MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 17:28:
According to the stats, Kaepernick was one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL, and when he was let go from the 49ers, nobody else picked up his contract, specifically for political reasons.

I thought he was blackballed because it affected the fat cats bottom line and politics.
A kneeling Kaepernick was bounced from the NFL in 2017 because he was bad for business.
The average ignorant bubba had no clue why Colin Kaepernick was taking a knee. They either thought it was against the military or the police.
When instead, he was taking a knee for basic human rights.

Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 15:51:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 15:08:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 17:09:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:
Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

Right, except that FB wasn't firing Palmer because of what he'd said. They were firing him because there were an overwhelming number of developers unwilling to work with FB because of Palmer specifically supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals. Those companies have every right to choose not to do business with FB, and FB has every right to remove an employee who is costing them business, and his opinions were costing FB a lot of business partnerships. They weren't firing him for his political views. They were firing him because he was driving away income. The fact that it was political was tangential to the capitalism of it all. As the saying goes, "don't fuck with the money."

Also, he received his golden parachute because literally every high ranking person in the Silicon Valley gets their golden parachute.

And, once again, to my point on consistency, I still don't see you up in arms about Colin Kapernick, who was fired from the NFL for his political views.

You were addressing the Colin Kaepernick issue to other people, and I take exception to your tone. I think it's wrong to fire people for non-job performance reasons, and I agree with the point he was making. I think the people who complained about him have absurd double standards about patriotism when a lot of those people also celebrate the Confederacy, literally a treasonous cause that disrespects the American flag. I'd be up in arms, but I don't know anything about whether or not Kaepernick was any good at his job, or whether or not his unemployment status is unusual.

The Wall Street Journal says specifically that Luckey's $100M payout came after he lawyered up, and the attorney argued it was an illegal firing for political views -- according to Wikipedia, anyways; I don't have access to the article. There are other sources like Engadget and Inc, but I think they all trace to the WSJ article.

I don't believe you can evade anti-discrimination laws by saying that customers, vendors or employees are uncomfortable. If you fire a black employee because his race is driving away customers, then you're in violation. Otherwise these laws would have no bite whatsoever no matter how much proof you have of discrimination -- just find one bigot who says they won't deal with the company, wave the flag of capitalism, bam. Since political views are protected in California, I don't believe this any different. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Do you have a cite for Palmer "supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals"? If you're inferring that because of his Trump support, then I believe that's a political view.

Luckey's held fund raisers for Ted Cruz, who has, among other things:

• voted against public health care
• voted against gay marriage
• voted against a woman's right to choose
• voted against net neutrality

So, when you're in the tech industry, choosing to be against the very people you work with having basic human rights seems like, well, that can lead to most of the companies refusing to work with you. There's a pretty fundamental difference between calling something "a political view" and saying "I believe you do not deserve basic human rights." And we aren't talking customers, we're talking other companies, which seems to be the thing you aren't grasping. This isn't like a handful of people refusing to use Facebook because they don't like Palmer Luckey. This is dozens of multimillion dollar corporations looking at possible VR development partners and going, "Yeah, we're going to go with the company that doesn't employ someone who says I'm less of a person than he is."

But, even more relevant to the issue at hand, that STILL isn't likely the reason Palmer Luckey was let go from Facebook. The most likely reason he was fired from Facebook has something to do with the fact that Zenimax won a $500 million dollar lawsuit over Oculus for stealing proprietary information. You're welcome to read about that here: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-reason-palmer-luckey-was-fired-from-facebook/ Guess who the loser of that $500 mil was? You guessed it -- Facebook, who owns Oculus.

Luckey can claim whatever reason he wants to that he was fired, but half a billion dollars speaks pretty loudly. It's also entirely possible that Luckey had a clause guaranteeing him indemnity from any past business dealings, which is why he got the $100mil payout, but the WSJ article jumps to the conclusion it wants to without supporting evidence, because none of the parties have said anything post the settlement, which is normal for the settlement. The WSJ article uses, and I'd argue speciously, the argument that since the lawyer said that in public before hand it was political, it must've been, since he got a settlement. Which is nonsense, and fundamentally misunderstands how legal settlements work, something I find rather suspect coming from the WSJ.

As for Colin Kaepernick, I am glad to see you're willing to concede that point, and thank you. According to the stats, Kaepernick was one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL, and when he was let go from the 49ers, nobody else picked up his contract, specifically for political reasons.

MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 15:08:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 17:09:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:
Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

Right, except that FB wasn't firing Palmer because of what he'd said. They were firing him because there were an overwhelming number of developers unwilling to work with FB because of Palmer specifically supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals. Those companies have every right to choose not to do business with FB, and FB has every right to remove an employee who is costing them business, and his opinions were costing FB a lot of business partnerships. They weren't firing him for his political views. They were firing him because he was driving away income. The fact that it was political was tangential to the capitalism of it all. As the saying goes, "don't fuck with the money."

Also, he received his golden parachute because literally every high ranking person in the Silicon Valley gets their golden parachute.

And, once again, to my point on consistency, I still don't see you up in arms about Colin Kapernick, who was fired from the NFL for his political views.

You were addressing the Colin Kaepernick issue to other people, and I take exception to your tone. I think it's wrong to fire people for non-job performance reasons, and I agree with the point he was making. I think the people who complained about him have absurd double standards about patriotism when a lot of those people also celebrate the Confederacy, literally a treasonous cause that disrespects the American flag. I'd be up in arms, but I don't know anything about whether or not Kaepernick was any good at his job, or whether or not his unemployment status is unusual.

The Wall Street Journal says specifically that Luckey's $100M payout came after he lawyered up, and the attorney argued it was an illegal firing for political views -- according to Wikipedia, anyways; I don't have access to the article. There are other sources like Engadget and Inc, but I think they all trace to the WSJ article.

I don't believe you can evade anti-discrimination laws by saying that customers, vendors or employees are uncomfortable. If you fire a black employee because his race is driving away customers, then you're in violation. Otherwise these laws would have no bite whatsoever no matter how much proof you have of discrimination -- just find one bigot who says they won't deal with the company, wave the flag of capitalism, bam. Since political views are protected in California, I don't believe this any different. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Do you have a cite for Palmer "supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals"? If you're inferring that because of his Trump support, then I believe that's a political view.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 17:09:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 04:40:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

Right, except that FB wasn't firing Palmer because of what he'd said. They were firing him because there were an overwhelming number of developers unwilling to work with FB because of Palmer specifically supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals. Those companies have every right to choose not to do business with FB, and FB has every right to remove an employee who is costing them business, and his opinions were costing FB a lot of business partnerships. They weren't firing him for his political views. They were firing him because he was driving away income. The fact that it was political was tangential to the capitalism of it all. As the saying goes, "don't fuck with the money."

Also, he received his golden parachute because literally every high ranking person in the Silicon Valley gets their golden parachute.

And, once again, to my point on consistency, I still don't see you up in arms about Colin Kapernick, who was fired from the NFL for his political views.

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 09:21:
Sure buddy. You definitely have your thumb on the pulse of America.
Did you forget your outrage about the Chauvin verdict due to a total lack of understanding.

Quinn wrote on Apr 21, 2021, 07:27:
This verdict isn't one to be proud of, America. To the contrary. It's a deterioration of your justice system, influenced by the mob. You had it happen with O.J. Simpson. You had it happen with Chauvin. Congrats.

The same applies here.

I suggest less podcast listening. You'll get a better education by reading this forum.

How about you step outside for a change before you lecture me about anything?

Sure buddy. You definitely have your thumb on the pulse of America.
Did you forget your outrage about the Chauvin verdict due to a total lack of understanding.

Quinn wrote on Apr 21, 2021, 07:27:
This verdict isn't one to be proud of, America. To the contrary. It's a deterioration of your justice system, influenced by the mob. You had it happen with O.J. Simpson. You had it happen with Chauvin. Congrats.

The same applies here.

I suggest less podcast listening. You'll get a better education by reading this forum.

RedEye9 wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 08:56:
Contrary to the popular belief of some of our podcast listening overseas visitors, racism, slavery and discrimination did not end when the emancipation proclamation was signed.
Educate yourself.

Wtf is this comment for? What did I say that makes you believe that I believe otherwise? I think I know more about your country than you do, RedEye9. I've a mind of betting hard cash that you haven't left your basement in the last couple of years. How many average comments a day on Bluesnews have you hit by now? 300?

Contrary to the popular belief of some of our podcast listening overseas visitors, racism, slavery and discrimination did not end when the emancipation proclamation was signed.
Educate yourself.

Sepharo wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:35:
In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

I'm not confused regarding the term "protected group". Here's what I'm confused about:

"California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all."

"So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay?"

"If FB decides to fire [a person in a protected group], and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they.." that is, the employer "..had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc."

Explain to me why you think it's fair that the employer has to have "their ducks in a row" if they fire a member of a protected group, but don't need to if they fire someone outside of that group?

That's just a ridiculous concept from the Dutch perspective. All employees after about 1,5 years of employment are protected, by law, so that they cannot be fired without reason. We build our lives on this protection. Banks give our mortgages due to this protection.

In case you're still confused:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

roguebanshee wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 05:06:

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 22:57:

wrlwnd wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 13:07:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

Wait what? So when a white straight male is fired, they don't need a reason or performance documentations, but when someone from a "protected group" is fired they do? So one group is less protected than another? Doesn't that reek discrimination to you? In The Netherlands everyone is considered equal, and as a result straight white males are protected just as much as any other person. The entire nation would explode in anger (whatever race or orientation) would it be otherwise.

What a fucking joke. I hope you don't at all applaud this "you can get fired without a reason" law, btw. You have not one clue how incredibly ridiculous that sounds as a Dutch citizen.

And I'm not saying "protected groups" should have less protection. I'm saying the same protection should apply to every person.

Sounds like you misread the post.

If someone gets fired because they're straight, white and/or male that's also a violation.

The main thing is: You need to be able to prove that the protected group was the reason you got fired. Which is almost impossible unless someone was stupid enough to actually write it down. Even a bisexual black trans woman would need to find actual proof (emails, recordings, sworn testimonies, whatever) before she could prevail in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

But "blamed for being a sexual predator" (whether true or not) is NOT a protected group.

The way you describe this does not at all represent the posts with all their context I replied to. So I highly doubt I misread anything and hope your version is the correct one.

Quinn wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 02:49:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 22:57:

wrlwnd wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 13:07:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

Wait what? So when a white straight male is fired, they don't need a reason or performance documentations, but when someone from a "protected group" is fired they do? So one group is less protected than another? Doesn't that reek discrimination to you? In The Netherlands everyone is considered equal, and as a result straight white males are protected just as much as any other person. The entire nation would explode in anger (whatever race or orientation) would it be otherwise.

What a fucking joke. I hope you don't at all applaud this "you can get fired without a reason" law, btw. You have not one clue how incredibly ridiculous that sounds as a Dutch citizen.

And I'm not saying "protected groups" should have less protection. I'm saying the same protection should apply to every person.

Sounds like you misread the post.

If someone gets fired because they're straight, white and/or male that's also a violation.

The main thing is: You need to be able to prove that the protected group was the reason you got fired. Which is almost impossible unless someone was stupid enough to actually write it down. Even a bisexual black trans woman would need to find actual proof (emails, recordings, sworn testimonies, whatever) before she could prevail in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

But "blamed for being a sexual predator" (whether true or not) is NOT a protected group.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 22:57:

wrlwnd wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 13:07:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

Wait what? So when a white straight male is fired, they don't need a reason or performance documentations, but when someone from a "protected group" is fired they do? So one group is less protected than another? Doesn't that reek discrimination to you? In The Netherlands everyone is considered equal, and as a result straight white males are protected just as much as any other person. The entire nation would explode in anger (whatever race or orientation) would it be otherwise.

What a fucking joke. I hope you don't at all applaud this "you can get fired without a reason" law, btw. You have not one clue how incredibly ridiculous that sounds as a Dutch citizen.

And I'm not saying "protected groups" should have less protection. I'm saying the same protection should apply to every person.

wrlwnd wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 13:07:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

Members of protected groups (based on gender, race, orientation, religion, etc.) cannot be fired for being a member of said group. If FB decides to fire such a person, and that person decides to sue for wrongful termination, they had better have their ducks in a row: multiple poor performance reviews, multiple chances at rehabilitation, etc.
AFAIK, "Blamed for Sexual Predation" is not a protected group.

The thread that keeps on giving.

BREAKING: Judge blocks Florida law that would penalize social media sites that block politicians' posts, saying it violates First Amendment

is that a glimmer of sanity poking thru Florida

,.,.,.,,.,.
edit
Grand jury indicts Trump Organization and its CFO

50% of Americans really screwed the pooch siding with that shitbag.

This comment was edited on Jun 30, 2021, 21:17.

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 04:40:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.

If it was good enough for my grandmother on Sunday after church at Luby's cafeteria, it's good enough for me.
Come to think of it, she may also have been a cafeteria catholic.

wrlwnd wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 13:07:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:

Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

Really? So if Facebook wants to fire a black or gay employee, just because, that's okay? And if they don't provide a reason, they can just say because? And nobody will have a problem with it?

I hate to be the grownup in the room, but this is how 90% of employment works, and if you've got a problem with that, you've got a problem with capitalism, friend! Because these are the rules you've established, and you're okay with them! Firing someone because they're black or gay is discrimination, if you can prove it, and you're more than welcome to look at the last, oh, hundred or so years of employment law cases and see exactly how hard that's been to prove. Usually it's been provable because some idiot was dumb enough to write it down. What you're arguing is that all terminations should be "for cause," and you should take a long look into what that entails if you go down that route. I'm not saying it's the wrong route to take. What I'm saying is that this is the state of the game as it stands today. And, again, I don't see you bringing up this argument in relation to Colin Kapernick, so, maybe consider how consistent (or in this case, not) you're being across the board.

Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 04:40:

MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.

49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.