All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Username taken]

Companies should absolutely not discuss why employees are let go...again, this feels like a sentiment coming from someone who has no experience with HR in the actual working world.

As is companies are legally prohibited from disclosing why they let an employee go, no matter the reason and unlike say 75% of HR machinations this is one of the few protections that benefits the employee and not the company.

Let's say you were let go because another employee accused you of sexual harassment, when interviewing for your next position you don't need to disclose that fact and are free to make up any reason you like for why you left your previous place of employment (seeking room to grow, shorter commute) and the hiring manager will never know any differently because your previous employer is barred from divulging anything more than the length of your tenure at the company and the title of your position(if you had one). This gives you the opportunity for a fresh start and protects you from your previous employer poisoning the well against you if the accusation that got you fired was false.

This same protection would have applied to Gina if she had chosen not to make it public, she could have gone on and just told the next studio she parted ways with Disney due to creative differences and probably moved on...instead she chose to make it a public "culture war" issue and because she was the one who made it public Disney was then free to disclose the actions they made. And surprise, other companies decided they didn't want any part of her "culture war" and have decided not to be involved with her. It's 100% a self inflicted wound all around as she could have kept her very lucrative position if she just chose to follow HR direction, and if she didn't she could have probably gotten work elsewhere if she just chalked her departure up to creative differences.

And like it or not, "don't be anti-trans" isn't some big ultra left wing ask, it's just a bare minimum expectation of being a decent human being.

Yeah, most jobs simply don't allow people spew stuff that could be construed as hate towards another based on sex, race, sexual orientation and/or gender.

This isn't even one trying to make a political statement or anything, it's just the way it is. Worse still, you can't get warned by your employer to stop doing something but keep doing it and not expect repercussions. That's simply not facing reality.

Broadly speaking, I'm not really a fan of people getting fired for social media posts regardless of political leanings. However, if one's employer has asked you to stop, why not stop? Gina Carano chose to be toxic and offensive. As you rightly pointed out, "stop being anti-trans" isn't really much of a left-wing ask regardless of political leanings, it's just basic decency and respect. Again, regardless of political leanings, if anyone goes on social media saying dumb stuff and then gets warned by their employer and they keep posting, then they've earned their firing.

In my opinion, I think people should do more to keep their jobs rather than engage in unnecessary political exchanges.

[Powerboy]

Regarding the Gina Carano situation and the greater subject of free speech and bias, as a liberal, I find her remarks and attitudes abhorrent and/ or ignorant as in lacking facts and information. But that's standard among conservatives all the way up to their chief who can't admit he lost. But there are liberals who have repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler. Whether you think that's valid or not, there are no consequences for it. As a liberal, I realize that someone punching up (Pascal criticizing Trump) is very different than someone punching down (Carano to an extremely marginalized group). But it is clear that average and poor conservatives perceive themselves as being punched down at by biased and elitist government and media.

I don't think any conservative pressure is going to change Disney's policies. But I see them having at least a small affect. There's Shane Gillis hosting SNL regardless of numerous protests about it, with SNL stating that they are having him return regardless to promote a diversity of opinions. The show got low ratings overall but landed in the top 25% this season in the 18-49 years old category, which was the one they most wanted to improve. A lot of that was certainly how much publicity the conflict about it got, with people tuning in to see what all of the yelling was about.

https://latenighter.com/news/saturda...18-49-ratings/

It doesn't help that things are moving so fast culturally that there are things being normalized that the majority of the country probably thinks is ridiculous regardless of what they can openly say on social media or what they have to adhere to officially at work.

In other words, it's one of those times you don't want to live in but have to do your best with.

[Powerboy]

Yeah, most jobs simply don't allow people spew stuff that could be construed as hate towards another based on sex, race, sexual orientation and/or gender.

This isn't even one trying to make a political statement or anything, it's just the way it is. Worse still, you can't get warned by your employer to stop doing something but keep doing it and not expect repercussions. That's simply not facing reality.

Broadly speaking, I'm not really a fan of people getting fired for social media posts regardless of political leanings. However, if one's employer has asked you to stop, why not stop? Gina Carano chose to be toxic and offensive. As you rightly pointed out, "stop being anti-trans" isn't really much of a left-wing ask regardless of political leanings, it's just basic decency and respect. Again, regardless of political leanings, if anyone goes on social media saying dumb stuff and then gets warned by their employer and they keep posting, then they've earned their firing.

In my opinion, I think people should do more to keep their jobs rather than engage in unnecessary political exchanges.

But, sometimes, people lose their jobs for "the Cause". The early strikes and formations of unions are an example. Of course, that was to help people, not cut them down.

I'm also not a fan of people being told they can't express opinions outside of work although that seldom existed before social media. I'm not a fan of "Cancel Culture" which I absolutely can see exists. It has always existed. It's just swung directions. I guess I'm enough of an Old School Liberal to despise it wherever it raises it's head, regardless of what form it takes. Both sides are certainly doing it now.

As for Gina Carano, she was getting to go on all of these talk shows. Why? Because she was playing a Star Wars character. She was representing Disney. They had still planned to cast her again. She should have waited and gone over to the Daily Wire if she wanted to express certain opinions about Trans people. And, lest we think the Daily Wire is the Freedom of Speech zone, let her start expressing liberal opinions and see how long her employment there lasts.

[zinderel]

Regarding the Gina Carano situation and the greater subject of free speech and bias, as a liberal, I find her remarks and attitudes abhorrent and/ or ignorant as in lacking facts and information. But that's standard among conservatives all the way up to their chief who can't admit he lost. But there are liberals who have repeatedly compared Trump to Hitler. Whether you think that's valid or not, there are no consequences for it. As a liberal, I realize that someone punching up (Pascal criticizing Trump) is very different than someone punching down (Carano to an extremely marginalized group). But it is clear that average and poor conservatives perceive themselves as being punched down at by biased and elitist government and media.

I don't think any conservative pressure is going to change Disney's policies. But I see them having at least a small affect. There's Shane Gillis hosting SNL regardless of numerous protests about it, with SNL stating that they are having him return regardless to promote a diversity of opinions. The show got low ratings overall but landed in the top 25% this season in the 18-49 years old category, which was the one they most wanted to improve. A lot of that was certainly how much publicity the conflict about it got, with people tuning in to see what all of the yelling was about.

https://latenighter.com/news/saturda...18-49-ratings/

It doesn't help that things are moving so fast culturally that there are things being normalized that the majority of the country probably thinks is ridiculous regardless of what they can openly say on social media or what they have to adhere to officially at work.

In other words, it's one of those times you don't want to live in but have to do your best with.

For what it’s worth, at least Shane Gillis doesn’t appear to still be playing the victim for facing consequences for his actions.

As I understand it, isn’t he the guy who was scheduled to host last season, but then it came out that he had a bit of a history punching down in his act, so he lost the hosting gig?

I haven’t seen any new controversy, and he didn’t sue SNL to get to host again, so…I’m fine with him getting a second chance. I think MOST people deserve a second chance, at least socially. If the thing that gets them ‘canceled’ was a shitty opinion, or a poorly chosen ‘joke’, or an off the cuff statement (not a call for violence, or using their position of power to dehumanize or damage an already disenfranchised people)? If they show ANY contrition (or at the very least, don’t double down and/or make things worse for themselves)? They should get a second chance.

But the size of the contrition depends on the gravity of the offense, and the honesty of the apology, as well.

[skyvolt2000]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...4e0047991&ei=9

Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson discussed his transition from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, citing his upbringing, values, and beliefs as reasons for the switch.

He emphasized a shift away from the Democratic Party’s ideology, which he felt excused personal responsibility and attributed success or failure to external factors.

Johnson explained, “If you’re successful and you’re white males, it’s because of course you were. And if you’re unsuccessful as an African American, it’s both the deck was stacked against you. And I just wasn’t a person who ever believed that. And that wasn’t how I was raised. And it’s not what I was taught. But it was the overarching political philosophy of my party.”

So proper funding to HBCUs wasn't because of a certain political party? Along with the lack of funding to say Jacksonville Miss and Detroit's water issues?

So you go to the party that has at various times gotten in the way of success of black folks? Like funding businesses and such?

It's not the Democrats standing in the way of Trump having his day in court and proving he is innocent. It's the very party Mr Johnson is running to join.



Oh went to the library by my school to get some books and it's also an early voting place.

They posted on the door how many of each party had voted and where each party would host 4 mini conventions.

Republican 2
Not one of those mini conventions is in a POC area.

Democrat 400
In one area that had the best showing for Democrats since 1976.
One area is very black centric.
One that is very Latino centric.
One that has the most Asian population.

[zinderel]

In a bit of good news, it appears that an unrepentant murderer is going to jail for a long time for murdering a girl for…*checks notes*…”being a passenger in a car that pulled into his driveway by mistake”.

He TRIED to use the tired old excuse that all gun fetishists use when their incompetence causes the violent loss of life: “I felt threatened!”

And the judge appears to have given him the maximum possible sentence for his lack of contrition.

[ed2962]

For what it’s worth, at least Shane Gillis doesn’t appear to still be playing the victim for facing consequences for his actions.

As I understand it, isn’t he the guy who was scheduled to host last season, but then it came out that he had a bit of a history punching down in his act, so he lost the hosting gig?

I haven’t seen any new controversy, and he didn’t sue SNL to get to host again, so…I’m fine with him getting a second chance. I think MOST people deserve a second chance, at least socially. If the thing that gets them ‘canceled’ was a shitty opinion, or a poorly chosen ‘joke’, or an off the cuff statement (not a call for violence, or using their position of power to dehumanize or damage an already disenfranchised people)? If they show ANY contrition (or at the very least, don’t double down and/or make things worse for themselves)? They should get a second chance.

But the size of the contrition depends on the gravity of the offense, and the honesty of the apology, as well.

He was going to be a cast member a few years ago. But then clips of him being on a podcast a year earlier and using Asian and gay slurs came out, so he got fired before he got a chance to be a featured player.

[zinderel]

He was going to be a cast member a few years ago. But then clips of him being on a podcast a year earlier and using Asian and gay slurs came out, so he got fired before he got a chance to be a featured player.

That’s it. Thank you for the context.

Has he doubled down on the bigotry humor? Or kept it up? Or has his act evolved enough that we can all move on?

I have no idea who he is, obviously…

[Tendrin]

Today, listeners of Joe Rogan learned that transgender people 'come from Baphomet' and have are a recent phenomenon.

Where Williams lost a lot of the people who were rocking with him after the Club Shay Shay interview is when he reached the transphobic portion of the conversation.

Williams ignorantly suggested comedians/actors wearing dresses was some form of a demonic ritual.

“Show me a person that ever wore a dress in Hollywood unsuccessfully. That’s how you understand what a ritual is,” Williams said.

He then equated transitioning with Baphomet, the occult deity associated with Satanism, claiming he knew it would be a “thing” 20 years ago, and he saw the word related to “Baphomet, the Transgender.”

Just another piece of alarming rhetoric, blared to millions of people, just like the escalating rhetoric on the right about transgender people having a ton of power in society (lol, no), represent an overly large amount of mass shooters (there's been ... three? Maybe?) and on and on and on. Meanwhile, conservative AGs are literally fishing for lists of transgender people from clinics and conservative governments are removing their treatments from medicaid.

I'm sure a good, noble, moderate conservative would speak out against the slippery slope that their party seems to be on with things like 'we need to eradicate transngenderism'.

So much of what conservatism is, is rage at people refusing to stick to the boxes that conservatives want them to so that conservatives do not have to actually engage with people beyond their most superficial, short-handed ways. Boxes are how you define your interactions with people. The rigid social hierarchy that conservatives prerfer is born from that. 'You are X, so I am free to treat you in this manner, and do not have to think about it'. Rage is provoked when someone steps out of their perceived box.

[Gray Lensman]

That’s it. Thank you for the context.

Has he doubled down on the bigotry humor? Or kept it up? Or has his act evolved enough that we can all move on?

I have no idea who he is, obviously…

From what I have read, not really. His humor is conservative friendly, but not conservative exclusive. Self effacing, poking fun at some differences between groups, but often with himself as the butt of the joke. He hasn't come out decrying cancel culture, or woke this or woke that, even though some extreme right wingers have been doing victory laps about his return to the show.

[ed2962]

That’s it. Thank you for the context.

Has he doubled down on the bigotry humor? Or kept it up? Or has his act evolved enough that we can all move on?

I have no idea who he is, obviously…

I'll be honest, I didn't bother to watch him on SNL last week, so I couldn't say.

[Adam Allen]

There seems to be an expectation in the media that everyone who works for even ostensibly mainstream outlets conform to the cultural norms of elite left-wingers. It may generate a backlash if customers realize that if they worked there, they'd have to attend a remediation class. I do also want the media to be transparent about their internal policies because they're helping the rest of us make sense of the world, and covering those kinds of details about other companies.

And like it or not, "don't be anti-trans" isn't some big ultra left wing ask, it's just a bare minimum expectation of being a decent human being.

Let's just consider immediate company for a moment?

Do we have elite left-wingers? Because it seems like support for trans rights and concern for loss of the same is nearly a consensus, here. I mean, it's only one small population sample -- and please, can we not dismiss everyone here by saying the forum is "dominated by leftists" or something like that? A general interest in comics and the self-selection of participating in the thread are the only givens.

Just suggesting ... maybe it's not only "elite left-wingers" who see anti-trans hate and bigotry as a problem?

Like, you are completely free of course to be fine and dandy with the state of things, if that's how you feel. But can we not try to distort the narrative?

thwhtGuardian is right, our society has in general evolved enough that the majority are not on board for outright bigotry, against any minority. That's not some ultra-left wing stance, is it?

[Powerboy]

From what I have read, not really. His humor is conservative friendly, but not conservative exclusive. Self effacing, poking fun at some differences between groups, but often with himself as the butt of the joke. He hasn't come out decrying cancel culture, or woke this or woke that, even though some extreme right wingers have been doing victory laps about his return to the show.

I would say I could picture Don Rickles saying stuff like Gillis says. It's just a different time than when Rickles said such things. But there doesn't sound like there's any malice in it. It's mostly making fun of stuff in a way that's a bit "inappropriate" these days. It's also been misrepresented. For instance, I think some news outlets harped on the fact that Gillis said the word "retarded". But he said it in the context of the fact he has, I think, a young cousin who is mentally handicapped and there are cruel kids who call her retarded. The joke part was about how those kids would get paid back some day.

[Panfoot]

That’s it. Thank you for the context.

Has he doubled down on the bigotry humor? Or kept it up? Or has his act evolved enough that we can all move on?

I have no idea who he is, obviously…

He's kept it up, then again why wouldn't he it's what's made his career.

[Tendrin]

Along with Reed, trans journalist Evan Urquhart, founder of Assigned Media, joined Monday's St. Louis on the Air to talk about Missouri’s national role in anti-trans efforts. A key factor in Missouri’s influence is the case of Jamie Reed, a former caseworker at Washington University’s Transgender Center at St. Louis Children's Hospital.

In February 2023, Reed went public with a whistleblower complaint that the clinic’s doctors were “permanently harming” children by allowing them to medically transition. An internal investigation by the university found her allegations unsubstantiated.

During the recent January 17 hearing, Reed testified in favor of proposed bills restricting gender-affirming care for kids; she insists it is not “compassionate” to transition a child medically.

Urquhart reported on Reed’s claims, and, in multiple interviews with the clinic’s patients and their families, he found the purported accounts of abuse fell apart.

He said that Reed’s status as a whistleblower changed the national conversation — and added fuel to the fire being stoked by those opposed to trans people’s existence.

When he first read Reed’s whistleblower statement, Urquhart said: “On the surface of it, her allegations seemed quite plausible, something to take very seriously… what I found out was that these were families who were devastated at having been included [in Reed’s allegations.] The center that they had really trusted was being misrepresented, was being presented as if it was damaging their children — when they knew their children were thriving, their children were trans, and that they had not in any way felt angry at the Transgender Center or felt like they had been harmed, which was the opposite of what Jamie Reed was saying.”

https://www.kcur.org/politics-electi...er-legislation

As is pointed out in the article, we are in the midst of a moral panic over trans people primarily driven by conservatives looking for a wedge with which to their evangelical voters, especially in light of the issue with abortion that the right is presently grappling. As I pointed out, trans rights were the wedge. Unshockingly, the people who assured us that trans rights (for adults, of course) were totally fine and gay rights were fine were ... you know... wrong.