[TeaDrunk]

According to the article it appears she signed up and actively encouraged others to join as well explicitly for the lack of censorship.

"In a November 12 tweet, Oefelein invited followers to join her on the conservative social network, which she described as "a great platform with no censorship." Oefelein suggested earlier this month that she may also use the far-right social networking site Gab."

The fired agent also said:

"Well thanks Twitter and @JDLitAgency," Oefelein wrote. "I just got fired because I'm a Christian and a conservative."

Which makes me suspect that she was writing political stuff with her real name on Parler/Gab, since Parler/Gab are not inherently Christian sites. (and theoretically aren't inherently conservative ones either?)

[LocalH]

Should people lose their jobs for being Christian, conservative, and the slightest bit vocal?

[JohnBooty]

Hard no. If she was literally fired for the social media equivalent of wearing a cross or having a Trump bumper sticker? If so, I think we would agree that's wrong.

However there's quite possibly a lot more to it than that.

Christianity is not inherently evil but (like all major religious texts) the Bible uh... lends itself to multiple interpretations, to put it mildly.

Surely we can agree that a lot of heinous behavior over the years has been justified by the perpetrators in the name of religion. I'm sure those folks felt they were presecuted "just for following their religion" as well.

[TeaDrunk]

Of course not, I'm just saying I wasn't aware Parler and Gab were christian, conservative websites, so it doesn't make sense for the agent to claim she was fired for being christian/conservative when the reason provided by the employer was that she was on gab/parler unless she was being political on those sites but not political on twitter or w/e.

[pwinnski]

Parler, at least, despite initially claiming to not censor anyone/anything, went out of its way to censor/block people in opposed groups.[0] Parler's CEO bragged about blocking trolls, which he identified as those attacking Christians or conservatives.[1]

Of course, the most politically-conservative Christians I know are not on Parler nor Gab, but they're also not Trump supporters, which seemed to be the real reason people went to Parler/Gab. That's an unsupported assertion on my part, but seems consistent with my observations.

She wasn't fired because she's a Christian and a conservative. She was fired because she was active on two sites tied to attempted insurrection. It's a bad look for the agency, but IMO a worse look for Oefelein.

0. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f...

[throwawaysea]

Are people still peddling the hyperbole/lie that this was an attempted coup? https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-c...

[dane-pgp]

I think it's worth pointing out what a "hot take" that article is. It was written on the day of storming itself, and published at 5:54 PM, before the announced curfew had even started (and before some details about the government response were revealed[0]).

The Naval War College professor being interviewed in the article basically argues that unless the military is involved, it isn't a "coup", by definition. That would make the phrase "military coup" redundant, and contradicts the Merriam-Webster definition[1] which characterizes it as:

> a “sudden decisive exercise of force in politics,” but particularly the “violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.”

By the professor's logic, even if a president were to explicitly command his followers to storm the Capitol, eliminate his political opponents, and destroy the certifications of the electoral votes he had lost, allowing him to stay in power illegitimately, that still wouldn't be a coup (or a self-coup, presumably).

In any case, another article[2] on the same site makes the opposing case:

> It’s undeniable at this point. The United States is witnessing a coup attempt — a forceful effort to seize power against the legal framework.

Admittedly it was published even earlier than the other article, but it had been drafted in response to discussions which had begun before the protests had turned violent, vindicating the author's position.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_St...

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/13/insurrection-coup-and...

[2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-el...

[dragonwriter]

> Are people still peddling the hyperbole/lie that this was an attempted coup?

It's neither hyperbole nor a lie.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-el...

[pwinnski]

I used the word "insurrection," not "coup," but yes, it definitely was an attempt at both. Bad articles notwithstanding, upcoming federal trials ought to make that clear to those who participated.

[mssundaram]

Yeah, very annoying though almost not surprising