Social Networking: Something Wicked This Way Comes?

[Mythrill]

the fact that you even have to ask is rofl

(jerk mode)

No it isn't, you dumbfuck idiot. Questioning the boundaries of these things are not related to me having or not a job, or to the job I have for that matter.

Now drop your l33t sp34k and fuck off.

(end jerk mode)

Happy?

[Mythrill]

if an employer doesn't hire black guys and you are a black guy then I am pretty sure even if you don't have any pictures of yourself on the internet he is going to find out eventually

See, my half-brained friend... ethinicy isn't really related to "skin color", but with culture and religion as well. My boss could hate muslims and only find out this information looking at myspace.

What am I supposed to do, omit that I'm muslim from my profile?

Oh, but I forgot... you having half a brain does not allow you to link ethinicy to religion, does it?

[Salluz]

IMHO, I believe that social networks are a problem when they are used as a PRIMARY source of communication; a means based on either irresponsibility (too superficial to truly connect with others) or escapism (can't connect with others properly IRL because of technical dependence).

Myspace is annoying in my opinion. I have a music page and I do my music thing. BAM, that's it, no other strings attached. I spend my time networking with those who also want to take the time to listen to music because it's good, not because it's popular.

I think that's the issue concerning music and myspace: a person can't do too much if they sit on myspace and expect automatic results; it doesn't work. Even over the protocol, true communication fueled by passion is the way to go. With that, it then becomes a priority to connect with people and network in real life, then leaving them with a source for checking out your works.

[big giant circles]

So far I've brought to attention possible employer abuse, and questioned if these actions are truly ethic.

Eh, I'd say that in actuality, you've brought attention to your lack of ability to say anything that makes any sense, and honestly, since you have clearly refused to post any sort of credentials or information that's not just your own (way off-base) theories that we are supposed to agree with simply because they're coming from you.

At any rate, this thread has run it's course, when it gets to the point where you have to go into "jerk mode" because you have clearly lost the debate, then it's time to move on. You can't win them all, which is something else you'll learn when you grow up a bit.

(And until you prove me otherwise, yes I am going under the assumption that you are a "youngster" with not a lot of experience under your belt.)

/bows out.

[Meteo Xavier]

It was a good topic while it lasted.

[Bleck]

No it isn't, you dumbfuck idiot.

See, my half-brained friend

Oh, but I forgot... you having half a brain does not allow you to link ethinicy to religion, does it?

rofl this coming from mister 'HEY THAT'S AD HOMINEM THAT'S A FALLACY'

[Mythrill]

Eh, I'd say that in actuality, you've brought attention to your lack of ability to say anything that makes any sense, and honestly, since you have clearly refused to post any sort of credentials or information that's not just your own (way off-base) theories that we are supposed to agree with simply because they're coming from you.

At any rate, this thread has run it's course, when it gets to the point where you have to go into "jerk mode" because you have clearly lost the debate, then it's time to move on. You can't win them all, which is something else you'll learn when you grow up a bit.

(And until you prove me otherwise, yes I am going under the assumption that you are a "youngster" with not a lot of experience under your belt.)

/bows out.

1. Why are you so deserving of any "proof" of my "credentials"?

2. You're not supposed to trust me because what I said is coming from me. You're supposed to believe me or not based on my own arguments. As I said,

it doesn't matter what I do or I am; if something I say holds true, me not working or not is irrelevant; it won't be more truthful if I work, it won't be a lie if I don't.

3. I went into "jerk mode" because of the personal insults directed to me, not because I'm winning or losing anything.

(And until you prove me otherwise, yes I am going under the assumption that you are a "youngster" with not a lot of experience under your belt.)

Fine. Do so. As I said, will what I say be any more or less truthful because of that?

What's next, are you judging if what I say is credible based on the job I have? Will my arguments be more truthful if I'm a doctor than if I'm a musician?

[Mythrill]

rofl this coming from mister 'HEY THAT'S AD HOMINEM THAT'S A FALLACY'

Yes, I tought you would say that. However, I'm not attacking you to discredit your arguments. I'm attacking you because you pissed me off. And that's not ad hominem.

Happy, my dear half-brained friend?

[Bleck]

I'm attacking you because you pissed me off. And that's not ad hominem.

guys I'm fourteen years old

hahaha oh my god

[Mythrill]

Wow Bleck, instead of being so overly-creative and doing some impersonation where I say I'm 14 years old, I tought you'd defend yourself and say you're not half brained.

Sorry, I forgot you don't understand proper speech. Let me try again.

lulz bl4ck your not originalz defnd yerself bitch

[SoulinEther]

What's next, are you judging if what I say is credible based on the job I have? Will my arguments be more truthful if I'm a doctor than if I'm a musician?

If you're arguing about patient care, medicine, etc., yes.

If you were a lawyer, you would have lots of credibility, and your arguments would be more believable.

None of us (I doubt) are lawyers, though, so ... other forms of experience have to define our credibility.

Ok. Here's a quick analysis:

Mythrill states his case, which defines doing research on potential employers as stalking.

BGC replies to this argument, (I'm trying to academicize this conversation) "Your views seem to be quite dissenting. Why should I accept your opinion - what makes you qualified to make such a statement?" (asking about your age and employment status in a discussion about the realities of employment -> credibility issue)

Mythrill responds, "I don't have to tell you." (you had two potentially good responses: ONE, you could have asked bgc for his qualifications, which he could probably defend, leading to TWO, simply stating your own qualifications. And if you're not willing to admit ANY credentials, you might as well be 4 years old, or living in a different country. I will, however, say that at least being 18+, having ever been employed, having studied law, etc. would HELP your credibility... you didn't help yourself here).

BGC replies, "Well, then I don't have to take your argument" + some ad hominem stuff.

.... though really, this argument is boring me. It's all about the music, here. Why hasn't there been a new remix posted lately? I bet DJP is too busy writing up a killer argument for this topic instead of working on the remix writeup ... lol

[Bleck]

yeah guys look at me leetspeak look at how leet it is

[DarkeSword]

So you're basically telling me that it's also legal for an employer to "research" a little more about my friends and ask them questions about me.

Yes, it's legal. When I applied for a job at a nuclear power plant, they did a background check on me. They asked me for two personal references and two professional references. The first two to get an idea of what kind of person I was, and the second two to get an idea of what kind of worker I was.

When they talked to my two personal references, they asked those two people for references about me as well; that is to say, they asked my friend Jeff to provide two people who knew me so that they could talk to them as well.

Not illegal in the slightest.

Most companies don't go that far; they usually just ask for one or two professional references.

And concerning the point about employers not being allowed to ask if you're married or whatever during an interview, that's true. But if you happen to mention "I'm married" during your interview, that doesn't invalidate anything. So if they do a quick google search on you and see that you've told the entire internet that "I'm married," that's pretty much the same thing.

As for this:

You pretty much summed up what I and Meteo were saying. One more thing to be asked here is: is this employer really deciding on character? How can we say for sure? We can't, really. This employer could decide on ethinicity, but say he/she dismissed you based on your character.

So? That's the same as in a face-to-face interview. The interviewer could take one look at me and say, "Oh this guy looks like a middle-easterner, I can't hire him." He look look at my surname and say "Ansari; that sounds like a Muslim name. I can't hire this guy, he's a terrorist!" He doesn't ask it outright, so he just makes some assumptions and discriminates based on those assumptions. It could happen.

Internet? Face-to-face? What's the difference? There is none, really. If someone is going to discriminate, they're going to discriminate, and it won't matter where they get their info, or even if they get info at all.

[Mythrill]

If you're arguing about patient care, medicine, etc., yes.

If you were a lawyer, you would have lots of credibility, and your arguments would be more believable.

None of us (I doubt) are lawyers, though, so ... other forms of experience have to define our credibility.

Ok. Here's a quick analysis:

Mythrill states his case, which defines doing research on potential employers as stalking.

BGC replies to this argument, (I'm trying to academicize this conversation) "Your views seem to be quite dissenting. Why should I accept your opinion - what makes you qualified to make such a statement?" (asking about your age and employment status in a discussion about the realities of employment -> credibility issue)

Mythrill responds, "I don't have to tell you." (you had two potentially good responses: ONE, you could have asked bgc for his qualifications, which he could probably defend, leading to TWO, simply stating your own qualifications. And if you're not willing to admit ANY credentials, you might as well be 4 years old, or living in a different country. I will, however, say that at least being 18+, having ever been employed, having studied law, etc. would HELP your credibility... you didn't help yourself here).

BGC replies, "Well, then I don't have to take your argument" + some ad hominem stuff.

.... though really, this argument is boring me. It's all about the music, here. Why hasn't there been a new remix posted lately? I bet DJP is too busy writing up a killer argument for this topic instead of working on the remix writeup ... lol

The problem is, he didn't defend what this kind of question would be any helpful to the discussion to begin with. He knowing wether I do have a job or not does not help any iota into clarifying whether work harassment is ethical or not.

[Sole Signal]

Man, I missed a lot while I was gone. I read through and just wanted to address a few points.

Third, and this is where we get to boundaries, you should not have to live outside your house thinking everything you're going to do is going to jeopardize your job. That is thoroughly unreasonable. I have to disagree with Audix, BGC or whoever, but no, you do NOT represent your company outside of work.

Wait for it...

I'm sorry, Zircon, but you are flat out wrong. Being denied a job for pictures on Myspace isn't "taking responsibility for your actions." Its "paying for something that was only probably a mistake several years ago well after any relevance to the modern world is lost that also has no indicating factor as to how I perform on the job which I have documented evidence saying I was really good." I mean, yeah, if we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, thats one thing, but these are just regular jobs that people, normal or not, need to survive in this country. (emphasis mine)

So, you realize there is a difference and that some people shouldn't be trusted with certain jobs. Why should "lower-level" jobs be stuck with those people? Those businesses need to flourish just as much as any other.

You cannot figure out how a person works until long after they've worked there for a while. You are not a psycho-analyst, you are not a police investigator, you are a manager. You should be working on budgets and schedules and getting us ready for our next assignments, not wasting company time stalking us online.

Thats all I'm saying. At some point, it gets unreasonable and if employer-stalking isn't illegal, than its at least highly inefficient and ineffective. You want to get your money's worth? Stop wasting company hours online looking for teenage boys in thongs.

Actually, the cost of bad hires is a VERY large expense for any company. Investing in human capital is often the largest investment that any company will make and one of a manager's BIGGEST decisions. They have every right to ensure that there are no surprises that pop up a few months down the line. Anything you post for the public to see online is and should be fair game for an employer to browse and make a hiring decision.

Managers are under a lot of stress from their superiors to make good decisions; seeing questionable behavior online makes it even easier to toss your application away...and it should be.

[Mythrill]

Yes, it's legal. When I applied for a job at a nuclear power plant, they did a background check on me. They asked me for two personal references and two professional references. The first two to get an idea of what kind of person I was, and the second two to get an idea of what kind of worker I was.

When they talked to my two personal references, they asked those two people for references about me as well; that is to say, they asked my friend Jeff to provide two people who knew me so that they could talk to them as well.

Not illegal in the slightest.

Most companies don't go that far; they usually just ask for one or two professional references.

And concerning the point about employers not being allowed to ask if you're married or whatever during an interview, that's true. But if you happen to mention "I'm married" during your interview, that doesn't invalidate anything. So if they do a quick google search on you and see that you've told the entire internet that "I'm married," that's pretty much the same thing.

As for this:

So? That's the same as in a face-to-face interview. The interviewer could take one look at me and say, "Oh this guy looks like a middle-easterner, I can't hire him." He look look at my surname and say "Ansari; that sounds like a Muslim name. I can't hire this guy, he's a terrorist!" He doesn't ask it outright, so he just makes some assumptions and discriminates based on those assumptions. It could happen.

Internet? Face-to-face? What's the difference? There is none, really. If someone is going to discriminate, they're going to discriminate, and it won't matter where they get their info, or even if they get info at all.

Strong arguments indeed. However, I'd like to point out a few things.

1) You're confusing "arab" with "muslim". Perhaps how I worded the last argument referencing this doesn't help you here. "Muslim" is the religion. Anyone can be a muslim the same way one can be arab, and the two of them are usually, but not always linked (an arab can be an orthodox catholic and a redneck could be muslim). Therefore, to reject a muslim person, the only way is doing some "research".

2) Telling the employer you're married is one thing; the employer actively eavesdropping my cyber conversations is another. In the first situation, the employer is passive; you told him because somehow you wanted to. In the second situation, even though you didn't tell him, he decided to "research" by himself and found out about you.

[Meteo Xavier]

I already admitted defeat, dude.

[SoulinEther]

The problem is, he didn't defend what this kind of question would be any helpful to the discussion to begin with. He knowing wether I do have a job or not does not help any iota into clarifying whether work harassment is ethical or not.

It does impact how people perceive your definition of "work harassment"... which isn't really what we're talking about anyway. We're talking about the idea of researching employers as a form of stalking. You should have some experience in being a candidate for a job before getting into such a discussion, etc. etc. obviously this is getting into argumentation esoterica which bores me.

As a non-terrorist Arab AND Muslim, I say we all just shut the hell up and argue about something more worthwhile.

I think, musically, Jenova Returns is a lot more satisfying than JENOVA Celestial. I love trance, and bLiNd's work, like all of his remixes he's had accepted, is quality trance, but the amount of additions and emotions Andrews adds to the original works through various permutations, etc. in his orchestral remix makes it a more satisfying piece off the dance floor.

My credibility? ...I listen to music? Lol.

[Mythrill]

It does impact how people perceive your definition of "work harassment"... which isn't really what we're talking about anyway. We're talking about the idea of researching employers as a form of stalking. You should have some experience in being a candidate for a job before getting into such a discussion, etc. etc. obviously this is getting into argumentation esoterica which bores me.

As a non-terrorist Arab AND Muslim, I say we all just shut the hell up and argue about something more worthwhile.

I think, musically, Jenova Returns is a lot more satisfying than JENOVA Celestial. I love trance, and bLiNd's work, like all of his remixes he's had accepted, is quality trance, but the amount of additions and emotions Andrews adds to the original works through various permutations, etc. in his orchestral remix makes it a more satisfying piece off the dance floor.

My credibility? ...I listen to music? Lol.

1. Nope, we were originally talking about how social networking can make you an unemployed person if you're not careful.

2. So you're arab and muslim? Tell me... do you live in the US? If you do, did you ever need to lie to get a job?

[Meteo Xavier]

No, we were originally talking about social networking possibly declining many values on the horizons.

[Mythrill]

No, we were originally talking about social networking possibly declining many values on the horizons.

Sorry, you're right indeed.

[Bleck]

rofl

rooooooofl

[DarkeSword]

1) You're confusing "arab" with "muslim". Perhaps how I worded the last argument referencing this doesn't help you here. "Muslim" is the religion. Anyone can be a muslim the same way one can be arab, and the two of them are usually, but not always linked (an arab can be an orthodox catholic and a redneck could be muslim). Therefore, to reject a muslim person, the only way is doing some "research".

I'm not confusing anything. xD

I'm a Muslim, and I'm of South Asian descent. I don't have to volunteer any of that information when in a job interview. But someone looking at my last name, which is "Ansari," can make an assumption that I'm Muslim. And they could discriminate.

[LuketheXjesse]

[20:42] <*anonymous*> boy

[20:42] <*anonymous*> that social networking thread... it's awful

[20:43] <*anonymous2*> GUYS I AM AUTISTIC THE INTERNET IS RUINING MY LIFE WAAAH

[20:44] <*anonymous*> the arguments people are putting forward

[20:44] <*anonymous*> so terrible

[20:45] <*anonymous2*> people are not even putting forth arguments

[20:45] <*anonymous2*> they are basically saying

[20:45] <*anonymous2*> in my opinion this is wrong therefore it is wrong

[Bleck]

[20:42] <*anonymous*> boy

[20:42] <*anonymous*> that social networking thread... it's awful

[20:43] <Bleck> GUYS I AM AUTISTIC THE INTERNET IS RUINING MY LIFE WAAAH

[20:44] <*anonymous*> the arguments people are putting forward

[20:44] <*anonymous*> so terrible

[20:45] <Bleck> people are not even putting forth arguments

[20:45] <Bleck> they are basically saying

[20:45] <Bleck> in my opinion this is wrong therefore it is wrong

fixed that for you