[News] Leafs part ways with recently hired goalie coach after social media history comes up

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Well, I'd be pretty surprised if you have a better read of MLSE's market than MLSE (a large, pretty sophisticated organization with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake). But of course organizations, even large sophisticated ones, make mistakes all the time. However, even if true, it just makes MLSE, M&M Inc, or these publishers incorrect, not immoral.

If it is their standard policy to be incorrect in the same way over and over again, and to do so in a way that materially damages other people each time, then they most definitely are being immoral.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Should people begin to worry about who they follow on social media these days?

Honestly, your best bet is to just delete social media. For a variety of reasons.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If it is their standard policy to be incorrect in the same way over and over again, and to do so in a way that materially damages other people each time, then they most definitely are being immoral.

It's a definite, for sure thing, totally certain... but you're not going to explain why you think so. Sure, Jan.

What is the point of this? Why declare your views to be certainly right and then refuse to defend or justify them? It's even sillier to do it while elsewhere demanding that people provide "evidence, proof and argument". Does that just not apply to you?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly, your best bet is to just delete social media. For a variety of reasons.

Anonymous reddit and CP accounts, all you need

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Should people begin to worry about who they follow on social media these days? Incoming slippery slope, but if someone followed a swath of ######bags online, would that warrant losing your job over? My guess is that it will happen at some point and probably sooner than later.

It already does happen. In my line of work, people can lose lucrative contracts just for leaving comments on the ‘wrong’ websites. Of course, there is no actual policy calling for those contracts to be cancelled, but when you are Joe Freelance and your contract has been cancelled by Big-Four Publishing Conglomerate, Inc., there is no realistic way to fight it. Joe Freelance can't even get BFPC to honour their side of the contract while it is still in effect.

[savemedrzaius]

This is all Jack Campbell's fault. Way to go Jack...

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That is precisely where the thought experiment parts from the real example. What harm does MLSE suffer from allowing its employees to express their own views on their own time? It is merely asserted, without proof, evidence, or argument, that it is somehow detrimental to a company to have employees whose political beliefs do not align with those of senior management. And it is further assumed that the company ought to have the power to punish any employee who expresses such a belief.

There's a few things to unpack here. We have exactly zero evidence of what the political beliefs of any of MLSE's senior management are. I literally have zero idea.

We also have exactly zero evidence that Mr. Imoo was terminated because his political views are inconsistent with the political views of any of MLSE's senior management.

Further, MLSE clearly has a policy to foster and encourage an inclusive workplace, to develop its reputation for inclusivity, and to support inclusivity among hockey fans, hockey players, and hockey in general. For example, see: https://dailyhive.com/toronto/leafs-...sity-inclusion.

I don't know all of the reasons for these policies, but for a team in one of the most diverse markets (both labour markets and customer markets) in the world, some of the reasons seem self-evident (from a business perspective).

In the absence of any other evidence, the only reasonable conclusion appears to be that MLSE determined that Mr. Imoo's employment caused more damage to its reputation/brand and to is efforts to foster inclusivity in the workplace than his continued employment was worth.... or, as you call it, "appeasing the mob".

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly, your best bet is to just delete social media. For a variety of reasons.

It's a definite, for sure thing, totally certain... but you're not going to explain why you think so. Sure, Jan.

What part of ‘deliberately harming other people for your own gain is immoral’ do you find hard to understand?

[DeluxeMoustache]

So Random

You said you are not defending Imoo and his actions

You said (paraphrasing) that you will defend the rights of people like him to not have their livelihoods ruined because of online mobs

Are you okay with MLSE making the decision to part ways with him in light of their discovery of his public activity related to some pretty hot button political and societal issues, or on the wrong side of their code of conduct?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There's a few things to unpack here. We have exactly zero evidence of what the political beliefs of any of MLSE's senior management are. I literally have zero idea.

We also have exactly zero evidence that Mr. Imoo was terminated because his political views are inconsistent with the political views of any of MLSE's senior management.

Further, MLSE clearly has a policy to foster and encourage an inclusive workplace, to develop its reputation for inclusivity, and to support inclusivity among hockey fans, hockey players, and hockey in general. For example, see: https://dailyhive.com/toronto/leafs-...sity-inclusion.

That policy itself shows that MLSE management is on the political Left. So no, ‘zero evidence’ is not true.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What part of ‘deliberately harming other people for your own gain is immoral’ do you find hard to understand?

Your rationale for saying so, obviously. That's what I've been trying to get out of you. Anyone who knows anything about the subject you claim to have been studying for 35 years would know that any proposition still needs to track with some sort of principle to be confidently expressed. Are you just skipping that part? What happened to putting in the effort?

I remain optimistic that we will eventually bear witness to your "proof, evidence or argument". Although I'm half expecting divine command theory at this point.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

What part of ‘deliberately harming other people for your own gain is immoral’ do you find hard to understand?

That is a terribly broad principle of morality. It seems to include any human activity which involves competition of any kind. For example, apparently Mr. Imoo's decision to compete for this position with MLSE in the first place was immoral because he deliberately harmed other people (the other candidates for the position) for his own gain (being awarded the position). You may want to refine it a bit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That policy itself shows that MLSE management is on the political Left. So no, ‘zero evidence’ is not true.

Let’s imagine that there was some “twitter mob” and not some reporter doing research on a new hire (as seems to be the case here). The tweets came to the attention of the employer in any event. This leads to one of two things:

A. The employer determines the employee’s publicly espoused views are not in accordance with the company’s preferred policies, so they fire him. Nothing wrong with that. It’s their right, subject to any agreement to the contrary.

B. The employer determines that the employee’s publicly espoused views are so unpopular they will affect the company’s profits, so they fire him. Nothing wrong with that. That’s capitalism.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That policy itself shows that MLSE management is on the political Left. So no, ‘zero evidence’ is not true.

Oh dear.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly, your best bet is to just delete social media. For a variety of reasons.

You're not wrong, and I have a very minimal presence on FB and Instagram so I'm not worried at all. This is all so very bizarre.

[PepsiFree]

This thread is a beautiful, entertaining disaster.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This thread is a beautiful, entertaining disaster.

I mean, did you expect anything less (or more)?

[zamler]

I would tend to hire Dusty Imoo just because his name is Dusty Imoo.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That policy itself shows that MLSE management is on the political Left. So no, ‘zero evidence’ is not true.

I do not disagree that diversity, inclusion and equity are objectives that the political right does not support. But there is usually a veneer that makes it seem like they are not against these ideals. It is rare to just blatantly state that those three objectives are the exclusive domain of the political Left.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

I mean, did you expect anything less (or more)?

I always expected a disaster, but they’re rarely so entertaining.

The icing on the cake is definitely “I’ve studied moral philosophy for 35 years” followed by the outright refusal to share any philosophical position in any level of detail that would indicate even an introductory class understanding of moral philosophy, and the complete avoidance of engaging with Corsi, who is probably the most interesting, engaging, and fair poster you could choose to engage with on the topic (my compliment extends ONLY TO THIS TOPIC).

But the whole thing is just a treat. Transphobic remarks, cancel culture, thought police, the political left, the mob and it’s control over the publishing industry, all like a weird festering cloud of angry nonsense sitting on a bed of other people being totally reasonable.

It’s all great, I love it. I mean I hate some of it, but that’s why I love it.

[MRCboicgy]

yeesh...