Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I bet if we just ignored it life would go on without a problem. Why is everyone so concerned about what everyone else is doing? I do believe FB is a waste of good time.
I agree I don't like this totalitarian strain that is running through the country, folks should be able to express opinions without fear of losing their livelihood. She's probably an idiotic Obama voter who got caught up in the moment of being stupid.
When you make yourself a "public" figure for doing something off the job, be it good or bad, it does carry over to the job, like it or not. The place she worked was named and the press brought them into it. They had to make a public statement to the press. Do you think they were pleased about it, even if the sun shined out of her butt?
The ONLY reason they had to make a public statement is the extent to which people in the public (wrongly) always want to go after somebody's job for a non-job-related offense. Those Americans' absurdity is the only reason the employer is compelled to respond. If people would leave their criticism as just criticism, there would be no need FOR an employer to respond. But people are unreasonable. Whenever I see an employer unwilling to fire an employee over a non-job-related incident, I always GAIN more respect for that employer. I like it when people are not bullied by extremists' positions just because those extremists come with a rabid attack. And people who tend to call for people's job over non-job related offenses are extremists. They lack the ability to be rational and reasonable about what is and is not job-related.
Furthermore, you addressed the fact THAT an employer might need to respond with a comment. You didn't address why people IN THE FIRST PLACE tend to want to insist that non-job related offenses cost the person their job, why they CALL FOR the person to lose their job over an offense unrelated to it, intentionally trying to put pressure ON the employer to take action against the person, and at a minimum issue a statement about the non-job-related offense.
[but unless she was on 'company time' I see no foundation for losing her job]
I have no problem if she loses her job. If one of my employees is caught doing something like this, it tells me something about them as a human being, and that's not someone I want representing me. Nor do I want to explain to my clients why I'd still be employing such a person.
It doesn't sound like you actually support freedom of speech, or understand what that means. Saying something like, 'You can say what you want...but prepared to suffer the consequences if I don't like it' isn't really giving someone freedom of speech.
Everyone has the right to say what they want, but there is no such thing as freedom of speech without consequence. Why do you think there is "political correctness", which is meant for people to limit their "speech" to what is acceptable as opposed to what is unacceptable that could cause a reaction.
People may be free to use hate speech, but can be arrested for it. We are being told not to refer to illegal immigrants as illegals, but as undocumented immigrants/Americans because it is offensive. There are racial and religious slurs that are unacceptable and can lead to a physical altercation and someone legally pressing charges against the person using such words. There are many things that can be said freely, but come with consequences. All of this under "freedom of speech".
Last edited by softblueyz; 11-21-2012 at 10:59 AM..
This woman works for a non-profit that helps adults with disabilities live independently, so she certainly isn't all bad. But I just don't get what prompts people to do such stupid things and then, to top it off, post proof of that stupidity on Facebook for all to see.
"A photo of a Massachusetts woman flashing her middle finger at Arlington National Cemetery has sparked widespread disgust across the web and prompted an online petition to get the woman fired from her job. Lindsey Stone posted the picture of herself making the obscene gesture at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, next to a sign at the military cemetery that asks for 'Silence and Respect,' in October and the snapshot quickly went viral."
And now a FB site has been created with the one and only purpose to get this woman fired because of the picture.
I have no problem if she loses her job. If one of my employees is caught doing something like this, it tells me something about them as a human being, and that's not someone I want representing me. Nor do I want to explain to my clients why I'd still be employing such a person.
Actually it says something more about their politics than it does about them as a human being. A person could be the greatest humanitarian in the community and make all kinds of contributions of personal time to the less fortunate but have politics which they feel strongly about, strong enough to disrespect that at which their political discontent is directed.
And a spokesperson type job is necessarily different because the question becomes with the individual BEING the public spokesperson, is this something the company is officially in favor of. A non-spokesperson is different, for example an auto worker on a factory floor. If that worker got a DUI for example, clearly no company is for DUIs, but a company might keep that person on if they still fulfill all the requirements of the job, including not drinking on the job and performing well and showing respect and dignity to others, ie. the normal job requirements. If an individual's job is an OFFICIAL representative of/spokesperson for a company which sells products and can lose customers of their brand, and brand-related issues come into play, that is understandable. But with a typical behind-the scenes worker, I think an employer would basically have to just be a hard-#$@ to fire somebody like that over a non-job-related incident like this.
To me people's attitudes on this is the same kind of nonsense as calling for a teacher to be fired because somebody posted a picture on Facebook of her partying drunk in Miami or Jamaica while on vacation. It has nothing to do with the job and with job capability nor job performance, and it is not an issue of potential loss of sales due to branding issues tied to an official spokesperson, so there is no reason to call for their job unless one is just an intolerant hard#$% kind of person.
The ONLY reason they had to make a public statement is the extent to which people in the public (wrongly) always want to go after somebody's job for a non-job-related offense. Those Americans' absurdity is the only reason the employer is compelled to respond. If people would leave their criticism as just criticism, there would be no need FOR an employer to respond. But people are unreasonable. Whenever I see an employer unwilling to fire an employee over a non-job-related incident, I always GAIN more respect for that employer. I like it when people are not bullied by extremists' positions just because those extremists come with a rabid attack. And people who tend to call for people's job over non-job related offenses are extremists. They lack the ability to be rational and reasonable about what is and is not job-related.
Furthermore, you addressed the fact THAT an employer might need to respond with a comment. You didn't address why people IN THE FIRST PLACE tend to want to insist that non-job related offenses cost the person their job, why they CALL FOR the person to lose their job over an offense unrelated to it, intentionally trying to put pressure ON the employer to take action against the person, and at a minimum issue a statement about the non-job-related offense.
I don't speak for people. I don't know why people are calling for her job - that's their personal opinion. I'm not critizing anyone's opinion. On the other hand, you are critizing people who don't think the way you do or the way you think they should. You seem to be going to the extreme making your point. It would be up to the employer to make his/her own decision or listen to public outcry/opinion. I have an opinion on what she did, but PERSONALLY, I don't care one way or the other if she keeps her job or gets sacked - that's up to her employer. She did this to herself, it's not as if someone posted the photo - she did. She embarrassed herself, her employer and her family. She got an unexpected 15 minutes of fame. Welcome to the internet.
Actually it says something more about their politics than it does about them as a human being. A person could be the greatest humanitarian in the community and make all kinds of contributions of personal time to the less fortunate but have politics which they feel strongly about, strong enough to disrespect that at which their political discontent is directed.
And a spokesperson type job is necessarily different because the question becomes with the individual BEING the public spokesperson, is this something the company is officially in favor of. A non-spokesperson is different, for example an auto worker on a factory floor. If that worker got a DUI for example, clearly no company is for DUIs, but a company might keep that person on if they still fulfill all the requirements of the job, including not drinking on the job and performing well and showing respect and dignity to others, ie. the normal job requirements. If an individual's job is an OFFICIAL representative of/spokesperson for a company which sells products and can lose customers of their brand, and brand-related issues come into play, that is understandable. But with a typical behind-the scenes worker, I think an employer would basically have to just be a hard-#$@ to fire somebody like that over a non-job-related incident like this.
To me people's attitudes on this is the same kind of nonsense as calling for a teacher to be fired because somebody posted a picture on Facebook of her partying drunk in Miami or Jamaica while on vacation. It has nothing to do with the job and with job capability nor job performance, and it is not an issue of potential loss of sales due to branding issues tied to an official spokesperson, so there is no reason to call for their job unless one is just an intolerant hard#$% kind of person.
No. If they were doing that to a photo of Romney, THAT'S about politics. And that's their right.
But they were disrespecting folks that voluntarily went and died for them. That says something about who they are as a human.
And yeah, if a teacher posts pictures of them being drunk all over facebook they should be fired, because they're an example for our children that we trust them with. AND they're getting paid by US. If a McDonald's worker does it, that's up to the discretion of the manager.
Actions have consequences. Something the liberals don't understand.
Just wondering...What`s the IQ of a person who uses the above capitalized word. I`d feel stupid just typing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
