Hey moron, this wasn't some small whiner, but a co-founder and critical figure in the TinkerPop management team.
But thank God ASF corporate got involved, overrode the Apache Project Management Committee and fired him over some dank memes.
FFS, you worthless assholes who've never accomplished anything in your miserable lives must live for moments like this where you can take real visionaries like Marko and treat them like the crap you are.
Now everyone using TinkerPop is going to have to start asking hard ques
If a corporation has rules for conduct, and you break them, why are you at all surprised.
I don't know about this project, or the person. But anytime someone whines about "woke" culture, you'll usually find that person engages in cyberbullying, trolling, libertarian, conservative, or otherwise wacky right-wing conspiracies.
All I can find connected to the guy is a twitter full of images while complaining about cancel culture.
He didn't do any of this on company time or in any official capacity. His twitter feed barely even has any followers. This is a ridiculous level of PC bullshit.
He is currently the only source of information about why he was removed. He has plenty of reason to be dishonest about what happened. Why don't you wait for more information?
He is currently the only source of information about why he was removed. He has plenty of reason to be dishonest about what happened. Why don't you wait for more information?
If you read TFA, an ASF board member resigned over it, seeming to corroborate his account.
The claim that Rodriguez published his tweets to the private@tinkerpop mailing list are untrue, insisted Hedhman, as he said is the claim that Rodriguez used the ASF resources to humiliate people.
There's still a lack of information, but that's another point of data from someone directly involved.
He is currently the only source of information about why he was removed. He has plenty of reason to be dishonest about what happened. Why don't you wait for more information?
If you read TFA, an ASF board member resigned over it, seeming to corroborate his account.
Well, that can mean that they share opinions.
There is some irony in that he's up in arms about Woke culture and PC'ism. People who get fired from Google often claim of the opposite, because they are fired because they are "woke" - like the recent firing of Margaret Mitchell and Timnit Gebru.
These folks have played a very active part in their dismissal. And pretty impressive that they blame the opposite things.
If you are a leader, you are expected to act like one.
"Woke" people fired from Google tend to be fired for stuff that goes directly against employer's interest - leaking confidential internal info (including code), sabotaging projects, breaking NDAs, or faking evidence against other employees to have them fired.
"Woke" people fired from Google tend to be fired for stuff that goes directly against employer's interest - leaking confidential internal info (including code), sabotaging projects, breaking NDAs, or faking evidence against other employees to have them fired.
They don't get fired for memes on Twitter.
Let's use an example.
If you have a top person in your company who despite being very competent, goes on Twitter to post inflammatory shit, perhaps even calls for say, creating gas cambers for whoever his enemies were. You pick which group, because I merely show that left or right, it's similar. You apparently want it to apply only to the persecution of the right - okay, we'll work with your view.
Your attention is drawn to his posts, because some people don't believe in gassing people.
If you have a top person in your company who despite being very competent, goes on Twitter to post inflammatory shit, perhaps even calls for say, creating gas cambers for whoever his enemies were. (...) What are you going to do? Keep him on staff? Because you will then be associated with his postings as a supporter of them.
That very scenario happened at Disney. The fired "The Mandalorian" actress Gina Carano for her bad-taste right-wing tweets, including a final one of a meme comparing Republicans cancelled by Democrats to Jewish persecuted by N@azis (thanks, lameness filter!), but they didn't fire "The Mandalorian" actor Pedro Pascal for his bad-taste left-wing tweets, among which there's one of a meme asking for children of Trump supporters to be killed.
By your reasoning, Disney would want to be associated with neither QAno
If you have a top person in your company who despite being very competent, goes on Twitter to post inflammatory shit, perhaps even calls for say, creating gas cambers for whoever his enemies were. (...) What are you going to do? Keep him on staff? Because you will then be associated with his postings as a supporter of them.
>By your reasoning, Disney would want to be associated with neither QAnon conspiracy theorizing nor with apologies for mass murder, but they seem to be pretty fine with the later simply because it's from a mostly left-wing actor. Which begs the question: how extreme must left-wing tweets be for a company such as Disney to fire someone over them? If even the apology of mass murder isn't enough, I wonder whether such a line even exists.
By my rationale, you don't get to play whataboutism. If you worked for me and you posted far right or far left wing shit, your ass would be escorted out by armed guard. Do you understand? My company - my rules according to law.
In fact, why do you try to point me out as being a hypocrite, when I have nothing to do with Disney. It's their company, and in an at will world, their rules. At will is pretty much the law of the land, and if your employer does not like the color of your socks, they are completely j
why do you try to point me out as being a hypocrite
I didn't. I pointed Disney's case as a counterexample to what I perceived as a generalization in the sections of your post I quoted, according which a company wouldn't want to be associated with inflammatory remarks. Disney shows that companies do want to be, or at least doesn't mind being, associated with inflammatory remarks as long as those remarks are inflammatory in one direction, not the other.
if your employer does not like the color of your socks, they are completely justified and allowed by law to fire you
True. Too bad all these companies have lobbied governments all around to the point neither you nor I are actu
why do you try to point me out as being a hypocrite
I didn't. I pointed Disney's case as a counterexample to what I perceived as a generalization in the sections of your post I quoted,
Yeah, but you are assuming that since this guy was right wing, I was supporting left wing asshattery. I was not. That Disney may have not acted upon the Mandalorian stars actions, doesn''t mean I support him.
You "Whatabout"ed the TinkerPop case with your Google counter-example and a fictional case to try and case the TinkerPop example into more of a business setting. The followup demonstrated your example in fact played out in real life, but in a demonstrably one-sided, double-standard-ish way.
All of which is to illustrate that in real life, your Google & what-if examples are different in that they are much rarer and it involved an employee's actions that were at least in part directly work related (versu
You "Whatabout"ed the TinkerPop case with your Google counter-example and a fictional case to try and case the TinkerPop example into more of a business setting. The followup demonstrated your example in fact played out in real life, but in a demonstrably one-sided, double-standard-ish way.
All of which is to illustrate that in real life, your Google & what-if examples are different in that they are much rarer and it involved an employee's actions that were at least in part directly work related (versus punishing a volunteer by kicking him out of his project for non-work related matters).
"What if" is not "whataboutism", muchacho.
What if is asking if another situation is applicable.
Whataboutism is trying to make a person look like a hypocrite by an example of an inconsistency. It's like say, country A claims that country B did something bad, so country B says Country A has done the same bad thing. It's a dopey argument, because it ends up claiming to support the supposed hypocrite is guilty of nothing, because the person playing whataboutism is exonerating the supposed hypocrite country
other people don't agree with my fringe views (Score:2, Insightful)
Help help I'm being oppressed!
No, all of us using TinkerPop are being oppressed (Score:4, Insightful)
Help help I'm being oppressed!
Hey moron, this wasn't some small whiner, but a co-founder and critical figure in the TinkerPop management team.
But thank God ASF corporate got involved, overrode the Apache Project Management Committee and fired him over some dank memes.
FFS, you worthless assholes who've never accomplished anything in your miserable lives must live for moments like this where you can take real visionaries like Marko and treat them like the crap you are.
Now everyone using TinkerPop is going to have to start asking hard ques
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If a corporation has rules for conduct, and you break them, why are you at all surprised.
I don't know about this project, or the person. But anytime someone whines about "woke" culture, you'll usually find that person engages in cyberbullying, trolling, libertarian, conservative, or otherwise wacky right-wing conspiracies.
All I can find connected to the guy is a twitter full of images while complaining about cancel culture.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't do any of this on company time or in any official capacity. His twitter feed barely even has any followers. This is a ridiculous level of PC bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
He is currently the only source of information about why he was removed. He has plenty of reason to be dishonest about what happened. Why don't you wait for more information?
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
He is currently the only source of information about why he was removed. He has plenty of reason to be dishonest about what happened. Why don't you wait for more information?
If you read TFA, an ASF board member resigned over it, seeming to corroborate his account.
The claim that Rodriguez published his tweets to the private@tinkerpop mailing list are untrue, insisted Hedhman, as he said is the claim that Rodriguez used the ASF resources to humiliate people.
There's still a lack of information, but that's another point of data from someone directly involved.
Re:No, all of us using TinkerPop are being oppress (Score:4, Insightful)
He is currently the only source of information about why he was removed. He has plenty of reason to be dishonest about what happened. Why don't you wait for more information?
If you read TFA, an ASF board member resigned over it, seeming to corroborate his account.
Well, that can mean that they share opinions.
There is some irony in that he's up in arms about Woke culture and PC'ism. People who get fired from Google often claim of the opposite, because they are fired because they are "woke" - like the recent firing of Margaret Mitchell and Timnit Gebru.
These folks have played a very active part in their dismissal. And pretty impressive that they blame the opposite things.
If you are a leader, you are expected to act like one.
Re: (Score:2)
"Woke" people fired from Google tend to be fired for stuff that goes directly against employer's interest - leaking confidential internal info (including code), sabotaging projects, breaking NDAs, or faking evidence against other employees to have them fired.
They don't get fired for memes on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
"Woke" people fired from Google tend to be fired for stuff that goes directly against employer's interest - leaking confidential internal info (including code), sabotaging projects, breaking NDAs, or faking evidence against other employees to have them fired.
They don't get fired for memes on Twitter.
Let's use an example.
If you have a top person in your company who despite being very competent, goes on Twitter to post inflammatory shit, perhaps even calls for say, creating gas cambers for whoever his enemies were. You pick which group, because I merely show that left or right, it's similar. You apparently want it to apply only to the persecution of the right - okay, we'll work with your view.
Your attention is drawn to his posts, because some people don't believe in gassing people.
What are you goi
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a top person in your company who despite being very competent, goes on Twitter to post inflammatory shit, perhaps even calls for say, creating gas cambers for whoever his enemies were. (...) What are you going to do? Keep him on staff? Because you will then be associated with his postings as a supporter of them.
That very scenario happened at Disney. The fired "The Mandalorian" actress Gina Carano for her bad-taste right-wing tweets, including a final one of a meme comparing Republicans cancelled by Democrats to Jewish persecuted by N@azis (thanks, lameness filter!), but they didn't fire "The Mandalorian" actor Pedro Pascal for his bad-taste left-wing tweets, among which there's one of a meme asking for children of Trump supporters to be killed.
By your reasoning, Disney would want to be associated with neither QAno
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a top person in your company who despite being very competent, goes on Twitter to post inflammatory shit, perhaps even calls for say, creating gas cambers for whoever his enemies were. (...) What are you going to do? Keep him on staff? Because you will then be associated with his postings as a supporter of them.
>By your reasoning, Disney would want to be associated with neither QAnon conspiracy theorizing nor with apologies for mass murder, but they seem to be pretty fine with the later simply because it's from a mostly left-wing actor. Which begs the question: how extreme must left-wing tweets be for a company such as Disney to fire someone over them? If even the apology of mass murder isn't enough, I wonder whether such a line even exists.
By my rationale, you don't get to play whataboutism. If you worked for me and you posted far right or far left wing shit, your ass would be escorted out by armed guard. Do you understand? My company - my rules according to law.
In fact, why do you try to point me out as being a hypocrite, when I have nothing to do with Disney. It's their company, and in an at will world, their rules. At will is pretty much the law of the land, and if your employer does not like the color of your socks, they are completely j
Re: (Score:2)
why do you try to point me out as being a hypocrite
I didn't. I pointed Disney's case as a counterexample to what I perceived as a generalization in the sections of your post I quoted, according which a company wouldn't want to be associated with inflammatory remarks. Disney shows that companies do want to be, or at least doesn't mind being, associated with inflammatory remarks as long as those remarks are inflammatory in one direction, not the other.
if your employer does not like the color of your socks, they are completely justified and allowed by law to fire you
True. Too bad all these companies have lobbied governments all around to the point neither you nor I are actu
Re: (Score:2)
why do you try to point me out as being a hypocrite
I didn't. I pointed Disney's case as a counterexample to what I perceived as a generalization in the sections of your post I quoted,
Yeah, but you are assuming that since this guy was right wing, I was supporting left wing asshattery. I was not. That Disney may have not acted upon the Mandalorian stars actions, doesn''t mean I support him.
Re: (Score:2)
You "Whatabout"ed the TinkerPop case with your Google counter-example and a fictional case to try and case the TinkerPop example into more of a business setting. The followup demonstrated your example in fact played out in real life, but in a demonstrably one-sided, double-standard-ish way.
All of which is to illustrate that in real life, your Google & what-if examples are different in that they are much rarer and it involved an employee's actions that were at least in part directly work related (versu
Re: (Score:2)
You "Whatabout"ed the TinkerPop case with your Google counter-example and a fictional case to try and case the TinkerPop example into more of a business setting. The followup demonstrated your example in fact played out in real life, but in a demonstrably one-sided, double-standard-ish way.
All of which is to illustrate that in real life, your Google & what-if examples are different in that they are much rarer and it involved an employee's actions that were at least in part directly work related (versus punishing a volunteer by kicking him out of his project for non-work related matters).
"What if" is not "whataboutism", muchacho.
What if is asking if another situation is applicable.
Whataboutism is trying to make a person look like a hypocrite by an example of an inconsistency. It's like say, country A claims that country B did something bad, so country B says Country A has done the same bad thing. It's a dopey argument, because it ends up claiming to support the supposed hypocrite is guilty of nothing, because the person playing whataboutism is exonerating the supposed hypocrite country
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that can mean that they share opinions.
They clearly do, if you read the article. It doesn't mean they're lying about his stupid tweets staying on his personal account.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that can mean that they share opinions.
They clearly do, if you read the article. It doesn't mean they're lying about his stupid tweets staying on his personal account.
Let's say that you own a company, or are a majority shareholder.
Do you have expectations of say, the Chief Executive Officer?
Tell me which actions you might find a problem:
Having an onlyfans page where he or she engages in sexual activity for people
Posting on parler where he or she encourages armed rebellion.
Posts chibi Hentai
Posts on facebook or twitter that they believe that trans and gay people or QAnon members should be euthanized or otherwise deprived of life.
Now we get into some real life