Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[Argus]

I've never felt the need to publicize the crude conversations I've had with my friends on social media.

It seems this generation feels that everyone needs to hear every offensive thought that pops in their head.

The thing is, what they said wasn't even offensive. One was a South Park quote which was very clearly and obviously meant to be charicature, and the other was a joke the likes of which I've heard a zillion times from both men and women.

[jacee]

Well then, since the followers of these guys had to 'consent' to read them, then there should be no issue with what they said, right?

I doubt they'd consent to work with them.

Poisoning the workplace, ya know.

[Argus]

I doubt they'd consent to work with them.

Poisoning the workplace, ya know.

I've spoken to several women about this and none of them thought it was any big deal. Most of their boyfriends/husbands/brothers have said worse.

[Boges]

The thing is, what they said wasn't even offensive. One was a South Park quote which was very clearly and obviously meant to be charicature, and the other was a joke the likes of which I've heard a zillion times from both men and women.

Clearly people found it offensive.

Just because you didn't, doesn't mean these soul-less bureaucrats as you call them didn't.

I'm curious what's your opinion on the term "Gay" being used as a pejorative. Because that's the forefront of how the speech police have effected my life.

I've never thought about it, when I was younger, and how it isn't right to use that term that way. But now I've developed a keen awareness of it and when I hear someone use it as a pejorative, I sort of cringe.

[jacee]

I've spoken to several women about this and none of them thought it was any big deal. Most of their boyfriends/husbands/brothers have said worse.

Personal conversations with consent are a different issue than public comments affecting the workplace.

You really don't grasp the consent issue very well.

WHAT was said is not the whole issue.

It's WHERE and TO WHOM - context and consent - and the effects on others and the workplace that makes it inappropriate in this case.

Just because it might be ok in one context, doesn't mean it is in another.

Do you not get that yet?

Would you say those things to a stranger at a bus stop? or to a bus full of people?

I suggest that if you did, you'd be put off the bus, or someone would call the cops.

Why don't you do that as an experiment!

Get back to us on that, eh?

[cybercoma]

Did I SAY a lot of women like rape? How did rape even get into this? Was anyone advocating rape? Ever? In the tweets or in this thread? Put a bandaid on your bleeding heart.

Someone mentioned non-consensual sex and you replied with "some women like it rough." Non-consensual sex is rape. I trust I don't need to repost the discussion.

[g_bambino]

If you wear a uniform, what you do in it (good or bad) reflects on your employer whether you like it or not. I don't know if these idiots should be fired but they need a butt kicking and sure as hell need to grow up.

This uniform thing keeps coming up again and again. Every time I ask: From the one guy's profile photo, in which we know he's wearing fire fighting gear, can anyone tell what force he belongs to? And does anyone even know what picture, if any, the other guy used? Until those questions are answered, the uniforms are irrelevant.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

I find that Argus and other "mildly sexist" posters are intentionally avoiding discussion of the real issue, which is the violent sexist comments that actually got them fired:

would swat her in the back of the head been considered abuse or a way to reset the brain?

the way to a womans heart is through anal.

Violent sexism ... that's why they got fired.

In what way is the first highlighted comment sexist? Are women the only ones who say "like" far too often? Is there something that prevents men from being swatted in the back of the head? Nothing there seems to target anything unique to women.

The second comment expresses no violence. Is it entirely possible for anal penetration to be accepted willingly.

[guyser]

This uniform thing keeps coming up again and again. Every time I ask: From the one guy's profile photo, in which we know he's wearing fire fighting gear, can anyone tell what force he belongs to? And does anyone even know what picture, if any, the other guy used? Until those questions are answered, the uniforms are irrelevant.

[ed.: c/e]

Not sure that matters g .

It looks like TFS , and if one looks up Matt Bowman you go here... http://my.firefighternation.com/profile/MatthewRobbertBowman .

His bosses supposedly know who he works for, so in that regard, it does matter.

But no one really expected them to be fired, nor do i. But given a spell at home unpaid...yes.

[Wilber]

This uniform thing keeps coming up again and again. Every time I ask: From the one guy's profile photo, in which we know he's wearing fire fighting gear, can anyone tell what force he belongs to? And does anyone even know what picture, if any, the other guy used? Until those questions are answered, the uniforms are irrelevant.

[ed.: c/e]

Those questions were answered. I don't know why supposedly intelligent people continue to be so stupid when it comes to what they post on social media.

[g_bambino]

It looks like TFS...

It does? What so very visible feature distinguishes his gear as belonging to the Toronto Fire Services?

His bosses supposedly know who he works for, so in that regard, it does matter

Supposing they do, what does it matter? The issue some here are saying he was or should be taken to task for was "representing the TFS" in a negative way. I don't think they were referring to him representing the TFS to its own employees.

[g_bambino]

Those questions were answered.

Yeah? Where?

I don't know why supposedly intelligent people continue to be so stupid when it comes to what they post on social media.

I'll assume you mean the firefighters in question and not me.

[Wilber]

It does? What so very visible feature distinguishes his gear as belonging to the Toronto Fire Services?

Supposing they do, what does it matter? The issue some here are saying he was or should be taken to task for was "representing the TFS" in a negative way. I don't think they were referring to him representing the TFS to its own employees.

Whether he was representing the TFS is irrelevant. He was presenting himself, his employer and the rest of his colleagues in a negative manner. The fact he uses @Hero_Matt as his twitter name says something about the guy anyway. Personally I think firing is too strong but I do think he deserves to be censored for his behaviour and do some growing up.

[Wilber]

Yeah? Where?

I'll assume you mean the firefighters in question and not me.

I don't know what you do on social media so you assume correctly.

On Edit.

Regarding the where, I doubt the TFS is going to broadcast that to the public but it will be part of the grievance arbitration.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Wilber

[guyser]

It does? What so very visible feature distinguishes his gear as belonging to the Toronto Fire Services?

Supposing they do, what does it matter? The issue some here are saying he was or should be taken to task for was "representing the TFS" in a negative way. I don't think they were referring to him representing the TFS to its own employees.

The Uni and the truck in the background?

When the bosses at TFS saw the tweets in print (Nat'l Post), back in August they saw it as an afront, describing it as 'absolutely unacceptable sexist tweets'

Its pretty simple, dont involve your employer when saying dumb things and all is good.

[Black Dog]

This isn't really even about sexuality but gender. Its about male culture being what it is, and being looked at askance by cultural elites who have adopted delicate feminist sensibilities and use them to desparage and claim deep offense at what is perfectly normal male conduct. Thus these firings.

I never would have taken you for a cultural relativist, but here we are.

[cybercoma]

I never would have taken you for a cultural relativist, but here we are.

Only for some cultures apparently.

[g_bambino]

Whether he was representing the TFS is irrelevant. He was presenting himself, his employer and the rest of his colleagues in a negative manner.

Well, there's a self-contradiction if I ever saw one.

[g_bambino]

The Uni and the truck in the background?

From the picture here I genuinely can't see any logos or markings identifying the Toronto Fire Services.

[guyser]

From the picture here I genuinely can't see any logos or markings identifying the Toronto Fire Services.

I bet his bosses did.

[g_bambino]

I bet his bosses did.

I wouldn't be either way.

But, even if his bosses did, how is that important? Is it the way this fellow was presenting the TFS to his bosses or to the public that would matter?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[Boges]

Calling himself "Hero_Matt" and having that picture, it would be reasonable to conclude he wore the fact that he was a Firefighter on his sleeves.

I have no evidence for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if his history of Tweets gave evidence to his workplace as well.

BTW if you have to call yourself a Hero as a nickname. . . You're likely the farthest thing from one.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Boges

[g_bambino]

Calling himself "Hero_Matt" and having that picture, it would be reasonable to conclude he wore the fact that he was a Firefighter on his sleeves.

So, now the problem is his supposedly representing all firefighters?

[ed.: sp]

Edited September 26, 2013 by g_bambino

[Boges]

So, now the problem is his supposedly representing all firefighters?

[ed.: sp]

How did you conclude that from my post?

I'm just saying that it's likely, based on the evidence that we already have, that there was more information on this guy's Twitter feed to indicate where he worked.

[Argus]

Clearly people found it offensive.

Not people I have any respect for.

Just because you didn't, doesn't mean these soul-less bureaucrats as you call them didn't.

Soulless bureacrats don't get offended by anything which doesn't affect their power or promotions. They seized on this as an opportunity to show everyone what champtions of equal opportunity and anti-harrassment they were, and to demonstrate to the unwashed (their employees) that since they are working for such paragons of noble virtue, they had better mind their damned ignorant low class manners.

I'm curious what's your opinion on the term "Gay" being used as a pejorative. Because that's the forefront of how the speech police have effected my life.

It's a strange world where terms come to take on odd meanings. Saying something was the shit is apparently saying it's great, which is bizarre. Gay used to be mean happy, then it became a word for sexual orientation, and then it became a word for what, dumb/stupid, I guess. But it's something the younger crowd use, the South Park generation. I don't think it really expresses a dislike of homosexuals. It's just a word.

Saying to someone, "You having a blonde/senior moment?" plays on the sterotypes but only a fool would suggest that it indicates a dislike for either seniors or blondes. I honestly don't give a damn what words people use nearly as much as their intent.

To the politically correct, however, style means far, far more than substance. To the dedicated protector of minorities, who sees himself or herself as some brave and noble warrior defending the honour and repuation of people who never asked for their damned help, reality has little chance of garnering much of their attention.