...with their "gender is a social construct" line, and all their other ideological sacred dogmas, either fired or cowed into submission.
Or, conversely. high tech finally realizes just how toxic SJW ideology is and stops tolerating SJW mobbing and bullying in their ranks.
...he is actually protected because he filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board before publishing his memo, and the NLRB protects people against firing once they’ve lodged a complaint under whistle-blower statutes.
I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work. How old fashioned!
Victimhood Identity Politics is in direct opposition to the American principle of individualism. Evidently treating people as individuals doesn't offer SJW types enough opportunities for graft or lording over others to make them conform to their far-left culture war politics.
So we get "Protected Classes," because some animals are more equal than others...
High costs, high taxes, and high regulation that are driving people and businesses out of the state. The minimum wage hike is only going to accelerate the trend by driving more business to other states and causing those that can't move to either invest in automation to replace their existing workers, or just hire more illegal aliens.
And the huge public sector union pension debt is going to cause more municipalities, and eventually the state itself, to go bankrupt.
...then every pervert posting illicit upskirt pictures of women without permission is a champion of the first amendment.
Many of the interviewees huff about the First Amendment, and yet not one of them explains how “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” applies to publishing a sex tape made without permission. A Florida jury was asked to consider the following questions: Was posting the video offensive to a reasonable person? Was it devoid of news value? Did Gawker founder Nick Denton participate in posting the video? The answers to the first and third questions are hardly debatable. As for news value: If Hogan’s sex tape is fair game, whose isn’t? Given that women are the usual targets of this sort of thing, it’s surreal to hear so many members of the supposed Party of Women (TM) say that there is a legitimate public interest in viewing any famous person’s bedroom activities. Try to imagine liberals making the case that Breitbart has the First Amendment right to publish a covertly recorded sex tape involving, say, Tina Fey or Rachel Maddow simply because some sleaze merchant shopped it to them.
Asked in a deposition about what celebrity sex tapes he wouldn’t publish, one Albert J. Daulerio, another former Gawker editor and the author of a snarky blog post accompanying the Hulkster’s sex tape on the site, is seen saying, “If they were a child.” Under what age? “Four,” he says, and the jury that heard this could no longer entertain any doubts about the sort of people with whom it was dealing.
...that users had to switch their News Feed back to "Most Recent" from the "Top Stories" setting that Facebook switches to despite their preferences, every single damn day!
President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" on May 25, 1961, and Apollo 11 landed on the moon July 20, 1969.
So Europe plans to take twice as long as the entire Apollo program took to get to the moon to launch three unmanned probes.
All of this is just moonbeams anyway. By 2034, Europe will be too broke to pay for space probes...
There's a legal fiction that SJW types and their fellow-travelers like to promulgate that the First Amendment doesn't cover "hate speech." This decision says that argument is false:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
The justices further noted that "speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions."
Free speech cannot be prohibited, or even restricted, just because SJW types find it "offensive."
It looks like you're trying to launder millions of dollars in Arab dictator money! Would you like to:
1. Route the proceeds through a Russian bank?
2. Purchase a cash-only business?
3. Make a wire transfer to a Cayman Islands bank?
How is unproven allegations about the sick day policy of a retailer "news for nerds"?
There is no IT angle here I can discern.
Why is this on Slashdot? Unless, of course, they're moving full steam ahead with their "All Social Justice Warrior, all the time" format.
TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED