Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

WestCoastRunner · December 13, 2014

I do not see the damage caused by a few tweets to be sufficient to justify destroying someone's life, especially on a first offense.

You do not see the damage because you are speaking from a male point of view. And to say it is destroying someone's life is a bit exaggerated, don't you think? It has certainly educated many people on the risks of tweeting offensive remarks to say the least. Everyone has a second chance to start anew. Perhaps this fella will think twice on his next job. He just has to remember that there are probably 1000 guys behind him waiting for the same opportunity he had.

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2014

There's always been a line between private and public comments. In the 1950s you might make a comment about a woman's body if there were men present but you wouldn't do it in front of just anyone. Social media puts a bullhorn in front of private comments, so people will have to get used to that on both sides of the issue.

TimG · December 13, 2014

I retain an unshakeable belief in fundamental justice, and that requires weighing damage caused vs punishment meted out. I do not see the damage caused by a few tweets to be sufficient to justify destroying someone's life, especially on a first offense.

This is a very good point. Many public figures have been caught doing much worse and get off with an apology and promise to never do it again. Why was the board so quick to crucify these individuals?

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2014

This is a very good point. Many public figures have been caught doing much worse and get off with an apology and promise to never do it again. Why was the board so quick to crucify these individuals?

If we're going to treat personal comments with the level of scrutiny reserved for public officials, then I think we need to apply the amount of forgiveness and pardon that we would give to an acquaintance, which is more.

jacee · December 13, 2014

It was a South Park quote! And young men often try to be deliberately rude and vulgar. Blame our culture.

I retain an unshakeable belief in fundamental justice, and that requires weighing damage caused vs punishment meted out. I do not see the damage caused by a few tweets to be sufficient to justify destroying someone's life, especially on a first offense.

Yes it's sad that he took that foolish risk for the sake of showing off his macho immaturity, and destroyed his own life.

Obviously the fire dept felt that his behaviour caused damage to their reputation, and their recruitment and employment of women, and the workplace environment.

He is not their concern. He can be replaced.

Life is full of lessons.

.

Edited December 13, 2014 by jacee

Argus · December 13, 2014

This is a very good point. Many public figures have been caught doing much worse and get off with an apology and promise to never do it again. Why was the board so quick to crucify these individuals?

Because they were low ranking people with no status and little protection. To large organizations such people are like ants, totally without importance. Stalin once said that if a man causes problems, well then, no man, no problem. And large organizations fully embrace that concept.

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2014

Stalin once said that if a man causes problems, well then, no man, no problem. And large organizations fully embrace that concept.

It sounds, then, like people will just start being more careful of what they say.

Argus · December 13, 2014

There's always been a line between private and public comments. In the 1950s you might make a comment about a woman's body if there were men present but you wouldn't do it in front of just anyone. Social media puts a bullhorn in front of private comments, so people will have to get used to that on both sides of the issue.

I also think it makes political discourse more difficult in that you can say something in private, have it recorded without your knowledge, and then be faced by public outrage when it's posted on-line. The Tom Flanagan case comes to mind.

There are arguments on sensitive topics which need to be made in a nuanced way, but that is alien to popular media, which likes sound bytes and quick clips and headlines. If they can grab ten or twenty seconds out of a speech and condemn it the media is not going to delve much deeper. They love outrage, after all, love controversial statements, and have no interest in nuance.

Argus · December 13, 2014

It sounds, then, like people will just start being more careful of what they say.

And is that really a better thing than being able to speak your mind? Is it good that only the fabulously wealthy can do so without repercussions?

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2014

And is that really a better thing than being able to speak your mind? Is it good that only the fabulously wealthy can do so without repercussions?

There are actually bigger repercussions for them, even if they are ultimately excused. Their image is known by many, so even a small ding will bring them down.

Is it fair, though ? Probably not. You're always free to speak your mind but there are always risks.

Argus · December 13, 2014

You do not see the damage because you are speaking from a male point of view.

Drivel. The macho mentality of jobs like firefighting is quite well-known, to any man or woman who has even a passing knowledge of the job. Nor is that likely to change. If a woman who is considering firefighting is reconsidering because a couple of firefighters tweeted a few stupid sayings then she doesn't belong in the job anyway, and would never last. In fact, the kind of woman who would last is the kind who would laugh at such things.

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2014

Drivel. The macho mentality of jobs like firefighting is quite well-known, to any man or woman who has even a passing knowledge of the job. Nor is that likely to change.

Oh, I think it's going to change all right, in that they won't be yapping about it.

Argus · December 13, 2014

There are actually bigger repercussions for them, even if they are ultimately excused. Their image is known by many, so even a small ding will bring them down.

Is it fair, though ? Probably not. You're always free to speak your mind but there are always risks.

Yes, but the risks used to be if you said something completely outrageous. This was not outrageous in an individual setting. It was seized on by the media as something 'outrageous' but the media thinks anything but bland pablum is outrageous. That's why politicians never say anything any more but bland feel-good spin-doctored mush. And the media has gotten so used to that they are aghast whenever they come across someone talking like a real human being.

Argus · December 13, 2014

Oh, I think it's going to change all right, in that they won't be yapping about it.

On the internet, you mean? And how is that an improvement on anything?

Argus · December 13, 2014

"Blame our culture" sounds like "don't blame them", ie. an excuse.

The difference between us is I don't feel the need to condemn their comments, therefore, don't need to excuse them. I don't have any issue with them. Oh, I would, if I thought they meant that stuff seriously, but I have no doubt at all they were just farting around looking to amuse people in their circle of friends.

Argus · December 13, 2014

I love it. If mama ain't happy, no one is.

So it would be cool to record young women acting like sluts, even if just clowning around, and send that to their dads too, right?

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2014

On the internet, you mean? And how is that an improvement on anything?

I don't know that it's an improvement. It's a change, though. There are positive and negative effects to change.

WestCoastRunner · December 14, 2014

In fact, the kind of woman who would last is the kind who would laugh at such things.

Why should a woman have to laugh at such sexist remarks just to fit in? That is basically what you are saying.

Edited December 14, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

Michael Hardner · December 14, 2014

I re-read the offending tweet again. It's not funny. It's just incredibly dull and obvious. I can't believe somebody that thick-headed is in a job like that... what does he make anyway ?

Argus · December 14, 2014

I re-read the offending tweet again. It's not funny. It's just incredibly dull and obvious. I can't believe somebody that thick-headed is in a job like that... what does he make anyway ?

Who, Seth MacFarlane?

So you're not a fan of South Park. Not a surprise. It's aimed at young people.

Argus · December 14, 2014

Why should a woman have to laugh at such sexist remarks just to fit in? That is basically what you are saying.

A woman has to be able to understand the difference between something meant to be offensive and something meant to be amusing in order to fit in.

jacee · December 14, 2014

Drivel. The macho mentality of jobs like firefighting is quite well-known, to any man or woman who has even a passing knowledge of the job. Nor is that likely to change.

It is now.

If a woman who is considering firefighting is reconsidering because a couple of firefighters tweeted a few stupid sayings then she doesn't belong in the job anyway, and would never last. In fact, the kind of woman who would last is the kind who would laugh at such things.

Your age is showing. That's such a 70's kind of remark. Maybe true back then, not now.

No, they don't have to laugh.

The women will last, the chauvinist ignoramuses will get fired.

Welcome to the new millenium.

.

jacee · December 14, 2014

A woman has to be able to understand the difference between something meant to be offensive and something meant to be amusing in order to fit in.

He got fired because he didn't fit in.

.

jacee · December 14, 2014

I also think it makes political discourse more difficult in that you can say something in private, have it recorded without your knowledge, and then be faced by public outrage when it's posted on-line. The Tom Flanagan case comes to mind.

He wasn't speaking privately.

.