1) I don't think people should be fired for old tweets, unless they're still the same people they were when they said the thing

2) If your statement involves trying to get people to understand the context in which you tweeted "Hitler was right" you're not changed enough
There isn't really any context that makes it ok, or better, or whatever. And that's not something that "youth" or "ignorance" explains away; you knew enough to know that Hitler had murdered Jews, tried to exterminate us, and were saying he was right
Being pro-genocide isn't a function of youth, or ignorance. It's a function of a deep moral failing. And that you still seem to think it's somehow excusable is enough evidence, for me, that you still deserve to be fired
And before anyone asks "so what should she have said": "Seven years ago, three years before I started working at the BBC, I tweeted something profoundly inexcusable. It was bigoted, and shameful, and I will forever regret it. But I'm no longer that person and ..." etc.
That's it. Acknowledge that you fucked up. Acknowledge that it was inexcusable. And argue you shouldn't have been fired because you changed.

Not (subtext) "look, it was understandable that I was pro-genocide for a bit, then. It was wrong, but there were reasons"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

14 Jul
I will never not be tired of people who think "he was exercising his right to free speech" is a get-out-of-consequences-free card no matter what the free speech was.
Let's take @pegobry through some examples. Hey, Peg - if Eastman had spoken at a rally and argued that the age of consent should be lowered to 7, because he thinks kids start getting sexy at that age, would you take the same position?
To be clear: Such advocacy would be both abhorrent and *entirely protected by the First Amendment*. Should such a scholar's think tanks and other non-1A-bound associations distance themselves from him, @pegobry?
Read 8 tweets
12 Jul
Oh, man, sanctions hearing in the Kraken MI is ongoing. Thought it started at 9:30
Judge now asking what authority the Plaintiffs had that the judge could grant any of that relief.

Plaintiffs' lawyers' lawyer: The constitution and Bush v. Gore. (This is a bad argument)
BTW, as I was joining, the Judge was confirming her understanding that the complaint was primarily drafted by Powell and Klownhandler
Read 195 tweets
9 Jul
I personally love that the theory of the case is "Congress passed a law clarifying that website owners would not face liability for speech they hosted by moderating content, one that applies to *whatever content the site owners choose,* b/c they wanted to censor"
Trump: Congress wanted censorship!
Court: Censorship of what?
Trump: Anything, really. They just like censorship.
Court: Right wing ideology?
Trump: Obviously
Court: Left wing ideology?
Trump: That too
Court: Cat videos?
Trump: Of course. More than anything else.
Congress's goal, obviously, was a content free internet.

Those devious bastards!
Read 4 tweets
7 Jul
OK, OK. Let's read that new Trump lawsuit*

*Yes, I know, he filed three of the same. One against FB, one against Twitter, and a third I haven't bothered to check. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I'm gonna assume they're carbon copies and just do the one.
Let's start with the caption, which is usually a pretty tame and meaningless listing of partie--OH MY GOD
There's just so much wrong here.

First of all, as others have noted, Facebook's terms of service require any user that has a dispute with them to bring those claims in California, and the only possible plaintiffs in this supposed class action would be users, so, umm ...
Read 122 tweets
7 Jul
I'll do a full breakdown later. Briefly, though ... check out the signature block on this clown show
That's two guys with "@aol.com" addresses for their professional email, a 13-lawyer firm that does personal injury work and insurance litigation, with lead counsel whose specialty is insurance claims and criminal defense (Matthew Baldwin), and a Greenwich CT firm whose named guys
have profiles highlighting their personal injury and wrongful death work.

The idea that *these* are the lawyers representing a former President of the United States in a (bullshit) First Amendment litigation is just laughable
Read 6 tweets
2 Jul
Ty, I'm wondering if you explained Rule 11 and NY"s malicious prosecution laws to your client. Because you just named a boatload of useless defendants who will do nothing but be dismissed out and have claims against your client.
Let's spend some time talking about the SLAPP suit suspended lolyer @Ty_Clevenger (well, he resigned his CA bar admission while charges were pending, anyway, per docs found by @questauthority) on behalf of his apparently rape-y client, @EdHenry
Important note before we begin: @EdHenry is not, in fact, Ed HELMS. These are, somehow, two different people. Similar names? Yeah. Do they look alike? Sort of. Is Slappy Ed Henry acting in ways an Ed Helms character might? You could say so. Are they the same guy? Definitively not
Read 63 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(