Okay, I guess I'm going to have to do this. Strap in boys, this is a long one.
I looked up his original rant and it was a post on his Facebook. Now, I don't know if it was a private post that was leaked to a reporter, or a public status update. If it was the latter, then it's his own fault. I'm not defending what he said. What he said was heinous, crass, and ignorant, and he clearly paid dearly for it. He was justifiably fired, and perhaps unjustifiably became the most hated man on the internet, at least for a little while. People get fired from employers for saying racist/ignorant stuff on Facebook, so this is nothing unusual, but I think the amount of hate/death threats he got from the internet is a disproportionate level of hate, but whatever. What I'm saying is if his private post was made to go viral for drama, I find that a bit ethically wrong. Not nearly Hogan vs. Gawker bad, but in the same category.
The TechCrunch article mentions, like the people in this thread have, his apologies and attempts to atone for what he said. It seems he tried to give some benefits to homeless people, but he did it in a clumsy, goofy way. At this point I can only give him the benefit of the doubt. Some people are wired differently, and are incapable of feeling empathy, so I believe at least his attempts to understand the problem are sincere. Some have mental issues or personality defects. Even if his apologies are hollow, and his motivations insincere, if he's made the life of a 100 homeless people even 1% better, he's done more than most of us, and more than made up for the harm his original post did. The person who was harmed the most from that rant was himself.
The TechCrunch article reads like his help to the homeless are nothing but publicity stunts, because he tries to publicize his projects and @ reporters on tweets. Well, do you blame him? His post was out for the world to see and he was target of hate for the internet, wouldn't you want to let the world know you're trying to better yourself? Furthermore, the author says the reason for the article is perhaps twitter HR fucked up and didn't do due diligence in the hiring process and hired a troll. Really? You think fucking Twitter doesn't look up shit on the internet before hiring people? I believe they knew who they were hiring, and were aware of his rant, and his apologies, and his actions since. I believe they didn't think this would cause controversy in 2016, and the internet had forgotten. And perhaps they were right until this article had to remind the internet.
So yeah, fuck Twitter a little bit for not having the balls to keep this guy employed. He perhaps had the talent and skill that they were looking for, but is now gone for stupid shit. But I don't really blame them completely, cause I wouldn't want bad PR if I were them either. But fuck TechCrunch for stirring up drama for no reason. How long is enough and how much punishment is enough? Are they going to keep writing hit pieces each time a new employer hires him? Are they going to @McDonalds in 6 years when this guy gets hired as a fry cook? Does this man need to apologize and get the internet to affirm his beliefs each time he gets a new job? Don't be ridiculous.
Of course, there is a chance that the alleged charge of stealing money from his old employer is true, and Twitter didn't know, and they fired him in light of this new information. In that case, ignore everything I said.
Suh Dude?
