Public School Punishes Pupil For Vulgarisms Posted On Social Media

[GuitarStv]

I agree with you again.  But when hiring someone, once the technical part of a job interview is over and some baseline skill level is ascertained, everything else is a judgment based upon a candidates attitude.  And often times you'll use subtle cues like body language, dress, demeanor, etc. to judge attitude.  That's how job interviews work.

I've also been a hiring manager, I'm familiar with how job interviews work on both sides of the desk. Making judgments (or assessments if you prefer) with a person you are directly speaking with in a job interview is a completely different thing than making judgments/assessments about a person you have never met, spoken to, or even read much hearsay about. Deciding that a candidate has an entitlement issue because during the interview she's acting like she already has the job and you'd be an idiot for not hiring her is one thing. Deciding a person you read about on the news has an entitlement issue because she was upset about a rejection is a much greater leap. I would not trust a hiring manager who doesn't know the difference (though I have faith that you, personally, do know the difference despite conflating these things in the moment).

The conflation that you're reading is imaginary (and rather ironic, given that your argument is not to make assumptions  :P )

I obviously haven't interviewed her yet.  Literally the only thing I've got to go on about her life is this one incident at the moment, so you're getting my hot take.  Would an interview change my opinion of her?  Likely - it would depend on what happened in the interview.  That's why we have them.

I’m sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to connect your thoughts rather than bring up something unrelated. Okay, then if you’re not confusing the two, your aside about the importance of judging character in a job interview is merely irrelevant. You know, you don’t need to make a judgment at all when we have so little to go on. You don’t need to come up with hot takes.

intJ

[Cool Friend]

I agree with you again.  But when hiring someone, once the technical part of a job interview is over and some baseline skill level is ascertained, everything else is a judgment based upon a candidates attitude.  And often times you'll use subtle cues like body language, dress, demeanor, etc. to judge attitude.  That's how job interviews work.

I've also been a hiring manager, I'm familiar with how job interviews work on both sides of the desk. Making judgments (or assessments if you prefer) with a person you are directly speaking with in a job interview is a completely different thing than making judgments/assessments about a person you have never met, spoken to, or even read much hearsay about. Deciding that a candidate has an entitlement issue because during the interview she's acting like she already has the job and you'd be an idiot for not hiring her is one thing. Deciding a person you read about on the news has an entitlement issue because she was upset about a rejection is a much greater leap. I would not trust a hiring manager who doesn't know the difference (though I have faith that you, personally, do know the difference despite conflating these things in the moment).

The conflation that you're reading is imaginary (and rather ironic, given that your argument is not to make assumptions  :P )

I obviously haven't interviewed her yet.  Literally the only thing I've got to go on about her life is this one incident at the moment, so you're getting my hot take.  Would an interview change my opinion of her?  Likely - it would depend on what happened in the interview.  That's why we have them.

I’m sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to connect your thoughts rather than bring up something unrelated. Okay, then if you’re not confusing the two, your aside about the importance of judging character in a job interview is merely irrelevant. You know, you don’t need to make a judgment at all when we have so little to go on. You don’t need to come up with hot takes.

intJ

Oh, I don’t believe in astrology.

Hehehe just teasing ;)

[aetheldrea]

Choosing to pursue this case all the way to the Supreme Court might backfire on her...

The way I read this was that the supremes upheld the decisions of the lower courts. So it was the school district that was continuing their appeals up the ladder, and could have cut their losses at any time. The ACLU or whoever was defending her continued to do so, and I don’t think that reflects badly on her at all. I could be wrong, not following this story closely.

[Villanelle]

Also, I literally said that in a decade, I'd be willing to press the "i believe" button that she had changed from when she was ~16 years old.  And in the first post I said maybe not in 15 years, but now I'd use it as a hiring factor.  I underlined both for you, in case you missed them.

Here I was accused of not reading your posts in full and you specifically and clearly illustrated (by underlining) and reinforced (by repeating) the numbers in the above response.

Christ.  Maybe it would be 7 years.  IDK the exact day I'd offer a full pardon, and I suspect it would be more of a progression. I threw numbers out there and didn't realize I was committing to an exact number.

And here I was accused of taking your posts literally as written which is somewhat confusing, given I was using data reinforced by the "I literally said" comment above.

My point is that it's unfair to hold something innocuous done by a high school freshman against them when they are an adult, simply because it got national attention. I am aware that people will/would do it, and I think that is wrong.  That's all.

I literally said in 10-15 years I it would be different.  That doesn't preclude it from also being different in 11 years, or 9 years, or 7 years.  It does rule out 16 and 18 and 20 years though.  I picked an intentionally long date so as not to have to suss out the un-sussable, which is EXACTLY when it would cease to matter, or how the progression of it mattering less and less over time would look on a specifically charted curve. 

So yes, I LITERALLY said 10 and 15.  But again, that doesn't mean "definitely not 7 or 8 or 9".  If I say, the work will be done by Wednesday, that doesn't mean I won't finish on Tuesday or Monday or Saturday.  It just means "definitely by Wednesday".  (Oh, and since you seem to think that any analogy is EXACTLY equating two things, I will specify that I do not think that nebulous and vague "work done" is the same as "no longer finding someone's past relevant, I guess?)

[JLee]

Also, I literally said that in a decade, I'd be willing to press the "i believe" button that she had changed from when she was ~16 years old.  And in the first post I said maybe not in 15 years, but now I'd use it as a hiring factor.  I underlined both for you, in case you missed them.

Here I was accused of not reading your posts in full and you specifically and clearly illustrated (by underlining) and reinforced (by repeating) the numbers in the above response.

Christ.  Maybe it would be 7 years.  IDK the exact day I'd offer a full pardon, and I suspect it would be more of a progression. I threw numbers out there and didn't realize I was committing to an exact number.

And here I was accused of taking your posts literally as written which is somewhat confusing, given I was using data reinforced by the "I literally said" comment above.

My point is that it's unfair to hold something innocuous done by a high school freshman against them when they are an adult, simply because it got national attention. I am aware that people will/would do it, and I think that is wrong.  That's all.

I literally said in 10-15 years I it would be different.  That doesn't preclude it from also being different in 11 years, or 9 years, or 7 years.  It does rule out 16 and 18 and 20 years though.  I picked an intentionally long date so as not to have to suss out the un-sussable, which is EXACTLY when it would cease to matter, or how the progression of it mattering less and less over time would look on a specifically charted curve. 

So yes, I LITERALLY said 10 and 15.  But again, that doesn't mean "definitely not 7 or 8 or 9".  If I say, the work will be done by Wednesday, that doesn't mean I won't finish on Tuesday or Monday or Saturday.  It just means "definitely by Wednesday".  (Oh, and since you seem to think that any analogy is EXACTLY equating two things, I will specify that I do not think that nebulous and vague "work done" is the same as "no longer finding someone's past relevant, I guess?)

Huh.

Perhaps you said it best earlier - it feels like you want to argue here and don't actually care what I'm saying or meaning.

My point is that it's unfair to hold something innocuous done by a high school freshman against them when they are an adult, simply because it got national attention. I am aware that people will/would do it, and I think that is wrong.  That's all.

[Villanelle]

Also, I literally said that in a decade, I'd be willing to press the "i believe" button that she had changed from when she was ~16 years old.  And in the first post I said maybe not in 15 years, but now I'd use it as a hiring factor.  I underlined both for you, in case you missed them.

Here I was accused of not reading your posts in full and you specifically and clearly illustrated (by underlining) and reinforced (by repeating) the numbers in the above response.

Christ.  Maybe it would be 7 years.  IDK the exact day I'd offer a full pardon, and I suspect it would be more of a progression. I threw numbers out there and didn't realize I was committing to an exact number.

And here I was accused of taking your posts literally as written which is somewhat confusing, given I was using data reinforced by the "I literally said" comment above.

My point is that it's unfair to hold something innocuous done by a high school freshman against them when they are an adult, simply because it got national attention. I am aware that people will/would do it, and I think that is wrong.  That's all.

I literally said in 10-15 years I it would be different.  That doesn't preclude it from also being different in 11 years, or 9 years, or 7 years.  It does rule out 16 and 18 and 20 years though.  I picked an intentionally long date so as not to have to suss out the un-sussable, which is EXACTLY when it would cease to matter, or how the progression of it mattering less and less over time would look on a specifically charted curve. 

So yes, I LITERALLY said 10 and 15.  But again, that doesn't mean "definitely not 7 or 8 or 9".  If I say, the work will be done by Wednesday, that doesn't mean I won't finish on Tuesday or Monday or Saturday.  It just means "definitely by Wednesday".  (Oh, and since you seem to think that any analogy is EXACTLY equating two things, I will specify that I do not think that nebulous and vague "work done" is the same as "no longer finding someone's past relevant, I guess?)

Huh.

Perhaps you said it best earlier - it feels like you want to argue here and don't actually care what I'm saying or meaning.

My point is that it's unfair to hold something innocuous done by a high school freshman against them when they are an adult, simply because it got national attention. I am aware that people will/would do it, and I think that is wrong.  That's all.

And whether it's right or wrong, it's going to happen, which was my point.  I think she may have created a monster that it is going to take a while for her to distance herself from and that there may be unintended consequences in all this for her.  That's all.