends and don't really care what you have to say. It's people looking for validation for their opinions they likely can't get elsewhere that usually act stupid in social media, and eventually run into problems like this when others who don't actually care about this person end up getting pissed off at what someone else has to say

@sono

Most companies.that have a public face have rules against making inciteful comments if a person is associated with that company publicly. It's wrong for them to fire someone for having an opinion
, not for expressing it publicly while associated with the company at the same time.

Heck, for some of the criticism I give to me on here I could be fired by my company who is a partner of ms. But since I don't have a public face and I'm not publicly associated with the company I work for on here or elsewhere, I can pretty much say what I want.

We don't know if this was his first issue within the company.

@Christopher This is true we don't know the history. Does the company have a policy of posting anything online which they consider offensive? I'd be curious to know if they take the same stance with progressive postings online? Sure the company has a lot of latitude in the U.S. to hire / fire. But it is also true that I don't have to support them by purchasing their products either. Sure it's not generally a good idea to post one's controversial opinions online for all to see when you represent a company. But we all know backlash from employers is decidedly one way on this. Do you really think anyone would get fired for posting their opinion in support of illegal immigration? Progressive ivory tower morals influencing corporate policy being applied selectively.

@fiveby

It's not selective. It's the company not wanting to be associated with this person because of their views. The company is free to choose what views it has on things, and in the US, companies are considered individuals, and can express their own views in ways they see fit....which includes disassociating themselves from the individual in question.

You can't claim it's selective because this company happens to do something, but some other company decides not to take action in a similar instance, or the same company doesn't do anything for other views which they don't feel offensive.

Freedom of speech has to go both ways. You can't say this guy is being repressed, without repressing the company itself. The company itself actually has more working against it when firing someone, as it's a costly endevour to hire someone new, and face possible legal consequences if they don't follow laws in the termination process. Companies are restricted much more from expressing their own views than the individual is, which is why they generally don't. But when a representative of the company says something inflammatory or vitriolic, or against the companies own viewpoint, are they not allowed to exercise their own freedoms by taking which actions they feel appropriate?

While I'm not familiar with the company, a pretty standard boilerplate employment contract says that you don't say things which can be offensive with a public handle attached to the company....or sometimes even on your own private accounts which the public can see. I don't know a single game company beyond the small indie company that doesn't have codes of conduct clauses. Almost all companies nowadays have some similar clause, particularly those that attempt to keep a good public face.

@rainslacker

"inflammatory or vitriolic"
This is muddy water your delving into because the statements in question dont have to be inflammatory or vitriolic.
I get what you are saying but where is the line drawn. Its lack of understanding of core values and at this point shared or understood base ground level values, which every society needs to function properly, that are missing in these types of conversations.

For instance, I am against abortion. To many that is understood as I am against women rights. Which is completely untrue. I'm simply not in favor of what I view as murder.

My stance or belief could essentially get me fired from a job. This is not right. I should not be fired because of my individual values. Where would that lead us? Essentially a world under hitler rule where only accepted views are allowed and you are punished if not abiding or following said rules.

Companies should not be held as having values like individuals. The only values should be to uphold the law. Discrimination against another persons beliefs is against the law. Hiring for diversity, (ie race, color) is discrimination...these are the types of things companies should be concerned with which currently are being widely ignored.

However, if a company sees that one of their employees have broken the law then they should act accordingly.
Following the law leaves little room for real problems to be ignored.

WE already separated state and church which means state and personal beliefs but now companies are bringing personal beliefs back into the mix. Big mistake.