Disaster Troon loses NASA internship over telling Homer Hickam to "suck her dick and balls"

https://archive.fo/wivu9

Step aside, Quinn Norton. Someone else just claimed the title for quickest firing of 2018. But this one was arguably much less deserved.

Social media was abuzz this afternoon after a woman named Naomi H won and lost an internship at NASA in less than a day thanks to this tweet.

DlI6EwuXsAA6ueM.jpg large.jpg


It’s not clear what Naomi H’s full last name is (she has since locked her Twitter account). The poster likely assumed she was a furry because of the anime in her Twitter avatar (which has since been replaced with a photo of a real life deer).

But regardless, Naomi didn’t tell just any member of the National Space Council to “suck [her] dick and balls.” Homer Hickam is a NASA engineering legend.

He started out building rockets in his backyard before serving in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. Hickam then worked as an aerospace engineer for NASA, designing spacecraft and training crews.

But Hickam is arguably most famous for his literary pursuits. His memoir Rocket Boys, detailing his early life as a space enthusiast, was adapted into the 1999 film October Sky starring Jake Gyllenhaal.

Twitter users thus chided Naomi for her lack of space knowledge. But they also accused Hickam of pulling rank and robbing a young woman of a great opportunity because of one stupid tweet.

It wouldn’t be the first time that happened. Communications executive Justine Sacco was fired from media company IAC in 2014 for tweeting “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” (She has since been rehired.)

But in fact, Hickam didn’t make Naomi suffer. Instead, he took responsibility, noting on his blog that while he’s not bothered by the word “fuck” he thought his superiors at NASA might be.

Once he found out that Naomi lost her internship offer, the two connected and apologized to each other.

“After talking to her, I am certain she deserves a position in the aerospace industry and I’m doing all I can to secure her one that will be better than she lost,” Hickam wrote. “I have also talked to the folks that had to do with her internship and made absolutely certain that there will be no black mark on her record.”

So thanks to Hickam, it looks like Naomi’s sky (in October and beyond) will be bright. But hopefully she’ll watch what she says on social media from now on.
 
You think? I think they'll claim America hasn't had enough time to overcome its institutional racism or whatever and demand AA in perpetuity.
That's not legal, is my point. We're going to see several challenges roll in. And with a more by-the-books justice coming in, I think there'd need to be something profound to justify keeping AA going. Legally justify, not just rhetorically.

I don't think something profound will suddenly appear.
The thing is it they don't have a leg to stand on now. They can't prove "institutional racism" exists... which is why they keep talking about it like it's a fact. They can claim it's running rampant and ruining lives and that only AA stands in its way, and nobody can prove them wrong because its very existence is a matter of "social justice" faith. And, of course, they'll scream at you and slur you if you so much as ask them to prove there's a problem.

How is that going to change in 10 years? Are politicians going to have more spine in a decade? Will they start caring more about the truth than about what keeps voters from coming after them with pitchforks? I'm skeptical.
Oh no, institutional racism absolutely does exist. There's oodles of data proving that.

AA is more about addressing past wrongs than addressing current wrongs.

And it's not about politicians, it's about the courts. The US legal system is way more robust than people give it credit for.
 
Damn, it's been like a day since this happened and controversy is still happening? I guess that's what happens when you mix a famous author/NASA guy, an exceptional trans furry, some of his supporters (I mean the friends of the furry), and Twitter.
 
Oh no, institutional racism absolutely does exist. There's oodles of data proving that.

Meaning what, exactly? "Institutional racism" is so vague it can mean anything. Are we talking about a white person being more likely to hire another white person than a black person? Are we talking about unequal outcomes by race?

AA is more about addressing past wrongs than addressing current wrongs.

And it's not about politicians, it's about the courts. The US legal system is way more robust than people give it credit for.

Well that's true. My kneejerk reaction was that the Republicans really aren't going to want to hand a political cudgel that big to the Democrats and would do anything not to be blamed for such a "racist" decision. But like you said, it's a matter for the courts, not political whims.

I guess I have a little hope it won't just go on like this forever... (:_(
 
Meaning what, exactly? "Institutional racism" is so vague it can mean anything. Are we talking about a white person being more likely to hire another white person than a black person? Are we talking about unequal outcomes by race?
Well, literally, it means racism in large institutions. And in a legal context, it means stuff that's specifically illegal because of anti-discrimination laws (ones that derive their standards from the constitution are particularly strong).

When it comes to hiring, it's illegal to hire one person over another on the basis of race. A workplace with predominately white hiring manager cannot show a large statistical skew towards hiring white people because they're white.

You need to be able to point to objective measurements like market availability.

So for example, a related issue is sex discrimination. I think that, if Google somehow achieved 50%/50% women/men software engineers, they'd probably be violating the law.

A company that size, with that many engineers, cannot simply luck into hiring that many women without some fuckery. Why? Well, because the current graduation rate of women for Comp Sci degrees is like 20%. So just statistically, you're probably going to get 1:4 women:men coming in the door.

If Google skews strongly away from 20%, there's probably some fuckery afoot.

(Google is probably laundering their diversity numbers by hosting a bunch of women's tech events, that google just so happens to send recruiters to. That's probably harder to sue over. But maybe not impossible, if it leads to such an unbalanced gender ratio. Plus things Damore and other people have been saying suggests that google's fucking up even inside their doors.)

Edit: To bring this back to race, if black people don't qualify for the job in sufficient numbers, that's not the employer's job (or right) to address. That's society's.
 
If you want an adult job, act like an adult. End of story. There's a reason why you keep your personal and professional lives separate, idk why it's so hard for these people to get.
 
Ah right cause it's gotta be asked since this guy and his hugbox won't shut up about him being rightfully reprimanded on twitter: thread in animal control when?
 
I don’t know if anyone is interested, but what did _Flinch posted on his twitter, prior to restricting his account? He seemed like a bigger degenerate.
 
A degenerate addressing a famous engineer for Coaltown, USA like this should be legal, but strongly frowned upon. Furpocalypse when.

Wyświetl załącznik 526340

I highly doubt you code anything, furfag. Owning a Dummies® book and actually making are two very different things.

Went to start archiving his stuff...just in case...and looks like he was already on someone's radar a while back

upload_2018-8-24_8-30-19.png
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole