[News] Leafs part ways with recently hired goalie coach after social media history comes up

[RodimusPryme]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, I’m 58 years old and as a lawyer I can tell you there’s no “onus” on anyone here. In fact, if he wants to sue for defamation, he will have to deal with the claim, say it’s false, and the onus will be on him.

ETA: not to mention, liking stuff by no rods like Dean Cain, Lauren Boebert etc displays a lack of intelligence that an NHL team probably would want to address.

His posts are not racist, or transphobic, at least by any definition of the lose terms until 5 minutes ago. But someone in the Twitterverse disagreed with his political views, and decided to invoke the power of the mob to rob him of his job.

Like you, I value personal responsibility. I also loath mob justice.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ahhh he liked a tweet that said "So chicks with dicks can compete in the Olympics as women, but smoke a bit of giggle weed and it's an uproar..."

It was literally the first one on the list of liked tweets, but yeah, nothing transphobic about there....

At the same time, it's kind of backhanded support for Sha'Carri Robinson and marijuana use in general. So, I believe this tweet was designed to piss off people on both the left and the right

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

So a quick question for you, if the CEO and Chairman of the company is a Trump supporter and doesn't agree with BLM or Antifa can an employee be fired for posting support for those groups when the corporate policy was set by someone who doesn't agree with those groups?

In Alberta you can be fired without cause. No explanation necessary.

They’ll give you a bit of money, more than they need to, and you’ll take it and go away.

Maybe ON is different. They probably just gave him some cash and made him go away.

[RodimusPryme]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ahhh he liked a tweet that said "So chicks with dicks can compete in the Olympics as women, but smoke a bit of giggle weed and it's an uproar..."

It was literally the first one on the list of liked tweets, but yeah, nothing transphobic about there....

Sorry. What is transphobic about having concerns with transwomen competing with women? Do you honestly think it’s a fair match?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Ahhh he liked a tweet that said "So chicks with dicks can compete in the Olympics as women, but smoke a bit of giggle weed and it's an uproar..."

It was literally the first one on the list of liked tweets, but yeah, nothing transphobic about there....

The 'chicks with dicks' part is insensitive and transphobic for sure. However inquiring minds want to know is believing that transwomen shouldn't participate in woman's sports for biological reasons now something one should get fired for having that belief?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by RodimusPryme

Sorry. What is transphobic about having concerns with transwomen competing with women? Do you honestly think it’s a fair match?

Uh-oh. Now you've outed yourself as a transphobe. Next you'll be citing facts and medical evidence and worthless garbage like that. You were supposed to bay for the blood of the sacrificial victim of the hour, like a good little pitchfork-waving peasant.

[Badgers Nose]

I guess these days it’s easier to fire than rehab people.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by RodimusPryme

Sorry. What is transphobic about having concerns with transwomen competing with women? Do you honestly think it’s a fair match?

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The 'chicks with dicks' part is insensitive and transphobic for sure. However inquiring minds want to know is believing that transwomen shouldn't participate in woman's sports for biological reasons now something one should get fired for having that belief?

Are you guys serious?
You think the main takeaway from this tweet is "We should have an honest conversation about the fairness of transgender athletes competing against cisgendered athletes" and that is what MLSE is taking issue with?

I tend to think the issue is the INCREDIBLY offensive transphobic slur that it leads with.

I mean at least Cowboy said it insensitive (a bit of an understatement I would say), but the fact that RodimusPryme completely ignored it really says a lot.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

All the more reason to not have social media when you're going to face public scrutiny.

fixed

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Uh-oh. Now you've outed yourself as a transphobe. Next you'll be citing facts and medical evidence and worthless garbage like that. You were supposed to bay for the blood of the sacrificial victim of the hour, like a good little pitchfork-waving peasant.

I would say that by completely ignoring the transphobic slur, while defending the tweet as not transphobic, yeah he did just out himself.

[PepsiFree]

Ok, thread is getting a little hot, but let's be reasonable.

"Chicks with dicks" is absolutely a transphobic thing to say. No reason to defend it as anything but that. I would never like a tweet that used that language, because I think people who use that language are ####ty people and that crosses a line for me... BUT: that's all he did. He liked it, he didn't say it.

Everything else... eh, I don't really see the problem. He seems like someone with political and cultural views very different from my own, based on the content he likes, but I see no evidence to call him a racist or a transphobe. I don't think liking something means enough in isolation, and I don't think liking (or even saying) one transphobic thing makes someone a transphobe. Some people just don't really know.

That said, I don't know why people care if he deserved to be fired or not. It doesn't matter. Toronto can fire him for whatever reason they please. If you can't like some ####ty political tweets and still work for the Marlies, you can't like some ####ty political tweets and still work for the Marlies. That's life. They're a private business that can make decisions for themselves.

I don't think people need to paint Imoo as a terrible person to justify the firing. It's their right to do so.

[ResAlien]

Yeah an Bill Peters should still be the Flames head coach! Friggin woke mob.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Are you guys serious?
You think the main takeaway from this tweet is "We should have an honest conversation about the fairness of transgender athletes competing against cisgendered athletes" and that is what MLSE is taking issue with?

I tend to think the issue is the INCREDIBLY offensive transphobic slur that it leads with.

Which the person just fired did not even write. As several posters have pointed out, you don't even know why he liked it. But you assume (a) that he endorsed it 100%, (b) that he is guilty by association of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same obnoxious words, and (c) that he should lose his career because of it.

I find all those assumptions extremely problematic. And by ‘problematic’, in this instance, I mean ‘insanely wrong’.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by RodimusPryme

His posts are not racist, or transphobic, at least by any definition of the lose terms until 5 minutes ago. But someone in the Twitterverse disagreed with his political views, and decided to invoke the power of the mob to rob him of his job.

Like you, I value personal responsibility. I also loath mob justice.

Yeah, well, if it’s OK, I’m not relying on you for those definitions. And I suspect the small sampling is representative of a large number.

The Leafs can fire anyone they want. They may have to pay severance in lieu of notice, which, for a guy so recently hired, will be minimal, unless his contract dictates otherwise.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Which the person just fired did not even write. As several posters have pointed out, you don't even know why he liked it. But you assume (a) that he endorsed it 100%, (b) that he is guilty by association of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same obnoxious words, and (c) that he should lose his career because of it.

I find all those assumptions extremely problematic. And by ‘problematic’, in this instance, I mean ‘insanely wrong’.

Have you even looked at his feed? It’s non stop.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

In Alberta you can be fired without cause. No explanation necessary.

They’ll give you a bit of money, more than they need to, and you’ll take it and go away.

Maybe ON is different. They probably just gave him some cash and made him go away.

Exactly the same in Ontario (unless the employee is a member of a collective bargaining unit, etc.)

I don't really understand the argument that MLSE shouldn't be free to terminate an employee that it fears will harm its brand, expose it to negative publicity, does not fit it's corporate culture, or just no longer wants to employ for any other reason (provided those reasons don't constitute discrimination). Are there some policy reasons that aren't obvious to me?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, well, if it’s OK, I’m not relying on you for those definitions. And I suspect the small sampling is representative of a large number.

You're not a criminal lawyer, are you?

‘The accused had an encounter with witness A, in which a fistfight ensued and he punched him in the mouth. I suspect that small sampling is representative of a large number, and therefore the accused routinely goes around punching people in the mouth. Therefore we are bringing him up on 5,000 charges of aggravated assault, even though we have no evidence that any other incidents of this kind occurred.’

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Which the person just fired did not even write. As several posters have pointed out, you don't even know why he liked it. But you assume (a) that he endorsed it 100%, (b) that he is guilty by association of saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same obnoxious words, and (c) that he should lose his career because of it.

I find all those assumptions extremely problematic. And by ‘problematic’, in this instance, I mean ‘insanely wrong’.

I never took a stance on whether or not he should have been fired.
I haven't made a single comment about it in fact.

I didn't assume any of the 3 things you wrote. You're the one jumping to conclusions.

What I did was refute RodimusPryme's claim that he there was nothing transphobic about the tweets he did like.

Then when Rodimus tried to deflect and completely ignored the transphobic slur, I pointed that out.
I've made no assumptions about the intentions of the guy who got fired.

However I have learned that Rodimus doesn't think a tweet that starts with a transphobic slur is transphobic.

Rodimus You're welcome to set the record straight.
Do you think that tweet was transphobic (you know the one that started with a transphobic slur).
If you do, then do you admit that this guy did in fact like at least one transphobic tweet?
If not, would you care to explain why you think a tweet that starts with a slur isn't transphobic?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Exactly the same in Ontario (unless the employee is a member of a collective bargaining unit, etc.)

I don't really understand the argument that MLSE shouldn't be free to terminate an employee that it fears will harm its brand, expose it to negative publicity, does not fit it's corporate culture, or just no longer wants to employ for any other reason (provided those reasons don't constitute discrimination). Are there some policy reasons that aren't obvious to me?

The argument is that MLSE specifically stated that they were terminating the employee because of his social media posts. They have a legal right to fire him for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. That doesn't mean that their stated reason is a good one.

[Manhattanboy]

Deleted. Bad joke.