4 ms·

Are you implying that if it were verified that she made that comment that you would change your mind about her firing?

by TOMDM 5y ago

underseacables 5y ago
Good question. I think yes, if you disparage publicly a persons race or religion, that would be justification for termination from a job. I would put that under hate speech, and it would apply equally to everyone. Here what troubles me is that she denies it, and there’s no proof that she said it, but she’s being made to be accountable for it. With the depositions and everything I’m sure that she is going to be asked did you write this, and she will be required to answer under oath. I think that will be a very telling moment and all of this. The Internet makes it far too easy to attribute things to people. I could create an account on a multitude of services call “TOMDM” Top of your bio, and say some truly horrible things. Your job or employer comes to you and says why would you say these things and you say hey that wasn’t me, someone took a name that I was using on another service. Well I’m sorry, we have to let you go. Now it’s up to you to pursue civil litigation probably in order to identify the person who was actually using that handle, so you could then go back to your former employee and say your termination of me was unjustified. That’s what I’m seeing here, a claim without proof Which has led to someone’s loss of employment. I’m bothered by that and I think we all should be.
- avereveard 5y ago
  > that would be justification for termination from a job From how many jobs tho. This happened in 2017. The problem is there's no statute of limitations on moral outrage, so if acting on it is justified, the punishment would effectively be a jobless life. And I think that's a little excessive.
  - TOMDM 5y ago
    If we're talking from the employers perspective, likely until it doesn't hit the bottom line. To make this discussion easier, lets consider just the comments in isloation, and assume they're all verified (like most would as an employer, to do otherwise would bring extra risk on yourself) If you're employing Muslims, then in this case, she's probably unemployable by you until she can demonstrate reform of some kind to an extent where both she and others in the workplace can collaborate effectively. However, as a journalist it depends on your outlet. Some may look at her conspiracism, and decide that to get to that point alone she's probably not a very good journalist and would again need to demonstrate some sort of pivot in her decision making that lead her to that point. On the other hand, there are probably some right wing outlets that would look at her and decide she's a great journalist based on those comments, and that her decision making is on point. Whether this is good or ideal is another matter. It comes down to how much you want the government involved in businesses ability to freely associate.
    - avereveard 5y ago
      > It comes down to how much you want the government involved in businesses ability to freely associate. that is a very good point and I don't know why you're being downvoted for it. still, is the business freely deciding not to associate with the person, or is the mob forcing the business hand?
- TOMDM 5y ago
  Yeah I agree almost entirely, I think the next point of contention people would need to hash out is how heavy should the burden of proof be that employers should strive for. I'd hope that there was some formal process her employer undertook in order to meet their own bar, wherever that was set, rather than letting an external party set the narrative entirely. That aside, I think your initial comment may have been a tad dismissive of the idea that such an investigation could have taken place, especially considering she was fired a year after the controversy started. > I don’t agree with her statement, but academia is poisoning free speech under the guise of righteousness.

Are you implying that if it were verified that she made that comment that you would change your mind about her firing?

by TOMDM 5y ago

Are you implying that if it were verified that she made that comment that you would change your mind about her firing?

Good question. I think yes, if you disparage publicly a persons race or religion, that would be justification for termination from a job. I would put that under hate speech, and it would apply equally to everyone. Here what troubles me is that she denies it, and there’s no proof that she said it, but she’s being made to be accountable for it. With the depositions and everything I’m sure that she is going to be asked did you write this, and she will be required to answer under oath. I think that will be a very telling moment and all of this. The Internet makes it far too easy to attribute things to people. I could create an account on a multitude of services call “TOMDM” Top of your bio, and say some truly horrible things. Your job or employer comes to you and says why would you say these things and you say hey that wasn’t me, someone took a name that I was using on another service. Well I’m sorry, we have to let you go. Now it’s up to you to pursue civil litigation probably in order to identify the person who was actually using that handle, so you could then go back to your former employee and say your termination of me was unjustified. That’s what I’m seeing here, a claim without proof Which has led to someone’s loss of employment. I’m bothered by that and I think we all should be.

avereveard 5y ago
> that would be justification for termination from a job From how many jobs tho. This happened in 2017. The problem is there's no statute of limitations on moral outrage, so if acting on it is justified, the punishment would effectively be a jobless life. And I think that's a little excessive.
- TOMDM 5y ago
  If we're talking from the employers perspective, likely until it doesn't hit the bottom line. To make this discussion easier, lets consider just the comments in isloation, and assume they're all verified (like most would as an employer, to do otherwise would bring extra risk on yourself) If you're employing Muslims, then in this case, she's probably unemployable by you until she can demonstrate reform of some kind to an extent where both she and others in the workplace can collaborate effectively. However, as a journalist it depends on your outlet. Some may look at her conspiracism, and decide that to get to that point alone she's probably not a very good journalist and would again need to demonstrate some sort of pivot in her decision making that lead her to that point. On the other hand, there are probably some right wing outlets that would look at her and decide she's a great journalist based on those comments, and that her decision making is on point. Whether this is good or ideal is another matter. It comes down to how much you want the government involved in businesses ability to freely associate.
  - avereveard 5y ago
    > It comes down to how much you want the government involved in businesses ability to freely associate. that is a very good point and I don't know why you're being downvoted for it. still, is the business freely deciding not to associate with the person, or is the mob forcing the business hand?
TOMDM 5y ago
Yeah I agree almost entirely, I think the next point of contention people would need to hash out is how heavy should the burden of proof be that employers should strive for. I'd hope that there was some formal process her employer undertook in order to meet their own bar, wherever that was set, rather than letting an external party set the narrative entirely. That aside, I think your initial comment may have been a tad dismissive of the idea that such an investigation could have taken place, especially considering she was fired a year after the controversy started. > I don’t agree with her statement, but academia is poisoning free speech under the guise of righteousness.