Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher did a segment on this last night. You can find it on you tube.

He points out that the WaPo male journalist retweeted a joke. Then she went next level bananas.

According to the posters here, there is no difference between a joke and rape. The response to both should be the same.

You mean, if you’re not directly involved, it’s none of your business?

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher did a segment on this last night. You can find it on you tube.

He points out that the WaPo male journalist retweeted a joke. Then she went next level bananas.

According to the posters here, there is no difference between a joke and rape. The response to both should be the same.

Anonymous wrote:Bill Maher did a segment on this last night. You can find it on you tube.

He points out that the WaPo male journalist retweeted a joke. Then she went next level bananas.

Yeah I can’t stand Maher lately but I mostly agreed with this. “Emotional hemophiliacs” is on point. But, annoying that of course the only generations that exist are Boomers and millennials <massive eyeroll>

Bill Maher did a segment on this last night. You can find it on you tube.

He points out that the WaPo male journalist retweeted a joke. Then she went next level bananas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Actually the Washington Post got in trouble for it, because almost no one in the news media understood why they were sanctioning a reporter for tweeting a news article on sexual misconduct and they had to backtrack. Even the Washington Post ran editorials about how its own decision was misguided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/posts-misguided-suspension-felicia-sonmez-over-kobe-bryant-tweets/

Why were they sanctioning a reporter for being a jerk? Wow, it's so hard to understand!

Some might say you’re being a jerk for unreservedly celebrating the legacy of an athlete who admitted to non consensual sex (is rape).

Bryant made no such admission.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Actually the Washington Post got in trouble for it, because almost no one in the news media understood why they were sanctioning a reporter for tweeting a news article on sexual misconduct and they had to backtrack. Even the Washington Post ran editorials about how its own decision was misguided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/posts-misguided-suspension-felicia-sonmez-over-kobe-bryant-tweets/

Why were they sanctioning a reporter for being a jerk? Wow, it's so hard to understand!

Some might say you’re being a jerk for unreservedly celebrating the legacy of an athlete who admitted to non consensual sex (is rape).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Actually the Washington Post got in trouble for it, because almost no one in the news media understood why they were sanctioning a reporter for tweeting a news article on sexual misconduct and they had to backtrack. Even the Washington Post ran editorials about how its own decision was misguided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/posts-misguided-suspension-felicia-sonmez-over-kobe-bryant-tweets/

Why were they sanctioning a reporter for being a jerk? Wow, it's so hard to understand!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Actually the Washington Post got in trouble for it, because almost no one in the news media understood why they were sanctioning a reporter for tweeting a news article on sexual misconduct and they had to backtrack. Even the Washington Post ran editorials about how its own decision was misguided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/posts-misguided-suspension-felicia-sonmez-over-kobe-bryant-tweets/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employers are getting better at filtering out the Somnez types. The latest article in the Intercept covered this some.

This is such a good article. Thank you for sharing. (Link in case anyone else is interested: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/.)

Indeed! The leaders of these organizations hate their staff (and the feeling is mutual).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

No, she wasn't fired for that. She got in trouble for it, properly, and learned nothing from the experience. She thought she was untouchable and could say and do anything.

Good riddance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.

She wasn't fired for saying Kobe had non-consensual sex. The Washington Post actually admitted they were wrong for saying she couldn't tweet about that, since practically every obituary had something about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

So, the obituary didn't mention this and she felt the need to bring it up? How was Kobe supposed to respond?

Kobe is dead. Are you high? Your posts are making less and less sense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/sports/kobe-bryant-obituary.html
He was charged with felony sexual assault in 2003 stemming from an incident at a Colorado hotel in which Bryant was accused of raping a 19-year-old woman who worked at the property as a front-desk clerk. Prosecutors eventually dropped the case when the woman told them she was unwilling to testify. Bryant later issued an apology, saying he understood that the woman, unlike himself, did not view their encounter as consensual. A lawsuit the woman brought against Bryant was later settled out of court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

So, the obituary didn't mention this and she felt the need to bring it up? How was Kobe supposed to respond?

Kobe is dead. Are you high? Your posts are making less and less sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

So, the obituary didn't mention this and she felt the need to bring it up? How was Kobe supposed to respond?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that's what she got in trouble for previously. (And I support her being fired this time) Kobe Bryant WAS a rapist, so that's weird they wouldn't let her say it. Especially because the Washington Post was all in to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault (which they should have - sounds like he did it). When it's someone "cool" being accused of sexual assault, reporters aren't allowed to report that? Neat.

Was she posting about his status as a rapist before he was recently deceased, or was she capitalizing on the recent drama to push her own narrative? Seems like punching down to attack someone that can't defend themselves. But hey, she is a "journalist" and can say whatever she wants without consequence because "journalism."

Have you ever read an obituary? They don't hold off on reporting on the negative of people's lives for 24 hours.

Was Somnez reporting on the obituary? On Twitter?

No, she posted an article that Kobe had settled out of court on an accusation of non-consensual sex. And she has every right to do so (First Amendment and all).

She can say whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she can keep her job for doing so. Which is why she was just fired.