suburbannature Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 22 minutes ago, Headlock said: That isn’t my point. It literally isn’t even an option for the President to fire members of Congress, they’re two different branches of government. It’s not an issue of “employer discretion,” it literally isn’t allowed by the Constitution. Using right-wing nutjobs in the House/Senate as an example is a false equivalence. Again, I understand your point (and agree on the sentiment), but this is not the situation to dig your heels into. If this person had just posted the photo without the caption, I would agree her being fired was not justified by comparison. However, she literally threatened violence while holding a firearm. It really is not hard to see why she was fired for that, you can’t do that on an account connected to your job as a federal employee. All of this.
AMIT Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 2 hours ago, Harrier said: Widespread gun ownership does not deter violence, but rather invites violence. This is maybe the most statisically established fact in politics. It's also really hypocritical to support gun control and actual good measures like gun buybacks, but then participate in the absurd gun aesthetics culture by posting threatening photos of yourself. I can see why if you're a person that lives in a dangerous area with a lot of guns, or if you occupy a highly stigmatized identidy, you might quietly own a handgun so you might protect yourself. Maybe, at a stretch - I'm still not very convinced it actually makes you house safer. But how does advertising that fact with threats achieve anything other than contributing to a culture of fear and violence? also, what kind of bizarre north Korea comparison. The US is not threatening them with nuclear action daily, I mean what a ridiculous assertion Sure there is the implicit threat but be serious According to who? Genuinely asking, I admit I'm not that knowledgeable on gun politics. Also, who said this woman supports gun control? Or are you talking more in general about your average left/progressive person? Because even then I don't think it's a matter that is set in stone as you imply. I could be wrong, though. You don't think trans women are highly stigmatized today?? I agree with your and others' in here sentiment that her going as far as using actual threats in her post went too far and was stupid of her to do (not like I have a problem with her actual post out of context though, literally **** transphobes), but I believe she should have a right to bear arms regardless, but that's just my opinion on this issue. it's not a bizarre comparison and yes, they do (okay 'daily' was a hyperbole, but you get the gist): https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/south-korea-us-announce-largest-military-exercises-in-5-years/#:~:text=The South Korean and U.S.,large-scale joint field training. https://eurasiantimes.com/rehearsals-for-invasion-us-to-hold-massive-military-drills-with-south-korea-aims-to-restore-its-lost-credibility/ it has been happening for decades, this is from the Trump era: https://socialistrevolution.org/u-s-korea-world-war-or-war-of-words/
Headlock Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Communion said: You're arguing a point I never made on which we agree. The comparison given for the repeated behavior was the White House firing staffers because of legal marijuana usage. Something they can do *but do not have to do* by the same powers given to the fed as an employer when deciding to have blanket "social media" clauses. Which is an action to push back on. Posting a picture online holding a gun and saying they’ll “take a few with me” is not the same thing as smoking a blunt, you know this. 21 minutes ago, Communion said: Which needs to be reiterated. This person did not threaten violence. They said they'd defend themselves. “And take a few with them.” That is threatening violence. I understand their point, and honestly although I have no interest in owning a firearm understand the rhetoric as a queer person in this current climate of “if you I go down so are you,” but she is a federal employee posting this on social media. You can’t do that and expect to keep your job. Edited April 16, 2023 by Headlock
Communion Posted April 16, 2023 Author Posted April 16, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, AMIT said: According to who? Genuinely asking, I admit I'm not that knowledgeable on gun politics. Also, who said this woman supports gun control? Or are you talking more in general about your average left/progressive person? Because even then I don't think it's a matter that is set in stone as you imply. I could be wrong, though. You don't think trans women are highly stigmatized today?? I agree with your and others' in here sentiment that her going as far as using actual threats in her post went too far and was stupid of her to do (not like I have a problem with her actual post out of context though, literally **** transphobes), but I believe she should have a right to bear arms regardless, but that's just my opinion on this issue. it's not a bizarre comparison and yes, they do (okay 'daily' was a hyperbole, but you get the gist): https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/south-korea-us-announce-largest-military-exercises-in-5-years/#:~:text=The South Korean and U.S.,large-scale joint field training. https://eurasiantimes.com/rehearsals-for-invasion-us-to-hold-massive-military-drills-with-south-korea-aims-to-restore-its-lost-credibility/ it has been happening for decades, this is from the Trump era: https://socialistrevolution.org/u-s-korea-world-war-or-war-of-words/ The thing is that no one argues that marginalized people having guns as well somehow results "in less violence". Of course it doesn't. But it ensures that the violence that happens is not consistently in one direction. Which is why it's sinister for the Biden admin - and liberals with a high-level of personal partisanship for Democrats - to throw trans people under the bus, and queer people at large, for utilizing a constitutional right. Gun culture is part of American life. The idea of utilizing firearms to protect yourself and your loved ones as "self-defense" is so bred into the culture that it's funny "dad humor": The Biden admin fired her *explicitly* for being LGBT and saying she'd be willing to shoot back and defend herself from anyone who'd actively try to kill her for being LGBT. Because they want to continue to garner votes from people who think the marginalization of LGBT people should be a civilized and cooperative debate, and who find the imagery of gun-wielding LGBT people who'd refuse to be killed without a fight unsavory. Edited April 16, 2023 by Communion
Communion Posted April 16, 2023 Author Posted April 16, 2023 9 minutes ago, Headlock said: Which is an action to push back on. Posting a picture online holding a gun and saying they’ll “take a few with me” is not the same thing as smoking a blunt, you know this. I understand having personal discomfort with gun imagery, as I do too, but neither of these actions constitute a crime nor something illegal, and thus neither constitute a reasonable reason for someone to lose their job. There's nothing anyone can say to justify the Biden admin deciding some queer people are disposable. And that's not "dying on a hill" as it is simply having standards for the president. If such was just a niche concern for out-of-touch activists that couldn't sour anyone's image of Biden, this thread would have 0 replies. 10 minutes ago, Headlock said: You can’t do that and expect to keep your job. Well certainly not when the current administration is led by conservatives who resent the left, of course not.
AMIT Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 4 minutes ago, Communion said: The thing is that no one argues that marginalized people having guns as well somehow results "in less violence". Of course it doesn't. But it ensures that the violence that happens is not consistently in one direction. Which is why it's sinister for the Biden admin - and liberals with a high-level of personal partisanship for Democrats - to throw trans people under the bus, and queer people at large, for utilizing a constitutional right. Gun culture is part of American life. The idea of utilizing firearms to protect yourself and your loved ones as "self-defense" bred into the culture. The Biden admin has fired her *explicitly* for being LGBT and saying she'd be willing to shoot back and defend herself from anyone who'd actively try to kill her for being LGBT. Because they want to continue to garner votes from people who think the marginalization of LGBT people should be a civilized and cooperative debate. *tweet removed for better browsing of the thread* Thank you for putting it on simple terms, I understand it now. This whole discourse for me reads just like the ''perfect victim'' narrative that the right-wingers love to use to string a ''both sides are wrong!!" on a given situation so as to mislead people of their shitty actions as the abusers and perpetuators of abuse and/or violence, completely disregarding the power dynamics that are essential on such cases. If someone sticks up for themselves then they are just as bad as their oppressors? I literally despise this tactic so ******* much. People in here saying "she violated her contract!! optics!!1!" are completely missing the point.
Keter Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 People aren’t exempt from scrutiny by others nor from moral/ethical right conduct simply because they’re in a marginalized class. We can hold people accountable regardless of background!
Communion Posted April 16, 2023 Author Posted April 16, 2023 3 minutes ago, Keter said: We can hold people accountable regardless of background What is being accounted for?
Keter Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 Just now, Communion said: What is being accounted for? The inflammatory message of potential violence posted to the public social media account. I understand why you are saying she shouldn’t have this used against her, but you also have to acknowledge she broke clear rules/conditions of conduct and was in a probationary period. Employment is at-will for both employer and employee. I know you think they shouldn’t have, but they were well within their right to fire her.
Jynx Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 Good. We are against guns and the violence that they cause.
MotoPapi Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 5 hours ago, Ryan said: Really, Communion? 3) Blaming Biden for her OWN poor judgement shows she lacks accountability for getting herself fired. This.
Archetype Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 19 minutes ago, Communion said: but neither of these actions constitute a crime nor something illegal Which is completely irrelevant for staying employed at will when you post a video of yourself threatening to shoot people with a gun you are holding, even as retaliation. Every single company I have ever worked for would have fired me on the spot if I was to do the same thing. She is not special, she made a really stupid mistake and is now unemployed.
Communion Posted April 16, 2023 Author Posted April 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, Keter said: The inflammatory message of potential violence posted to the public social media account. But this framing is not an objective fact. If she was threatening violence, she'd be charged with a crime. But she wasn't. Because we know that arguing you'd defend yourself from death threats and owning a gun are not crimes. And that for such to be inflammatory would have to mean that casual threats of violence against LGBT people are reasonable. Because that's the implication of punishing this person. Either she had a reasonable reaction to inflammatory threats of violence against trans people. Or she had an inflammatory reaction to reasonable casual threats of violence against trans people. If you want to know who's glad she was fired, you just have to look at her replies and see 95% of them are conservatives going "there's no violence against trans people - we're just waking up to your indoctrination of children".
Sergi91 Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 5 hours ago, Ryan said: Really, Communion? 1) the Biden admin wouldn’t handle anything on this kind of granular level. 2) She violated the terms of her agreement when she was hired. As a former federal employee I can assure you she signed a policy and procedures manual for social media conduct and THIS is conduct unbecoming. 3) Blaming Biden for her OWN poor judgement shows she lacks accountability for getting herself fired.
Johnny Jacobs Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 If she stepped out of line in her job she should get fired. especially when it comes to a job like that. Stop creating conflicts and stir the pot where you don't have to.. And last time i checked biden is an ally so..
Icarus Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 (edited) “If you try to come with me I’m taking a few of you with me” while holding a gun Of course our Communist department thinks this is a very normal and okay thing to say Edited April 16, 2023 by Icarus
Horizon Flame Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 Threatening the public can make one lose their job. Shocking.
awong918 Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 3 hours ago, Shaner69 said: Who is this guy 🌹 Austin Theory. Enjoy
Hot Volcano Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 2 hours ago, Icarus said: “If you try to come with me I’m taking a few of you with me” while holding a gun Of course our Communist department thinks this is a very normal and okay thing to say The complete backfire
heckinglovato Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 7 hours ago, fathillaryduff said: When did everyone start hating Communion? Maybe ATRL is worth using again, after all. This is just nasty... what's wrong with you
heckinglovato Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 So y'all are telling me that cis people constantly flaunting their guns can became U.S. senators and go on to insight gun-armed insurrections without consequences but a trans person can't work a junior-level job in the department of agriculture for doing the same? Why are Americans so weird?
Headlock Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 5 hours ago, Communion said: I understand having personal discomfort with gun imagery, as I do too, but neither of these actions constitute a crime nor something illegal, and thus neither constitute a reasonable reason for someone to lose their job. There's nothing anyone can say to justify the Biden admin deciding some queer people are disposable. And that's not "dying on a hill" as it is simply having standards for the president. If such was just a niche concern for out-of-touch activists that couldn't sour anyone's image of Biden, this thread would have 0 replies. Well certainly not when the current administration is led by conservatives who resent the left, of course not. I genuinely don’t know how else to tell you that clearly is a reasonable reason. Holding firearm + threat of violence + social media page linked to government job = loss of said job. I really don’t care about anything related to the image of Biden or his administration, there are far better examples of his lack of concern for queer and trans people than this. Stating that this specific situation is not a good example does not mean a defense of the current administration nor does it absolve the administration of numerous other wrongdoings.
wehan6 Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 the fascists are gonna rotate this tweet every time there's a mass shooting (they've already started to blame every mass shooting on us) arm yourselves but don't post stupid **** like this online i am begging
LatinFreak Posted April 16, 2023 Posted April 16, 2023 20 hours ago, Ryan said: A liar is a liar, trans or cis. The fact is her post garnered unflattering publicity that could be directly linked back to her job. The facts are what they are, even if it’s not conducive for the narrative she is trying to paint. She violated work policy, engaged in conduct unbecoming a government employee, while a TRAINEE (which means she has no civil service protection) — she deserved to be terminated.
Recommended Posts