-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Oculus holds "diversity luncheon;" refuses to address Luckey questions. CEO needs mom
- Thread starter FinaruDensetsu
- Start date
Bloodporne
Member
It's 'trotted out' because it's simple reality. If it isn't in your world, then you're lucky and shouldn't be so smug about it.
In short, putting your moral convictions before your, and potentially your family's, economical safety is a luxury that not everyone can afford at the drop of a hat.
John Kowalski
Banned
Dude who said story in games is like story in porn shouldn't surprise you with dismissive comments about women.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
What do people envision happening in a boycott? I'm really curious.
Oculus will fire all the innocent people who don't support Luckey first because their product isn't doing well until Luckey is the only one left standing? If so I don't think you understand the point of a boycott.
If a significant amount of people actually boycott such that Oculus actually feels its effect on their bottom line, Luckey is absolutely the first to go, not innocent people who just care about feeding their families.
Oculus will fire all the innocent people who don't support Luckey first because their product isn't doing well until Luckey is the only one left standing? If so I don't think you understand the point of a boycott.
If a significant amount of people actually boycott such that Oculus actually feels its effect on their bottom line, Luckey is absolutely the first to go, not innocent people who just care about feeding their families.
He never was.
FunkyDealer
Banned
At this point, I just hope Xbox doesn't partner with them for Scorpio.
dude what
You consider actively funding a group whose purpose it is to spread hate speech about women and minorities just a "political inclination"?
Bloodporne
Member
His or anyone else's antics aside, what does one have to do with the other?
I don't know the context but that reads like a perfectly valid criticism of the level of storytelling in video games relative to superior mediums like books and film. Video game scripts have a long way to go and many are currently at a level barely fit of the worst summer blockbusters or mid-winter filler.
It's easy to lose sight of this situation, or have zero perspective on this, when you're relatively young and have no family or serious financial concerns. A person halfway in their remaining life, a couple decades into a career, with kids or a house, can't just walk away from earning a living so easily.
You don't know that. None of us has any idea what they're doing internally to address this. And regardless I'm not sure any decisions they make on the inside would satisfy the people who want a very public display of disciplinary action against Palmer.
Which is realistically more likely? That they're all alt-right racists or enablers of said individuals, every single one of them... or that this is a complex issue that requires careful decisions from multiple parties within to mitigate harm to both FB, Oculus, shareholders, employees and future products? I'm leaning towards this not being a black and white matter in terms of why they're handling it as they are. What Memorabilia said before probably has some truth to it:
If I complain about a problem at work, it's because I want cool heads with a nuanced approach to offer solutions that help everyone, not because I want an immediate firing and heads to roll. The manner in which some want this situation handled is to have it blow it up in a big way, as quickly and recklessly as can possibly be. This is great from a vengeance standpoint and seeing immediate retribution against the hated Palmer before moving on to new news... but probably not any good for all others involved in this long-term.
I had no agenda when purchasing the Rift, and still don't when I purchase the touch. The beleifs of the executives of big companies have no impact on what I purchase. I imagine that if I truely cared about these issues, then I would end up buying nothing at all.
I would like to also clarify that the only thing that I am actively funding is my desire to use a product that I have an interest in. I am so far removed from whatever issues are happening with the corporations that I refuse to be responsible for however they choose to spend their money.
Sure, that's all fine, but that's not the question I asked you-
Do you consider actively funding a group whose purpose it is to spread hate speech about women and minorities just a "political inclination", a difference in political opinion?
You're apathetic towards it in your purchasing decisions, and that's fine. But don't go around downplaying funding racist organizations saying they are just a "difference in political opinion" when you're doing so.
Unless you actually think that funding racist organizations is actually just a difference of political opinion.
John Kowalski
Banned
It's, uh, it's there somewhere. I know i thought of something when i wrote that. Just a sec.
Just a point of contention, he wasn't criticizing them, not at all. He was saying story in games should have the same relevance as story in pornography, which, he implied, was very very little.
Bloodporne
Member
Nah I mean I know what he's saying but that's him talking about story in video games which just can't even remotely reflect on his view on women. It's like saying he once said he prefers Doom 1 over Doom 2 therefore he hates Ukrainian people.
It's a pretty good analogy actually if he feels story is unimportant in video games and should take a backseat to its core intent.
There's no relevance between his admittedly coarse remark and your misinterpretation that this reflects how he thinks of women. If I said story is insignificant to my enjoyment of games same as enjoying porn, it can mean just that and nothing more. Word for word, that statement could've come from the mouth of a woman.
CyberPunked
Member
At this point, I think that's a certainty.
How is he being dismissive about women? I must have missed something.
John Kowalski
Banned
Well i done goofed.
I agree that a company should be held responsible, and yes, the higher ups should be the ones that should be abhorred. But the ones how are taking the punishment for that on dude are the ones who are actually working hard and not necessarily agree with him and could very well, oppose him on his actions. Boycotting the whole output is a tad bit unnecessary.
I mean, you could say they could all leave the company, but considering the harsh environment we live in, its not easy as they have to feed themselves and family.
This is just dumb comment that doesn't even need responding to properly.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
This is not how boycotts work. The company isn't ignorant of what people are boycotting for. They'd address the reason for the boycott long before the innocent employees would be affected.
The only "punishment" you can attribute to the innocent employees is that they are probably frustrated or embarrassed that they have to work in the same company as someone like Palmer. But again that's an issue with management not the consumer.
staticneuron
Member
But there is. You have to "prove" someone is racist. Saying the support an ultra conservative base doesn't really flag as racism (again with Fox news and Trump as example), as I posted before California's FEHA makes it illegal to fire someone for political stance. Oculus is based in Irvine, California.
Like I said before though, there are other reasons people could get fired, such as losing money or causing a PR debacle. That is the part I think Palmer is protected by some sort of contract, because almost every example of bad PR of this nature that I have seen, ends in that persons termination.
You were literally equating having the founder of a company directly funding a hate group to "some random racist guy at work".
I responded in kind.
LiquidSword
Member
I see there are still people trying to argue that Luckey is in hot water just for supporting conservatives or Trump. Ughh
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Yeah I agree with you.
All his shitty behavior aside, he's clearly done substantial damage to the brand, and normally that would be more than cause for termination. He probably does have something in his contract that prevents them from terminating him at this point.
However, I do doubt that there is anything preventing them from basically putting him in a corner and condemning him in public statements (because remember not only have they made supportive statements, they've refused to state that they are excluding him, only that he is voluntarily staying out of the spotlight). It's not like he could sue them for defamation. If there is some degree of misbehavior that could allow the company to terminate him, you would think they'd be building up that case now by condemning his actions at every turn.
Public outcry hurts sales and turns developers away from the ecosystem. Investors and Facebook leadership demand corrective action, and it happens. A sustained boycott shows a company that they can't simply ignore a situation and need to actually do something about it.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Perfectly worded.
A lot of other people in this thread seem to jump straight to this:
Boycott/outcry --> People (not Palmer) losing jobs
with nothing in between.
Doug Heffernan
Member
I just wanna know what food was served at this luncheon... are we talking deli sandwiches? Perhaps even a fruit salad bowl or cookie platter?
At this point what use is Luckey to Oculus? Yeah he started the whole thing, but at this stage in the game what actual contribution does he bring to the table and future development of the product? What about him is so irreplaceable or integral to the project?
It seems like his presence is only hurting the platform and brand.
That's not to say they have to fire him immediately, but really what other option is there. Either they keep him on or they boot him out.
It seems like his presence is only hurting the platform and brand.
That's not to say they have to fire him immediately, but really what other option is there. Either they keep him on or they boot him out.
irrotational
Member
innervision961
Member
Where do you draw your line in the sand between company leader uses your money to support hate groups and white supremacists to company leader uses your money to actually buy children from human traffickers as snacks?
Obviously these are very different scenarios but where do you personally say "ok I'm not supporting this"?
Come on, are you serious? You're comparing what he did to cannibalism of trafficked children? What use is such an utterly insane and improbable analogy? Why not just ask if he would support Luckey after he blows up the Eastern seaboard?
If you had no agenda you probably wouldn't be posting in this thread to tell people how much you don't care. If you don't care about the issues, then why post? I'm not sure I understand why you would bother giving your opinion about this if you don't care about the issues.
Turin Turambar
Member
I'm not exactly surprised they chose to deal with this PR nightmare this way.
It will be more interesting to see later how it evolves. Are they going to start remembering there is someone called Palmer Luckey in the company in 3-4 months, once they estimate the storm passed, or is it going to be more permanent?
That's the real question.
It will be more interesting to see later how it evolves. Are they going to start remembering there is someone called Palmer Luckey in the company in 3-4 months, once they estimate the storm passed, or is it going to be more permanent?
That's the real question.
CyberPunked
Member
I look forward to the inevitable CrowbCow video about Oculus.
No, he was asking where you draw the line. The absurd is being used to make a point, and it isn't an analogy. It's a hypothetical starting point from which to figure out where someone stands on the issue. Providing funding for a hate group is considered a no brainer for a lot of people. If that is not accepted, it's got to be somewhere between that and some absured act of violence, right? Or someone just has no line at all and seperates the two concepts of product and person 100% no matter how awful the situation.
Yeah, what if Palmer was a mass murderer? Hmm?
There is no useful purpose to using such an improbable scenario that has nothing to do with what actually transpired. Luckey is a douche but he didn't do anything remotely as horrific as importing underage slaves and then murdering them in order to feast on their flesh and organs. It's a dumb jumping off point for a discussion. He already said he doesn't agree with what Luckey in fact did but separates the man from the company. Where is the sense in jumping to wild hypotheticals?
You're conflating "I don't care about this as it relates to an Oculus purchase and my ability to enjoy it" with "I don't care about any of this and we shouldn't be having this discussion." The sentiment he expressed is a valid one. The way I'm reading it he's not being dismissive of the very existence of this topic and anyone who stands on the side of not supporting Oculus.
There is no useful purpose to using such an improbable scenario that has nothing to do with what actually transpired. Luckey is a douche but he didn't do anything remotely as horrific as importing underage slaves and then murdering them in order to feast on their flesh and organs. It's a dumb jumping off point for a discussion. He already said he doesn't agree with what Luckey in fact did but separates the man from the company. Where is the sense in jumping to wild hypotheticals?
You're conflating "I don't care about this as it relates to an Oculus purchase and my ability to enjoy it" with "I don't care about any of this and we shouldn't be having this discussion." The sentiment he expressed is a valid one. The way I'm reading it he's not being dismissive of the very existence of this topic and anyone who stands on the side of not supporting Oculus.
The fact that he used the term "Hopefully mob brutality won't stifle innovation." makes it pretty clear where he stands as far as this discussion goes.
To spell it out:
Palmer funds a hate group with Oculus money. People are disgusted by it, and call out Palmer and Oculus for defending a hate group funder.
weallstink: OMG look at this hate mob brutally attacking Palmer for being a racist and Oculus for defending him! Is anyone thinking of Palmer's feelings? He's the victim of viscous mob brutality!
He didn't say "I hope that people disgusted with his racist behaviors don't stifle innovation". Nope, we're just an irrational viscous mob lashing out.
And where is that? Because I said something similar.
FB and Oculus need to do an exhaustive investigation into Palmer's activities, figure out how deep his involvement was with these Internet groups, interrogate him to learn his intentions and who was harmed or could have been harmed. It's not shocking to suggest that mob justice and a public dragging aren't the answer. So many people online act as if they're owed a highly visible "flogging" when maybe it is an internal matter for the respective employers of Palmer to handle.
If any regular person were to get caught spouting racist shit, or liking racist shit on Facebook they would get fired if their employer found out. We have seen this to some degree. How ironic.
I hope this story never goes away.
Do your part and support Vive and PsVr. Even if these scumbags do eventually get off their ass and do something about this shit show its too late in my opinion, so Fuck em.
I hope this story never goes away.
Do your part and support Vive and PsVr. Even if these scumbags do eventually get off their ass and do something about this shit show its too late in my opinion, so Fuck em.
Where is what? The viscous mob line? It's what the guy said in the post you are defending saying he has a valid concern.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Here John let me help you:
"Dude who said 'But I want da best!' when questioned about the gender gap in video game dev. shouldn't suprise you with dismissive comments about women."
Fixed.
TomWaitsForNoMan
Banned
He is and always has been a right wing libertarian
Thst isnt even close to what he said. He said "we are having trouble hiring enough people in vr, period. We don't care what you look like."
The bolded in your statement below.
Where is it you think he stands because I said something along the same lines of preferring an exhaustive investigation conducted by mature, responsible parties and not people looking in from the outside with a unquenchable need for swift retribution.
None of that was said here. That's the meaning you're applying to his posts because you don't like that he supports a product despite what one of the people behind the company did. "Hopefully mob brutality won't stifle innovation" doesn't mean someone is a Palmer apologist. It's in response to posts stating Oculus needs to be burned to the ground and anyone/everyone working there should be fired, among other statements calling for serious crippling of the company.
And your behavior is pretty excessive here. Please chill out...
Precisely where you stand: that you think the people upset by this aren't mature, responsible parties and are instead just an angry mob looking for an unquenchable need for swift retribution.
You think you're being level headed, when really you're just sticking your head in the sand.
Find a single post in this topic saying everyone who works at Oculus should be fired.
You are creating some fantastic bullshit strawmen.
If you're worried that Oculus will fire innocent employees as a result of people boycotting because of Luckey, why are you trying to shame consumers rather than the company that you think would prefer to fire innocent employees and not the person the boycott is meant to protest?