If this is true, it's horrible
-
A public employee's name is public record. If classified, so is their salary.
Deal with it.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Yeah, not a good idea.
-
@Jolly said in If this is true, it's horrible:
A public employee's name is public record. If classified, so is their salary.
Deal with it.
Publicizing it for your purposes just flat out wrong. Lots of things are available to the public. That doesn’t make them cannon fodder.
-
In general, I’m seeing far too much personal vitriol toward the people in these roles. As if they created them. Like it or not, the institution wrote the job description and advertised the role. Someone interviewed for it and got it. Sure, let’s eliminate the roles and lay them off with some appropriate notice. But if you’re looking for someone to be angry at blame the institution.
Of course it’s different if someone is known to have done something horrible, like that chick at Columbia who was texting derogatory comments about Jews. But for your average person filling the seat, they don’t deserve personal abuse.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
In general, I’m seeing far too much personal vitriol toward the people in these roles. As if they created them. Like it or not, the institution wrote the job description and advertised the role. Someone interviewed for it and got it. Sure, let’s eliminate the roles and lay them off with some appropriate notice. But if you’re looking for someone to be angry at blame the institution.
Of course it’s different if someone is known to have done something horrible, like that chick at Columbia who was texting derogatory comments about Jews. But for your average person filling the seat, they don’t deserve personal abuse.
@jon-nyc said in If this is true, it's horrible:
In general, I’m seeing far too much personal vitriol toward the people in these roles. As if they created them. Like it or not, the institution wrote the job description and advertised the role. Someone interviewed for it and got it. Sure, let’s eliminate the roles and lay them off with some appropriate notice. But if you’re looking for someone to be angry at blame the institution.
Of course it’s different if someone is known to have done something horrible, like that chick at Columbia who was texting derogatory comments about Jews. But for your average person filling the seat, they don’t deserve personal abuse.
I'd have to disagree. That's situational ethics. if someone did horrible thing X it's ok for me to do horrible thing Y to them. I naively hope for a return to civility someday.
Again though, that's IF this is true. I haven't heard anything else about it so it may not be.
-
Hey @Mik while I generally agree with you about making the positions a target and not the people, what about situations like this?
@LuFins-Dad said in If this is true, it's horrible:
Hey @Mik while I generally agree with you about making the positions a target and not the people, what about situations like this?
What about it? There is no legitimate reason to list those names. The individuals are not the problem. It’s the department and positions.
I also question that there are 52 people dedicated to DEI.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in If this is true, it's horrible:
Hey @Mik while I generally agree with you about making the positions a target and not the people, what about situations like this?
What about it? There is no legitimate reason to list those names. The individuals are not the problem. It’s the department and positions.
I also question that there are 52 people dedicated to DEI.
@Mik said in If this is true, it's horrible:
@LuFins-Dad said in If this is true, it's horrible:
Hey @Mik while I generally agree with you about making the positions a target and not the people, what about situations like this?
What about it? There is no legitimate reason to list those names. The individuals are not the problem. It’s the department and positions.
I also question that there are 52 people dedicated to DEI.
Here’s the newspaper article the image and the receipts are pulled from.
-
@Mik said in If this is true, it's horrible:
Ok. Get shed of as many as you can. Still no need to publish their names.
I’m not disagreeing, but is the guilty party the X poster, or the newspaper and/or the journalist that put it together?
