3 ms·

1. Would you dismiss it as the "deep end of spurious, unchecked reasoning" if someone pointed out a likely connection between Trump's election fraud narratives

1. Would you dismiss it as the "deep end of spurious, unchecked reasoning" if someone pointed out a likely connection between Trump's election fraud narratives and the events of January 6th, 2021? False and inflammatory narratives have consequences. It's not hard to figure out the connection in these cases. 2. Who cares if HR wanted him not to speak up? Their request was illegitimate. This is just bootlicking.

vanusa 5y ago
As to 1. -- I see no connection to anything we're talking about here so I'll pass. As to 2. -- it wasn't about "speaking up" (privately or verbally) but rather using company networks to do so (that is, spamming company boards with this nonsense). Which is a rather different matter.
- civilized 5y ago
  1. Glib and disingenuous. 2. According to Kriegman's letter to TR management, the internal social media post was reviewed by HR and the head of DEI and approved by the internal moderators. He followed it up with an email complaining about his harassment. It was only after the email that he was fired. You either have no idea what happened in this story (and support the company anyway) or you're supporting a company for firing someone for emailing a harassment complaint.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    1. Yep - "glib and disingenuous" was how I assessed your question. As to 2, from his own post: I was told I was not allowed to use any company communications channels (email, teams, the Hub, etc.) to discuss the attacks I had experienced. Receiving no support from HR, I [did precisely that] and was fired.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Indeed, as I said, you're supporting a company for firing someone for complaining about harassment against a protected class. There is no evidence that TR did this, but if they did, it would be an egregious violation of civil rights law. It's astounding to me how you can support this and not be utterly ashamed of yourself.

vanusa 5y ago

As to 1. -- I see no connection to anything we're talking about here so I'll pass. As to 2. -- it wasn't about "speaking up" (privately or verbally) but rather using company networks to do so (that is, spamming company boards with this nonsense). Which is a rather different matter.

civilized 5y ago
1. Glib and disingenuous. 2. According to Kriegman's letter to TR management, the internal social media post was reviewed by HR and the head of DEI and approved by the internal moderators. He followed it up with an email complaining about his harassment. It was only after the email that he was fired. You either have no idea what happened in this story (and support the company anyway) or you're supporting a company for firing someone for emailing a harassment complaint.
- vanusa 5y ago
  1. Yep - "glib and disingenuous" was how I assessed your question. As to 2, from his own post: I was told I was not allowed to use any company communications channels (email, teams, the Hub, etc.) to discuss the attacks I had experienced. Receiving no support from HR, I [did precisely that] and was fired.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Indeed, as I said, you're supporting a company for firing someone for complaining about harassment against a protected class. There is no evidence that TR did this, but if they did, it would be an egregious violation of civil rights law. It's astounding to me how you can support this and not be utterly ashamed of yourself.