The FHRITP heckler issue

Started by Beorning, May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Beorning

The discussion about that guy who got fired for FHRITPing the reporter is turning into something quite long, so I decided to make it into a separate topic. For all interested, the discussion started here:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=214010.msg11246117#msg11246117

Now, going to where we stopped...

Quote from: Valerian on May 13, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
That varies from state to state in the U.S., but in my state it's entirely possible to fire someone for no reason other than "this person didn't work out in this job".  Mind you, if that's the only reason given the employee would be very likely to be able to force the employer to pay unemployment compensation, but that doesn't prevent the company from doing the firing in the first place.

Ah. But, IMHO, it means that the law there recognizes such a thing as being fired for no good reason. If it's possible to get compensation for that...

Quote
Competence at work is rarely the only issue.  Each employee generally also has to be able to get along with other employees, for example.  Knowing what this person did during his "free time" would certainly make me (and very probably a large percentage of other women) prefer to avoid him, which could have an adverse affect on the business if we were required to work together.

Really? I'm not sure I want to play the guy's advocate here, but we really don't know anything about him, do we? At work, he might the most personable and well-mannered person ever. Are we sure that his female co-workers wouldn't want to work with him after that one thing he did?

If that happened, if it turned out that this FHRITP situation makes it impossible for him to work at this job anymore, then I can see him getting fired... but that's not what happened here. He was fired *immediately*, which really seems excessive to me.

Quote
This was not a "stupid prank"; this was a sexually-charged threat, made in public, that broke the law.

I'm really not sure if what he did really counts as a threat - it's not like he really wanted that reporter to get raped. But I agree that it was lewd, inappropriate and could be considered a case of verbal abuse. I support him being punished - I just don't think that it's his employer's business to do so.

Quote from: Deamonbane on May 13, 2015, 12:04:23 PM
For the record, using," We don't want to be associated with someone who says such things on public television," Is a valid excuse for employment termination around here.

Really? It really feels like a case of overreaction on the company's side in that case. I mean, would really anyone "associate" that company with this one guy? Would it really hurt their business, or something like that?

Quote from: Oniya on May 13, 2015, 12:05:46 PM
This is why I put forth the possibility that a conversation with HR was in order.  Is this a one-time thing?  Does the employee take responsibility for what was done?  Does the employee have a way to prevent future occurrences?

But if, say, this case of being drunk happened outside of the job, then why should the HR even be allowed to talk with this employee about this? If something happened outside of the job, then it's the employee's private matter. The employer shouldn't be sticking their nose into it...

Quote
It may, however, have a bearing on how trustworthy or dependable the person is.  Taking our drunk office assistant as an example:  Said office assistant is responsible for filing clients' records.  Both being intoxicated and being hung over can impact someone's thought processes.  An important document misfiled could lead to severe consequences.

Sure, but there's such a thing like giving someone the benefit of the doubt. It'd really be a long stretch to say "This person got drunk on a Friday night outing with friends, so they probably will get drunk while on the job, too". Using that logic, you can fire anyone for any reason - you can cast this sort of suspicion on everyone... No-one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes.

Quote
Did they work with the public?  Did they have to interact with women - either inside or outside of the company - on a daily basis?  If you were a woman, would you feel comfortable interacting with a guy you had seen on the news, shouting what he did, and for the reasons that he did?  Would you want your mother, sister, or daughter to have to interact with him?

I honestly don't know. As I said to Valerian, this guy could be the most well-mannered person ever on an ordinary day. Should a person really be judged because of one-time case of being a jerk?

Quote from: Cycle on May 13, 2015, 12:17:19 PM
There are rules that govern when an employee can be terminated for things such as whistle-blowing and retaliation:  e.g., an employer cannot fire an employee for reporting illegal conduct to a regulator.  But aside from that, yes, most employers have the right to decide who they pay to do work for them.  The employee does not have a right to the job--that is, they don't have a right to make the employer give them the employer's money.  To keep their jobs, they need to provide what the employer seeks.  And most employers care about both how the employee functions in their specific role, as well as the influence they have on the work environment/other team members.

But was there any evidence of this guy having a bad influence on his work enviroment? He was fired immediately after that whole matter came to light, which, to me, smacks like a company throwing him under a bus just in case. And I think this kind of attitude is wrong.

Quote
To stay employed, you should be good at your job, and you should be good as a person.  The idiot in that article may have been the former, but he evidently wasn't the latter.

Okay, this kind of approach really opens all kinds of Pandora's boxes. You need to be a good person to stay employed? Okay, so... let's say an employee cheats on his wife and his employer learns about it. Would it be okay for them to fire him?

Also, I would say that, overall, the notion of "you need to be a good person to stay employed" is simply not true. Many companies actually tolerate - or even encourage - their employees being jerks. Heck, there are studies that show that quite a few of successful businessmen are highly-functioning psychopaths. Overall, in the business world people are usually *not* being punished for being bad. So, why should this one guy be?

Finally, if we're speaking about the possiblity of that heckler guy not being tolerated by his employees because of what did... what happened to the idea of "you don't have to like someone to work with them"? I can imagine the women (as well as the more sensible men) in the company giving him a cold shoulder from now on... so? Does it mean that he wouldn't be able to do his job? And does it mean that these other people wouldn't be able to do their jobs because of having to see him occassionally?

Quote from: eBadger on May 13, 2015, 01:46:34 PM
If the employee were to sexually harass or threaten a coworker, the company would be exposed to liability because they didn't take suitable precautions based on his previous action. 

Same if he were to molest or rape someone he worked with, or was on company property. 

Same if anyone else there did something like that, because the corporation could be argued to have a policy accepting of the attitude/threats/behavior. 

Okay, I must say that: seriously? Would it be possible for a company to get sued successfully, if they didn't fire the heckler and *some other guy* molested someone while being employed there.

Seriously, this is ridiculous!

Quote
Publicity is a very real cost for a company, both negative (continuing to employ and be associated with someone like that) and positive (being seen to take a firm stance on personal rights, decency, and not being a twat).  You may not have influence on that, but at some point there's a consumer - an elected public official who decides what contractor to employ or women who think paying a bit more for services is worth not risking that tech being assigned to their service issue.

I seriously can't imagine a thinking public official who would punish a whole company for something one of their employees did when out of work. Come on.

I *can* understand female clients who wouldn't want to meet this guy - but we actually don't know if this guy ever dealt with the clients. From what we know, he was an engineer there.

Finally, as I already said earlier, expecting the company to take a stance regarding the "decency" of their employee's private lives could lead to all kind of wrongs...

Oniya

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PM
I'm really not sure if what he did really counts as a threat - it's not like he really wanted that reporter to get raped.

From the news article that was linked:  [He was] shown in the video using an expletive and calling his friend's use of FHTIP hilarious before telling the reporter she is lucky they didn't have a vibrator.

Why would she be 'lucky' he didn't have a vibrator?  What would have happened if he had a vibrator?  What is a vibrator usually used for?  He's just said FHRITP - what does that say about his mind-set?

If someone was in a verbal altercation with another person and said 'You're lucky I don't have a gun,' what would that imply?  And if the words 'This guy needs to be shot' were said beforehand?  Wouldn't a rational person take that as a threat?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Cycle

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PM
But was there any evidence of this guy having a bad influence on his work enviroment? He was fired immediately after that whole matter came to light, which, to me, smacks like a company throwing him under a bus just in case. And I think this kind of attitude is wrong.

I don't.  I think the company did the right thing and sent the right signal.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.


QuoteOkay, this kind of approach really opens all kinds of Pandora's boxes. You need to be a good person to stay employed? Okay, so... let's say an employee cheats on his wife and his employer learns about it. Would it be okay for them to fire him?

Also, I would say that, overall, the notion of "you need to be a good person to stay employed" is simply not true. Many companies actually tolerate - or even encourage - their employees being jerks. Heck, there are studies that show that quite a few of successful businessmen are highly-functioning psychopaths. Overall, in the business world people are usually *not* being punished for being bad. So, why should this one guy be?

Yeah, the fact that some companies tolerate assholes doesn't mean it is right to tolerate assholes or that all companies should tolerate assholes.  Some companies, like mine, don't.  Again, let's agree to disagree.


Valerian

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PM
Ah. But, IMHO, it means that the law there recognizes such a thing as being fired for no good reason. If it's possible to get compensation for that...
I'm not sure what this has to do with the main point, but yes.  Sometimes there are issues that are not covered under the law that make it impractical for someone to continue in a job -- problems with getting along with one's co-workers, for instance.  (Note that this does not require liking said co-workers, just the ability to coexist with them well enough to get work done.)  So sometimes employers have to fire someone without giving a reason such as incompetence, and in those cases the law provides the opportunity for the ex-employee to file for unemployment compensation, if the company doesn't offer it on its own.  But the law only goes so far with this sort of thing.  Much of it is left up to the individual companies.

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PM
Really? I'm not sure I want to play the guy's advocate here, but we really don't know anything about him, do we? At work, he might the most personable and well-mannered person ever. Are we sure that his female co-workers wouldn't want to work with him after that one thing he did?
All I can say is that I wouldn't want to work closely with him again.  As Avis pointed out, the odds that he just happened to get caught on video the only time in his life he gave in and did something like this are pretty slim.

According to this article, he's being fired because he violated the company's code of conduct, a list of rules that he would have agreed to follow when he was hired.  So he broke the terms of his employment contract, because of that the company chose to fire him, and it looks like employment experts are agreeing that the decision was fair.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Beorning

Quote from: Oniya on May 13, 2015, 02:36:59 PM
From the news article that was linked:  [He was] shown in the video using an expletive and calling his friend's use of FHTIP hilarious before telling the reporter she is lucky they didn't have a vibrator.

Why would she be 'lucky' he didn't have a vibrator?  What would have happened if he had a vibrator?  What is a vibrator usually used for?  He's just said FHRITP - what does that say about his mind-set?

If someone was in a verbal altercation with another person and said 'You're lucky I don't have a gun,' what would that imply?  And if the words 'This guy needs to be shot' were said beforehand?  Wouldn't a rational person take that as a threat?

I'd say it'd all depend on the context. IMHO, in this particular context it's quite clear that these two guys weren't making serious threat toward the reporter - one of them even said that it's not about her at all. If I understand correctly, that whole FHRITP thing is some sort of (stupid) meme. As for the vibrator thing... well, okay, it might sound like a threat. But I seriously doubt that this guy meant it...

Please note, though, that I *agree* that - regardless whether these guys' words count as a genuine threat - their behaviour was a type of verbal abuse.

Valerian

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:45:34 PM
I'd say it'd all depend on the context. IMHO, in this particular context it's quite clear that these two guys weren't making serious threat toward the reporter - one of them even said that it's not about her at all. If I understand correctly, that whole FHRITP thing is some sort of (stupid) meme. As for the vibrator thing... well, okay, it might sound like a threat. But I seriously doubt that this guy meant it...

Please note, though, that I *agree* that - regardless whether these guys' words count as a genuine threat - their behaviour was a type of verbal abuse.
If it looks like a threat and sounds like a threat, it's a threat.  How could anyone possibly tell whether he "really meant it" or not?  For whatever reason, he chose to use threatening language and now he has to face the consequences.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Beorning

Quote from: Cycle on May 13, 2015, 02:40:54 PM
Yeah, the fact that some companies tolerate assholes doesn't mean it is right to tolerate assholes or that all companies should tolerate assholes.  Some companies, like mine, don't.  Again, let's agree to disagree.

The work experience both of me and my family members shows that one is very lucky if they don't have to deal with some sort of asshole at the workplace. For example, at my current company, being a lying jerk seems to be a desired personality trait for team leaders and managers...  ::) And at a job I'll be probably starting soon, a manager started making venomous remarks at me ten minutes after she met me...

Also, overall, I'd say that jerkiness is ingrained within the current corporate culture. I mean, how many corporations do not treat their employees as disposable resources? How many corporations do not try to maximize their income regardless of cost? And how many corporations do not lie to their clients..?

Quote from: Valerian on May 13, 2015, 02:42:42 PM
All I can say is that I wouldn't want to work closely with him again.  As Avis pointed out, the odds that he just happened to get caught on video the only time in his life he gave in and did something like this are pretty slim.

I really wouldn't be so sure here. My opinion is that everyone does something stupid or inappropriate sometimes... especially when in a group. Groupthink makes people do really idiotic things.

Also, yes... being caught on video saying a thing like that does say *something* about this guy. But what? He might be a world-class sexist jerk who treats all women badly. Or he might be an emotionally immature dummy who just doesn't see a problem with saying things like, while not being really dangerous in any way...

Quote
According to this article, he's being fired because he violated the company's code of conduct, a list of rules that he would have agreed to follow when he was hired.  So he broke the terms of his employment contract, because of that the company chose to fire him, and it looks like employment experts are agreeing that the decision was fair.

I read this article and I honestly can't agree with any of these experts. As for the company's code of conduct: I can't really see how an employee could be subjected to a company's CoC *when out of work*. If you ask me, the idea that a company could try to scrutinize the employees' behaviour in their private time is *scary*.

Quote from: Valerian on May 13, 2015, 03:03:21 PM
If it looks like a threat and sounds like a threat, it's a threat.  How could anyone possibly tell whether he "really meant it" or not?

Actually, doesn't the law take the issue of *intent* into account? I'd say that it's rather obvious that these guys' intent wasn't to threaten the reporter. They made a stupid prank and, when confronted, started making excuses for themselves and spewing whatever nonsense came to their (possibly inebriated) minds.

But I really don't want to argue this matter, as I do agree that there most probably is some sort of law against what these guys said...

Cycle

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 03:18:31 PM
The work experience both of me and my family members shows that one is very lucky if they don't have to deal with some sort of asshole at the workplace. For example, at my current company, being a lying jerk seems to be a desired personality trait for team leaders and managers...  ::) And at a job I'll be probably starting soon, a manager started making venomous remarks at me ten minutes after she met me...

Also, overall, I'd say that jerkiness is ingrained within the current corporate culture. I mean, how many corporations do not treat their employees as disposable resources? How many corporations do not try to maximize their income regardless of cost? And how many corporations do not lie to their clients..?

*shrugs*  We've had different experiences dealing with corporate culture.

What I don't understand is why you are defending this asshole's right to be an asshole.  I'd rather that the asshole stopped being an asshole.  I'm hoping he learns from this experience.


Beorning

Quote from: Cycle on May 13, 2015, 03:24:51 PM
What I don't understand is why you are defending this asshole's right to be an asshole.  I'd rather that the asshole stopped being an asshole.  I'm hoping he learns from this experience.

I'm not defending his right to be an asshole. I applaud the reporter for confronting him and I do agree that, based on what he was saying, he seems to be a jerk - or, at least, an idiot. Also, I'm in favour of him being punished in some way.

What I'm trying to say is simply that I don't agree that him being fired is a just way of punishing him. Did he break any law? If so, then let the court punish him. He certainly behaved improperly at a sporting event - and so, I'm all for him being banned for attending such events. And finally, it's really great that the reported called him out and humiliated him publicly. Heck, is there some way for the reporter to sue him? If so, she should do it.

But him getting fired? Why? He really didn't do anything job-related there. So, for me, the employer getting involved is wrong. It really seems moralistic to me: the guy did something ugly, so the employer sacks him on principle, with no regard to logic or reason. That's not what the employer-employee relationship should be about and that's why I'm speaking out against it.

I mean... in the past, there were people who lost their jobs just because they weren't "decent" enough (like, say, women being sacked for getting pregnant without getting married etc.). It was wrong, because employers shouldn't be their employees' moral guardians. And I see the same ugly mechanism repeating itself here... even though the victim here *is* an idiot and *does* deserve scorn. Still, even idiots deserve justice and proper treatment from their employers, right?

Cycle

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 04:00:43 PM
Still, even idiots deserve justice and proper treatment from their employers, right?

Right.  And in this case, I think the idiot did receive justice and proper treatment:  he was fired. 

I think that's the disconnect.  You don't think he should have been fired for it.  I do.  So yeah, let's agree to disagree.


Kythia

Sorry, can someone PM me and tell me what it stands for?  I've never seen the acronym before and am struggling to work it out.

Cheers.
242037

Oniya

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 04:00:43 PM
Also, I'm in favour of him being punished in some way.

Alright - thought-experiment time.  This behavior is happening all over Toronto.  One reporter has even recounted an incident where a nine-year-old interrupted her broadcast with it.  Think about that - a nine-year-old.  What is it going to take to make people finally 'get it', that jumping out and screaming obscenities into a reporter's microphone - ANY reporter's microphone - is simply a damn stupid thing to do? 

Quote from: Kythia on May 13, 2015, 04:31:53 PM
Sorry, can someone PM me and tell me what it stands for?  I've never seen the acronym before and am struggling to work it out.

Cheers.

If you watch the reporter's video, it's printed on the screen.  The PG-13 words of it are 'her right in the'.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Valerian

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 03:18:31 PM
I read this article and I honestly can't agree with any of these experts. As for the company's code of conduct: I can't really see how an employee could be subjected to a company's CoC *when out of work*. If you ask me, the idea that a company could try to scrutinize the employees' behaviour in their private time is *scary*.
The company didn't scrutinize his behavior.  What he did was shoved into their faces and broadcast around the world.  They could hardly have avoided knowing what he did.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Pumpkin Seeds

Honestly I've seen people in my field brought before their licensing boards for far less than he did.  Losing one's professional license is a far worse punishment than being fired.  So if I was caught on camera, yelling profanities or making a general ass of myself in public intentionally I would be expecting an ass chewing at the very least from my boss if not fired and reported to the board.

eBadger

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:45:34 PM
I'd say it'd all depend on the context. IMHO, in this particular context it's quite clear that these two guys weren't making serious threat toward the reporter

There is no way to scream threats of rape at a stranger without it's being serious.  Intent is hard to determine, and if nothing else tolerating it creates an unspoken approval, leading others to think the behavior is acceptable and escalate. 

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PMOkay, I must say that: seriously? Would it be possible for a company to get sued successfully, if they didn't fire the heckler and *some other guy* molested someone while being employed there.

Seriously, this is ridiculous!

The courts disagree.   The term is "hostile work environment," and the key is treatment either serious or pervasive enough to intimidate.  Keeping someone on staff who thinks it's funny to threaten women with rape would certainly qualify.  These are not small suits, either - a quick search shows several with amounts in 6 or 7 digits. 

Quote from: Beorning on May 13, 2015, 02:05:48 PMFinally, as I already said earlier, expecting the company to take a stance regarding the "decency" of their employee's private lives could lead to all kind of wrongs...

Such as?

The issues I see are hiring/firing policies based on bigotry - race, religion, sex, age, etc. - which are already protected.  For the rest, there's a reason privacy is a thing. 

Capitalism is also a corrective tool here (it's not always bad!).  You can legally fire everyone at your company that jaywalks.  But your competition is going to hire up all the good talent you got rid of or scared off, and run you out of business. 

Corsair

The guy was definitely inappropriate and it was ugly to watch.

However I don't feel he deserved to lose his job over it and I think the company might find themselves getting sued. I also think that this could set a dangerous precedent. Should the way you behave outside of work be a concern to your employer?

What if your employer finds out you have been writing rape porn on an Erotic Role Playing site in your free time at home? We know employers look at people's internet activity. What if they are offended by what you write about or even if you write more vanilla stuff they just don't like you being on the site?

What if your politics differ to your boss and they don't like what you have been posting online, commenting on in newspapers? This happened recently in Australia where some guards who were employed at a detention centre for illegal immigrants were fired because they posed for a photo with a politician with an anti illegal immigrant agenda. Legally they did nothing wrong but their employer feels they breached the terms and conditions of their contracts as they agreed they were "Culturally Sensitive" that is another topic of course but one can be sensitive to others and still hold an opinion.

So I do disagree with this man being fired, I don't think it was his employers duty to get involved at all. At the very least they could have spoken to him first and just told him to be careful, especially when he has a camera in his face!

Callie Del Noire

As much as I hate to say it. It is not against the law to be an asshole. (Yet). Should this reflect on his reviews? Absolutely. Immediate firing offense. I don't know.

To be honest I'm not happy with the precedent it could set. If your employer disagrees with your hobbies, like oh this website...or the fact you like to larp or civil war react as a confederate, does that justify firing? Does the words you say public, say at a mateos night or dinner theater event cross the threshold?

I'm saying its a slippery slope.

Still, the guy is a total tool. I'm a retired sailor and we never acted like that.

Pumpkin Seeds

I am not sure screaming sexually explicit threats and insinuating rape on live television toward women on the street really falls under a hobby activity. 

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 13, 2015, 05:45:07 PM
I am not sure screaming sexually explicit threats and insinuating rape on live television toward women on the street really falls under a hobby activity.

No it doesn't but would it be safe to say some of the gaming practices here would get you shunned if publicly revealed?

Pumpkin Seeds

Of course, but so could the download content of most people's internet browser.  I think going from screaming at female reporters on camera to writing some dirty sentences on a privacy enforced website is sort of going far down that slippery slope. 

eBadger

The firing wasn't because of a crime; he wasn't convicted of anything.  The legality is a separate issue, and yes, a company can indeed fire you for posting here. 

Which is why you don't post your real name or address, why this board is largely blocked to non-approved persons, and why you shouldn't scream your kinky role plays in front of a television camera.  Not just so your company doesn't find out, but so that even if they do, it's not a publicity disaster for them because the rest of the nation has found out, too. 

Beyond that, the best counter against the 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy, btw, so just calling it that sort of undermines the point) is to examine real world facts.  Online kink and porn are...well, the internet is for porn, right?  And there are no mass firings, no corporate flunkeys tracking each employee's private life for a public shaming.  So if ya'll are going to keep pushing the slippery slope notion, it's time to bring out some evidence to support it. 

Callie Del Noire

Actually depending on his contract/paperwork with his firm.. he might be properly fired.

As I was driving back from work it hit me.. what he did, that falls under ethics and standards clauses right? If you misbehave and you sign the right agreement with your employer.. he could get fired for breaking that. I know that behavior..well the least folks would have wound up at Captain's Mast back when I was in the Navy, and at least two firms I worked for had behavior rules for 'on site'.

My issue is.. everyone is 'fire em/ruin em'.

What does that teach them? You ruin them.. you put that man, his family, in the hole for what could be one really stupid drunk day.

Cycle

I'm hoping that it teaches him--and those who see what happened to him--that it is not acceptable, regardless of whether you are drunk or not, to yell "f*ck her right in the p*ssy" at a woman.

If he learns his lesson, and proves he has matured, then I am sure he can find another job someday.  A genuine apology wouldn't hurt, either.


Beorning

#23
Quote from: Oniya on May 13, 2015, 04:41:31 PM
Alright - thought-experiment time.  This behavior is happening all over Toronto.  One reporter has even recounted an incident where a nine-year-old interrupted her broadcast with it.  Think about that - a nine-year-old.  What is it going to take to make people finally 'get it', that jumping out and screaming obscenities into a reporter's microphone - ANY reporter's microphone - is simply a damn stupid thing to do?

Well, I think that what the reporter did was a step in the right direction. Also, as I said earlier, I have no problem with other possible consequences that guy might face. Really, I'm definitely not saying that this kind of behaviour should go on without any reaction...

Quote from: Valerian on May 13, 2015, 04:53:20 PM
The company didn't scrutinize his behavior.  What he did was shoved into their faces and broadcast around the world.  They could hardly have avoided knowing what he did.

True, but it's still not their business to get involved.

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 13, 2015, 04:56:05 PM
Honestly I've seen people in my field brought before their licensing boards for far less than he did.  Losing one's professional license is a far worse punishment than being fired.  So if I was caught on camera, yelling profanities or making a general ass of myself in public intentionally I would be expecting an ass chewing at the very least from my boss if not fired and reported to the board.

Hmm. It's kind of hard to comment without knowing what your career field actually is... But my first reaction is that what you say sounds scary.

Quote from: eBadger on May 13, 2015, 05:11:54 PM
There is no way to scream threats of rape at a stranger without it's being serious.  Intent is hard to determine, and if nothing else tolerating it creates an unspoken approval, leading others to think the behavior is acceptable and escalate.

Again, I'm not saying that it should be tolerated. As for the matter of whether the guy's words constitute a rape threat, we'll simply have to agree to disagree here.

Quote
The courts disagree.   The term is "hostile work environment," and the key is treatment either serious or pervasive enough to intimidate.  Keeping someone on staff who thinks it's funny to threaten women with rape would certainly qualify.

I really can't agree here. I understand what hostile work enviroment is and I really can't agree that one guy who blabs about vibrators in one-time, specific situation *which takes place completely out of work* constitutes such an enviroment.

Quote
Such as?

The issues I see are hiring/firing policies based on bigotry - race, religion, sex, age, etc. - which are already protected.  For the rest, there's a reason privacy is a thing.

Well, as other people mentioned, our activity here on E could serve as an example...

Other examples? Well, how about homosexuality? Back here, it doesn't fall under any kind of legal protection. So, I can perfectly imagine a situation where a conservative employer fires a gay employee on the grounds that he feels that he needs to "take a firm stance" against this employee's supposedly-immoral behaviour.

But it doesn't have to be about homosexuality... A real example I can think of is a case of an office worker in some townhall who got fired, because she set up a dating profile on some website and her boss at the townhall decided it put the whole institution in bad light. It really happened!

Quote
The firing wasn't because of a crime; he wasn't convicted of anything.  The legality is a separate issue, and yes, a company can indeed fire you for posting here. 

... which is utterly wrong.

Quote
Beyond that, the best counter against the 'slippery slope' argument (which is a logical fallacy, btw, so just calling it that sort of undermines the point) is to examine real world facts.  Online kink and porn are...well, the internet is for porn, right?  And there are no mass firings, no corporate flunkeys tracking each employee's private life for a public shaming.  So if ya'll are going to keep pushing the slippery slope notion, it's time to bring out some evidence to support it.

Actually, I remember very clearly that one member of E *got* fired for being here. So it does happen.

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 13, 2015, 05:54:50 PM
I think going from screaming at female reporters on camera to writing some dirty sentences on a privacy enforced website is sort of going far down that slippery slope.

Really? I'm pretty sure that there are people out there who would consider these two things equally reprehensible and firing-worthy.

"This guy writes countless fantasies about raping women! Would *you* feel safe sitting in one office with him?!? They need to fire him immediately!"

Corsair

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 13, 2015, 05:45:07 PM
I am not sure screaming sexually explicit threats and insinuating rape on live television toward women on the street really falls under a hobby activity.

*Tongue firmly planted in cheek*  In a way though it is a hobby for him and his group of friends, this is how they socialize and bond. It is wrong and sad, very sick but nonetheless that is what some guys do. I work with some who are much the same. I am writing this with tongue in cheek as I agree with you I don't think it could seriously be classed as a hobby but try explaining that to some of these guys. In fact the reporter did and he became even more arrogant.

The other thought that occurred to me is that as wrong as this guy is he is still the wrong the target. The Reporter mentions that this happens to her everywhere and no doubt other female reporters so why didn't her network do something about it? Run some stories on it, awareness etc?

Secondly depending on where these other situations occurred, but assuming they were also at public venues why aren't the venues themselves doing something, some kind of message being sent out to say that this won't be tolerated?

It's happened now but I don't think it will achieve the desired result.

Cycle

Quote from: Corsair on May 13, 2015, 07:20:57 PM
... try explaining that to some of these guys. In fact the reporter did and he became even more arrogant.

The fact that there are other guys who also behave like that asshole is not a reason to go easier on that asshole.

The fact that such assholes are recalcitrant and unwilling to see that their behavior is unacceptable is not a reason to go easier on said assholes.

If anything, both are reasons to be harsher on said assholes.



Zillah

I get harassed like that - or worse - at least once a week, while walking to work, or just trying to go get groceries or a coffee. It *is* hostile, and it's awful - and tiring - to hear all the time. It make me feel like I'm not a person.

Assholes indeed.

I'm glad he got fired.

Corsair

Quote from: Cycle on May 13, 2015, 07:48:18 PM
The fact that there are other guys who also behave like that asshole is not a reason to go easier on that asshole.

The fact that such assholes are recalcitrant and unwilling to see that their behavior is unacceptable is not a reason to go easier on said assholes.

If anything, both are reasons to be harsher on said assholes.

Chances are he became more arrogant because he knew he was wrong but didn't want to lose face. I agree he was a complete tool and so were his buddies. I think him losing his job was extreme though especially as his employer didn't even talk to him about it first, he was also humiliated on television and the internet which is a form of punishment as well.

Being fired is also not much of a deterrent for people who don't have jobs.

All I am getting at is the whole thing could have been handled much better from his employers side of things. This guy won't change and neither will guys like him because of him losing his job.


Cycle

Quote from: Corsair on May 13, 2015, 10:22:53 PM
Chances are he became more arrogant because he knew he was wrong but didn't want to lose face.

If true, then this is another reason for him to be fired.  People who can't see they are wrong can't learn.  Can't improve.  And hence have no place in a good organization.

If he won't change than he's useless and deserves everything he got.  And more.


Corsair

Quote from: Cycle on May 13, 2015, 10:54:39 PM
If true, then this is another reason for him to be fired.  People who can't see they are wrong can't learn.  Can't improve.  And hence have no place in a good organization.

If he won't change than he's useless and deserves everything he got.  And more.

Ok, so what does that extend to and where does it end? And who is going to be the judge of what a good person/worker is?




Sho

Beorning,

Judging by your tag, you're a male. As a female who is relatively small and works in a vastly male-dominated work environment, I'd just like to point out that yes, those sorts of threats (whether at work or not), do create a hostile work environment.

Let me give you an example.

If I, say, was working with a man who had committed the same offenses but WASN'T fired, I would feel genuinely uncomfortable being alone with him at the office. I would feel that I didn't want to be in a room with him. I would spend hours agonizing over whether or not my bosses agreed with him and thought that these "drunken mistakes", while "accidental" (according to your own theory that it's a one-time drunken offense), and that would ruin that workplace for me.

At the end of the day, the company did the right thing. They stood on the side of people who constantly face this sort of harassment (often women, though not always), and they showed that either in or out of the workplace, they will not tolerate people who espouse such behavior.

By your own theory that private and public lives should be separate, a senator who votes against gay marriage but has gay affairs should be unaffected by his personal life, right? A member of the Ku Klux Klan should be able to keep his job at a mixed-race firm even after racist rants come to life? (These are real examples, by the way).

At the end of the day, you pay for your mistakes. Any progressive workplace is going to say that your private life is your private life...if you make a reasonable attempt to actually keep it private (such as using a site like E, where the vast majority of boards are secret except to approved users). If you go shoving that 'private' life into the face of the public, then you're stepping into the bounds of what reflects upon the company. If you think that the actions of one employee can't taint the image of an overall company, you're mistaken.

Additionally, most American companies require employees to sign codes of conduct with their contracts that state that they will not do certain things - generally including heavy drug usage, engaging in sexism, etc. - both in and out of the workplace.

I think he got what he deserved and I applaud the company for thinking of the people who would have to work with him rather than falling on his side. He did something stupid and he got punished. Companies, particularly privately-owned ones (as well as public ones), have the right to decide who is working for them. They choose employees that fit their image and their ideals. If an employee violates that, they deserve to be sacked.

Also, for everyone using the slippery slope argument...I would love to see some examples of companies abusing this policy. The VAST majority of cases (as in, for every 1 poor example there are thousands of legitimate examples like this) of firings relating to poor outside-of-work behavior have to do with cases like this. When a man makes a joke like that, it is not a joke. Anyone who thinks it is has never genuinely felt the fear or threat of being smaller or in a situation where rape was a legitimate threat. If someone says "this doesn't feel like a joke", that is something that should be respected. To say that "I don't see it that way, so people should be free to make that sort of joke even though it's not funny and they shouldn't be punished in any way" (a general breakdown of what I've seen, since your version of punishing seems to be purely personal and in no way financial (aka job related)" is not only somewhat insulting, it is genuinely scary. It is scary to realize that a number of men take these things as casual jokes.

For every ten men that make a joke like this, there will be one who is genuinely considering those actions (obviously this is an example and not a statistical number). While free speech in America is a right, so is the right to take a stand against those who make "jokes" that are not only threatening, but undermine women in the workplace.

TL;DR: He is free to say whatever he wants to say...just as the company is free to say that they find his behavior disgusting and, like a friend who has abused your trust, they will no longer associate themselves with him.

Zillah

FWIW, I'm constantly amazed that people think saying something like FHRITP - particularly in public, and particularly directed at someone they don't even know - should only be construed as a joke, and couldn't possibly be taken as harassment, or a threat.

If this is a "hobby" for some people ... wow. I don't even know what to say, except that's kind of sad. And scary.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Zillah on May 14, 2015, 07:14:55 AM
FWIW, I'm constantly amazed that people think saying something like FHRITP - particularly in public, and particularly directed at someone they don't even know - should only be construed as a joke, and couldn't possibly be taken as harassment, or a threat.

If this is a "hobby" for some people ... wow. I don't even know what to say, except that's kind of sad. And scary.

I don't think it's a joke or hobby. It was tasteless and foolish. Do I think he should lose his entire livelihood for it? No. I see zero chance for him changing now, and if he honestly does.. Will he get his livelihood back? No, odds are he's never going to be able to move past this. I think it could have been handled less absolutely. I've seen some stupid shit come out of drunken people's mouths. Stuff that they were completely mortified by.

Of course I've seen folks who did this sort of stuff sober and wonder why the don't get ahead.

Atarn

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on May 14, 2015, 09:36:45 AM
I don't think it's a joke or hobby. It was tasteless and foolish. Do I think he should lose his entire livelihood for it? No. I see zero chance for him changing now, and if he honestly does.. Will he get his livelihood back? No, odds are he's never going to be able to move past this. I think it could have been handled less absolutely. I've seen some stupid shit come out of drunken people's mouths. Stuff that they were completely mortified by.

Of course I've seen folks who did this sort of stuff sober and wonder why the don't get ahead.
Why? The bloody fool yells slurs against a woman on Cthulhudamned TV. Removing his livelihood seems fitting. The little prick made me grit my teeth when I listened to him, and blaming it on the booze is stupid; this guy is most assuredly like this when sober too, so why would any company/co-worker have to bear with him.

I do hope his mom is laughing though, like he said.
A sudden storm in
    summer, the brightest
    star at night; an
    opportunist rogue,
    confessor of sins
    a master of hearts
    a dominant lover

Cycle

Quote from: Corsair on May 13, 2015, 11:40:35 PM
Ok, so what does that extend to and where does it end? And who is going to be the judge of what a good person/worker is?

The first is not a relevant question.  If there are other things that should not serve as a basis for an employer to terminate an employee, that doesn't change the fact that what this asshole did is sufficient basis to terminate him.  If and when other situations come up, then those situations can be assessed based on their specific set of facts.

As for the second, the answer in terms of keeping your job is:  your employer, within the scope of whatever employment laws are in place in your region.

Really, is it that hard to learn how not to be an asshole?  All it takes is using your brain a bit and occasionally putting yourself in someone else's shoes.  If someone can't be bothered to try not to be an asshole, then yeah, I don't really have any sympathy for the ills that befall them.  After all, they could have avoided all those horrible things if they tried.


Beguile's Mistress

Women drivers get those kinds of comments or calls of the 'C' word. My response is to ask:

"Are you talking about your mother, sister, wife or daughter?'

Corsair

Quote from: Cycle on May 14, 2015, 02:04:54 PM
The first is not a relevant question.  If there are other things that should not serve as a basis for an employer to terminate an employee, that doesn't change the fact that what this asshole did is sufficient basis to terminate him.  If and when other situations come up, then those situations can be assessed based on their specific set of facts.

As for the second, the answer in terms of keeping your job is:  your employer, within the scope of whatever employment laws are in place in your region.

Really, is it that hard to learn how not to be an asshole?  All it takes is using your brain a bit and occasionally putting yourself in someone else's shoes.  If someone can't be bothered to try not to be an asshole, then yeah, I don't really have any sympathy for the ills that befall them.  After all, they could have avoided all those horrible things if they tried.

It's very relevant. This man has been tried by Social Media, the modern day equivalent of a lynch mob.

Even if you commit a more serious crime and it is captured on CCTV you still get a fair trial.

The link is quite interesting - http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/hydro-one-employee-fired-after-fhritp-heckling-of-citynews-reporter-shauna-hunt-1.3070948

The quote at the end of the story from the newspaper -
QuoteCorrections

A previous version of this story said the Hydro One employee fired yelled FHRITP at the reporter Shauna Hunt. In fact, he was not seen on video yelling that particular insult.
May 12, 2015 9:53 PM ET

Also this man was not wearing anything to identify his company. The person who identified him to the media was a co worker who is remaining anonymous another quote:
QuoteA Hydro One official identified one of the men involved in Sunday's incident as employee Shawn Simoes. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to name him for privacy reasons.

So the whistle blower has also breached company protocol by the sounds of it. Which leads to other questions, does this co worker have an axe to grind or something to get from this man being fired? Surely the better way would have been to discuss it with a manager in the workplace?

So for  those of us talking about a slippery slope that is what we mean. There are processes to follow, this was all a bit of a mess.

Recently in Australia this happened with a woman who was concerned about a man who took a selfie in front of a Darth Vader cut out, she believed for whatever reason that he was a pedophile, instead of reporting it to the police she plastered his photo all over Facebook and accused him of being a pedophile.

The man wasn't a risk or a pedophile at all and has suffered due to this woman taking things into her own hands.

I mention this as again there is a process to follow even if you feel you have plenty of evidence against someone. 



Cycle

Quote from: Corsair on May 15, 2015, 04:44:36 AM
So for  those of us talking about a slippery slope that is what we mean. There are processes to follow, this was all a bit of a mess.

Those of you talking about a "slippery slope" are using a known Logical Fallacy.

Quote
Slippery Slope 'The Camel's Nose' - if a claim is made that one thing will follow another, evidence must be presented for such. "Marijuana is a gateway drug." It's important to separate this from actual trend analysis - Elliquiy is getting a few hundred new signups a month as of this writing, it is not illogical to assume that there will be another three thousand over the course of the next year. It would, however, be illogical to assume that there would be three thousand active members then - or even twice the activity we have now.

You may want to read this post by Veks .

A process was followed here.  This man's employer's policy.  And he was fired accordingly. 

Corsair, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


Ephiral

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on May 14, 2015, 09:36:45 AM
I don't think it's a joke or hobby. It was tasteless and foolish. Do I think he should lose his entire livelihood for it? No. I see zero chance for him changing now, and if he honestly does.. Will he get his livelihood back? No, odds are he's never going to be able to move past this. I think it could have been handled less absolutely. I've seen some stupid shit come out of drunken people's mouths. Stuff that they were completely mortified by.

I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable with the "He was drunk, so it doesn't count" reasoning. I've gotten drunk and done some stupid shit. Know whose fault that was? Mine. Even if I was mortified by it later - and I have been - the fact that I impaired my judgement that badly and did something that harmed another person is on me. Any consequences of that are mine to bear, and correcting the problem if possible is my responsibility.

Sho

Quote from: Ephiral on May 15, 2015, 12:21:28 PM
I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable with the "He was drunk, so it doesn't count" reasoning. I've gotten drunk and done some stupid shit. Know whose fault that was? Mine. Even if I was mortified by it later - and I have been - the fact that I impaired my judgement that badly and did something that harmed another person is on me. Any consequences of that are mine to bear, and correcting the problem if possible is my responsibility.

+1

Oniya

Quote from: Ephiral on May 15, 2015, 12:21:28 PM
I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable with the "He was drunk, so it doesn't count" reasoning. I've gotten drunk and done some stupid shit. Know whose fault that was? Mine. Even if I was mortified by it later - and I have been - the fact that I impaired my judgement that badly and did something that harmed another person is on me. Any consequences of that are mine to bear, and correcting the problem if possible is my responsibility.

Yup.  Get drunk and hit another person with your car?  It counts.  Get drunk and light your buddy on fire with a firework? It counts.  Get drunk and get uploaded to YouTube doing stupid shit?  It counts.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

Agreed. Just saying instantly destroying the rest of. His life is a bit extreme.

I think he has a right to a livelihood, which odds are for him is now fast food or the convince store.

Just saying. I spent years trying to get out of a blacklisting by a major defense contractor. I still can't work for that contractor.

Ephiral

"Destroying the rest of his life" is just a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? He was fired. It happens. We deal with it. I've been fired before for far flimsier reasons than "was a rapey, threatening ass in front of millions of people, causing potential liability concerns in the process".

Pumpkin Seeds

We do need to keep the punishment in perspective.  He was fired.  Yes, that is a setback in his life I am sure and maybe he was really having a career there.  Still he was fired, not branded rapist on his forehead or anything of that nature.  He can get another job.  People do that all the time.  So I doubt his life was instantly ruined or destroyed or that his wife will be turning tricks at the bus stop while the kids are begging for food on the street.  His life is certainly different for the moment, but I wouldn't say destroyed.

Corsair

Quote from: Cycle on May 15, 2015, 10:12:32 AM
Those of you talking about a "slippery slope" are using a known Logical Fallacy.

You may want to read this post by Veks .

A process was followed here.  This man's employer's policy.  And he was fired accordingly. 

Corsair, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

To me that Link is all about trying to control the language of a discussion with a lot of double talk to suit your own means.

But I do agree we will have to agree to disagree.

Oniya

If you wish to engage in debate in this forum, avoiding logical fallacies is going to give your arguments more impact.  Fallacious debate tends to get you ignored at best.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Pumpkin Seeds

The slippery slope argument is how Socrates conducted most of his debates.  Essentially if you agree with this and then this, you now support eating babies.  This is pretty much where the argument against the man being fired was going.  A reprimand for public heckling turning into a fear of an employer going through privately held writings. 

Corsair

Quote from: Oniya on May 17, 2015, 11:43:21 AM
If you wish to engage in debate in this forum, avoiding logical fallacies is going to give your arguments more impact.  Fallacious debate tends to get you ignored at best.

Therein lies the problem. I'm not looking to "Debate" anyone. I like open and honest discussions, I am interested in hearing peoples thoughts, emotions, experiences, observations on topics. I find that interesting, to start laying down rules limits all of that and also is an attempt at controlling the language of the discussion to suit ones own end.

As Pumpkin Seeds also states, Socrates used the Slippery Slope argument in his debates.

My point is there are many different ways to have a discussion, especially on a topic such as the one in this thread, may angles to look at it from.

Oniya

The thing is, fallacious argument tactics are fundamentally dishonest as discussions go.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

consortium11

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 17, 2015, 03:21:49 PM
The slippery slope argument is how Socrates conducted most of his debates.  Essentially if you agree with this and then this, you now support eating babies.  This is pretty much where the argument against the man being fired was going.  A reprimand for public heckling turning into a fear of an employer going through privately held writings.

What Socrates tended to use wasn't really the slippery slope argument. The Socratic method is largely based around definitions, logical conclusions and taking a step by step approach to dismantling the other side's position. The slippery slope is saying "if this then this".

I can't recall any references to eating babies in the records we have of Socrates and the only example that comes up when typed into google is a hypothetical modern take but it does serve to illustrate the difference. The slippery slop argument would be suggesting that being pious and viewing pious as "good" would lead to babies being eaten. What Socrates does is different; he is demonstrating the difficulty of defining piety and the weakness of an argument that says "it's what the god's say so" (especially in the case of the Greek gods who are not presented as being inherently good and have differing opinions).

I do think there are some issues with dismissing so called "slippery slope" arguments out of hand; mainly that a true slippery slope fallacy is "if this then this" not "if this then possibly this". While there is something illogical about suggesting that an action or event will guarantee further (generally negative) actions or events, there is nothing inherently illogical about suggesting that an event or action may lead further (generally negative) actions or events; at that point it becomes an evidential discussion.

Remiel

Was Mr. Simoes made an example of?  Absolutely.

Given the fact that he shouted "FHRITP" to someone with a microphone and a camera--and thus, presumably a national audience--do I have any sympathy for him?  Not particularly.

There needs to come a point at which the "boys will be boys" argument no longer holds water.   Freedom of expression is one thing, but doing it at someone else's expense is something else.

Oniya

The thing is, using 'boys will be boys' as an excuse at all is actually incredibly insulting to males.  It implies that they can't help it for the sole fact that they are males.  I don't know about y'all, but I don't believe that for a minute.  I've met too many men (ages 3 and up) who are polite, kind, and respectful to believe that there is something inherent in 'being a boy' that excuses being a jerk.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Angie

Quote from: Oniya on May 17, 2015, 11:04:35 PM
The thing is, using 'boys will be boys' as an excuse at all is actually incredibly insulting to males.  It implies that they can't help it for the sole fact that they are males.  I don't know about y'all, but I don't believe that for a minute.  I've met too many men (ages 3 and up) who are polite, kind, and respectful to believe that there is something inherent in 'being a boy' that excuses being a jerk.

There was always something about that phrase that infuriated me, but I could never figure out what it was. Thank you, Oniya, for saying what I could never figure out.
Avatar is by Lemonfont. Will remove it if he asks me to.

Come check the Cyberpunk Images Thread!

Iniquitous

I work for one of the biggest media/telecommunications companies in the US and I can tell you that if one of it's employees pulled a stunt like this, drunk or not, they'd be fired immediately. Why? Because it goes against the company's Code of Conduct.

Each person that has been hired by my employer agrees, and signs said agreement, to follow the Code of Conduct. It is made perfectly clear that we are representatives of the company both at work and during our personal off times. We have to re-read and re-sign the Code of Conduct yearly just so we don't have lapses in memory.

Employees are the face/voice of their employer. Like it or not, your behavior - even during your days off outside of work - are a reflection upon your employer. Obviously, some things are not even going to create a blip on HR's radar. Cheating on your spouse? They don't care (unless you are cheating on your spouse with another employee - especially a superior). Drunk driving? They aren't going to like their employee being in jail instead of at work (and can fire you if you miss too much time). But getting on live tv and making the comments/threats that this guy did? The moment he was outed as an employee of that company, he was done for.  His behavior may never cause the company to lose money, but who is going to take a chance? Who wants to have that as the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the company's name?

Code of Conduct is there for a reason - and companies expect employees to behave outside of work a certain way for a reason. It's simple business sense. You wouldn't want a woman abusing, serial rapist alcoholic representing your company so you enforce a set code of behavior for your employees.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


kylie

#54
     I find it hard to blame the company in this case, although I do worry somewhat about companies (among other institutions) increasingly policing outside expression of many different kinds (not always in a good way), some say more than before.

     I don't understand the drunkenness defense very well myself...  Of course, I hardly ever drink.  Though it seems to me, drunkenness is not supposed to be a good defense if you run someone over on the highway -- so why should it be a valid defense here?

      The sorts of argument that would concern me more are like, is this kind of approach really being applied to everyone equally?  Or will it ever be?  Why is it okay for people to get irate on the street and yell, "Hey fuck you!" at some car that cuts them off on the road, but it's not so okay to say something that includes "pussy"?  Is it okay to call a guy a "dick" whenever he does something wrong but "cunt" directed at a woman is going to be considered automatic charges of harassment?  Is part of the response to sexual discrimination writ large and in cultural institutions (unequal pay rates, job stereotyping and profiling, rape frequency) actually also a prescription that men must "just suck it up" when people use sexually vulgar language to pick on them -- they're supposed to "get the joke" or at least shrug it off more -- that is rather often assumed to be something men should do. 

       I think at least partly as a consequence of that same basic gender norm, you get the offensive men claiming that women should understand even when it's directed at them, "It's all just horsing around."  Cause well, many of those men are brought up being expected to trade in such language of lower body organs also among themselves, more or less and whatever they actually feel (whether they're really amused or hurt or indifferent), they're often demanded to say oh yeah, just a joke.  Cause well that sort of locker room trash is said to be 'harmless' (ahem, cough) and ya know who wants to be ostracized or deemed "immature" or in some cases actually bullied more...  Whereas if the wording is about a woman's body, suddenly everyone is on thin ice?  No? 

      In the case of women, it does make sense to say it's not really harmless because of the position of women in society and also how people often react in very different (read: generally oppressive) ways to revelations of sexual behavior by women, as opposed to when it's about men.  That being said, what I'd like to know is:  At what point is this seriously going to be considered "inappropriate for anyone in public to be receiving" ?  Because I think what we have is more a fussy, rather traditionalist gender divide in many ways...  Oh, it's okay to say this word but not that one and some groups will just have to take it, but if you toss in this one then suddenly it's too much risk and people get fired.  But people who know the game will just keep their venom below the radar, or directed at less public targets or groups (take women in stigmatized jobs say, sex work for example -- and generally those without a news channel likely to cover them, and those working class men who are thought to be in industries or groups where it's more accepted - perhaps construction work?? to yank on one stereotype a bit and see) .

      None of that is to say anyone should have to put up with it on the job, in public places, and from strangers.  And certainly not a pattern of it directed at a particular industry, as the female reporters as a group are reporting.  But that's just the rub for me...  Why is the fuss only about "pussy", rather than the whole notion of a society that shouts "fuck you" left and right?

      Also, gender stereotypes pick this stuff up and run away with it in another same-old direction.  I sometimes hear arguments like:  Oh men should learn to be more polite or more restrained because that should make them feel "tougher, stronger, more sacrificing aka more MANLY."  And it becomes a way that some gendered things are hidden away while others are somewhat more often aired and discussed.  Much as all the public hair must be covered or brushed out in approved Japanese porn -- some things are so protected that no one can really talk about them in public anymore.  And at the same time you hear conservative politicians (in both Japanese and American politics among so many others) going on about how the lives of women and especially mothers need to be micromanaged to "protect" their fragile but oh-so-important to the state bodies, sexuality, and often especially fertility (US side: abortion/contraceptives anyone) and from there, often socially impressed family roles (what about that maternity leave and promotion chances, anyway).

-------

      On another angle:  Things like Code of Conduct can be strange animals.  I have to say any particular institution's "code" is only as good as the reputation of the people applying it in a given time period.  I'm not going to sit here and say anything and everything simply must be good and essentially "tough shit you signed it guy", because hey this thing people had to sign says the company fires people at will.  Umm, well, usually they can do that anyway and the breadth of the code is as much about corporate excuse for whatever management feels like (they'll make it about your hairstyle as their employee too!) as cheery notions of a progressive, perhaps egalitarian society.  I won't say "civil" because anyone can start to say most anything else they want must be "civil" when we're talking about a company "owning" your time.  How much is about the company practically speaking, "owning your image and likeliness and signature" in every moment in a society that seems to be swinging hard away from anyone thinking about even trying to keep things fully private?  That is a concern too.  As is simply the notion that people will be fired on a whim -- but whims may not apply to everyone equally.  And managers and monitors can sometimes become invested in enforcing some traditions and codes that are really not so progressive as well. 

      So...  On the one hand, such "general guideline" regulations serve a general good in protecting other employees from more suspicious, and even outright scary, treatment by others in the workplace.  And just perhaps and more incidentally, in a way they may also protect them at other locations that coworkers may have established they can be found at.  Well, that part's good and if I felt like that was mainly what they were going to be used for, I'd be happy with an outfit.  On the other hand though:  They're often intentionally broad so people will be looking over their shoulder worrying about the "appearance" of any impropriety whatsoever being used against them.  And they can also be handy tools for the company to make up excuses but it's not necessarily applied with precision or consistency in all applications.  From the employer's point of view, particularly in a bigger company or a particularly image-sensitive company, they can also have a convenient flavor of anything goes.  And nobody knows just what, but boy are people supposed to be keeping up to date --> cautious as all hell --> anxious and beholden to immediate management on umpteen tiny issues and political concerns, contractual and otherwise.

      I think this particular call was fair enough.  But yeah, "because it's the code of conduct" alone isn't really convincing for me.  It's the US Constitution that we don't have search and seizure without cause, either...  Except in practice?  Many people would say in the actual society, we do (can probably thank the Patriot Act lately in significant part?) and the government said fuck the basic spirit of the constitution to do what it really feels like this minute.  So because, because.  Maybe better:  In this particular case, it seems like a reasonably fair and useful, progressive application of the better side or spirit of harassment sections of that code.  At least start to say what in the world is being accomplished: Do people feel more safe in the workplace if you do this?  Okay that's something we can evaluate what and why comes out, and discuss or argue.  It's not a sound bite by any means.  But I get leery when people boil things down to "Because them's the rules."  ::)  One can boil most anything one likes at some point, if it's about sound bites.
     

     

Remiel

Quote from: kylie on May 18, 2015, 10:36:52 AM
     But that's just the rub for me...  Why is the fuss only about "pussy", rather than the whole notion of a society that shouts "fuck you" left and right?

I think Oniya answered this earlier:  yelling "Fuck Her Right in the Pussy", especially to a female reporter, conveys an implied threat, whereas yelling "fuck you" is considered to be more of a general all-purpose expletive.  It's kind of the same reason why Ice T created so much controversy with his "Cop Killer" song back in the 80s.   It's just a song...but when it advocates violence against a person or group, the person or group in question has every right to be upset.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but for the life of me I cannot see what useful purpose FHRITP serves, other than to denigrate and demean women for a cheap laugh.

Cycle

If I was an employer and one of my employees went around yelling "F*ck you!!!" all the time, yeah, there's a good chance she/he will get terminated.  I don't need people like that in my company or my life. 

Seriously.  Why spend energy defending people's "right" to be assholes? 

Why not, you know, encourage people not to be assholes


Formless

I had to look at the origin of this term. How it turned into what it is.

The whole thing is disgusting to say the least. Its not a joke. Its just one of the bad things about the internet. Some idiot is glorified for being an immature jerk.

The employer actually did the right thing. Shunning that kind of behavior can deliver a message , no matter how grand or little that message be , that this behavior is unacceptable.

And if this guy thinks he didn't deserve to be fired , he file for a case and see what the court has to say for all I care.

But the idea that someone would say something offensive , regardless of the context or the target of what he has to say , and wants it to be viewed as a joke? That's wrong on so many level.

Its enough watching some of the youtube videos that showcased people doing it from various ages and origins. Now its degrading to women , next thing people will come up with something degrading to a certain society , community , or race? Because we've seen how the internet quickly grows tired of one fad and quickly search for a new one.

And its not like the guy who was confronted by the reporter was trying to be funny. He was taking pride in supporting it and going as far as to throw a threat. This is in no way a ' joke '. The guy had it coming.

Angie

I don't even get how it's supposedly a joke. I could, right off the top of my head, come up with a dozen better jokes for the situation (all of them involving innuendo). I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a possible place to even use that phrase and outside of 'adult' comedy stand up specials, I can't really think of anything.
Avatar is by Lemonfont. Will remove it if he asks me to.

Come check the Cyberpunk Images Thread!

Remiel

Quote from: Angiejuusan on May 18, 2015, 02:54:23 PM
I don't even get how it's supposedly a joke. I could, right off the top of my head, come up with a dozen better jokes for the situation (all of them involving innuendo). I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a possible place to even use that phrase and outside of 'adult' comedy stand up specials, I can't really think of anything.

Right?  As a "prank", it's pretty stupid.  It's not clever or even funny. 

Remiel

And just because it occurred to me, there is a difference here between this and Donglegate.   In the Donglegate case, a couple of guys at a convention were just making a joke between themselves--they probably didn't even intend to be overheard--and had no intention or desire to be thrust into the public spotlight.

Whereas, here, Mr. Simoes and his friend walked up to a female reporter with a camera and a microphone and proceeded to make complete asses out of themselves.    It demonstrated a severe and astounding lack of judgment and I cannot blame his company at all for firing him.

tl;dr  I have sympathy for the fellow who lost his job because of "Donglegate", but not for Mr. Simoes.

Angie

Quote from: Remiel on May 18, 2015, 06:36:44 PM
Right?  As a "prank", it's pretty stupid.  It's not clever or even funny.

You would get more laughs quoting Tenacious D. Or just saying whatever the reporter said in a suggestive tone. "There are riots in the streets!" "Oh I'll riot in your streets, all right." See? Immediately funnier then FHRITP!
Avatar is by Lemonfont. Will remove it if he asks me to.

Come check the Cyberpunk Images Thread!

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Angiejuusan on May 18, 2015, 06:49:25 PM
You would get more laughs quoting Tenacious D. Or just saying whatever the reporter said in a suggestive tone. "There are riots in the streets!" "Oh I'll riot in your streets, all right." See? Immediately funnier then FHRITP!

"There are riots in the streets? Well, I'm a riot in the sheets!"

kylie

#63
Quote from: Remiel
I'm all for freedom of speech, but for the life of me I cannot see what useful purpose FHRITP serves, other than to denigrate and demean women for a cheap laugh.

      No, I'm not saying it serves a useful purpose.  I don't like it either.  But I don't think it's strictly speaking only about women necessarily.  I think it's also symptomatic of a society where any "softness" in general gets marginalized.  (Not sure if this is perhaps a little more true of American society than Canadian society though?  Or vice-versa even?  I wonder a little.)  It just so happens that "softness" is a quality people tend to assume stereotypically does and/or (worse) supposedly "should" belong primarily to women.  But much of the same logic can sometimes be used to intimidate and belittle anyone who is considered soft or just lacking in social support at the moment.

      Yes, it's a problem for women as a group.  But I think the broader logic supporting it isn't really addressed when it's treated as simply a matter of people needing to "stand up" for women.  Too often "standing up" also merges into (lots of people, men some among them) being "tough guys" and oversimplifying/stereotyping all over about umpteen other things that don't help women as a group all that much either, and may even hurt.

      Perhaps more to your point particularly?  I think if you look at the shorter "fuck you," there are many cases where actually that is also delivered in a tone or context where it's intended to be sexual, aggressive and really disturbing.  Perhaps there are quite a few situations where people see it is blowing off steam as well...  But I would say I've been in plenty of situations where I've felt it was really rude, nasty and quite personal.  You have to look at the people involved and the context to decide about each particular case.  Perhaps you could argue the longer form with "pussy" is more often going to have aggressive and sexual or devaluing readings for most people.  I certainly wouldn't say the shorter one hardly ever does, though!
     

Ephiral


Oniya

I experienced similar 'casual sexism' when I was working tech support at a major online service provider.  I'd get people calling up and as soon as I identified myself, they'd ask to be transferred to a 'senior tech'.  At the time, there was only one person higher than me on the tech-floor roll, and that was purely because their last name started with an 'F' and mine started with a 'U'.  Inevitably, the person calling was male, and I inevitably solved their problem fairly quickly once I switched to 'authoritarian' mode from 'friendly customer service' mode.  Ironically, the fact that I was female was almost balanced out by the fact that the other tech had a distinctively ethnic name.  (Said other tech would occasionally get callers asking to be transferred to 'an American', and would inform them of which call center they had reached.  We commiserated a lot.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17