Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anyone who enjoys seeing anyone else's life up in flames is a total a$$hole. Hope Karma doesn't forget you.

Anyone who tries to publicly mock/shame is a total a$$hole. Hope karma doesn’t forget about you. Oops guess it didn’t forget...

What NT did was wrong, but what your online mobsters did was much, much worse. This is not the same as crazy Betty who denied a black person entry into their own building. It's not racially-motivated. It was entitled and petty, but to turn her into a monster, attack her and her kids online? Target all her platforms? That was some vicious shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anyone who enjoys seeing anyone else's life up in flames is a total a$$hole. Hope Karma doesn't forget you.

Anyone who tries to publicly mock/shame is a total a$$hole. Hope karma doesn’t forget about you. Oops guess it didn’t forget...

What NT did was wrong, but what your online mobsters did was much, much worse. This is not the same as crazy Betty who denied a black person entry into their own building. It's not racially-motivated. It was entitled and petty, but to turn her into a monster, attack her and her kids online? Target all her platforms? That was some vicious shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anyone who enjoys seeing anyone else's life up in flames is a total a$$hole. Hope Karma doesn't forget you.

Anyone who tries to publicly mock/shame is a total a$$hole. Hope karma doesn’t forget about you. Oops guess it didn’t forget...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anyone who enjoys seeing anyone else's life up in flames is a total a$$hole. Hope Karma doesn't forget you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anyone who enjoys seeing anyone else's life up in flames is a total a$$hole. Hope Karma doesn't forget you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

Anyone who enjoys seeing anyone else's life up in flames is a total a$$hole. Hope Karma doesn't forget you.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

What?? I don't know why you're referencing other people who have either served their time or were cleared in a court of justice.

Natasha Tynes got what she was asking for. She thought that the woman would at least be disciplined (otherwise why include her face and the train line/train identifiers) but I guarantee firing was on her mind. Mainly because the woman was being smart and told her to 'mind her business'.

Guess she should have listened because now her business is in flames.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Right. Dozens of black rappers with prison records continue to sell their stuff so clearly the sins of the world don't bar one from publication and distribution within the black community. Neither is a history of child abuse (cough Michael Jackson cough). But hey, Natasha Tynes. Where does the red line go exactly?

You have no evidence she wanted the woman to be fired. That's your projection, same as the racist agenda attributed to her postfactum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

I don't think there's a question of her ability to generate creative output. But that doesn't mean a publisher or distributor has to sell it, as demonstrated by the decision to cancel the publication of the book in question.

She's welcome to seek out other avenues to publish the book. Or put her head down, stop using social media as a whipping post and be thankful she can at least walk into her job this morning and collect a paycheck.

A paycheck she wanted to deny this other woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

So when people point out the rules you're breaking, they are trying to RUIN YOUR LIFE? Aren't you a tad dramatic? She wasn't trying to get anyone fired and it's a wild overstatement to say she knew what her actions would result in.

If you think only morally perfect people should be allowed to generate creative output, I assume you've purged all records of Michael Jackson from your library. have you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Nobody ruined her book deal. Her publisher independently pulled the book after they saw her tweets. Their statement about it is what made the whole thing get noticed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

No, one was breaking her workplace rules, but didn't care. Union. She knows she won't get fired. Maybe not her, but it is also well documented that they sleep on the job.

Another was called horrible for what any DC hall monitor would have done. Come on all you DC hall monitors, can you not relate? Rules are for all of us. Otherwise it's chaos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the pile-on here. I didn't see the original tweet, just the backlash for shaming a black woman for eating her breakfast. But the tweet was calling out a WMATA worker for violating WMATA rules that have been around for a long time and have been (apparently until recently) enforced by WMATA and mostly respected by passengers.

Is it really off-limits to point that out? I follow some of the Metro criticism accounts like Unsuck Metro and I think it's good that there is a way for the public to point out where the system is failing. Would the backlash here have been as bad if the tweet had tried to anonymize the WMATA employee? And why are people trying to ruin the woman's life - cancel her book deal, target her kids?

Because she tried to ruin another woman's life and get her fired. She knew what her actions would result in by not only tagging a hate account of WMATA (unsuckdcmetro) but also by tagging WMATA - the woman's employer and identifying the train plus train line the woman was on in addition to a very clear photo of her face.

She wanted to publicly mock and vilify the woman in order to get her fired.

Now the rest of twitter is doing the same to her.

I didn't see the tweet about her kids, but I imagine - trying to get an employee fired and getting her book deal canceled pretty much make them even.

No, one was breaking her workplace rules, but didn't care. Union. She knows she won't get fired. Maybe not her, but it is also well documented that they sleep on the job.

Another was called horrible for what any DC hall monitor would have done. Come on all you DC hall monitors, can you not relate? Rules are for all of us. Otherwise it's chaos.