[Cattle Rustler]

(09-10-2013 03:37 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Gawker Elite demonise Ghetto Tracker. Their head office sits in the affluent, gentrified neighbourhoods of SoHo, NoLita, and The Bowery. Areas all made 'safe' for the rich by driving out the poor ethnic classes who originally inhabited them. #ChampagneSocialism #TrustFundBabies #LeftistSocialEngineering #NotInDetroit

Not to mention their staff until a year ago had unpaid interns. Who's willing to intern in Manhattan for a semester or summer for free? Not to mention most of the Gawker writers graduated from private universitites (NYU, Johns Hopkins, Yale, etc).

Only when someone wrote about their hypocrisy did Gawker change their rules, now they don't have interns only "editorial fellows" who are paid like 10/hr....in NYC.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-10-2013 01:36 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

He basically strengthens their side by giving them an easy victory from which to build. He, in turn, hurts us all by association, since he's, by his own declaration, red-pill-leaning.

Exactly. I think it's inappropriate for the aptly named Dickinson to be trumpeted as some sort of cause célèbre for the "red pill community."

This situation is also being misidentified as a matter of free speech when, instead, it should be seen through a different libertarian filter; that is, the notion of personal responsibility.

As much as Dickinson may like to think otherwise, as an employee of BI, his signature went on the back of checks, not the front. He's a W-2 employee - a particularly high profile one for that matter - and, as such, he knows or should know that presents limitations with respect to how he conducts himself both inside and outside the office.

You break it, you buy it. Though to his credit, at least he didn't go out like a pussy once shit got real.

[Samseau]

(09-10-2013 01:36 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

We could make the case that our anger should be partially directed at this Pax character for being so comically sloppy as to give these feminist IRTs an easy target on which to feed. It's not like he used the word "dongle" in a sexually suggestive manner (Adria Richards reference), he straight-up used the full N-word--among his other stunts--in his public capacity. He was an embarrassment to his organization by not being in the least bit subtle or tactful about his opinion, not just by having one.

He basically strengthens their side by giving them an easy victory from which to build. He, in turn, hurts us all by association, since he's, by his own declaration, red-pill-leaning.

Here's the thing. It's not like Pax is forcing anyone to follow his tweets. Ultimately, how can you be held responsible for your tweets when it's just an entertainment service?

I agree that using n'gga is tasteless, much like any racial slur, but it's why can't someone be tasteless on their own personal twitter account?

[Samseau]

Oh yes, I love the new buzzword being thrown around.

"Social consequences"

Social consequence is nothing more than a euphemism for tyranny of the majority. Pathetic.

[thatGuy]

(09-10-2013 04:31 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Exactly. I think it's inappropriate for the aptly named Dickinson to be trumpeted as some sort of cause célèbre for the "red pill community."

This situation is also being misidentified as a matter of free speech when, instead, it should be seen through a different libertarian filter; that is, the notion of personal responsibility.

That's very myopic. By shrugging and justifying his firing with some weird notion of personal responsibility (for what? views many here share? expressing them?) you allow for guys like Pax to be picked off one by one.

As the response to the donglegate showed some outrage works well. Companies like Business Insider or Mailgun are spineless so to keep them upright, you need to apply pressure from the other side.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-10-2013 04:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 01:36 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

We could make the case that our anger should be partially directed at this Pax character for being so comically sloppy as to give these feminist IRTs an easy target on which to feed. It's not like he used the word "dongle" in a sexually suggestive manner (Adria Richards reference), he straight-up used the full N-word--among his other stunts--in his public capacity. He was an embarrassment to his organization by not being in the least bit subtle or tactful about his opinion, not just by having one.

He basically strengthens their side by giving them an easy victory from which to build. He, in turn, hurts us all by association, since he's, by his own declaration, red-pill-leaning.

why can't someone be tasteless on their own personal twitter account?

Because his stupid ass did it publicly and took no measures to conceal his identity (name, employer, etc). Once people know your identity and know where you work, it's a wrap. Why would BI or any business take the heat for an employee's moronic decision to publicly broadcast his personal views (which even you realize are tasteless and offensive)? Common sense that everyone on the forum even understands yet this is somehow lost on a CTO?

[thatGuy]

(09-10-2013 05:03 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Common sense that everyone on the forum even understands yet this is somehow lost on a CTO?

It's not lost on anyone. It shouldn't be that way. Is anyone getting fired for feminist views?

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-10-2013 05:02 PM)thatGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:31 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Exactly. I think it's inappropriate for the aptly named Dickinson to be trumpeted as some sort of cause célèbre for the "red pill community."

This situation is also being misidentified as a matter of free speech when, instead, it should be seen through a different libertarian filter; that is, the notion of personal responsibility.

That's very myopic. By shrugging and justifying his firing with some weird notion of personal responsibility (for what? views many here share? expressing them?) you allow for guys like Pax to be picked off one by one.

As the response to the donglegate showed some outrage works well. Companies like Business Insider or Mailgun are spineless so to keep them upright, you need to apply pressure from the other side.

I'm supposed to feel sorry for a C-level exec for willfully behaving without tact? No thanks. It's one thing for guys like Roosh - who is independent - to promote any view they wish, but another for a guy in the prominent upper reaches of a well-known publication to do so. Business 101.

Even the thousands of guys on this forum have enough sense to conceal their identities (in a community of likeminded guys at that).

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-10-2013 05:07 PM)thatGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 05:03 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Common sense that everyone on the forum even understands yet this is somehow lost on a CTO?

It's not lost on anyone. It shouldn't be that way. Is anyone getting fired for feminist views?

People are definitely getting fired for dropping the "N-bomb," male or female. Ask Paula Deen.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Had he not used the n-word, I think we'd be right to defend him because his anti-feminist Tweets are on on the mark. And pretty funny.

BUT...we can't really defend him for something that would get him banned here, can we? I mean, if I started chiming in with posts that said "Jesus gets raped by a pack of nig---" (which is what he wrote) I assume I would be thrown off here.

Yes, the hypersensitivity of his venting over females in tech is whiny SWPL bullshit. But his spewing the n-word would have got him fired even in the politically-incorrect '70s, because beyond the rudeness, it's bad for business.

Finally, defending this, I think, throws your African-American friends under the bus, the same way defending insults like "Wop" or "Kike" would do to other ethnicities.

Again, this isn't about political correctness but good manners. To use an example: Debating racial issues at a party = fine. Calling someone the n-word = get thrown out of the party. Same goes for the office.

[thatGuy]

(09-10-2013 05:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

I'm supposed to feel sorry for a C-level exec for willfully behaving without tact? No thanks. It's one thing for guys like Roosh - who is independent - to promote any view they wish, but another for a guy in the prominent upper reaches of a well-known publication to do so. Business 101.

Why? It's one thing to observe that this is how things are but you seem to approve, am I wrong?

If not, why should twitter feminists set the appropriate tone for anyone's opinions, whether he's a janitor or CEO?

"How far lost is Western society if fat, ugly Indian cunt @nitashatiku has a platform to denounce a productive, intelligent white man?" And fire him.

(09-10-2013 05:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Even the thousands of guys on this forum have enough sense to conceal their identities (in a community of likeminded guys at that).

OK but hiding your identity is not a desirable state of affairs. You dream of being a dissident or something?

(09-10-2013 05:22 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

BUT...we can't really defend him for something that would get him banned here, can we?

Meh, it was a Mel Gibson mash-up. Also clearly a joke, however crass. You think anyone will be losing their job over this? Should they?

[Last Parade]

(09-10-2013 11:19 AM)Sunny Bunny Wrote:  

For the Social Justice crowd, the real outrage is going to be the long line of people queued up to throw six figure job offers at him today. People with real skills aren't out of work for very long (see also: Dongle-gate).

Do we know that the Dongle-gate guys got new jobs? I never heard anything about them after they were fired... hopefully that cunt Adria is still unemployed though.

If HR had issues with this guy there would've been conversations & warnings at any point over the past few years. I doubt there were any and this is all due to 1 article written. They were clearly aware of his tweets up to this point, so yeah.

This... is bullshit!

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-10-2013 05:22 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

BUT...we can't really defend him for something that would get him banned here, can we? I mean, if I started chiming in with posts that said "Jesus gets raped by a pack of nig---" (which is what he wrote) I assume I would be thrown off here.

Thank you. I don't understand how that's not plainly obvious to everyone, and I do wonder about the members of this forum that either don't address it or, even if they do, don't understand why Dickinson would/should get fired for using it. You have to presume this man works in an organization that includes black people and/or non-black people who would be extremely offended by that tweet. The fact that it's part of a history of other statements that would also offend certain people - as opposed to a one-time "slip up" - really leaves BI no choice.

[thatGuy]

(09-10-2013 05:22 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Finally, defending this, I think, throws your African-American friends under the bus, the same way defending insults like "Wop" or "Kike" would do to other ethnicities.

BTW Are you going to denounce Krauser? (Ctrl+f for 'wop'.) I guess each generation needs its own set of seven dirty words.

[Roosh]

(09-10-2013 01:36 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

We could make the case that our anger should be partially directed at this Pax character for being so comically sloppy as to give these feminist IRTs an easy target on which to feed. It's not like he used the word "dongle" in a sexually suggestive manner (Adria Richards reference), he straight-up used the full N-word--among his other stunts--in his public capacity. He was an embarrassment to his organization by not being in the least bit subtle or tactful about his opinion, not just by having one.

He basically strengthens their side by giving them an easy victory from which to build. He, in turn, hurts us all by association, since he's, by his own declaration, red-pill-leaning.

This isn't a picture-perfect case to defend, but I don't believe you should make it easy to attack one of us. If I slip one day and say something stupid, does that mean they should rightfully go after my livelihood? Let them earn this denouncement.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(09-10-2013 05:25 PM)thatGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 05:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

I'm supposed to feel sorry for a C-level exec for willfully behaving without tact? No thanks. It's one thing for guys like Roosh - who is independent - to promote any view they wish, but another for a guy in the prominent upper reaches of a well-known publication to do so. Business 101.

Why? It's one thing to observe that this is how things are but you seem to approve, am I wrong?

If not, why should twitter feminists set the appropriate tone for anyone's opinions, whether he's a janitor or CEO?

"How far lost is Western society if fat, ugly Indian cunt @nitashatiku has a platform to denounce a productive, intelligent white man?" And fire him.

(09-10-2013 05:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

Even the thousands of guys on this forum have enough sense to conceal their identities (in a community of likeminded guys at that).

OK but hiding your identity is not a desirable state of affairs. You dream of being a dissident or something?

To be honest, I don't think this dude gives a fuck about his job at BI. That type of behavior at that level in one's career is extraordinarily rare.

Even after he was confronted via Twitter by the prominent Indian guy who apparently worked in the same building, he didn't flinch at all. In fact, he issued a veiled threat.

This is probably the best thing to happen for him personally. As a CTO, you have to assume he has some highly marketable skills and will land on his feet soon enough (if he hasn't already). There is a place in this world economy for guys with his combination of blunt rhetoric coupled with highly technical and in-demand skills.

[bojangles]

I agree with Roosh actually, these Indians definitely have an agenda against white people going by their previous posts. Racist cunts.

[Sunny Bunny]

(09-10-2013 05:25 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  

Do we know that the Dongle-gate guys got new jobs? I never heard anything about them after they were fired... hopefully that cunt Adria is still unemployed though.

People were making them offers that week. There's a strong demand for Python devs right now, and a lot of pissed off guys in the tech community who put the word out.

As for Pax, recruiters were already harassing him. Don't see any reason that'll change now.

[WestCoast]

The whole debacle makes it crystal clear.

1. Never going to solve the issue
2. Never link your real name or info publicly
3. Get the fuck out of the west when you can and never look back
4. You can voice your opinion when you're rich (like this guy) because the repercussions no longer matter.

[el mechanico]

(09-10-2013 05:54 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

I agree with Roosh actually, these Indians definitely have an agenda against white people going by their previous posts. Racist cunts.

They do. I tested one while out.

Black chick sitting at bar at the casino

IRT sitting next to her but had no verbal contact

I cold approach aggressively

I proceed to tell her in my rap that I'm part black (I'm not but it entertains me to say that and they seem to respond well)

The dude freaks the fuck out and has a meltdown on the spot, he gets up and starts yelling at me telling me I'm not black blah blah..

Forum member Clearwater kid watched this. Crazy.

[j r]

There's two sides to this:

On the one hand, this guy is a C-level executive. It doesn't matter if he was in charge of technology and not the CEO or head of PR. When you're senior management, you're expected to be one of the public faces of the company. These people get media training. They are hired as much for their reputation and Rolodex as for their technical expertise. Live by your rep, die by your rep. I'd seriously consider firing the clown as well; although I'd probably just ask him to tone it down. This guy bowed up for a fight and lost. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.

The other side is that if you look at what he was accused of versus what he actually wrote, it just doesn't add up. The n-bomb is certainly something that you would expect to catch flack. His tweets on women, however, they're basically making fun of feminism. We are now at a place where mocking Femen or saying that you're not interested in reading articles about feminism in tech is called misogyny, so mocking feminism is now equatable with hating women. That is the really troubling part.

Here's the thing though, how many of you are mad because of the freedom of expression issue and how many of you are just mad because you agree with this guy? In other words, would you support someone who was fired for tweeting feminist ideas to which his boss was opposed?

Personally, I support freedom of expression and I think that it's most important for ideas that are most controversial. Also, I support a pretty robust wall between your work life and your personal life. Employers have the legal right to take action based on things you do in your personal life, but that doesn't make it right. This is just one more way that the man will continue to wring any anti-authoritarian leanings out of individuals and force us all into bland cookie-cutter automatons. As much as feminists pretend to be liberal, they're not liberal at all. Feminists are authoritarian progressives.

People seem to think that the fight between conservatives and progressives is the meaningful one. It is not. Conservatives and progressives both agree on their authoritarian bent; they're just fighting over who gets to tell everyone else what to do. The real fight is between people who support individual freedom and people who always look to authority figures to tell them what to do.

[thatGuy]

(09-10-2013 06:11 PM)j r Wrote:  

Here's the thing though, how many of you are mad because of the freedom of expression issue and how many of you are just mad because you agree with this guy?

We could have a poll and settle this question but what really bothers me is that feminism is so dominant that you can get fired almost on the spot for a tweet that some whiner at an e-rag doesn't like.

The other tweet is three years old. It's not the cause here.

[bojangles]

Never had that issue here, might be because I'm Indian and any Indians I meet here are western and not the fob types you guys seem to be encountering. The girls are still fucking knobs though but easy to work as they still listen to daddy

[TheBulldozer]

I have nothing to add here. Just wanted the contributors of this thread to know that I think there is some masterful cultural analysis here. As articulated and well thought out as any series of posts I've seen on this forum.

[Blaster]

(09-10-2013 04:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Oh yes, I love the new buzzword being thrown around.

"Social consequences"

Social consequence is nothing more than a euphemism for tyranny of the majority. Pathetic.

Social consequences are fine, in theory. The problem is the "Social Consequences" argument ignores the role of a blogging agitator deliberately inciting a mob against the "offender."

1. Getting banned from the Roosh forum for race-baiting: that's social consequences.

2. Being ignored by people on twitter because they don't like your tweets: that's social consequences.

3. Readers abandoning Heartiste because they don't like the Race/Immigration content: that's social consequences.

===

1. Trying to get someone banned from the Roosh forum by reporting every single post they make, spinning it in the worst light possible, and inciting other members against them: that's bullshit (Roosh and Tuth won't fall for it anyway)

2. Being kicked off twitter by twitter because feminists who aren't even your target audience bitched about you: that's bullshit mob tyranny.

3. Starbucks blocking Heartiste because someone didn't like the content and whined about it: that's bullshit mob tyranny.