118
submitted 7 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 108 points 7 months ago

A 50-year-old earning money on OnlyFans? Big respect.

Hopefully, despite her losing her teaching job, this publicity boost will really help her make up for the lost income.

But my fucking god... she had been teaching for thirty years! Do these assholes forcing her to resign think that kids won't lust after hot teachers if they aren't on OnlyFans? Because they won't. The only difference OnlyFans make is that those kids can illegally see her naked. And if they watch any adult content, it's not legal.

And most kids will still want to pass her class, so they're going to do the assignments and try to pay attention even if they're jerking off to her after they finish their homework.

[-] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 56 points 7 months ago

More importantly, pay teachers what they're worth and they won't have to resort to things like OnlyFans to make up the difference.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago

I think that is complimentary to what I'm saying. Absolutely pay teachers more, but if she was paid really well as a teacher and still decided to do OnlyFans, that should be none of the school corporation's business.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

IMO nobody's social media of any kind should have any affect on ones employment. Employers everywhere should be banned from looking at people's social media to make employment decisions.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I can sympathize with that idea, but on the other hand, if someone is posting super racist things on Facebook and Facebook shows that they're a low-level executive at Amazon, that reflects on Amazon and I think it would be reasonable to get rid of an employee on those grounds. But in that case, Amazon customers have Facebook accounts. Even in schools, I don't know that I would be against firing a history teacher who posted Holocaust denials on Twitter because students can see it and it reflects on how that teacher might instruct students. In this case, none of her students should be on OnlyFans and if they are, it's illegal. She is an English teacher, so nothing she does on OnlyFans should have an effect on her teaching either. So it's a different situation in my opinion.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I think there's room to have some exceptions for extremist content, I mean if people are approaching Companies to tell them about one of their employees, obviously that isn't good

But the current situation is rather annoying, you've got companies retracting offers or straight up firing just hired people because of a picture they posted of a party they went to 10 years ago or some shit. Or even in extreme cases, companies demanding people's SM credentials as a condition of hiring. That's what's got to change

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I agree. There needs to be some sort of way of removing truly dangerous or at least damaging people while still preserving the jobs of women like this one.

load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
118 points (89.3% liked)

News

23296 readers
3177 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS