If this is true, it's horrible
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 22:43 last edited by jon-nyc
Identifying workers by name is so off limits.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/22/24303594/elon-musk-harassing-federal-workers-x
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 22:49 last edited by
Yeah, I won’t disagree, except for the Pelosi niece…
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 22:56 last edited by
Yeah I wish he wouldn't do that.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 23:05 last edited by
Nazis gotta Nazi.
-
wrote on 24 Jan 2025, 23:08 last edited by
A public employee's name is public record. If classified, so is their salary.
Deal with it.
-
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 00:48 last edited by
Yeah, not a good idea.
-
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 04:09 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 22:04 last edited by jon-nyc
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.
-
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 22:15 last edited by
They
arewere just doing their job, whichiswas making people hate white males.Just doing their jobs.
-
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.
wrote on 25 Jan 2025, 22:31 last edited by Mik@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.
-
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 15:10 last edited by
Hey @Mik while I generally agree with you about making the positions a target and not the people, what about situations like this?
-
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 15:47 last edited by
It's funny how they manage to jam a "meritocracy" into a DEI office. I mean, how else would they possibly justify the salaries of the top people?
-
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 15:57 last edited by
Not that it affects his point at all, but I’m calling BS on his math. Ain’t no way that’s 125 teachers.
-
Hey @Mik while I generally agree with you about making the positions a target and not the people, what about situations like this?
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 16:02 last edited by Mik@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.
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 17:28 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 20:28 last edited by Mik
Ok. Get shed of as many as you can. Still no need to publish their names.
-
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 21:24 last edited by
@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?
-
wrote on 26 Jan 2025, 22:58 last edited by Mik
All of the above. They all did it. Who did it first may be a difference of degree, but not by much.