That’s my interpretation of what he said as well. Whether HR approves of me identifying myself as a sprocket engineer or not, I still have to responsibly present myself as a Spacely Sprockets employee online–in other words, I still have to wear my Spacely Sprockets hat when I’m on Facebook whether I’m acting in an official capacity or not. I don’t know of anyone who works for a company that has a social media policy for whom the same isn’t true.Since you started using “apologist’s hat” rather than saintjohnxxiii, it might be helpful to ask him if he means the same thing by the term as you do. Taking the whole of his posts, I think he may simply mean “identity” by “hat”, instead of meaning “doing the actual work of an apologist right at that time”, which is my description of what I think you mean by it. ( Your meaning is the more correct one by common usage, but it would be fair to ask saintjohnxxiii to clarify what he meant when he went along with your term.)
Indeed.Whether HR approves of me identifying myself as a sprocket engineer or not, I still have to responsibly present myself as a Spacely Sprockets employee online–in other words, I still have to wear my Spacely Sprockets hat when I’m on Facebook whether I’m acting in an official capacity or not. I don’t know of anyone who works for a company that has a social media policy for whom the same isn’t true.
Indeed.Funny, I wonder if some of those complaining about Mark Shea’s “lack of charity” are some of those who regularly impute the worst possible motives to, for example, Barack Obama, and other public figures they dislike, with a complete lack of evidence.
It’s possible, but certainly this doesn’t apply to everyone.Funny, I wonder if some of those complaining about Mark Shea’s “lack of charity” are some of those who regularly impute the worst possible motives to, for example, Barack Obama, and other public figures they dislike, with a complete lack of evidence.
Well, the type of thing I was referring more specifically comes under the heading of Calumny, (e.g. “Obama is working for the submission of the US to Islam”) which to my mind is worse than calling someone an “idiot” (not that that is good).It’s possible, but certainly this doesn’t apply to everyone.
Lacking charity in what one says is a very real and quantifiable trait. In point of fact, anything negative said about someone that doesn’t come from charity, and which isn’t just and necessary, is simple detraction. Folks are under no obligation to force themselves to listen to that sort of thing.
To say that I was under in obligation to post engineering facts would be absurd but to say that I still need to wear my Spacely Sprockets hat while posting would be entirely accurate. Look at it another way. We had a local mayor who was forced to resign because of the inappropriate content he was posting on Facebook. It wasn’t even a matter of him posting his own comments, just hitting like on and sharing stuff from strip clubs, porn stars, etc. He argued that he never identified himself as the mayor on his Facebook page and only had a limited number of friends on there. However, it was a publicly viewable page and he was a public figure. He was under an obligation to wear his mayor hat whenever he posted even though he never had any intention of posting anything related to his civic responsibilities.Indeed.
And to say that you are*** under an obligation*** to post on Facebook engineering facts would be…absurd, no?
Excellent. So we are agreed.To say that I was under in obligation to post engineering facts would be absurd but to say that I still need to wear my Spacely Sprockets hat while posting would be entirely accurate.
You do realize that the speculation I offered in paragraph one didn’t contradict my subsequent assertions about the reasons for their firings…right?Why did you go from speculation in paragraph one to asserting they were fired for not towing the GOP line, which by all accounts had as much to do with this as they fondness for cantaloupe.
Do tell! Please definitively prove that my speculations and assertions are incorrect.So much for you not speculating (and in this case, being wrong too).
And I will add: if I were to go to your Facebook page and couldn’t tell from any of your kitty videos, your Bad Luck Brian memes, your Throwback Thursday pictures that you are an engineer from Spacely Sprockets, this would be…just fine.To say that I was under in obligation to post engineering facts would be absurd but to say that I still need to wear my Spacely Sprockets hat while posting would be entirely accurate. Look at it another way. We had a local mayor who was forced to resign because of the inappropriate content he was posting on Facebook. It wasn’t even a matter of him posting his own comments, just hitting like on and sharing stuff from strip clubs, porn stars, etc. He argued that he never identified himself as the mayor on his Facebook page and only had a limited number of friends on there. However, it was a publicly viewable page and he was a public figure. He was under an obligation to wear his mayor hat whenever he posted even though he never had any intention of posting anything related to his civic responsibilities.
Correct. I’m under no obligation to let anyone on Facebook know anything about my professional life. However, I am under a contractual obligation to behave in a manner that won’t upset or embarrass my employer. If I fail to live up to that obligation they have every right to terminate me for my behavior.And I will add: if I were to go to your Facebook page and couldn’t tell from any of your kitty videos, your Bad Luck Brian memes, your Throwback Thursday pictures that you are an engineer from Spacely Sprockets, this would be…just fine.
You have NO OBLIGATION to let any of your Facebook followers know that you are an -]apologist/-] engineer.
And does one have to post apologetics on Facebook if someone is a Catholic?Not so fast. Let me ask everyone here:
What is Catholic apologetics? How does one do this and how should one behave as a Catholic apologist?
Yep. We are agreed.Correct. I’m under no obligation to let anyone on Facebook know anything about my professional life. However, I am under a contractual obligation to behave in a manner that won’t upset or embarrass my employer. If I fail to live up to that obligation they have every right to terminate me for my behavior.
That’s where you’re still getting it wrong. If all he had been posting were kitty videos, mustache pictures and charitable objections to political candidates and policies he’d still have a job. However, he was under a professional obligation to behave in a manner that didn’t embarrass or cause scandal for his employer and he failed to live up to that obligation. The fact that he was a public figure made his acknowledging whether he was a Catholic apologist on his Facebook page irrelevant. It’s like the local mayor. As a public figure, he didn’t have to list his job as mayor to be recognized as the mayor. The obligation to act in a manner befitting your position is still there regardless of how you want to spin it.Yep. We are agreed.
So, again, no one has to let any reader know that he is a Catholic apologist.
He can post kitty videos, funny pictures of men in mustaches, objections to political candidates…and all of us can enjoy the witty banter without looking askance and sniffing, “And this guy calls himself an apologist!”
But since everyone who follows him knows that he is a Catholic apologist makes your point irrelevant.So, again, no one has to let any reader know that he is a Catholic apologist.
Except posting kitty videos, funny pictures don’t violate the basic norms of acceptable social conduct with regard to being an apologist whereas his continual snark, rudeness and condescension would.He can post kitty videos, funny pictures of men in mustaches, objections to political candidates…and all of us can enjoy the witty banter without looking askance and sniffing, “And this guy calls himself an apologist!”
You’re still posting nonsequiturs.That’s where you’re still getting it wrong. If all he had been posting were kitty videos, mustache pictures and charitable objections to political candidates and policies he’d still have a job. However, he was under a professional obligation to behave in a manner that didn’t embarrass or cause scandal for his employer and he failed to live up to that obligation. The fact that he was a public figure made his acknowledging whether he was a Catholic apologist on his Facebook page irrelevant. It’s like the local mayor. As a public figure, he didn’t have to list his job as mayor to be recognized as the mayor. The obligation to act in a manner befitting your position is still there regardless of how you want to spin it.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that he was mandated to post apologetics on Facebook?But since everyone who follows him knows that he is a Catholic apologist makes your point irrelevant.
You gracefully clarified your error that he doesn’t call himself an apologist on Facebook, but as for the rest of it, are you standing by it?Shea’s problems are that he calls himself an apologist but when you read his facebook page (important distinction) you don’t see that at all.
And let’s explore this some more…saintjohn and Gordon: is it only Catholic Apologists who must let their Facebook readers know that they are Apologists–or do teachers have to post things about education on their Facebook page to let everyone know they are teachers?Let me get this straight. Are you saying that he was mandated to post apologetics on Facebook?
Is that your position?
Specifically, I’d like you to address this comment you made here:
You gracefully clarified your error that he doesn’t call himself an apologist on Facebook, but as for the rest of it, are you standing by it?
He MUST let his apologetics role be evident on his Facebook posts?
Let’s be free of linguistic traps that I am seeing here. I will give you an example of what Mark should do.Let me get this straight. Are you saying that he was mandated to post apologetics on Facebook?
Is that your position?
Specifically, I’d like you to address this comment you made here:
You gracefully clarified your error that he doesn’t call himself an apologist on Facebook, but as for the rest of it, are you standing by it?
He MUST let his apologetics role be evident on his Facebook posts?