Should this guy lose his job

[lustindarkness]

Great drive by posting Sask

[Martinus]

Let's hear more from the gay lawyer from Poland, who is afraid to to reveal his own sexuality, complaining about "vindictive cunts" in Canada, because some people -imagine!- are really offended by sexism and public harrassment.

Yeah, that would be the guy I would want representing me in a  grievance.

I don't think you could afford me.

[Martinus]

Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.

He is also funnily inaccurate. His post consists of two personal attacks, which miss the mark (one is that I am closeted - which hasn't been true for years; another is that he would not want me represent him in a grievance - which is fine as this is not my line of work), followed by an "argument" that I am calling people who are "offended by sexism and harassment" "vindictive cunts."

Which obviously is not what they just did - the "vindictive cunts" in this case saw some anonymous random guy do some stupid but ultimately harmless stuff on tv (what happened to the "sticks and stones" saying?) and then tracked him down, identified him and got him fired from his job in what amounts to an internet lynch mob. That fits my definition of "vindictive cunts" very nicely.

All he did was to say something comparable in offensiveness to stuff most of us routinely say on this board (including sask's attack on me which is clearly homophobic and thus offensive) - his case is only different because he was drunk, exercised poor judgement and got taped and broadcasted on public tv.

[Martinus]

Besides, shouldn't intent matter? The guy in sunglasses explains it quite well, imho.

This is a meme. Like "ask for anal" or "show us your tits", it is meant as a joke, where the comedic element is caused by saying something that is, out of context of the meme, over-the-top offensive. It is juvenile and inappropriate, yes, but unlike actual sexual harassment, it is not meant to maliciously humiliate the addressee - in fact, the addressee of this meme is entirely irrelevant (as the guy in sunglasses explains).

This is like the astrophysicist guy with the naked women shirt - essentially, a cognitive dissonance is caused by a "dude" coming out of his small "bro" circle with something that the "bro circle" finds hilariously funny - and having a face-on collision with the outside world of "vindictive cunts" and being completely flattened by it. I am not saying the guy was smart - what both of these guys did was quite unthoughtful and dumb, but I don't believe it was malicious.

This is quite different from, say, someone consciously supporting causes that are malicious and harmful, like the KKK or one of those anti-gay hate groups.

[Admiral Yi]

If we strip it down to the essentials, what you're left with is "yes it's offensive, but other people do it too."

[Grey Fox]

Marti, you told your workplace?!

[Martinus]

Marti, you told your workplace?!

My boss and a bunch of my coworkers know and met my boyfriend. I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.

[garbon]

I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.

Weak.

[The Brain]

Marti, you told your workplace?!

My boss and a bunch of my coworkers know and met my boyfriend. I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.

Gay.

[Barrister]

Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.

He is also funnily inaccurate. His post consists of two personal attacks, which miss the mark (one is that I am closeted - which hasn't been true for years; another is that he would not want me represent him in a grievance - which is fine as this is not my line of work), followed by an "argument" that I am calling people who are "offended by sexism and harassment" "vindictive cunts."

Which obviously is not what they just did - the "vindictive cunts" in this case saw some anonymous random guy do some stupid but ultimately harmless stuff on tv (what happened to the "sticks and stones" saying?) and then tracked him down, identified him and got him fired from his job in what amounts to an internet lynch mob. That fits my definition of "vindictive cunts" very nicely.

All he did was to say something comparable in offensiveness to stuff most of us routinely say on this board (including sask's attack on me which is clearly homophobic and thus offensive) - his case is only different because he was drunk, exercised poor judgement and got taped and broadcasted on public tv.

This guy wasn't tracked down by anyone - the company identified who he was and that he would be let go.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I am not sure whether this has not actually worked against me. Poland is still quite a homophobic country.

[Barrister]

Besides, shouldn't intent matter? The guy in sunglasses explains it quite well, imho.

This is a meme. Like "ask for anal" or "show us your tits", it is meant as a joke, where the comedic element is caused by saying something that is, out of context of the meme, over-the-top offensive. It is juvenile and inappropriate, yes, but unlike actual sexual harassment, it is not meant to maliciously humiliate the addressee - in fact, the addressee of this meme is entirely irrelevant (as the guy in sunglasses explains).

This is like the astrophysicist guy with the naked women shirt - essentially, a cognitive dissonance is caused by a "dude" coming out of his small "bro" circle with something that the "bro circle" finds hilariously funny - and having a face-on collision with the outside world of "vindictive cunts" and being completely flattened by it. I am not saying the guy was smart - what both of these guys did was quite unthoughtful and dumb, but I don't believe it was malicious.

This is quite different from, say, someone consciously supporting causes that are malicious and harmful, like the KKK or one of those anti-gay hate groups.

How is interrupting a female reporter doing her job and yelling "fuck her right in the pussy" anything but humiliating to the addressee?

The fact that it is a "meme" is completely irrelevant.  All that a meme is is copying what others have done.  A meme can be positive, neutral, or negative.

[Grey Fox]

Marti, you told your workplace?!

My boss and a bunch of my coworkers know and met my boyfriend. I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.

Alright. I agree with your not in the closet comment then.

[Zanza]

Here (and I believe in most EU member states), the rules for firing an employee are the same for union and non-union members (with the exception of union leaders who get special job protection), but furthermore while a union is authorised to negotiate a better deal with the employer on behalf of employees, once they do so, the terms of the deal apply to all employees, not just members of the union. Giving special rights to union members would be seen as discrimination of the worst kind (in fact our anti-discrimination regulations expressly ban discrimination because of membership in a union or lack thereof).

Germany must be the exception you refer to then, because unions here can certainly negotiate different rules for their members. Employers very rarely agree to that though. 

[Malthus]

This guy wasn't tracked down by anyone - the company identified who he was and that he would be let go.

If this is the case, though, it may work against them if he seeks notice. CC and I had a discussion upthread about just cause for causing reputational damage - may be harder to argue if it was the company itself that identifed him.