Tricia Macke calls Rachel Maddow "angry young man."

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



dadudemon
LGBT outrage ensued.

Tricia Macke was suspended for a few days and then returned to work.



Here is the scoop:



Tricia Macke, a Fox 19 news anchor, posted on her Facebook page in October:


"Rachel Maddow is such an angry young man."


Then the Facebook rage ensued.

Then the demands for Tricia's job. Fox 19, of course, had to condemn her words and do something so they suspended Tricia.



http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/fox-anchor-suspended-calling-rachel-maddow-angry-young-man-article-1.1201800







1. SHOULD Tricia be held responsible for comments she posted on her personal Facebook page?
a) If not, why?
b) If yes, why?
2. Jokingly, would you agree that Rachel Maddow is "an angry young man"?
3. Is it fair to equate Tricia's comments as racist hate speech or is that too far? If so, why?
4. Does Tricia look like the over-baked, underweight, daughter of the Crypt-Keeper?

dadudemon

Symmetric Chaos
1) Yes, I don't believe Tricia Macke has ever been declared psychologically incompetent. She can be held responsible for her actions. Also there's the first amendment, we can judge people for anything we want just as she can post whatever she wants on her Facebook page. If you mean "should FOX or the government do something about this?", no, they're not under any obligation to do so but FOX might benefit in public relations by forcing her to make an apology.
2) I don't know anything about Rachel Maddow but she's apparently a liberal talk show host. I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities that could be drawn with the British "Angry Young Men".
3) We don't really know enough about the context to judge if it was meant as hate speech. I'm not sure why dadude refused to answer this question and went off on a long tangent instead. You should ask him if maybe this whole thread was an excuse for him to post a rant about how the LGBT community doesn't have it as bad as as African American community used to. It seems like something that could get its own thread.
4) No but she does have ridiculous looking hair.

Digi
The question of whether or not she should be held accountable on a personal page is a moot point. Social technology is so ubiquitous these days, and so transparent to the world at large, that no such privacy exists. The idea of responsibility is purely academic...it has no bearing on the realities of the situation.

So, anyone is welcome to take the high ground and say she shouldn't be raked through the coals, it's a valid enough stance, but it does show that she's dumb when it comes to this. Small-time professionals have to monitor their FB pictures and posts like hawks these days. I know several people who aren't publicly prominent, but who have deleted their account because of professional worry. Anyone like Macke in such a public spotlight should obviously know better and be more careful, and shouldn't be surprised or upset with a suspension that is necessary from a fiscal and PR perspective on the company's part.

I'm truly shocked by the lack of PR acumen from many in a public spotlight, especially those who deal specifically with such stories (either PR/marketing reps, or those in the media). Because this is not an isolated brain-fart from the media.

As for the hate-speech part, what Sym said. We don't know enough about the context or intent to say that with any certainty. Any guess would just be armchair analyzing, no better or worse than the media types who are no doubt running with this story right now.

...

On the looks thing, lulz. Personally, I'm partial to short hair for the most part, men or women, and a good pant suit is awesome, so I like the look. It's a valid personal choice, though, and that's the underlying point that Macke shouldn't have mocked (or at least should've kept to herself). Of course I tend to avoid the political "extremes," so I can't say I'm a television fan of Maddow, but that's beside the point.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon


1. SHOULD Tricia be held responsible for comments she posted on her personal Facebook page?
a) If not, why?
b) If yes, why?
2. Jokingly, would you agree that Rachel Maddow is "an angry young man"?
3. Is it fair to equate Tricia's comments as racist hate speech or is that too far? If so, why?
4. Does Tricia look like the over-baked, underweight, daughter of the Crypt-Keeper?

1) I don't think a person's private life should reflect on their job. Unless the two are specifically intertwined.

A) See above. This would be no different than people trying to ban Rachel Maddow from speaking at a school on the hazards of non-safe sex because she's a lesbian in her private life.

2) I googled images of her; she does look extremely boyish in some pictures, from hair style to clothing. No idea of her personality though.

3) Racist? No. She does come off as a homophobic assclown though. Unless Maddow openly identifies as a male?

4) She looks like a discarded Stepford wife.

focus4chumps
Originally posted by dadudemon

2. Yes, Rachel Maddow does look and act like an angry young man. She specifically tries to look like what an American would deem as a clean-cut young man. In my opinion, it was an indirect compliment to Rachel because she apparently still looks "young".

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/131/351/eb6.jpg

Oliver North
do we know Macke's intent? that comment can be taken in several ways, some of which are admittedly not that insulting...

Digi
Originally posted by Oliver North
do we know Macke's intent? that comment can be taken in several ways, some of which are admittedly not that insulting...

Does it matter? Look at the responses. Regardless of intent, it was always going to be treated that way. She can't trust ambiguity to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Of course her statement following the comments reflected a more positive interpretation, but that's just PR damage control. And she'll put it behind her now, since repeating the message of her apology is her only reasonable course of action. So we'll never actually know beyond what we've seen.

Of course, this is me taking a different approach to the question; as I mentioned, I care less about philosophical culpability and more about real-life implications.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Oliver North
do we know Macke's intent? that comment can be taken in several ways, some of which are admittedly not that insulting...

Looks like she made it her status. Intent is probably impossible to determine so it would be foolish to jump to the conclusion that it was meant to be homophobic. Either way she's a news anchor and should be the first person to know that it was a stupid thing to say.

Digi
Originally posted by focus4chumps
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/131/351/eb6.jpg

lol

But yeah, spinning it as a compliment is quite clearly not correct. At best, it was a slightly insensitive comment that was blown out of context for the sake of creating a story. But in no world was it a compliment.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Digi
Does it matter?

whether she intentionally made a slanderous remark about Maddow's sexuality versus used a clumsy metaphor?

like, did she slander lesbians as a people or use the term "angry man" as a symbol for the assertive and contrarian nature of Maddow's journalism, qualities generally associated with masculinity? Was it some attempt at humor or a mixture of both?

I tend to think this is the only relevant question. Otherwise, I think you get dangerously close to the same logic that says "you should know better" when someone is attacked by extremist Muslims for criticizing the faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Looks like she made it her status. Intent is probably impossible to determine so it would be foolish to jump to the conclusion that it was meant to be homophobic. Either way she's a news anchor and should be the first person to know that it was a stupid thing to say.

I guess maybe I don't get the whole context, is there a beef between Macke and Maddow? Like, it is stupid, sure, but it also seems really tame...

ArtificialGlory
"Angry young man." What a lame and toothless insult.

BackFire
Tricia Macke looks like a weird tranny.

Robtard
Originally posted by BackFire
weird tranny.

Redundant?

BackFire
No, a normal tranny looks less like a man-woman and more like a woman-man. You can usually tell someone is a tranny right away, unless you're PVS who doesn't even look people in the eye before engaging in horrific deviancy.

Tricia "I have a dick" Macke looks like someone who you aren't quite sure is a genuine woman, or a tranny. And that makes it weird.

Also Rachel Maddow is the only person on MSNBC worth watching. Except Alex Wagner, because I want to have sex with her very badly.

Oliver North
lol, honestly, it just seems like Macke is riding Maddow's dick here (that is a real phrase, nothing to do with Maddow's sexuality). Macke doesn't even have her own Wiki page, lol.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1) Yes, I don't believe Tricia Macke has ever been declared psychologically incompetent. She can be held responsible for her actions. Also there's the first amendment, we can judge people for anything we want just as she can post whatever she wants on her Facebook page. If you mean "should FOX or the government do something about this?", no, they're not under any obligation to do so but FOX might benefit in public relations by forcing her to make an apology.
2) I don't know anything about Rachel Maddow but she's apparently a liberal talk show host. I wouldn't be surprised if there were similarities that could be drawn with the British "Angry Young Men".
3) We don't really know enough about the context to judge if it was meant as hate speech. I'm not sure why dadude refused to answer this question and went off on a long tangent instead. You should ask him if maybe this whole thread was an excuse for him to post a rant about how the LGBT community doesn't have it as bad as as African American community used to. It seems like something that could get its own thread.
4) No but she does have ridiculous looking hair.

1. You knew what I meant and tried too hard to avoid it.
2. Again, you're trying too hard to miss the point.
3. You missed a keyword: not just "hate speech" but "racist hate speech". The equivocaton was racist hatespeech.



Originally posted by Robtard
1) I don't think a person's private life should reflect on their job. Unless the two are specifically intertwined.

A) See above. This would be no different than people trying to ban Rachel Maddow from speaking at a school on the hazards of non-safe sex because she's a lesbian in her private life.

2) I googled images of her; she does look extremely boyish in some pictures, from hair style to clothing. No idea of her personality though.

3) Racist? No. She does come off as a homophobic assclown though. Unless Maddow openly identifies as a male?

4) She looks like a discarded Stepford wife.

1. Nor do I. I think people should be able to say whatver they want off the clock, on their own "space", and on their own resources.
3 The equivocation is racist hatespeech. Can we equate her comment to the hate against...say...black people from the 50s? That is the parallel trying to be drawn about this case.





Originally posted by focus4chumps
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/131/351/eb6.jpg

Just trying to stay positive about it. smile

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
"Angry young man." What a lame and toothless insult.


I thought it was funny. It is like calling a transvestite (tranny is generally insulting, for you insensitive posters) a pretty young lady. no expression

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is like calling a transvestite (tranny is generally insulting, for you insensitive posters) a pretty young lady. no expression

/sigh

EDIT: if that is the type of mentality behind this comment, then ya, the LGBT community has a fairly good reason for being upset. But look at me being oversensitive about gender and sexuality.

Digi
Originally posted by Oliver North
whether she intentionally made a slanderous remark about Maddow's sexuality versus used a clumsy metaphor?

like, did she slander lesbians as a people or use the term "angry man" as a symbol for the assertive and contrarian nature of Maddow's journalism, qualities generally associated with masculinity? Was it some attempt at humor or a mixture of both?

I tend to think this is the only relevant question. Otherwise, I think you get dangerously close to the same logic that says "you should know better" when someone is attacked by extremist Muslims for criticizing the faith.

I have to agree in principle. It's just, when a reaction like this WILL happen if it gets out into the public, regardless of intent, I tend to focus on the effects of the words and why it could've or should've been avoided rather than the intrinsic moral value of the comments. Because let's say the intent was harmless...establishing that - which is impossible at this point anyway - is a pyrrhic victory, at best. So if you're the philosopher telling me "we've established she was not at fault," I'm the facepalming PR rep saying "great, good to know...she's still suspended."

I do think there's a difference between this and your Muslim example though. It's the difference between criticism and insults. One's a deconstruction of an idea or practice; the other is a personal attack. That extremist Muslims might not be able to tell the difference in your example is their fault, not the criticizer's. And I refuse to acknowledge that an attack on an idea IS an attack on the person who holds it. It does not need to be, and isn't, regardless of how the person takes it. Otherwise it renders immune strongly held beliefs to criticism, and paints debate on the same level as slander and insults.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Oliver North
I tend to think this is the only relevant question. Otherwise, I think you get dangerously close to the same logic that says "you should know better" when someone is attacked by extremist Muslims for criticizing the faith.

They didn't "attack" her though, not in the same way that Islamist do. If we say she was acting reasonably then we have to say the people who responded we acting reasonably. There's also a matter of how appropriately scaled the response was, she was rude and people were rude to her. If someone murdered a Muslim and got killed for it I'd say that person was stupid and should have known better, too.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's also a matter of how appropriately scaled the response was, she was rude and people were rude to her.

And that is what should have happened. But her employer getting involved is what I didn't like.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
And that is what should have happened. But her employer getting involved is what I didn't like.

She's a public figure so her public image is inherently part of her job. To make an example by pushing this to the extreme: If she murdered someone she'd also be fired and I don't think you'd have a problem with it. That crime was part of her private life but her employer would decide to get involved.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Digi
I do think there's a difference between this and your Muslim example though. It's the difference between criticism and insults. One's a deconstruction of an idea or practice; the other is a personal attack. That extremist Muslims might not be able to tell the difference in your example is their fault, not the criticizer's. And I refuse to acknowledge that an attack on an idea IS an attack on the person who holds it. It does not need to be, and isn't, regardless of how the person takes it. Otherwise it renders immune strongly held beliefs to criticism, and paints debate on the same level as slander and insults.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They didn't "attack" her though, not in the same way that Islamist do. If we say she was acting reasonably then we have to say the people who responded we acting reasonably. There's also a matter of how appropriately scaled the response was, she was rude and people were rude to her. If someone murdered a Muslim and got killed for it I'd say that person was stupid and should have known better, too.

oh certainly, I'm neither trying to say they are the same or that the reaction has been on a similar scale. It does strike me as a bit of a slippery slope when "they should have known better" is the logic we use to condemn someone.

I believe it is true here, and she should have known much better, regardless of intent, I just have a hard time leaving it at that because I'd rather have people free and open to say stupid things they believe rather than hiding behind platitudes they disagree with.

Like, possible homophobic slur aside, is there a major issue with one media personality saying something insulting about another? I don't think so... but again, that is with the homophobia not included.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And that is what should have happened. But her employer getting involved is what I didn't like.

why does the employer have no rights over the workplace they own?

Digi
Fair enough, in. Though I dislike the modifier "slippery" because it implies that we might devolve to lower forms of the argument by accident. One only falls down the slope if they allow it. I have no problem using "she should have known better" here, while realizing it isn't a cure-all for similar circumstances.

But yeah, the company's involvement shouldn't be in question. Most employers have some sort of conduct code in place, and can suspend or fire for violations of it. And this extends to anything that gets put in the public forum. The station has a name and a brand to protect, other peoples' jobs at stake if they start losing money for an unpopular decision, etc.

If I started slurring gays on my Facebook page, I'd probably risk losing my job, and my employer is as progressive as many. And I wouldn't have much legal recourse in the matter, if any, let alone moral justification.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
why does the employer have no rights over the workplace they own?

Your question makes an incorrect assumption and, therefore, cannot be answered. My previous statements in this thread answered this particular question, already, however. Since Ushgarak does not like any sort of ambiguity from me, I'll quote myself so I don't get into trouble:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think people should be able to say whatver they want off the clock, on their own "space", and on their own resources.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This would be different if she was posting on a public, Fox 19, Facebook fan page, but she wasn't. It was her personal Facebook. That is between her and her Facebook friends. The only time her Employer should be involved in anything is when she is operating as an agent of Fox 19. Not at work and not on an assignment? GTFO.



To be even more direct, you question is flawed because this situation had nothing to do with the workplace: she did it on her personal computer, on her own time, and she wasn't on assignment: it was purely personal.


I believe there was discussion in the GDF 3 or 4 years back about a gentleman that is part of the KKK but his employer didn't fire him because he never expresses his hate while on the clock or officiating as an agent of the company. That is how it should be run: personal time is personal time.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She's a public figure so her public image is inherently part of her job.

I agree. A private Facebook page is not public, however. She is at fault for adding Facebook friends that would be sensitive to some of her commentary. no expression Had she been more discretionary, this would have never blown up, she would have gotten a few laughs, and no one would have known the wiser.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To make an example by pushing this to the extreme: If she murdered someone she'd also be fired and I don't think you'd have a problem with it.

Well, that crosses a line: one falls under speech and the other is illegal.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That crime was part of her private life but her employer would decide to get involved.

Again, there is a clear line: one is legal and the other is a felony that can get you the death penalty in some states.




Originally posted by Digi
If I started slurring gays on my Facebook page, I'd probably risk losing my job, and my employer is as progressive as many. And I wouldn't have much legal recourse in the matter, if any, let alone moral justification.

And that needs to change. You should be able to sue them for their "retaliation" because of what you do in your personal life. Let us add another section to Title VII under the civil rights act. We need to cover sexuality in the Civil Rights act, anyway.

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
That is how it should be run: personal time is personal time.

in some cases I'd agree, in this one I don't.

the employer, as the owner of the station and the provider of the job, has a right to employ who they like, especially given that they have a direct stake in the public perception of their employee given she is a newscaster

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
the employer, as the owner of the station and the provider of the job, has a right to employ who they like, especially given that they have a direct stake in the public perception of their employee given she is a newscaster

That's only true if it is a "At-Will" employment.

I am not familiar with that state's labor laws and I'm too lazy to spend 2 minutes looking it up.


However, I would never agree with your above statement. There are no "exceptions" in my book.



I guess the exception is betrayal like some forms of corporate espionage. But there are far better ways of doing that than on Facebook.

Oliver North
and I think it is a violation not only of the rights of the owner, but of all the other employees, that they would have their hands tied and be forced to suffer a loss of market share because one of their public figures is toxic, just not during the specific hours when she is on TV.

I'm actually really surprised to hear you suggest that, as an individual, an employer doesn't control what they own, meaning, the place of work. It seems way more like you are interested in defending hate speech than individual rights.

Omega Vision

Oliver North
This Dr. Grier?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Oliver North
This Dr. Grier?
Assuming that's him, he could easily pass himself off as Samoan, not that many people likely pass anymore.

My rebuttal to his argument would be that while gays are an invisible minority and thus are not as visibly persecuted as blacks were, this is only a result of the extreme historical intolerance toward gays, that they couldn't even identify themselves in public without being ostracized and abused in almost every way imaginable.

Because they are an invisible minority I'd also argue that they've had (until recently) nothing close to the outside support that black rights campaigners received throughout the Civil Rights era.

Uncle Tom's Cabin (for all its shortcomings and datedness) did a considerable amount of good in bringing the evils of slavery to the attention of a broad, international audience and is an example of a member of the majority extolling sympathy for the oppressed minority. I would argue that such a sympathetic treatment of homosexuals by a member of the majority didn't happen until almost a century later when Gore Vidal wrote The City and the Pillar, and what's important to note here is that whereas Uncle Tom's Cabin was very well received (outside of the South, anyway) almost immediately after publication, in the case of Vidal's book the mainstream reaction was condemnation and scorn.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Assuming that's him, he could easily pass himself off as Samoan, not that many people likely pass anymore.

My rebuttal to his argument would be that while gays are an invisible minority and thus are not as visibly persecuted as blacks were, this is only a result of the extreme historical intolerance toward gays, that they couldn't even identify themselves in public without being ostracized and abused in almost every way imaginable.

Because they are an invisible minority I'd also argue that they've had (until recently) nothing close to the outside support that black rights campaigners received throughout the Civil Rights era.

Uncle Tom's Cabin (for all its shortcomings and datedness) did a considerable amount of good in bringing the evils of slavery to the attention of a broad, international audience and is an example of a member of the majority extolling sympathy for the oppressed minority. I would argue that such a sympathetic treatment of homosexuals by a member of the majority didn't happen until almost a century later when Gore Vidal wrote The City and the Pillar, and what's important to note here is that whereas Uncle Tom's Cabin was very well received (outside of the South, anyway) almost immediately after publication, in the case of Vidal's book the mainstream reaction was condemnation and scorn.

thats... damn, thats actually pretty good...

my argument would have been that this man has no relevant qualifications to talk about homosexuality, but that is way better

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Oliver North
thats... damn, thats actually pretty good...

my argument would have been that this man has no relevant qualifications to talk about homosexuality, but that is way better
beat the argument, not the man wink

Oliver North
zang...

ya, I feel petty and stupid now, thanks

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
and I think it is a violation not only of the rights of the owner, but of all the other employees, that they would have their hands tied and be forced to suffer a loss of market share because one of their public figures is toxic, just not during the specific hours when she is on TV.

Prove that this would happen, first, and then we can entertain the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...which act only applies to high-level management (there is a way you can make that argument but you'll still have a hard time proving it with a real-world case...it just doesn't happen the way you'd want it to happen in the real world).

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm actually really surprised to hear you suggest that, as an individual, an employer doesn't control what they own, meaning, the place of work. It seems way more like you are interested in defending hate speech than individual rights.

How could you possibly come to that conclusion? Everything I posted should allow you to conclude that I am about protecting individuals from their employers, not hate speech.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
And what the hell is he talking about? If he lost his body how would he still have brown skin?

I assume the loss of control over your body, not the body itself.



To your reply, I disagree with it as a relevant argument, of course, because my rebuttal is the same point you argued against...which is odd. That is how I can tell an argument goes nowhere: the rebuttals are the rebuts of each-other.

Open another thread if you want to discuss this further.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Oliver North
zang...

ya, I feel petty and stupid now, thanks
Don't worry, it's just a factor of our respective avatars. Mine is Jean Toomer, yours is Oliver North. One is just smarter than the other.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
beat the argument, not the man wink

Indeed. I don't like most of what that gent has to say about the topic. I carefully edited out most of his idiocy. He is also an advocate of Ex-gays: he thinks that ex-gays are being discriminated against both both straight and gay groups.

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
Prove that this would happen, first, and then we can entertain the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...which act only applies to high-level management (there is a way you can make that argument but you'll still have a hard time proving it with a real-world case...it just doesn't happen the way you'd want it to happen in the real world).

lol, excuse me, Dad...

it seems in this case the employer did punish their employee for their off-work behaviour, so I'm not sure which "real world" you are speaking of...

Originally posted by dadudemon
How could you possibly come to that conclusion? Everything I posted should allow you to conclude that I am about protecting individuals from their employers, not hate speech.

what I mean is, it is strange you are siding with the employee over the owner, when individual property rights would suggest the owner should have more control in this situation, especially given the context of this specific circumstance (re: public figure).

Why do you think the employee would have more control over the workplace than the owner, who owns the workplace and provides the job for the employee?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I don't like most of what that gent has to say about the topic. I carefully edited out most of his idiocy. He is also an advocate of Ex-gays: he thinks that ex-gays are being discriminated against both both straight and gay groups.

ugh, it was just this line:



every one of my psych spider-senses went into overdrive...

Oliver North
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't worry, it's just a factor of our respective avatars. Mine is Jean Toomer, yours is Oliver North. One is just smarter than the other.

man, you nailed it again...

petty and stupid are exactly what I would call Oliver North
























































after war criminal, of course... no expression

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, excuse me, Dad...

no expression

Originally posted by Oliver North
it seems in this case the employer did punish their employee for their off-work behaviour, so I'm not sure which "real world" you are speaking of...

That did not address what you quoted.


You said:

"and I think it is a violation not only of the rights of the owner, but of all the other employees, that they would have their hands tied and be forced to suffer a loss of market share because one of their public figures is toxic, just not during the specific hours when she is on TV."


To which I said:

"Prove that this would happen, first, and then we can entertain the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...which act only applies to high-level management (there is a way you can make that argument but you'll still have a hard time proving it with a real-world case...it just doesn't happen the way you'd want it to happen in the real world)."

Stating your case by using the example of what the Fox 19 did to Tricia is not making your case.



Originally posted by Oliver North
what I mean is, it is strange you are siding with the employee over the owner, when individual property rights would suggest the owner should have more control in this situation, especially given the context of this specific circumstance (re: public figure).

This is not correct. I am siding with privacy and the right of a person to be free of their employer outside of their working hours. I feel like a broken record, now. sad

The individual should have more control, not the employer. Her employer does not:

1. Own Tricia's home computer.
2. Own Tricia's speech rights.
3. "Own" Tricia in her off-time.
4. Own Tricia's home.
5. Own Tricia's access to the internet.
6. Own Tricia's public image during her off-time (seriously, is that even legal to do?).


Originally posted by Oliver North
Why do you think the employee would have more control over the workplace than the owner, who owns the workplace and provides the job for the employee?

Your question is malformed. I cannot accurately answer your question because it is irrelevant to the situation in the thread. Your question also incorrectly assumes that I think the employee should have more control over the workplace than the owner.

Rephrase your question in the context of this situation. Namely, she was at home, on her home computer, while "off duty".

I can ask you a different question: why do you think the employer has absolute control over the employees, even when the employees are "off-the-clock", at home, using their own resources on a private forum?



Originally posted by Oliver North
ugh, it was just this line:



every one of my psych spider-senses went into overdrive...

There is still some mystery involved, for sure. We are not even close to fully understanding sexuality.

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
Prove that this would happen

prove what? her actions caused a controversy around the news station because she was a public face of the company... you made a thread about it even...???

that is exactly what I am talking about. The brand is tarnished by her doing this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can ask you a different question: why do you think the employer has absolute control over the employees, even when the employees are "off-the-clock", at home, using their own resources on a private forum?

the employer has a right to protect their brand

also, not private enough

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is still some mystery involved, for sure. We are not even close to fully understanding sexuality.

I thought you knew enough about psych to realize people talking about a union between "will, mind and body" is speaking gibberish to try and look informed about a topic.

just because something isn't well known (it is much better known than you present) doesn't mean anyone becomes an expert on it.

Digi
Originally posted by dadudemon
And that needs to change. You should be able to sue them for their "retaliation" because of what you do in your personal life. Let us add another section to Title VII under the civil rights act. We need to cover sexuality in the Civil Rights act, anyway.

No. My company has a brand to protect, both in a philosophical sense (it's a non-profit, so there's a set of goals, ideals, and principles outside of making money) and a monetary one of staying strong. If they put a personal conduct clause in the contract I sign, then an insensitive FB post or tweet gets out, they're within their rights to fire or suspend me. Likely it wouldn't result in firing, but some discipline would be taken. This is a company's right, and a necessity in order to maintain a strong company that puts forward the image of its founders or leaders.

Saying that this can't happen would be a moral and legal imposition on businesses. It would be dictating business practices from a federal level, which is a clear invasion of capitalistic freedom, and protecting many who bring harm to their respective companies.

Because it's a dangerous precedent to set to say that company's can't set policies of how they enforce their rules of conduct. It's not a slippery slope argument...I think any decision of this nature would be much too far. This isn't revolutionary thinking though; I'd be shocked if ANY business today didn't have conduct policies that allowed them to take immediate action if they were breached by the employee. It's a safeguard, not repression. A privately owned and operated business has every right to draft contracts of this nature...no one forces the employee to sign them.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Digi
No. My company has a brand to protect, both in a philosophical sense (it's a non-profit, so there's a set of goals, ideals, and principles outside of making money) and a monetary one of staying strong. If they put a personal conduct clause in the contract I sign, then an insensitive FB post or tweet gets out, they're within their rights to fire or suspend me. Likely it wouldn't result in firing, but some discipline would be taken. This is a company's right, and a necessity in order to maintain a strong company that puts forward the image of its founders or leaders.

Saying that this can't happen would be a moral and legal imposition on businesses. It would be dictating business practices from a federal level, which is a clear invasion of capitalistic freedom, and protecting many who bring harm to their respective companies.

Because it's a dangerous precedent to set to say that company's can't set policies of how they enforce their rules of conduct. It's not a slippery slope argument...I think any decision of this nature would be much too far. This isn't revolutionary thinking though; I'd be shocked if ANY business today didn't have conduct policies that allowed them to take immediate action if they were breached by the employee. It's a safeguard, not repression. A privately owned and operated business has every right to draft contracts of this nature...no one forces the employee to sign them.

There is a big difference between a public tweet and a private tweet. There is also a big difference between a public post and a private post on Facebook.

You company has no business meddling in your private conversations. If you want to complain about something your business is doing with your friends, off the clock, on your own private computer, in your own home, you should be able to do so. And it should be illegal for a company to force you to sign a "STFU" clause which prevents you from saying anything negative about that company in private.

It is a moral and should be a legal matter for a business to crack down on private conversations.

Also, smack-talking your company is hardly the same as a person shit-talking about another person. Your comparison does not quite cut it.



There is an exception, as I hinted at with Oliver North: Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If you act in a way, as an executive, that can be proven to be against the company while a high-level manager, it is illegal.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
prove what? her actions caused a controversy around the news station because she was a public face of the company... you made a thread about it even...???

You missed it, again. I give up. Can anyone explain to Oliver North what he is missing for me?



Originally posted by Oliver North
the employer has a right to protect their brand

also, not private enough

Sure, as long as it doesn't infringe on after hours, private, conversations. And shit-talking between two people is hardly a brand concern. no expression



Originally posted by Oliver North
I thought you knew enough about psych to realize people talking about a union between "will, mind and body" is speaking gibberish to try and look informed about a topic.

I thought you knew enough about psychology and neurology to know that sexuality is a combination of genetics and environment which can be rephrased in layman's terms as a union between body (hormones, genetics, etc.), mind (the result of the previous mixed in with "environment"wink, and will (the actions the brain takes based upon the previous two with a sprinkle of "WTF did it chose this for?)"?

Originally posted by Oliver North
just because something isn't well known (it is much better known than you present) doesn't mean anyone becomes an expert on it.

Actually, I think it is much less known that you think. In fact, we know so little it is quite frustrating. We are not even at the tip of the iceberg. Psychology is supposed to be subsumed by neuroscience, eventually, and we are just now starting to do so. A quick way to tell if a neuroscientist is full of shit or knows his/her stuff is ask them how much we know about neuroscience. If their answer does not boil down to "hardly anything", they are full of shit.

Oliver North
man, I wish I knew as much as you do ddm...

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon



I thought you knew enough about psychology and neurology to know that sexuality is a combination of genetics and environment which can be rephrased in layman's terms as a union between body (hormones, genetics, etc.), mind (the result of the previous mixed in with "environment"wink, and will (the actions the brain takes based upon the previous two with a sprinkle of "WTF did it chose this for?)"
The argument wasn't phrased in those terms; don't make excuses for someone talking out of his ass.

"He was right, he just didn't have any justification in thinking he was right" is a classic example of what falls in the "Not Knowledge" category of epistemology.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The argument wasn't phrased in those terms; don't make excuses for someone talking out of his ass.

I am not making any excuses: that is genuinely how I thought he intended it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
man, I wish I knew as much as you do ddm...

It will take you a very very long time to get there. Hang in, there, buddy.


Seriously, though, me admitting we know little of neuroscience and psychology is hardly me claiming to know everything: it is the opposite. Do you even think about how silly your posts are when you're angry at me, or do you hope that the obvious ridiculousness of your posts will be overlooked and people will get a laugh at my expense? Great way to have an adult discussion.

Oliver North
good point

Digi
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a big difference between a public tweet and a private tweet. There is also a big difference between a public post and a private post on Facebook.

You company has no business meddling in your private conversations. If you want to complain about something your business is doing with your friends, off the clock, on your own private computer, in your own home, you should be able to do so. And it should be illegal for a company to force you to sign a "STFU" clause which prevents you from saying anything negative about that company in private.

It is a moral and should be a legal matter for a business to crack down on private conversations.

Also, smack-talking your company is hardly the same as a person shit-talking about another person. Your comparison does not quite cut it.



There is an exception, as I hinted at with Oliver North: Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If you act in a way, as an executive, that can be proven to be against the company while a high-level manager, it is illegal.

Well, see, there's the distinction. Personal v. Private. If I write something on my home computer, save it in a folder, no, of course the company shouldn't do anything to me.

If I post a public tweet, of course they should be able to take action.

Now we have the third category, which is posting something in a public forum (i.e. one's facebook page) and treating it like it is category one. It is not. I'd contend that anything that becomes publicly available, unless it was through illegal or coercive means, should be treated like category two (overtly public).

Ergo, the reporter was stupid, shouldn't be able to hide behind "private" when it was posted to an openly public forum, and she deserves her punishment. And yes, insulting another person can directly damage a company. "My company sucks" and "this person sucks for an arbitrary and possibly homophobic reason" are functionally equivalent in terms of potential detriment. At best, her FB page had some privacy settings (doubtful, she's a public figure) and still went out to hundreds of people. Hardly private. These were publicly stated thoughts.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not making any excuses: that is genuinely how I thought he intended it.

Which is making an excuse, because you're offering an explanation that you might think he meant to give, but in fact didn't or couldn't.

It's like if some ancient and well-thought-of philosopher made some predictions that turned out to line up with quantum mechanics and someone was to claim that this means he knew about quantum mechanics and then fill in the gaps of his argument to show that.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which is making an excuse, because you're offering an explanation that you might think he meant to give, but in fact didn't or couldn't.

The same applies to you: you're offering an interpretation that you think he might give but in fact didn't or couldn't.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's like if some ancient and well-thought-of philosopher made some predictions that turned out to line up with quantum mechanics and someone was to claim that this means he knew about quantum mechanics and then fill in the gaps of his argument to show that.

Well, except, in this case, he is in this modern world with a modern education so it is not like that, at all.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Digi
Well, see, there's the distinction. Personal v. Private. If I write something on my home computer, save it in a folder, no, of course the company shouldn't do anything to me.

If I post a public tweet, of course they should be able to take action.

It wasn't a public tweet...but read the very end of my post. sad

Originally posted by Digi
Now we have the third category, which is posting something in a public forum (i.e. one's facebook page) and treating it like it is category one. It is not. I'd contend that anything that becomes publicly available, unless it was through illegal or coercive means, should be treated like category two (overtly public).

Private forum of discussion means it is not searchable with any legal search engine. A private facebook page is one of those: you cannot search it with a legal search engine (there are hacks but that is hardly legal).

Originally posted by Digi
Ergo, (1)the reporter was stupid, (2)shouldn't be able to hide behind "private" when it was posted to an openly public forum, (3)and she deserves her punishment.

1. Agreed.
2. It was private...but read the end of my post.
3. She doesn't and it should be illegal to do so.

Originally posted by Digi
And yes, insulting another person can directly damage a company.

I asked Oliver North to provide an example of this but he couldn't. Can you?

Originally posted by Digi
"My company sucks"

"...smack-talking your company is hardly the same as a person shit-talking about another person. Your comparison does not quite cut it."

Originally posted by Digi
and "this person sucks for an arbitrary and possibly homophobic reason"

Interesting interpretation of her insult.

Originally posted by Digi
are functionally equivalent in terms of potential detriment.

Incorrect and I already explained why.

Originally posted by Digi
At best, her FB page had some privacy settings (doubtful, she's a public figure) and still went out to hundreds of people. Hardly private. These were publicly stated thoughts.

It was a private Facebook page. She probably did have hundreds of friends: no doubt.


However, I did some research and I am wrong: he profile is public as are her comments. sad However, you cannot view her profile unless you have an account. That is technically still private because it is not searchable with a search engine...but it is public. sad

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
The same applies to you: you're offering an interpretation that you think he might give but in fact didn't or couldn't.

What interpretation do you think I'm giving? And does this mean that you've conceded that you're making excuses? Because you didn't defend yourself here, only tried the time honored "take you down with me" maneuver.


The existence of said modern education does not mean that he has taken advantage of it in the relevant fields. I think you're being overly charitable to him and speaking for him.

My example would apply just as well to a modern thinker who makes claims out of air that are later confirmed by CERN's experiments--leading to his proponents attempting to fabricate some explanation for how he came to his conclusion short of admitting that he was making a statement from ignorance that was coincidentally valid and accurate.

To simplify: assuming that this Dr. Grier's belief is true, there's nothing in his statement that shows it as justified by real research or education, and you're only attempting to speak for him and contrive justification.

Again, even if his view on sex turned out to be correct it would only mean that he had a coincidentally true belief, which is at least one card short of real knowledge by most modern epistemological standards.

In layman's terms: he was talking out of his ass unless you can actually show some proof that he has a relevant education and he's not just a doctor of theology.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What interpretation do you think I'm giving? And does this mean that you've conceded that you're making excuses? Because you didn't defend yourself here, only tried the time honored "take you down with me" maneuver.

I think I did a pretty good job, actually. smile

That is not a concession but, rather, me pointing out the futility of your position.

"He didn't mean that!"

"Yes he did."


Move on.



Originally posted by Omega Vision
The existence of said modern education does not mean that he has taken advantage of it in the relevant fields. I think you're being overly charitable to him and speaking for him.


Considering his presentation, I'd say it does (he shows at least a decent understanding of how it works, in the real world but it is in layman's terms). And add on that I called some of what he says, "idiocy" and then that's the end of it. But then you typed a lot more...

Oliver North
just to throw it out there...

it wasn't anything particular about Dr. Grier that elicited my comment outside of word choice.

"mind, body, will, and emotions." isn't a phrase anyone familiar with psychology beyond 1930 would say...

also, in terms of how most of those concepts are used in modern psych/biology, it would be interesting to hear how they relate to sexuality aside from indirect contexts... such as thinking homosexuality is a choice...

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I did a pretty good job, actually. smile

That is not a concession but, rather, me pointing out the futility of your position.

"He didn't mean that!"

"Yes he did."


Move on.

I disagree. Our positions aren't comparable because I'm not making excuses for anyone.


Call a spade a spade.



No, see, this is you projecting ethos onto him for some reason and rationalizing what was in all likelihood an asspull argument with no scientific basis.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there...

it wasn't anything particular about Dr. Grier that elicited my comment outside of word choice.

"mind, body, will, and emotions." isn't a phrase anyone familiar with psychology beyond 1930 would say....

To be honest, and feel free to call me out (seriously, I have no problem admitting it), I didn't read about "mind, body, will, and emotions" in pre 1930s psychology. I only read about the mind-body dualism stuff being used in nascent psychology.

If you're right and not just extrapolating old-school psych(meaning, my understanding of the mind-body thing was off and what you say of the history is spot on), then I need to concede to Omega Vision and admit that my interpretation is actually off.

Originally posted by Oliver North
also, in terms of how most of those concepts are used in modern psych/biology, it would be interesting to hear how they relate to sexuality aside from indirect contexts... such as thinking homosexuality is a choice...

It should come as no shock that he thinks choice plays a large part in ones sexuality...since...he affiliates with an "ex-gay rights" group.

I don't know how I feel about that: I am far too ignorant of ex-gays and ex-gay culture to know if he's on target or way off. That is another topic.

Oliver North
Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, and feel free to call me out (seriously, I have no problem admitting it), I didn't read about "mind, body, will, and emotions" in pre 1930s psychology. I only read about the mind-body dualism stuff being used in nascent psychology.

thats the very same type of talk you get in Freud, Jung, Adler and people who still follow in that sort of personality/psychoanalytic side of psych, and mainly, the type of stuff that is today as close to psychology as Depak Chopra is to physics.

I think the issue might be the word "psychology" in general. Things like the human potential movement, the modern "self-help" movement, etc, use it to describe what they do as well, even though they are often well beyond the fringes of even the most wacko Freudian. Additionally, when I say pre-1930s, I suppose I am talking more about the ideas and conceptions of what a person's psychology is. Technically, there are still people who are considered within psychological science who believe in penis envy. Psychology would do well to jettison this stuff, but even then, anything I can find about "nascent psychology" makes it seem even less scientific than personality theory, so it seems to me like the concept comes more from things like self-help, or the human potential movement, and merely says psychology because it thinks it is describing a part of human behaviour. Rest assured, something like mind-body dualism hasn't been a concern of the science of psychology since... damn, maybe James (If we include people like Freud as a "scientist" it might take until Skinner for dualism to be irrelevant, though, if we get to pick and choose, early psychophysicists had no concern for it and adopted close to a behavioristic approach to the "mind", in the late 1800s).

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're right and not just extrapolating old-school psych(meaning, my understanding of the mind-body thing was off and what you say of the history is spot on), then I need to concede to Omega Vision and admit that my interpretation is actually off.

sure, saying something is a unity of the mind, body, will and emotions is language that harkens back to literally Freud, positive psychology, things like that. 1930 might not be a hard limit, but conceptualizing any behaviour in that manner does come from that era. That you might find people who still talk about it, unfortunately even under the guise of respectable psychology (personality theory, for instance, or psychoanalysis) doesn't make it a modern view, but rather emphasizes that there are still a lot of dumb people who believe crazy things, and the science of psychology needs to clean house to some degree. That being said, I don't think Dr. Grier is combing Big 5 journals, I think he is much closer to a product of the self-help type of things than to any real psych.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It should come as no shock that he thinks choice plays a large part in ones sexuality...since...he affiliates with an "ex-gay rights" group.

another clear indication he has an understanding of psychology that is outdated at best, and likely comes from no coherent understanding of psychology

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know how I feel about that: I am far too ignorant of ex-gays and ex-gay culture to know if he's on target or way off. That is another topic.

considering there is no meaningful psychological organization on the planet that thinks homosexuality is in any way a choice, how much more expertise would one need to have to settle your conscience?

Digi
Originally posted by dadudemon
...

Well, the fact that it was a public page aside, which kind of lays this particular scenario to rest, I think we hit on a matter that wouldn't be settled until we brought a legal team in. I tend to think that anything posted to hundreds of people isn't "private" in any sense, even if it's a specifically chosen set of people. It might be in a legal sense, but if one of those people decides to share it - a perfectly legal and reasonable response in social media, especially when the reporter didn't ask anyone to keep it a secret - it can be and will be legally public very quickly.

As for an example of a personal insult against a third party affecting a company, is it really so hard to imagine? For an example: Chik-Fil-A's CEO speaks out against something unrelated to his business - gay marriage - and people boycott their chicken. Hell, the mayor of Boston specifically denied a Chik-Fil-A franchise, citing their position on gay marriage.

More generally, public outcry can hurt any enterprise, even if the outcry is against a person or their comments, not specifically with the company in question.

Oliver North
man, looking through some of Grier and his contact's sites....

Christians have incredibly slick web design...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Digi
Well, the fact that it was a public page aside, which kind of lays this particular scenario to rest, I think we hit on a matter that wouldn't be settled until we brought a legal team in. I tend to think that anything posted to hundreds of people isn't "private" in any sense, even if it's a specifically chosen set of people. It might be in a legal sense, but if one of those people decides to share it - a perfectly legal and reasonable response in social media, especially when the reporter didn't ask anyone to keep it a secret - it can be and will be legally public very quickly.

My background does come from the legal side of things concerning this (digital forensics). If someone does decide to share that posting publicly and her employer cracked down on her (assuming her profile was private), she may have some recourse. She can easily delete the posting. Even if other people kept a screen shot of her status update, there is no chain of custody and no way to prove that the screen-caps are legit (because most people don't know about integrity required for court cases). She'd be pretty safe...unless it when before a jury.*

But I don't know if any laws exist that would allow her any recourse against her employer for "retaliation". I put that in quotes (twice now) because it is not the business sense of retaliation. This is part of why I made the thread but I should have done better research: I thought her Facebook page was private because the article said "private Facebook page".

Originally posted by Digi
As for an example of a personal insult against a third party affecting a company, is it really so hard to imagine? For an example: Chik-Fil-A's CEO speaks out against something unrelated to his business - gay marriage - and people boycott their chicken. Hell, the mayor of Boston specifically denied a Chik-Fil-A franchise, citing their position on gay marriage.

Most people didn't change their habits. The small number that chose to boycott were greatly offset by those that went there even more. I went to 3 different Chick-Fil-A's about a month after that fiasco and all of the employees said they were busier than ever. And the CEO didn't say anything insulting so I don't think that example works too well.


Another example that I do think is an example is that rumor that went around that the Proctor and Gamble CEO was a satanist. That didn't hurt their business, at all.


Americans are too apathetic for those things to matter.


Maybe if a CEO said America sucked and the American people were idiots, would you see a blacklash strong enough to actually make a difference. But, so far, I cannot think of a single situation where a CEO or other upper management person said something that caused the business to lose money over it.

Originally posted by Digi
More generally, public outcry can hurt any enterprise, even if the outcry is against a person or their comments, not specifically with the company in question.

I see your point and raise you Foxconn. Seems that public outcry is just not enough.



*Juries are very very very very very very stupid, generally. The director of our Cyber Security program got called to a case about harassment between this perv and this lady (he was called as an expert). The gent was clearly harassing her and the Director showed that it was clearly his IP address the harassing e-mails were coming from by doing a e-mail header analysis (first year digital forensics students are taught this in their very first semester...including the proper way to present it in court...in other words, easy stuff). The harasser dude was acquitted. no expression The jury simply did not understand the digital side of things to see that the perv was clearly the culprit. ACQUITTED! smh

crystalmaden
I haven't heard that news. Thanks for posting.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.