When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I guess I was going off of this info-graphic, which depicts multiple levels of increasingly thick A-Teams, with a single "You" as the point of origin.
Semantics aside, however, I love how they're encouraging people to walk away from stable employment for the extremely minute change of winning a check that'll cover a few months' living expenses, in order to do... some hazily defined thing which I'm still not sure of.
Actually, I don't love it. In reality, it's quite sad, as tactics like this will simply produce more state-dependent victims over the long term.
^ I was originally going to say "pretty sure she's serious," but then I went and looked at some of the posts on her FB page, and now I'm quite certain that it's satire.
Which makes me sad. I'm now sufficiently old and grumpy that I can't tell the difference between a whiny, entitled brat, and someone of the same generation making fun of their reputation as a bunch of whiny, entitled brats.
EDIT: Actually, to some degree, that lady is invoking Poe's Law, whether intentionally or unintentionally. My assumption is that it is not entirely intentional, and she does not fully appreciate just how much those of us outside GenWu have come to believe that such extremist behavior has been normalized by them.
And, the view from inside a different millennial's head:
'Did He Really Say That?’ The Inversion of Language on College Campuses
Naseem Husain, June 13, 2016
What is the purpose of a college education nowadays, if not to challenge ourselves intellectually? Do universities necessarily have an obligation to shield their students from ideas that might trouble them? Shouldn’t this choice be left up to the individual who is seeking higher learning? These are the questions that come to mind each time I come across an article in the news about universities finding new ways to trample on the First Amendment rights of their students as well as their faculty. Whether its by harassing professors because of a stance they happen to take or by restricting student speech to particular “free speech zones” on campus, or by disinviting certain speakers because of their political views, or just by outright punishing students for expressing an unpopular opinion, the leftist thought police on college campuses continue to amaze me as they reach new heights of intolerance all while parading under the guise of creating a “safe” and a “more inclusive” environment.
Language is the college leftists’ main weapon of choice when it comes to attacking ideas that they see as a threat. They start by declaring that their intentions are not to stifle fee speech, but to create a “safe” environment for the student body. Being “safe” traditionally means being safe from physical force or injury, but college campuses apparently exist in some other dimension in which being “safe” also includes being safe from things that might hurt one’s feelings. It doesn’t matter if there is absolutely no physical threat present, as long as a student loudly proclaims that they feel unsafe, whatever is making them feel this way be it a speaker, professor, or another student, is immediately labeled a threat and measures are taken to silence or remove them.
After contorting what it means to be safe, college leftists then move to redefining what “violence” is. The definition of violence according to Merriam-Webster is the “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse”. The problem with this definition of violence is that it doesn’t fit with how leftists have redefined what it means to be safe, because it says nothing about the state of one’s feelings. To remedy that, leftists extend the definition of violence past physical force and into the subjective realm of one’s feelings. Now it is irrelevant whether any physical force has occurred, so long as one feels threatened. If I happen to say something you don’t like or disagree with all you would have to do is to claim that you feel threatened by what I said, and the college will likely take action against me.
Colleges may take pride in what they see as creating a “safe” environment and even claim that their interventions are good because they are allowing the “students’ voices to be heard” but by silencing ideas that students may find troubling, they are doing their students more harm than any conservative speaker could in this lifetime. Silencing opposing viewpoints because of a warped sense of language prepares students to enter a world that does not care about their feelings no matter how offended, distressed, or angry they might be. After graduation there are no administrators to create safe spaces for you, there is no division of student affairs for you to submit a complaint to and there is no dean of students you can petition because you feel threatened by someone else’s opinions. Upon graduating all one has is themselves, their degree, and whatever network or skills they may have developed over the course of their studies, and protesting the speech of others is not a very marketable skill.
People will sometimes read these stories of what is happening on our campuses and dismiss them as the idiocy of a few disgruntled students. I know that before these stories became commonplace in the news, I used to find these stories mildly amusing and never thought much of them because in my mind logic and reason will prevail! However, that is not the case now, and what I found mildly amusing 2 to 3 years ago has now grown into an actual threat to higher education as it routinely rejects the logic and reason that I hold so dear.
Naseem Husain is from Houston, Texas and a senior at the University of Texas at Austin studying theater arts. He is also a passionate Libertarian who is fed up with the leftism that has been surrounding him at school since the day he arrived.
^^ There is an evolving gap between Millenials and the Centennials that are just now getting to college. There will be strong backlash, I think. I think back to how I viewed hippies and boomers as an early Gen-X'r. My two daughters (a Millenial and a Centennial separated by 11 years) couldn't be more different in political viewpoint.
A police force in the UK has tweeted out a strange threat to those who are “spewing abuse” online.
“You can’t hide from us if your [sic] spewing abuse from behind a computer screen. Our boys & gals in blue will find you #999WhatsYourEmergency,” Wiltshire Police tweeted on Monday.
Apparently, they are not in coordination with the Grammar Police.
What “spewing abuse” means is unclear as it is subjective and considering how sensitive twitter users on the left seem to be, it could just mean disagreeing with their opinion.
As Infowars points out, it seems that this threat from Wiltshire Police is a response to a new series titled “999: What’s Your Emergency?” which debuted Monday night.
...
“The program focussed on hate crime – it’s a subject which sadly is more prevalent than it has been in recent years.,” he continued. “Let me be clear, we will not tolerate hate of any kind here in Wiltshire.”
“The program, which I know has instigated a vast amount of conversation on social media, was an opportunity for us to show how hate crime can take many different forms and that whatever it may be, we will take these reports seriously,” he said.
“If you’ve experienced hate crime, call police on 101.”
Although the Police Chief said to call 101, the non-emergency number, the tweet itself reads like the police force wants 999, the emergency number, to be used.
University of Minnesota organization bans straight, white people from joining safe space
Sara Gonzales Jul 28, 2017 12:06 pm
An organization, sponsored by the University of Minnesota, bans straight and white people from attending its meetings.
An LGBTQ organization at the University of Minnesota bans straight and white people from attending its meetings, according to the school’s website.
The group, Tongues Untied, is designed as a networking tool for staff and students who want to participate in group discussions about how race, sexuality, and gender impact their life experiences.
“Named after the famous documentary, ‘Tongues Untied’ by Marlon Riggs & Essex Hemphill, the group serves to connect students, staff, faculty, and the Twin Cities community by holding discussion groups that focus on how race, sexuality, and gender impact our lived experiences,” the school’s website says.
Tongues Untied’s Facebook page describes the group as a space created for people of color who identify as “queer and/or trans.”
“Tongues Untied (TU) is a space that was created by and for indigenous people and people of color who identify as queer and/or trans. TU is a program of the Gender and Sexuality Center for Queer and Trans Life at the University of Minnesota,” it states.
“If you identify as a queer and/or trans indigenous person or person of color, we welcome you to take part in our discussions,” the description adds.
The University of Minnesota’s website further details the requirements for joining the organization or participating in the group discussions.
“For our allies: we do appreciate your voices and commitment to dismantling racism and homophobia; however, please note that this is a space created for LGBTQIA and/or same-gender-loving people of color,” the disclaimer says.
The University of Minnesota is a taxpayer-funded, four-year public university. According to their website, Tongues Untied is sponsored by the school’s Gender and Sexuality Center for Queer and Trans Life.
A request for comment from the Gender and Sexuality Center was not immediately returned. This story will be updated should a comment be provided to TheBlaze.
As a young person it kills me to see this. No doubt a private company has every right to do this, but destroying freedom of thought is a bad bad path. We need to be able to criticize bad ideas, and if we can't we lose our ability to make correct decisions.
Publicly disparaging your employer will get you fired. News at eleven.
There's an old adage, "Don't **** where you eat", that seems to apply pretty much everywhere all the time.
On the one hand, this is so true as to be axiomatic.
On the other hand, it is an ominous trend, and one with not but a single example, that companies are beginning to feel comfortable martyring employees not for speaking out against the company per se, but for expressing opinions which call into question the soundness of certain social trends.
If I have read the facts correctly, the latter is evident here. The employee in question was not slamming his company publicly, he was advising it privately. That's an important distinction.
Try to imagine what would have happened if, in the 1960s, a black, female employee wrote an internal memo calling into question certain corporate practices which seemed to discriminate against women and minorities in the workplace. I'll tell you what would have happened: the exact same thing.
And that's what scares me. The thought that, just maybe, we have actually failed at achieving any sort of social progress whatsoever since the Jim Crow era, aside from shifting the target reticle.
I don't believe that social policy has to be a zero-sum game. But a lot of people are acting like it is.
If it was internal, then it obviously was not well-advised to send. The underlying currents within a company must be surveyed prior to penning certain types of assessments, accurate or not. Unpopular views or ideas that threaten the goals of the employer should be kept to oneself unless one doesn't mind risking termination, lack of advancement, or reprimand. Leftist ideas in a right wing workplace or capitalist ideas in a left wing workplace will stifle one's advancement or cause them to be the target of "downsizing" if there's any to be done. An example would be someone with a Marxist viewpoint speaking out against their employer's profits. See also right-leaning persons in Hollywood, journalism, and academia being torpedoed by their respective employers. I don't see this as a shift, but rather just another example. If you say something foolish or unpopular you may get popped. Don't hit on the boss' wife at the company Christmas party, or get trashed and throw up at the company picnic, etc.
But with politically heated topics, sometimes people can't handle the truth. Cue Jack Nicholson's rant.
If you have not read the memo you really should read it first before you make any assumptions about what is happening. It is very well written and includes citations for his claims (as long as you get the source copy that has not been edited). He definitely was ballsy to submit it and there were a few cringey parts and overly confident claims that he made but I never got the crazy rant vibe or outright bashing of google from it. He simply criticized some of the practices that had been put in place and the fact that the very left leaning corporate culture on this particular campus was serving to silence any and all dissent. He even outlines some very reasonable and common sense practices that could be implemented to deal with his issues and mentions that google has already begun some of these programs. He also apparently submitted this memo on a forum specifically setup by HR to solicit suggestions for improving the workplace. However, I can't find a source on that claim so I am not 100% confident of it's accuracy. If it is true, then I think it makes this whole situation look even worse for google.
If you have not read the memo you really should read it first before you make any assumptions about what is happening. It is very well written and includes citations for his claims (as long as you get the source copy that has not been edited). He definitely was ballsy to submit it and there were a few cringey parts and overly confident claims that he made but I never got the crazy rant vibe or outright bashing of google from it. He simply criticized some of the practices that had been put in place and the fact that the very left leaning corporate culture on this particular campus was serving to silence any and all dissent. He even outlines some very reasonable and common sense practices that could be implemented to deal with his issues and mentions that google has already begun some of these programs. He also apparently submitted this memo on a forum specifically setup by HR to solicit suggestions for improving the workplace. However, I can't find a source on that claim so I am not 100% confident of it's accuracy. If it is true, then I think it makes this whole situation look even worse for google.
Doesn't matter because the media refuses to report all relevant info.
It's just like Trump going on the 17 day vacation.....................only after days of whining about it did they finally admit "Well, I guess he kind of has to since all the staffers will be gone while they conduct repairs on the White House"
It was an HR forum? That explains a lot. HR pukes are not on the production end of anything. :P And that makes them much more left leaning than the production end of the company as well.
If HR wants more female engineers then it needs to place a moratorium on hiring males for those positions and see how well that works out.
07-23-2017, 11:27 AM
0
