Thursday, April 30, 2015

A Liberal Gets Fired For Honesty

Tonight’s article is about someone I assume is a liberal... she thinks like one. I’ll prove that at the end. Anyways, the article is about a single mother who was “fired” from a job for something she said on Facebook. Naturally, she thinks it’s unfair. And what she presents is a case study of liberal hypocrisy.

We know little about the mother in question because the article doesn’t really focus on her. I suspect the reason for that is that the author of the article is afraid the public won’t like this poor victim-wannabe if they knew more about her. What we do know is that she’s a 27 year-old single mom who lives in a suburb of Dallas and she goes by the name Kaitlyn Walls... making her one of the tidal wave of Kātlins that struck at about the same time.

Caitlin interviewed for and got a job at a day care center. The day her new job began, she wrote this on Facebook:
“I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate working at daycares.”

“LOL, it’s all good, I just really hate being around a lot of kids.”
Whoops. Sure enough, someone told the employer what Katelyn wrote and her offer was rescinded. She then ran to the press to enshrine her victimhood. Based on the comments to the article, however, she didn’t get the response she expected. She says she actually cried at the hate she received. Boo hoo.

In the article, Kaitlin assures us that firing her (an inaccurate assessment of what happened) was unfair because she didn’t mean it. In fact, she assures us that “I don’t hate children. I have my own…I love her.” And she lets us know that “It really hurt because I wasn’t trying to offend anybody.”

Ah, the smell of self-centeredness.

Let me start by pointing out why “firing” her was not unfair:
(1) Working at a day care center requires an affinity for children. Not only did Catelyn just admit to not being suited for the job (“I hate working at daycares”), but she specifically admitted to having an attitude that is a huge red flag in that industry: “I just really hate being around a lot of kids.” People with that attitude are the ones who end up on camera smacking kids or otherwise abusing them, something a day care center cannot tolerate. So it not only makes sense to “fire” her, but it’s really the only choice a responsible day care center would have.

Her suggestion that somehow she didn’t really mean it doesn’t hold water either. People don’t spit out negative untruths about themselves. “Man, I really hate short people! LOL!” No, people don’t do that unless the thing they spew out is something they already believe.

Further, how is the employer supposed to know the difference between those who are just saying offensive things for fun and those who really mean it? And does it matter? It doesn’t seem to matter to liberals when the thing said offends them.

Also, this idea that she loves her daughter, is misdirection, not a defense. There is a substantive distance between loving your own child and disproving your own assertion that you hate groups of other people’s kids.

(2) Most likely, Kateline lied during the interview. I have no doubt that she was asked how she liked working at day care centers and what she thinks of watching groups of kids. You can be sure she told the employer that she loves both. Her Facebook post reveals that to be a lie. And an employee who lies about something that significant will lie about anything. That is a good reason to fire an employee who would otherwise occupy a position of trust.

At the very least, Kaitlynn just revealed a poisonous attitude of the kind that gets people fired even without ever being caught saying anything specifically bad.

(3) Caitline also has shown that she lacks the necessary filter to be given a position of trust. The day care center can more than reasonably worry based on this incident that she will be gossiping about the children in her charge and their parents. Again, that is reason to fire someone.
And let me toss this out there. I don’t know Catelynn, but I can guess with 99.9% certainty that Caitlyn would bitch up a storm if an employee at the daycare center where she leaves her little Bryttannee said, “I hate little kids.” She would probably be all over Facebook writing that the center needed to fire this rotten, insensitive human. You know I’m right.

What I find interesting here is the liberalism...
● “I didn’t do wrong because I didn’t intend to offend.” That’s very liberal: only intent matters.

● “What I did doesn’t matter because I didn’t mean it.” Again, liberals believe intent is all that matters.

● “It should be up to the employer to prove that I was serious and that I intended something wrong.” This is a classic example of how liberals decide disputes: the most powerful partner bears the responsibility unless there is absolute proof of intentional wrongful conduct by the whinier party.

● “I can’t imagine why this would be bad other than if I really meant it.” Demonstrating an utter lack of responsibility and a lack of a grasp on the bigger picture. This belief again fits perfectly with liberalism, which loves to narrow issues to the here and now and simplify them to strip away any responsibility on the part of their designated victim.
From the comments, you can also add these defenses of her:
● “The employer shouldn’t be allowed to ‘pry’ into things Katelinn said online.” How is it prying when something is said for all the world to hear? This is a classic example of the liberal penchant for relieving bad people of the responsibility of their actions. This is also the liberal penchant for elevating procedure over substance... who cares if we now have proof he was the killer, we get that proof the wrong way.

● “The evil person in this is the person who reported her comments to the employer.” Liberals love to deflect blame. You see this when liberals attack the police who do the arresting rather than the criminal who gave cause to be arrested.
And again, it would be very liberal to apply one standard here and then a different standard when they find themselves on the other side.

Nice, huh?


AndrewPrice said...

BTW, the author calls this being fired for "a small lapse in judgment." But is it really? The reality is that Katelinn is being fired because she let the truth slip. And that truth revealed her as someone who may potentially be dangerous to the children who will be placed in her trust.

Kit said...

Folks, this is why on social media I stick to less dangerous topics such as politics!

Kit said...

Ok, more in-depth:

Now, remember, I am not a parent and this is written in between studying for a latin exam.
On the one hand: Today I read where Jonah Goldberg, talking on the Clintons, mentioned some advice given to him by a former boss, "You forgive mistakes, you punish patterns." I don't know if there was a pattern of behavior here or if this was not something that could've been handled by a reprimand.

One the other hand: The employee would've faced a lawsuit if she did turn out to be reckless and a child was injured (or worse) while in her care.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, That is something social media does so well... it exposes the true fools because they race out share their tale of outrage.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, You forgive mistakes when you know the person and they have built up some good will and/or shown their usefulness. This woman would be easily replaced and she had zero history with the company to show that she is a good employee who just said something stupid. So why risk it?

Kit said...

"You forgive mistakes when you know the person and they have built up some good will and/or shown their usefulness. This woman would be easily replaced and she had zero history with the company to show that she is a good employee who just said something stupid. So why risk it?"

That is true.

Kit said...

"That is something social media does so well... it exposes the true fools because they race out share their tale of outrage."

You know, if social media existed in 1941 the Niihau incident would not have been as big of a deal. Those two Japanese-Americans who helped the pilot despite showing no history of anti-Americanism?

Today, you might have had a history of posts like "F**K America" and "Glory to the Empire of Japan!" and various posts attacking America's embargo of Japan and supporting Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

Kit said...

Something else, I've noticed the left has begun to bemoan things like "stigma" or "hate" thrown at anyone for anything unless that is something remotely conservative.

I particularly remember Salon bemoaning the criticism a woman, who had knowingly engaged in a sexual relationship with her father, received because of the "stigma" attached to incest.

Anthony said...

Lots of people, liberal and conservative, hang themselves with social media, which they view as a diary to scribble down all of their thoughts.

Most employers don't like controversy and most people can be easily replaced, so it makes perfect sense to fire a headache/potential liability and hire the next person in line.

Anonymous said...

Great article. This is a perfect summary of all things liberal. The deflection. The denial. The immediate resort to victimhood when called on anything. The complete denial of any responsibility for anything. And the raw stupidity to post that on facebook the day that you're going to start your job at a daycare center!
I'll say that again. She posted this the day that she was supposed to start the job. This reveals another aspect of her thought process. She believes that simply because she has been hired that she's entitled to the job. Did you see that? I don't even know her and I can tell that she'd be a terrible employee. She sees the job as an entitlement. "I got a job. I did my part. My obligation is done. Now I post something for the whole world to see that shows I'm unfit to work with little children and they FIRE ME?! IT AIN'T FAIR! She has no belief that she has any other obligation to her employer but to get hired and then the job simply belongs to her like a food stamp card.
And lastly, the raw stupidity that people have when it comes to facebook. When it comes to facebook I'm in complete agreement with Betty White. "I can't imagine a bigger waste of time."

Anonymous said...

I used the phrase raw stupidity twice in a short post. Shows what happens when you don't proofread.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Stupidity knows no specific demographics, but in my experience, conservatives rarely do something stupid and then act shocked when it comes back to bite them. Conservatives get at a fundamental level that if you misbehave, there are negative consequences. Liberals don't accept that. They view you as the bad guy for punishing them.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks GypsyTyger!

This is a perfect summary of all things liberal. The deflection. The denial. The immediate resort to victimhood when called on anything. The complete denial of any responsibility for anything. And the raw stupidity

Exactly! That's what I thought when I saw this. And nice addition about the sense of entitlement. There is a sense that I got this job and you can't take it away just because I did stuff... notice she never even grasps why this comment is worth being fired.

I see this type of thinking a lot with the liberals I know. They see employers as required to accommodate their desires on everything.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I would be an amazing experience if we could go back and give social media to the public in the past. I wonder how WWII would have turned out?

AndrewPrice said...

On stigma, the left has worked hard to wipe out "stigma" wherever they want to change society's value. At the same time, they are beyond puritanical when it comes to creating stigma on things the want forced into the culture... like the rape culture.

ArgentGale said...

Jeez... You'd think after story after story of social media comments biting people in the butt people would exercise a bit more sense. I wouldn't have thought to link it to liberal thought processes, though it does make sense when you spell it out like that. As for me, this is why I choose my comments carefully and generally only post things like pictures of my cats and emergency events on my Facebook. I've noticed what you and Kit observed on stigma, too. The world's just a mess, it seems.

- Daniel

(PS, sorry again for all the rambling in the e-mail, Andrew.)

AndrewPrice said...

Daniel, I don't seem to have your email. It's not in my spam folder either. Could you send it again?

AndrewPrice said...

Daniel, This one struck me as something liberal from the get go. It had all the hallmarks -- someone who did something wrong who wants public absolution without any contrition and every trying to blame the employer for doing what any rational person (including them) would do if they were in the same position.

ArgentGale said...

Andrew, I will when things settle down a bit (it's an overtime week for me) and I'll make sure to clean it up beforehand, too.

Rustbelt said...

OT: Oh, Andrew. The Bucs picked Jameis Winston.

You have my sympathy. First, those jerseys, and now this.

Well, you do have that definitive win over the Steelers last year.

Rustbelt said...

Also OT: Just to follow up on yesterday's discussion, why are the morons at the Draft like Kiper going crazy to say Winston is better than Mariota? Are they delusional, or just being good libs by praising the black QB over the "white Samoan" QB?

Kiper went gaga over how Winston had seven come-from-behind wins last year for FSU. Never mind that nearly all those wins were over inferior teams- B.C., Miami, N.C. State, Florida, etc.- who had no business competing with FSU. Winston had 4- yes, 4!- interceptions- in the first half!- against the Gators. Not Spurrier's Gators. Not Meyer's Gators. Not even Zook's Gators. (Ouch.) But the bottomed-out Gators who are a shadow of what they were. As a B1G guy, I'd say that's like having seven comebacks against Indiana! Or in NFL terms, seven comebacks against Jacksonville or Cleveland! Gaw...

Then Kiper blasts Mariota for having trouble against Stanford, saying it shows he has lots of growing to do. Uh...Stanford is good. Arizona won the PAC-12 South. Ohio State is good. Those are the teams that beat Oregon during Mariota's tenure. See a pattern? Mariota crushed teams who were inferior to the Ducks. The only struggles Mariota had were against GOOD TEAMS! How stupid do you have to be to miss this?!

And, oh, yeah...59- 20. The score by which Maiota and the Ducks annihilated Winston and the 'Noles at the Rose Bowl.

And how heartwarming is it that Roger Goodell is getting booed every time he steps out on stage?

AndrewPrice said...

Daniel, Ok. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, Yeah, I'm not thrilled about our future. Did you see the interview with him? He was coached to say two things and two things only.

So we get a guy who throws a ton of interceptions, is accused or rape and theft, and just doesn't seem to get it and we made him the most important person in our franchise. I guess we deserve what we get.

Rustbelt said...

Andrew, I didn't see the interview. But I'm guessing, (this is just a hunch), he doesn't have that whole 'intelligence' thing down yet- even if his lawyers and agents have been prepping him 24 hours a day.

I'll be surprised if the Steelers don't take a defensive player. (They just released Brett Kiesel; and Jason Worilds, Troy Polamalu, and Ike Taylor all retired.)

BTW, have you seen Goodell's delivery tonight? I haven't listened to everything, but he pronounced Mariota's name 'Mari-oh -toe,' Then, on Cleveland's second pick, he calls the guy a guard. He was a center.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the guy leading the NFL into the future. Not since early imperial Rome has an organization had such a parade of inept leaders, yet stuck around due to pre-established success and lack of competition.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, It strikes me that Goodell is trying to stay in the background.

Rustbelt said...

Andrew, it may be the first intelligent thing Goodell has done since, well, assuming he did anything intelligent when Tagliabue was the boss.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, While I feel your pain (and loathing! :D ) I must sadly say that Goodell is a hell of a commissioner. He does all the dirty work of the owners, takes all the bullets for the league's mistakes and misdeeds, and nothing touches "the shield." He is a scapegoat par excellence of the highest caliber.

Rustbelt said...

Andrew, I suppose that is a positive way of looking at things. (I still consider him a douche, though!)

Interesting, he just announced pick #30 (Green Bay), and he seems to be enjoying the jeering at this point. Well, like you said, he takes the bullets.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, That's his job really. In fact, think about what he really actually does. The NFL has all the usual employees who handle the day to day operations. They have committees who study all the issues. Then the owners make all the decisions at owners' meetings. He just "briefs" the owners.

He doesn't run the league in any way.

In between, he spends his time playing good cop/bad cop with the media, with the cities over stadium issues, with the public when it comes to PR issues, and acting as the gatekeeper between the owners and the players union.

He's the guy who destroys the union in contract negotiations while owners like the Rooneys hide behind him as they claim they are pro-union. The NFL is giving up its non-profit status to make their business less transparent and all anyone talks about is "this is Goodell trying to hide his income." He's the guy who goes to war with the cities over stadium improvements so the local teams don't have to anger anyone.

His job is to draw fire... that's it. And all the people who hate him but don't extend that hate to the league show how effective he is.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, Showing that he really doesn't get it, the Bucs QB apparent posted a photo of himself in a Bucs jersey sitting in front of a plate of crab legs. Seeing as how he was accused of stealing crab legs, you have to see that as a big middle finger at all the people who told him to be contrite about it until he's drafted.


Rustbelt said...

Wow, Andrew. I'll have to give that one the Spock answer: Fascinating.

Honestly, it makes sense. The owners need their PR bodyguard. Unfortunately for the Rooneys, my opinion of them collapsed some time ago.

What might be interesting in the future is to compare Goodell to the other commissioners and how they could (or could have) learn(ed) from Goodell. Gary Bettman (NHL) overexpanded, lost the contract with ESPN, and has gotten into very public feuds with owners- leading to public sympathy for the owners.
And how about former MLB boss Bud Selig? -the guy who went "what's good for L.A., Boston, and New York is enough for me." I have a family member who's documented the real dirt on Selig. And believe me, it's not pretty.

Rustbelt said...

Ug indeed, Andrew.

What;s next? Ray Lewis debuting his new ESPN segment, "Murder, He Wrote," in front of the Cobalt Lounge in Atlanta?

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, I get the sense that the NFL is a much better business/machine than the other leagues. I was watching a documentary on the drafting of Joe Namath and I think that was a key moment. What happened was that the old NFL owners saw the NFL as being in the "football" business. But the owner of the Jets disagreed. He said that the NFL was in the "entertainment" business. And he pushed ideas into the league like creating stars, attracting women, branding, etc.

From that moment on, the NFL has become obsessed with controlling everything within its reach so it can control the product while getting the public to see what they do as a good deed rather than seeing the true purpose. Indeed, what it could not crush it coopted or bought outright and it always did so under a theory that made the public see them as good samaritans for crushing or coopting those people.

For example, (1) they use media access to control ESPN and the internet while making it sound like they are all about open access, (2) using the NFL network to take over CBS while making it sound like it was CBS's idea, (3) using the lack of a team in LA to blackmail every other city for twenty years for new stadiums while making it seem that they are working hard to protect smaller cities, (4) using every trick you can imagine to generate merchandising revenue (like alternate uniforms) while making it sound like they are just trying to support causes like breast cancer, (5) using the salary cap to control the unions while claiming they are trying to bring parody to the league to help smaller city teams, (6) scheduling events to crush baseball or other events while pretending they are trying to avoid the very thing, (7) using the draft to control rookie salaries and keep colleges in line while tricking the fans in crappy cities into thinking their team now has a chance and selling the NFL as a dream maker, (8) using donations to market to kids while being lauded for helping kids, etc.

There are hundreds of examples. In each case, the NFL presents itself as trying to fix some problem or help some group, but when you look closer, they prove to be a cutthroat business who use the "good deed" as a pretext for more Machiavellian action.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not whining about the big bad NFL. I totally respect what they do. I'm just amazed at how good they are at hiding what they really do.

Even managing the game is done in the same style. Why use things like the competition committee? Because it lets an anonymous committee act as a way to float trial balloons and swallow issues before the owners have to touch them. In other word, the committee lets the owners pick and chose what they want to do on the record.

The same is true on the concussion issue, where a committee deals with the issue and the league claims they are "leaders" on the issue even as they are stonewalling at the committee level.

The commissioner is just another example of how the NFL works. He seems like the guy who runs the NFL, but he has almost no real responsibilities except some increasingly minor role in player discipline. His real purpose is lightening rod and, if you paid attention, you would see that he personally screwed up every bad decision the NFL made... yet he retains his job. Why? Because he was implementing owner policy and when it went wrong, he took the bullet and people bought it. The reason he still has the job is that he is insanely good at taking those bullets without taking enough damage to need to be fired.

In another example, the NFL network became the spear that attacked the cable companies, so the NFL itself could appear to keep its hands out of that mess. It also shows the other "journalists" what is expected and rewards a vast array of them with appearances on their shows and jobs. It is also a landing spot for NFL personnel who might leave and write a tell all book.

The NFL is an amazing organization!

AndrewPrice said...

As for the other leagues, by the way, the problem is that the commissioners are given actual power, the owners are split, and there is no business structure that unites them. This has made them subject to making massive mistakes and being limited to the amount one man could focus on.

Thus, when the NBA (Stern) decided in the 1980s to base itself on marketing 3-4 stars, there was no one to stop it from doing that and when the stars retired, the league crashed.

The NHL wanted to grow because it thought it was in the hockey business and it saw growth as the way to increase profits, without realizing that it had entered markets with no demand. And like baseball, it does not control the players.

Baseball has no centralized core that markets the league and controls its image. Hence, it's been far too slow to respond to changes in consumer tastes.

Post a Comment