Brianna Coppage said she made $1 million on the platform, which she was using to supplement her teaching salary.
Had to supplement her $42,000 per year teacher salary with OF and made nearly $1 million in six months (almost 50 times as her salary) before the school caught wind of it and forced her to resign. Got a new job out of education and was fired five days later when they discovered news articles about her.
Edit: To those basically saying she had it coming because she made her OF account public...
Sex work is real, valid work.
There is nothing wrong with sex work. Sex-shaming is Puritanical horseshit.
"But her students could find her OF!" is a problem their parents should have to solve. It is not her responsibility to use an alias, because of points 1 and 2.
Every other argument criticizing her for her sex work during her non-teaching hours is fucking moot.
Hi, new guy in the convo, dont point your guns at me, just wanted to point out the irony of you saying this after openly admitting you wouldn't even read the other person's comment in full
Sounds like you don't really understand either very well then. Get off your intellectual high horse. We're not debating the definition of irony like it's 2003. And if you can't see how in your case your reading comp issues "don't count" but in their case they're having some sort of personal failing then I don't know what to tell you. Since you're so smart why don't you go read up on the self-serving bias so you can throw that term around later without engaging in introspection too. At the end of it all you will still have failed to comprehend the meaning of what someone wrote to you, whether it's because you didn't try hard enough, you're too lazy, or too stupid. Failing grade is a failing grade. Ugh I'm tired of these high school report card metrics. But I guess coupling the high school language with the intellectual arrogance and poor attitude it reveals a lot about the level of maturity you're bringing to this conversation.
Now this is irony, actually, you're so wrapped up in your own idea of pseudo intellectualism that when you're challenged at all by anything you shit yourself. You talk about maturity, but at the first sign of a challenge you think I'm trying to assert myself intellectually and throw around highschool like an insult, which highlights that this is both projection and an insecurity
You need a nap? Maybe a time out?
I'm gonna scree shot this, btw, this reads like what a teenager who got mogged in front of his crush writes out and posts onto his Facebook wall
If you think they're right to fire her for porn say they're right for firing her for porn. Don't say they're right for firing her because nazis exist, that's an excuse not a reason.
We have the technology to tell apart porn makers and nazis, we don't need to treat them equally.
A straightforward concept and also a wrong one. Not firing people for one thing doesn't mean not firing people for any other thing including being a fucking Nazi.
So you're saying we should be forced to associate with nazis? What about pedophiles? What about people who posts loli porn or people who say the N word on their twitter?
I'm saying we shouldn't. Are you saying that teacher is any of those people? There shouldn't be a blank rule that people and corporations can exploit to do whatever the fuck they want.
You're saying we shouldn't but then saying we should be forced to interact with people we don't like?
So who decides what's acceptable? The government? You? Where is the line and why is it that you think I should have to associate with people who post animated pedophile porn?
And it's not a blank rule. You can't discriminate against minority groups (and just to give examples but not a comprehensive list) like black people, gay people, and you can't discriminate against people based only on them being a different religion. Look up protected classes. Why do you think this is a blank rule? Are you uneducated? We passed these laws for a reason
Do you think you're really the first person to talk about this? How egotistical are you?
You're the one trying to say this, not me. Im not equating anything YOU are saying that I am because you can't read.
I'm saying people with different beliefs have the same rights and can use them according to their beliefs.
You're incapable of understanding the whole point. If you take their right to association away because ot doesn't align with your belif system, then what happens when a new person takes office and suddenly has a platform for taking peoples rights away?
What someone posts on social media isn't a protected class. With me, I don't want nazis, and thats my right, both personally and religiously, so when someone else has a different thing they don't want associated with, i can't say they don't have that right simply because I would associate with said thing
I'm gonna screen shot this and make a post about it, because trust me buddy, it's not me who is dumb here
Please explain why you think either only people who believe what you believe should have rights or people who believe differently shouldn't have as many rights or can't use them the same as you?
First tell me why you should be able to infringe on people's rights because of your beliefs instead of generally recognized protections. You know, the same point homophobes make to not serve gay people.
You know, the same point homophobes make to not serve gay people.
Except the cases about homophobes refusing to serve gay people aren't about refusing to serve gay people generally - they're about refusing to engage in speech they oppose on commission. The case with the homophobic baker wasn't refusing to sell a gay couple a cake off the shelf - they were refusing to accept a commission to create a custom cake, and a lot of their argument was over whether or not a cake design is speech in the same way an artwork is and whether the 1st Amendment trumps anti-discrimination laws.