[void_mint]

> My statement is objectively true.

Sure. It's also not relevant. You asked a question that made no sense. The appropriate question would've been "Who has more impact on company earnings, a quarterback or a CEO", in that we're discussing one's ability to impact revenue for a business. It has nothing to do with celebrity.

You're welcome to quantify whatever you like. How blue is sky blue? Ultimately it doesn't matter. A CEO has far more ability to damage the company they work than a quarterback. This is why your behavior is in bad faith. You're arguing points nobody made/don't change the outcome of what we're discussing.

[tablespoon]

> Sure. It's also not relevant.

Except that it is.

> You asked a question that made no sense. The appropriate question would've been "Who has more impact on company earnings, a quarterback or a CEO", in that we're discussing one's ability to drive revenue for a business. It has nothing to do with celebrity.

No. For one, you're wondering off into the weeds. We've gotten sidetracked discussing the effects of a particular type of action (stating a personal opinion publicly) on revenue, not the effects of all actions theoretically available to the role. The CEO can certainly have "more impact on company earnings," but that's because they could do things like badly misallocate investment, which are not relevant to a discussion about personal political statements.

The amount of "celebrity" someone has directly effects how much attention their statements will get, and thus the impact of those statements.

> A CEO has far more ability to damage the company they work than a quarterback. This is why your behavior is in bad faith. You're arguing points nobody made/don't change the outcome of what we're discussing.

Eh, no. Way up here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28440465), someone drew an equivalence between Colin Kaepernick and this CEO, which sets up an uncomfortable dilemma for certain common clusters of political tendencies (i.e. it was right to fire Kaepernick). That dilemma was "solved" by gerrymandering criteria to differentiate their positions in a way that doesn't actually make much sense (e.g. somehow this CEO's controversial opinions can be predicted to negatively affect revenue, while Kaepernick's much higher profile statements could not have). Showing that "solution" doesn't make sense because it doesn't match the facts restores the dilemma.

My ultimate position is that both this CEO and Kaepernick should have both kept their jobs, in spite of the political opinions they expressed. I suspect that any set of seemingly politically neutral criteria that justifies the CEO being fired but not Kaepernick likely was engineered to justify a result that was really determined by underlying political biases (e.g. applying a factional Overton window to the broader population).

[void_mint]

> The amount of "celebrity" someone has directly effects how much attention their statements will get, and thus the impact of those statements.

Or behave in a way in which nobody would purchase their products, which their role as CEO defines as one of their highest priorities.

Quarterbacks play football well.

Are you seeing how this is a silly comparison?

[tablespoon]

> Are you seeing how this is a silly comparison?

I'll try this one last time.

Quarterbacks aren't anonymous guys who throw a ball around. They're celebrities with a direct connection to the brand of the team they play for, and fans are familiar with whatever they do during a game. If they get involved in some controversy, it affects that brand.

It's a certainty that a greater proportion of football customers (fans) watch games than game studio customers subscribe to CEO tweets or attend to something that will bring them to their attention. That's because watching football games is more integral to being a football customer than paying attention to twitter is to pretty much anything.

Also, IIRC Kaepernick was booed on many occasions during his protests.

If a CEO's controversial personal political tweets can affect revenue to the point he should be fired, a QB's in-game controversial political statements can too.

[void_mint]

I'll try this one last time.

> Quarterbacks aren't anonymous guys who throw a ball around. They're celebrities with a direct connection to the brand of the team they play for, and fans are familiar with whatever they do during a game. If they get involved in some controversy, it affects that brand.

Quarterbacks are employed to play football. CEOs are employed to run companies. If you can't see this, you're either intentionally being obtuse or aren't capable of having this type of conversation.

> If a CEO's controversial personal political tweets can affect revenue to the point he should be fired, a QB's in-game controversial political statements can too.

I'm not sure what point you're making. He was fired. He was actually cancelled, in that the people that disagreed with him prevented him from ever getting future work, which is unlike the Tripwire CEO, who will land somewhere else just fine. Employers are within their rights to fire whoever they want. The difference is, again, the purpose for which that employee was employed in the first place. Firing your plumber because of their facebook posts may be unnecessary. Firing a spokesman for damaging your brand is not.

Again, if you can't see this, you're either intentionally being obtuse or aren't capable of having this type of conversation. Either way this'll be the last exchange we have on this topic. Have an excellent day.