Apple Procurement VP Departs Company After Vulgar TikTok Comment

[usagora]

I see, the "little things and decisions" that mean nothing at all until they do. Some processes are stretched in time and it is not always easy to predict an accurate outcome.

Making people afraid and speak less let alone joke is obviously a good and fairly innocent start, right? What can possibly go wrong?

Yes, how awful it would be if one day no one ever tells a lewd joke again. Who wants to live in a dignified society like that? /s

You must be one of those people who think "freedom of speech" means there should be no consequences for what we say. Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. All freedom of speech means is that the government cannot arrest you over your words (with the exception, obviously, of overt threats of bodily harm to other people and things like that).

For example, if I go around bad mouthing everyone, then I shouldn't complain when I realize I have no friends and proclaim that it's bad for society because now I'm "afraid and speak less". How about I speak all I want but speak wisely? There's a novel idea!

 

[avz]

Again, according to the OP, he was fired after an internal investigation. Not simply because he made a lewd joke. We don't know what the internal investigation found.

For all we know the OP has just acted classy and did not take the "rubbish from the house" in front of the public. Rules of the game.

I am sure that there are an internal power struggles within any corporation(which is hard to understand for the outsiders) and there was plenty of ways to get rid of the guy. Still Apple has decided to get rid of the guy in way that is sending a certain "message" and makes Apple look like a conformist rather than a rebel.

 

[BaldiMac]

For all we know the OP has just acted classy and did not take the "rubbish from the house" in front of the public. Rules of the game.

I am sure that there are an internal power struggles within any corporation(which is hard to understand for the outsiders) and there was plenty of ways to get rid of the guy. Still Apple has decided to get rid of the guy in way that is sending a certain "message" and makes Apple look like a conformist rather than a rebel.

I think you are continuing to jump to conclusions here. Again, we don't know what the investigation found or why they fired him.

 

[avz]

I think you are continuing to jump to conclusions here. Again, we don't know what the investigation found or why they fired him.

You did not understood what I have said, but it is OK as politics is not for everyone.

From a politics perspective it is irrelevant what Apple has found as we will never know, the bottom line is that Apple did it in a way that is sending a certain "message". This is the only fact that matters and we can truly count on.

You can of course say that Apple is just a technical company and do not know how to play politics and send the right message.

 

[BaldiMac]

You did not understood what I have said, but it is OK as politics is not for everyone.

Jumping to conclusions again. I understood what you said. I simply disagree with your point because it is not supported by evidence.

From a politics perspective it is irrelevant what Apple has found as we will never know, the bottom line is that Apple did it in a way that is sending a certain "message". This is the only fact that matters and we can truly count on.

You can of course say that Apple is just a technical company and do not know how to play politics and send the right message.

They let someone go for undisclosed reasons. Bloomberg published an article connecting the origin of the investigation to lewd public comments. Based on the info in the original post, Apple didn't send any message other than the fact that Blevins would be leaving the company.

What do you think Apple should have done differently?

 

[avz]

Jumping to conclusions again. I understood what you said. I simply disagree with your point because it is not supported by evidence.


They let someone go for undisclosed reasons. Bloomberg published an article connecting the origin of the investigation to lewd public comments. Based on the info in the original post, Apple didn't send any message other than the fact that Blevins would be leaving the company.

What do you think Apple should have done differently?

We have to deal with the situation where non of us have any evidence. As you said yourself you don't know what Apple's "investigation" has found. For all I know absolutely nothing.

If I was running Apple I would not have fired a guy so close to the occurrence of his public comments even if I actually wanted him gone. I would have done it much later after the whole situation became dissolved.

 

[BaldiMac]

We have to deal with the situation where non of us have any evidence. As you said yourself you don't know what Apple's "investigation" has found. For all I know absolutely nothing.

The difference is that I'm not jumping to conclusions.

If I was running Apple I would not have fired a guy so close to the occurrence of his public comments even if I actually wanted him gone. I would have done it much later after the whole situation became dissolved.

Seems like that would depend on what the internal investigation found. There are certainly possible findings that should result in prompt action.

 

[avz]

The difference is that I'm not jumping to conclusions.


Seems like that would depend on what the internal investigation found. There are certainly possible findings that should result in prompt action.

You are in a way jumping to the conclusions that Apple's investigation has found something by just taking Apple's word for it.

You are very weak politician if you are easily succumb to the outside pressure. Don't give away Bloomberg or any other media outlet any of your power. This way you are only helping them to build their profile.

Isn't Bloomberg is the same outlet that has been saying for a while that the world is heading for the worst recession since the 30s(which is actually maybe true).

 

[BaldiMac]

You are in a way jumping to the conclusions that Apple's investigation has found something by just taking Apple's word for it.

Nope. I never offered an opinion either way. The only thing I'm taking Apple's word on is that he is leaving the company.

 

[avz]

Nope. I never offered an opinion either way. The only thing I'm taking Apple's word on is that he is leaving the company.

This is why I have said that this is the only fact that we can count on. It is just that his leaving a company is sending a bad "message". There is no way around it. There is plenty of ways to let somebody go without a "pressure" to do it on a spot. If you feel that you have that pressure this will mean that somebody else is running your company.

 

[BaldiMac]

This is why I have said that this is the only fact that we can count on. It is just that his leaving a company is sending a bad "message". There is no way around it.

Ha! You jumping to conclusions doesn't mean Apple is sending a bad message.

There is plenty of ways to let somebody go without a "pressure" to do it on a spot. If you feel that you have that pressure this will mean that somebody else is running your company.

More assumptions. There is no evidence that Apple felt "pressure" to do it on a spot.

 

[avz]

Ha! You jumping to conclusions doesn't mean Apple is sending a bad message.


More assumptions. There is no evidence that Apple felt "pressure" to do it on a spot.

There would be no 32 page thread if there would not be a bad "message". We live in a times where public perception can be more important than the facts. This is why politics is so important and circumstances surrounding letting somebody go are extremely important.

"Pressure" is an interesting concept that is very difficult to prove. Witness of a crime can say that there is no pressure on him from the criminals but it is very hard to be absolutely sure of it.

 

[BaldiMac]

There would be no 32 page thread if there would not be a bad "message". We live in a times where public perception can be more important than the facts. This is why politics is so important and circumstances surrounding letting somebody go are extremely important.

"Pressure" is an interesting concept that is very difficult to prove. Witness of a crime can say that there is no pressure on him from the criminals but it is very hard to be absolutely sure of it.

LOL. Methinks you overestimate the impact of a Bloomberg article that a MacRumor admin happened to read. There is nothing important about it. Just an excuse for partisans to bicker about cancel culture. Mostly unnoticed and soon to be forgotten.

 

[avz]

LOL. Methinks you overestimate the impact of a Bloomberg article that a MacRumor admin happened to read. There is nothing important about it. Just an excuse for partisans to bicker about cancel culture. Mostly unnoticed and soon to be forgotten.

So why are you keep replying to it then? You know how they say: move along, nothing to see here.

Public does have plenty of power to change things around them. I believe this is one of the most important messages that Steve Jobs tried to convey.

 

[BaldiMac]

So why are you keep replying to it then? You know how they say: move along, nothing to see here.

Public does have plenty of power to change things around them. I believe this is one of the most important messages that Steve Jobs tried to convey.

Because I wanted to discuss how so many people in this thread were assuming that they only reason he was let go was because of his comment while ignoring the fact that there was an investigation before he departed. You don't need an investigation to know what he said in a public video.

 

[avz]

Because I wanted to discuss how so many people in this thread were assuming that they only reason he was let go was because of his comment while ignoring the fact that there was an investigation before he departed. You don't need an investigation to know what he said in a public video.

Again I thought that we agreed that an investigation was not a fact. You can't just take Apple's word for it. The only true facts that the guy was fired and that he made a bad joke. That is all. An investigation is a fairy tale for the gullible.

 

[BaldiMac]

Again I thought that we agreed that an investigation was not a fact. You can't just take Apple's word for it. The only true facts that the guy was fired and that he made a bad joke. That is all. An investigation is a fairy tale for the gullible.

Not at all. The investigation was reported by Bloomberg. It wasn't attributed to a statement from Apple. Have you read the original post???

 

[avz]

Not at all. The investigation was reported by Bloomberg. It wasn't attributed to a statement from Apple. Have you read the original post???

I am definitely not taking Bloomberg's word for it, so it is not a fact. I am still waiting for the Great Depression.

 

[BaldiMac]

I am definitely not taking Bloomberg's word for it, so it is not a fact. I am still waiting for the Great Depression.

I'm a Bloomberg skeptic myself, but you seemed to believe the reporting up until you found it inconvenient to your point.

 

[avz]

I'm a Bloomberg skeptic myself, but you seemed to believe the reporting up until you found it inconvenient to your point.

Not at all. I said right from the get-go that investigation is irrelevant in principle as we don't have a solid evidence of it. Like the Judge Judy says: "It is all hearsay."

 

[Musocat]

You mean Blevin's absolute botch job attempt at a movie quote? What did you find funny about it? Leave the moral issues aside for a bit - what exactly was funny about it? I am genuinely curious to know.

Comparing driving fast cars and fondling big-breasted women to work is funny. So he didn't get the quote exactly right, it's been 40 years. Crass, maybe, but still funny.

 

[ninethirty]

Comparing driving fast cars and fondling big-breasted women to work is funny. So he didn't get the quote exactly right, it's been 40 years. Crass, maybe, but still funny.

We all find different things funny. For example, I find it hilarious that this moron decided to try his hand at crude comedy on Tik Tok and lost his job for it. I'm laughing even harder at all the people who are outraged about his firing, as if there was any planet where that wasn't going to happen. Good times!

 

[avz]

We all find different things funny.

All the more reason not to fire anybody because of the joke. And all the more reason not to allow anybody to have a monopoly on what is funny and what is not.

 

[ninethirty]

All the more reason not to fire anybody because of the joke. And all the more reason not to allow anybody to have a monopoly on what is funny and what is not.

There's no sense in crying about it. He's been fired. Others will be fired for similar actions in the future. Eventually people will learn their lesson.

 

[avz]

There's no sense in crying about it. He's been fired. Others will be fired for similar actions in the future. Eventually people will learn their lesson.

Are you sure that firing is enough of a punishment? What about wiping down the floor with the offenders?
Apparently some even say that if you are unable to inflict a physical punishment on others you have a "slave mentality".