A little from column A, a little from column B.Max Peck wrote:So, are you saying that I crossed the line by being insensitive to little Nathan's feelz, or that I can't tell when someone is simply being snarky back at me (which is totally true, btw).ImLawBoy wrote:Sorry, but if you're going to bring the snark ("bruising little Nathan's feelz"), you need to learn to take some of it back.Max Peck wrote:Who pissed in your cornflakes? Was it Russian hookers? Is there video? I mean, America may indeed be pussified (it would explain why Trump was able to grab it so adroitly), but my snark had nothing to do with anything other than my belief as to the reason she was fired.ImLawBoy wrote:Nice Rip move - change the goalposts. It's no longer that she got fired for doing her job, it's now that she got fired for the pussification of America.Max Peck wrote:Do you honestly believe that they fired their social media director for posting calendar updates and not for bruising little Nathan's feelz?
That said, the information we have is that she was told to stop tweeting after her initial tweet from a school official publicly shaming a student. She defied that order and continued tweeting. Sometimes 2+2=4.
Would she have been fired if not for the initial tweet publicly shaming a student? Probably not, I'd guess, but we don't know for sure what would have happened if she hadn't first publicly shamed a student before defying orders from her management.
My honest opinion is the reason she got fired was that she tweeted a "joke" that made fun of a student. The excuse for actually firing her was that after being told not to use Twitter, she went ahead and tweeted legitimate work-related information (which I presume is what a "social media director" is paid to do). YMMV. If you want to get into a pissing match over it, feel free to fill yer boots (or cereal bowl).
I think it's wholly inappropriate for a representative of a school to publicly shame a student. Sure, it was funny, but it was absolutely wrong for her to do it, and wholly appropriate for her to be punished for it. When you dismissed the student's potential feelings about the issue, that was a step too far.
Of course, I probably would have more rationally explained that had you not belittled his potential feelings with the "little Nathan's feelz" line. That's what turned my remark snarky.
(I was also responding to the part where you said she lost her job for doing her job, I pointed out that she wasn't actually doing her job (since she was told not to do that), and then you shifted your argument.)