Tesla does not advertise in mainstream media unlike Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda, and all the others. Therefore Tesla must be portrayed in a negative light so as to help protect their revenue.
I watched the documentary. It was terribly low quality, filled with rumors and hearsay, and featured once prominent UK politicians and BBC newscasters. It truly stunk of British propaganda. Not surprising for the BBC.
How's that related to this article? People should have the freedom to spread rumors and hearsay... according to Musk. But he still censored many people.
I watched it as well, and it tallies with much of what my relatives in India have told me. A society that claims to be democratic and open must actually tolerates dissent and let programmes like this be available and challenge factual inaccuracies instead of resorting to banning.
You're conflating law enforcement with regular life. Regular people and employers don't have the investigative authority of law enforcement. Law enforcement has a higher standard of proof because it comes with higher penalties.
The rest of us who don't have the authority to conduct formal investigations have no choice but to make decisions based on the best knowledge we have and the benefit of our life experience.
The employer did what investigation they could. That's what they've been doing until this point. This information about Roiland didn't just come out today. This is all easily found out. You've reflexively invented the fearmongering scenario that action was taken on allegations alone.
What on earth "best knowledge" could an employer know about domestic disputes? America has a deep deep well of benefits offered to people who claim domestic violence. They can get a TRO and have the children and gun rights taken from the person, they can get assistance from a battered women's shelter, they can get the upper hand in family court, they can get the house/custody because after the TRO the person is kicked out of the house and can be argued as having left the family. If the person is foreign, they get massive massive incentive to claim domestic abuse as that's the magic words they need to invoke VAWA and get that golden residency visa. Not saying any of this is the case here, but a mere charge or allegation of domestic violence is difficult for an employer to investigate in any meaningful way.
And even more dystopian : "The woman was not identified in court documents." Yeah lets fire someone when we can't even find out who made the accusation, and don't know whether they're guilty or not. How do you even investigate the accuser's claims as an employer if you have no idea who they even are. It's dystopian to have court cases where you can't even find out who an adult accuser is.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. IMO employers should stay the fuck out of domestic disputes until the person is actually found guilty.
Yes it ensures I will never watch the show again because I find their presumptuous morals repulsive. The aggregate effect I suppose will definitely have an effect on the brand. IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.
God bless the right to bankrupt yourself to mete out preliminary justice, though.
>IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.
To be fair, AS simply said they've ended their relationship with Roiland without saying why. Are you not also doing the same thing to AS here that you're accusing them of doing to Roiland (eg, making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?
>making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?
Lol publicly firing someone in what is obviously tied to criminal accusations is the same as not watching a show? That's like saying preferring to date latina women is the same thing as being racist in your hiring process.
Let's say there is a freckled girl in front of me.
I could do all the following
1) See freckles
2) Find it attractive
3) Fire them
4) Convince others freckles are evil and all freckled people need executed
5) Not watch their show because I don't like freckles
Yeah the reasoning the same; I did it because the freckles. Therefore basically I did the same thing.
Brilliant jjulius. And this is all ignoring I'm not even making any criminal presumptions against Rick and Morty or my reputation in connection with associating with someone criminally charged. So really neither my reasoning nor the act is the same.
> What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
It applies to criminal punishment, and nothing else.
> Are mere allegations enough to lose your job?
That depends (here, where the “job” is almost certainly an explicit contract, not at-will employment) on terms of the contractual relationship, but its very common for contracts to have termination clauses that don't require a criminal conviction. (They may or may not require some payment.)
We don't know what internal conversations looked like at Adult Swim. We don't know if, or of not, they are aware of anything else that may have happened that encouraged them to make this decision. I'm not saying anything did - the point is, we don't know their reasoning, but we should assume that the decision wasn't made lightly.
The accuser is unknown and the accused is a smart guy with counsel. Which means from the employer viewpoint they know some <redacted> person accused him and they get a generic response from the lawyer about not being able to comment about an ongoing case.
The chance the employer has credible knowledge of guilt is extremely slim.
My "We don't know if, or of not, they are aware of anything else," comment clearly suggests that the reasons for terminating him may not be limited to this court case specifically. It's been covered in many articles that this sort of behavior from him has been an open secret for a bit. I don't claim to know whether or not that's true, I'm simply saying that none of us know exactly why AS did this, whether or not it was only about the pending legal case or something more, or anything.
All we can do is assume they didn't make the decision lightly. Adult Swim is clearly a lot closer to this situation than any of us in this thread, and to pretend that any of us may know better than them in regards to this is just wild (and, really, you're doing the same thing you say they are - accusing them of something without proof).
Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly but not able to assume just maybe it is extremely unlikely they have credible evidence of guilt.
You play the "oh I don't know anything game" while simultaneously saying we should assume your viewpoint. Clearly you do think you know something and the know-nothing defense is some kind of Schrodinger's cat scenario where you know something when it's time to make assumptions and don't know when someone else does.
>Why are we allowed to assume they didn't make the decision lightly
Because they're potentially shooting their cash cow and probably the most popular show they've ever had in the head. If you don't believe in their values than at least believe that they are 100% considering the financial implications of doing this.
Im not sure if hes innocent or guilty, so Im waiting to see what happens. That being said, hes pretty well known to have a lot of issues so it would not surprise me if he WAS found guilty. Until the court date, Im just going to wait and see.
Yes. Allegations without even a crime to charge are enough to take your career away and all of your Constitutional rights. If the accusation is bad enough, the Government can use it as justification to conduct a summary execution against you.
There is a difference between community justice and law enforcement justice. It used to be that most people understood your life should not be taken away without a trial. Courts are the best place we have to determine truth and guilt.
Over the past decade or more there has been a change where people stopped caring about due process. It's like a digital form of burning witches at the stake. Because let's be honest, almost anyone can be cancelled without even being arrested and there is a good chance that person doesn't have the resources to survive without employment.
This probably doesn't apply to someone like Justin Roiland who will probably be fine eventually... But they should wait for a conviction before taking his ability to earn money and live freely away.
TLDR; being cancelled is in effect a death penalty for many.
EDIT: In this case, atleast they waited until he was charged. That should be the standard in many cases.
He was charged though. In 2020, so it's not exactly a rash kneejerk decision. It's pretty reasonable to assume the decision makers here have better information than we do, and clearly took their time arriving to this conclusion.
There are definitely unsettling cases more in line with what you're getting rattled about here, but I don't see anything indicating this is one.
Why is this a surprise to the author? At no point in the history of social media has anything been organic. They are fully controlled, for-profit, social manipulation/propaganda ecosystems.
So it looks like animal charities are out then. A local shelter was my chosen charity. Saying that, I only generated $70 of donations with 300 orders so it wasn't much, but every little helps.
The fact that they're axing this at a time of mass layoffs makes me think they're not telling the truth.
Why wouldn’t you have some degree of guilt for enjoying a thing that is causing hardship for others in far away places like Pakistan (towns on the edge of heatstroke) or the Maldives (slowly inching underwater by sea level rise)?
