3 ms·

Says the person linking to "informationliberation dot com". Pot, meet kettle. Sure her twitter profile is highly politically charged and should likely have mad

by rmxt 9y ago

Says the person linking to "informationliberation dot com". Pot, meet kettle. Sure her twitter profile is highly politically charged and should likely have made her unfit for clearance, but citing that as evidence that she should be institutionalized is ridiculous. She'd likely say the same about you given your proclivity for "informationliberation". Where does that leave us for discourse?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vultour 9y ago
He never said he was fit for a top secret clearance. Her Twitter profile should've been an instant disqualification from any sort of security clearance.
- rmxt 9y ago
  Nor did I say that the poster here was fit or unfit. I speculated about what two extreme opinion holders would say to one another. My point was that polarizing the discourse and reducing the other side to "just came out of the psych ward" does absolutely nothing to further reasonable arguments.
VLM 9y ago
Have either of you been thru clearance? I have. They're really excited to know if you can be bribed with drugs or sex or simple money. If you have the politics of a typical college professor they're not terribly interested. The clearance process was mostly CYA, was this candidate dumb enough to say he'd sell secrets to the soviets for weed or cash to pay loansharks or kinky sex? I've read this woman's weird social media profiles. What a nutcase. The systemic failure was in her direct superior not discussing some red flags that would be noteworthy at any other organization with HR and/or the police. Her boss is supposed to be having an awkward conversation with HR beginning with "So I've got this direct report, and in public she hates the CEO. And she's intensely racist, everything with her is all about race race race, and btw she bitterly hates the CEO's race, although she likes some other races. So she hates the race of some coworkers including the big guy, and she likes the race of other coworkers, and says this all in public which must be very intimidating to her coworkers. And she hates a couple entire countries include some that we have coworkers from which must be very awkward in the office. And she tweets out parodies making fun of the CEO, in public. And she denies and parodies the CEOs policies, and denies the CEO is the legitimate leader of the company, which makes me think shes not going to react rationally at all, if the CEO or anyone else in the chain of command disciplines or fires her, we're going to need security if not cops present. And she identifies her own race as being terrorists, which in an era of workplace violence frankly scares me, and she does this in public so her coworkers see her identify herself as terrorism race or whatever violent idiocy, and we're making an incredibly hostile workplace for every coworker who's not suicidal or martyr complex. She believes she's about to die from climate change or some nonsense, the specifics don't matter, which is super terrifying in the context of self identifying as being a terrorist, making me scared she's going to strike first perhaps. So, HR person, do we wait for her to go postal and shoot the entire office, or is there some kind of employee assistance plan for mental illness I mean if this can all be fixed with some pills she seems otherwise OK, or can we call security and fire her WRT the whole workplace violence thing combined with her bitter racism toward coworkers or the ethnic thing where she hates certain countries that we have coworkers in/from or ..."
- ForRealsies 9y ago
  >So I've got this direct report, and in public she hates the CEO In today's society, it's socially more acceptable to hate the President than to merely like the President. > And she identifies her own race as being terrorists If she was making these statements on any race other than 'white', I guarantee you she would have been dealt with immediately. What do we call these people? Radical, self-loathing white TrumpIsHitlers? Are they the final form of the SJW?
  - VLM 9y ago
    Well, I guess what I'm getting at is a clearance is top down CYA, like say I sold 72 M-60 machine guns to MS13 to pay off my gambling debt, and a journalist discovers in 5 minutes that I posted that to twitter before I got my job of working at the armory, and the journalist is going to ask the Commanding General of the post why no one noticed that before I got the job and did exactly what I said I'd do. So thats very top down outside agency approves you. That's different from bottom up, a supervisor is supposed to handle (aka, fire from job) someone who spouts off about how proud they are to be racist, etc. Nobody ever asked a commanding general "how come you hired someone who flaked out and went nuts" "well, stuff happens". On the other hand its precisely the job of her immediate supervisor in a bottom up fashion to notice she's, well, gone nuts and is saying stuff that opens the company to hostile working environment lawsuits. I'm not even commenting on her, uh, peculiar belief system, but the mistaken idea about how clearances work. Clearances are a mix of pre-crime / CYA / shouldda known type stuff. A direct report going insane in public is totally a supervisor direct report problem. Clearances also vary a lot over time... 50 years ago the Soviets could bribe a gay guy into giving up secrets... today the gay guy is probably happily married and nobody cares so its no longer a clearance disqualification. On the other hand I can't imagine any scenario in the history of business where an employee stating in public that they hate the race of their CEO and some managers and coworkers would result in anything but firing, like forever pretty much everywhere. Someday, after we stop punishing people for it, I imagine weed use will no longer be a clearance issue. How do you extort someone for secrets because they're a casual user of a cool legal substance? I suspect it'll never be acceptable in any workplace to ever say in public "I hate (some level of manager) because he's a (insert race here)"
jpindar 9y ago
Yeah, she shouldn't have had a clearance, but if anyone thinks her posts are particularly unusual, they haven't been following politics on Twitter this spring.

by rmxt 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vultour 9y ago

He never said he was fit for a top secret clearance. Her Twitter profile should've been an instant disqualification from any sort of security clearance.

rmxt 9y ago
Nor did I say that the poster here was fit or unfit. I speculated about what two extreme opinion holders would say to one another. My point was that polarizing the discourse and reducing the other side to "just came out of the psych ward" does absolutely nothing to further reasonable arguments.

VLM 9y ago

Have either of you been thru clearance? I have. They're really excited to know if you can be bribed with drugs or sex or simple money. If you have the politics of a typical college professor they're not terribly interested. The clearance process was mostly CYA, was this candidate dumb enough to say he'd sell secrets to the soviets for weed or cash to pay loansharks or kinky sex? I've read this woman's weird social media profiles. What a nutcase. The systemic failure was in her direct superior not discussing some red flags that would be noteworthy at any other organization with HR and/or the police. Her boss is supposed to be having an awkward conversation with HR beginning with "So I've got this direct report, and in public she hates the CEO. And she's intensely racist, everything with her is all about race race race, and btw she bitterly hates the CEO's race, although she likes some other races. So she hates the race of some coworkers including the big guy, and she likes the race of other coworkers, and says this all in public which must be very intimidating to her coworkers. And she hates a couple entire countries include some that we have coworkers from which must be very awkward in the office. And she tweets out parodies making fun of the CEO, in public. And she denies and parodies the CEOs policies, and denies the CEO is the legitimate leader of the company, which makes me think shes not going to react rationally at all, if the CEO or anyone else in the chain of command disciplines or fires her, we're going to need security if not cops present. And she identifies her own race as being terrorists, which in an era of workplace violence frankly scares me, and she does this in public so her coworkers see her identify herself as terrorism race or whatever violent idiocy, and we're making an incredibly hostile workplace for every coworker who's not suicidal or martyr complex. She believes she's about to die from climate change or some nonsense, the specifics don't matter, which is super terrifying in the context of self identifying as being a terrorist, making me scared she's going to strike first perhaps. So, HR person, do we wait for her to go postal and shoot the entire office, or is there some kind of employee assistance plan for mental illness I mean if this can all be fixed with some pills she seems otherwise OK, or can we call security and fire her WRT the whole workplace violence thing combined with her bitter racism toward coworkers or the ethnic thing where she hates certain countries that we have coworkers in/from or ..."

ForRealsies 9y ago
>So I've got this direct report, and in public she hates the CEO In today's society, it's socially more acceptable to hate the President than to merely like the President. > And she identifies her own race as being terrorists If she was making these statements on any race other than 'white', I guarantee you she would have been dealt with immediately. What do we call these people? Radical, self-loathing white TrumpIsHitlers? Are they the final form of the SJW?
- VLM 9y ago
  Well, I guess what I'm getting at is a clearance is top down CYA, like say I sold 72 M-60 machine guns to MS13 to pay off my gambling debt, and a journalist discovers in 5 minutes that I posted that to twitter before I got my job of working at the armory, and the journalist is going to ask the Commanding General of the post why no one noticed that before I got the job and did exactly what I said I'd do. So thats very top down outside agency approves you. That's different from bottom up, a supervisor is supposed to handle (aka, fire from job) someone who spouts off about how proud they are to be racist, etc. Nobody ever asked a commanding general "how come you hired someone who flaked out and went nuts" "well, stuff happens". On the other hand its precisely the job of her immediate supervisor in a bottom up fashion to notice she's, well, gone nuts and is saying stuff that opens the company to hostile working environment lawsuits. I'm not even commenting on her, uh, peculiar belief system, but the mistaken idea about how clearances work. Clearances are a mix of pre-crime / CYA / shouldda known type stuff. A direct report going insane in public is totally a supervisor direct report problem. Clearances also vary a lot over time... 50 years ago the Soviets could bribe a gay guy into giving up secrets... today the gay guy is probably happily married and nobody cares so its no longer a clearance disqualification. On the other hand I can't imagine any scenario in the history of business where an employee stating in public that they hate the race of their CEO and some managers and coworkers would result in anything but firing, like forever pretty much everywhere. Someday, after we stop punishing people for it, I imagine weed use will no longer be a clearance issue. How do you extort someone for secrets because they're a casual user of a cool legal substance? I suspect it'll never be acceptable in any workplace to ever say in public "I hate (some level of manager) because he's a (insert race here)"

jpindar 9y ago

Yeah, she shouldn't have had a clearance, but if anyone thinks her posts are particularly unusual, they haven't been following politics on Twitter this spring.