Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Led Illegal Purge of Male Employees, Lawsuit Charges (mercurynews.com)
A prominent local media executive fired from Yahoo last year has filed a lawsuit accusing CEO Marissa Mayer of leading a campaign to purge male employees. "Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees," said the suit by Scott Ard filed this week in federal district court in San Jose. From a MercuryNews article: Ard, who worked for Yahoo for 3 and a half years until January 2015, is now editor-in-chief of the Silicon Valley Business Journal. His lawsuit also claims that Yahoo illegally fired large numbers of workers ousted under a performance-rating system imposed by Mayer. That allegation was not tied to gender. Yahoo spokeswoman Carolyn Clark said Yahoo couldn't comment on pending litigation, but she defended the company's performance-review process, which she said was guided by "fairness." "Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others," Clark said. "We believe this process allows our team to develop and do their best work. Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out."
Cue the feminists to start pointing out that it's impossible to be sexist against white males because we all site at the top of the power hierarchy. Cue the feminists to also call this guy a whiner and tell him to suck it up.
Because if they were fair they would have lead to her own termination.
...positive discrimination coming along? Are we feeling more positive today?
Shouldn't be long now before we can just eliminate all the male population. Think of the advantages for business!
Just as the oppressed Blacks can not themselves be racist, women can not possibly be sexist.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In the UK civil service they introduced a performance management system with bands:
Must improve
Achieved
Exceeded
A certain percentage of employees must be in each band.
Most civil service middle managers are women. And what do you know... the percentage of men put into "must improve" is almost double that of women. 'Cos it's much easier for women to fuck over men than their gal pals. That's on top of the blatant discrimination against men that goes on in customer facing roles - where all the real opportunities and back office jobs are reserved for gal pals of female managers.
It's a disgrace. It's right there in the stats. Male employees have publicly asked "what's being done to address this" and get fobbed off every time. The Civil Service doesn't BADLY want to answer that question - even though, by the definitions they set up, it is rock solid evidence of discrimination.
It just goes to show. Women show an in-group preference for other women and try to push out men. Men get little or no development unless they grab whatever chances they can and move onto other jobs... fast.
She was probably just trying to curtail cost by firing the male employees.
Wasn't this reported in The Onion?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
targets are working 60 - 80 hours and H1B!
mayer never learned that civilization and all good things are results of males trying to impress women.
-
anyway,
companies should stick to making money for investors through legal means.
companies should not be engaged in politics and social justice activism and engineering(unless that part of their business, as with some pr or lobbying firms ).
if investors and employees want to engage in any of that, do it privately with own money.
but they want to do "good"(usually for their own self interested motivations) with other peoples' money.
And start a new company that combines their core strengths of incompetency, fraud, and perpetual social injustice. They can name the company "Loss Carry Forward, Inc."
I need you westerners to explain something about this feminism fart of yours.
Why is it, and everything along with it, lead by white women?
White women are unarguably the most privileged class on this planet.
- Most prefer white women for dating as dating app surveys showcase.
- Most judicial systems are biased towards white women like no other race or gender on this planet.
- They are much more likely to get away with anything and everything than any other class.
- They have the biggest proportion of material wealth given to them for free/without work/without expended effort on this planet unlike any other class. Through history, most luxury resources, animal hides, bling, leathers, every-fucking-thing exploited from colonization, ended up in the rooms and on the bodies of white women.
- Is there a discussion being had among a diverse group of people? White women always get the lead.
- For some reason, white women are the "representative leadership" for minority groups that have nothing to do with them. Case in point the LGBT for some reason, albeit the LGBT is questioning their involvement.
- White women were never prosecuted for their gender alone, or their skin alone. They were never forced to wear veils, they were never forced to mutilate their clits, they were never hanged and burned for being women like homosexuals and blacks were for their sexuality and skin color respectively. The closest thing they ever got was witch burning, though that has nothing to do with gender but more individual questionable practices.
What the fuck is the point of this social justice shit if justice is being defined by the most unjust privileged class in the world - white women?
And there's the sexist. Funny how many people seem to think that the mentality of the 1950's and earlier is just so progressive these days. Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
Om, nomnomnom...
The title says it was a "male purge" but also says "That allegation was not tied to gender." Reading the article it says women were less than 20% of the chief editors and within 18 months it was 80%. The main plaintiff does not actually single out Mayer but another editor Megan Liberman. Also the summary fails to mention that this lawsuit was about Yahoo News not Yahoo overall.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Clearly, the editors do not read submissions, since I submitted this story almost 12 hours before msmash posted it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Yahoo already has a big morale problem and trouble attracting people. I'm sure this kind of gender bias will do wonders for their ability to recruit.
The feminist movement is very successfully transforming our culture to one in which men are punished simply for being men.
More and more men are waking up, refusing to marry, in some cases keeping few-if-any female friends and minimizing business interaction with women as much as possible. The best way to protect one's self against a minefield is to walk through it as little as possible.
POE ALERT
I will welcome them too, but only if I get sent to the sex mines.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Sexist? The poster was clearly commenting about the Jews.
And it worked out really nice for Yahoo! Let woman run the all world as they did in Yahoo and we'll have a new age of enlightenment for sure.
"Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions
Just like every performance-rating system ever used since the device was invented? Yeah, that's bad, but courts almost always let them slide anyway. What's new here?
, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees,"
Ahhhh. Now I think I see the problem.
Yahoo is so fooked up on sooo many levels, anything is now believable about it, especially ever since Jerry Yang handed over pro-democracy activists to the Chinese government to be disappeared --- effing jackhole, burn in Hell forever!!!! This reminds me of that story in the business section of USA Today back around 2002 or thereabouts, when all the males in an IT department of a corporation were being replaced by foreign visa workers --- the women workers were all quiet about it, until they began replacing them with foreign visa workers, then they started screaming, but the judge ruled against them for whatever treasonous and obscene reason. Since 1999, America has been a net importer of tech services, and around half or more of new IT hires today are foreign visa workers. What's that Martin Feldstein? What's that Obama? You say there's full employment today? Perhaps of foreigners in America, there is, douchetards . . . .
Men are more natural leaders than women, though. It makes sense that men would be over-represented in the pool of leadership positions...a greater percentage of men seek such positions than women, and more men are likely to be naturals at leadership than women.
Please observe...this comment is not praise or criticism of men or women. Each has their natural strengths and weaknesses, with exceptions here and there on any side.
I hope you are joking. While women have had three or four decades of opportunity to do nobel prize winning research or start a billion dollar company there haven't been any. Men have a greater drive to try crazy things- that is what created the modern world and is what alleviated all the 'sufferings' you mention. Not to mention that men are currently suffering in every educational and economic metric.
love is just extroverted narcissism
This is exactly what is killing Twitter. Outright bans, shadowbans, and their new Safety Center has turned Twitter into Jack Dorsey's own little echo-chamber. He and the staff of Twitter have even broken their own Mission statement by kicking people off the service they don't agree with...
Our mission: To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
In the end, Twitter is going to crash and burn just like Yahoo for their SLW activities.
I guess Yahoo "transitioned out" all of their technical security staff...
But that's assuming that they have other jobs waiting for them elsewhere. Working at Yahoo would still beat not working anywhere at all. And we all know how companies are about hiring from the ranks of the unemployed, no matter what the reason
Having rode the "estrogen units are now in charge" merry-go-round twice
When you see a woman put in charge of a organization like Yahoo, non-profit organization, or other like entity, if you are a testosterone based unit just leave. Soon as you see it, check out as fast as possible. Do not pass go, screw the $200 for staying, go straight to resume-land.
Have watched too many times where the upper ranks are "suddenly" being filled with females, many of whom are vastly less qualified than male counterpart. Decisions based solely upon the lead estrogen unit desire to create a 100% women lead organization. As a testosterone unit you have zero chance when that thought comes out.
Think you are going to stay and just be a good worker bee? Yeaahh...don't. Tell co-worker they are wrong? Cue the sexual harassment HR talk. Disagree with direction and guidance of a project ? Stand by for the whispers between estrogen units of "OMG...he is such a creeper." Speak your mind in disagreement with a policy, email, project meeting? Prepare for the to-the-door-security-escort because "I don't feel safe around him" charade.
And it will fly. Watch a bunch of teenager girls talk about an "unpopular" guy and see how that flows for you. Now, move that to the work-place where they affect your career, because the bitchiness doesn't go away. Especially among the "entitled" ones.
It just isn't worth it.
Yes, we get it, she was a shitty CEO. So much so that the company was actually worth less than the amount of total cash it had on hand for a while. Yahoo bad management stories aren't really "news" at this point, so much as supporting evidence. It's still a total sausage farm on the "Shittiest CEOs of the Century" list, which I think proves that boards of directors not only do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender and religion, but also on the basis of ability. They seem to be quite happy to give some arbitrary random jackass hundreds of millions of dollars to ideally do practically nothing, as at least that won't impede the company so much. And then when those people inevitably fuck up, they give them hundreds of millions of dollars more to go the fuck away. I believe our corporate batting average would be better if we just randomly assigned CEOs from the phone book. We might do better with congressional seats with that strategy, as well. Yahoo could have hired a rock at a 10th the price and performed better than they did with her. Leave her to her shame and her multi-million dollar golden parachute. We won't be hearing from her again until she publishes her book runs for president, in a few years.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There is nothing unique about this story. From reading the article, there is absolutely nothing that hasn't happened a thousand times over in other companies.
Review systems are inherently flawed at large companies. That's how people are able to hang out for years, just hiding in the woodwork. As long as you keep your head down, you can skate by for your whole career. It can take years to get someone fired, as long as they don't do anything terribly wrong. I once came into manage a team and inherited someone that never should have been hired, but there they were 5 years later and had always gotten "satisfactory" performance reviews. Usually it's because weak managers don't want to deal with problem employees. And you can't fire someone unless they have been on a performance plan. So technically they had 5 years with no problems. Nobody wanted to work with this person, they weren't given anything important to do, etc. It took over a year to get them out of there. (they refused to step up and improve). Why so long? Well, you have to wait until the annual review cycle to give someone a review. I joined in Oct, and the reviews were pretty much set for the year and I was just learning the team. So that person couldn't get a "not meeting expectations" until the NEXT year's review. Then you have to put them on a performance plan, and document everything and prove that they weren't meeting expectations. Then and only then are you allowed to fire them. You can try to encourage them to leave, but you can't fire them. If they are lucky, there are re-orgs (as there always are in big companies) and they get a new manager somewhere during this process, and the fun starts again.
The article talks about upper management changing ratings? Yeah, happens all the time for various reasons. It could have been that they had to fit people into the pre-defined bell curves. (e.g. 10% bad ratings, 80% ok or good, 10% great) As you roll up the ratings for a large organization, management has to do horse-trading and ranking of people. Top, bottom, and middle performers are safe - it's the ones on the edge of great and bad that usually get their rating changed. THEN if you throw in execs with biases, it adds layers of fun to all the built-in BS.
I have seen men and women get promoted for inexplicable reasons, and I have also seen people fired for no good reason (even despite the process I described above). And then there are the people that are just gone one day with no explanation. The corporate world sucks, and while I only know about this story what I read in the article, nothing in there sounds surprising. Even if it were true that she was doing a male purge, so what? Even in the male dominated IT world, I have seen women get fired because of the boy's club mentality. It's big business, don't try to make any sense of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
First there was 1/2 billion accounts compromised (later raise to a full billion), then spying on messages for the guvmint, and now this. OK so there's some of us smucks with yahoo accounts but we also have many useful yahoogroups for various non-profits and hobbyist groups. Ugh, I hate to abandon all these (probably these might go way of Geocities). There is google groups but seems like they have their share of "baggage." There was usenet....
mfwright@batnet.com
These are allegations. Of course the guy alleging them will make them as sensational as possible.
Funny how so many guys get up in arms about "SJWs" when this guy seems to be a male version of the dreaded SJW.
You're a gay Trump supporter?
Why wouldn't he be? Whether or not Trump personally would enter into a gay marriage, he was in public talking plainly about how happy he was for (his casual acquaintance) Elton John to have married his long-time partner, and that people should be cool with it. At the same time, Hillary Clinton was voicing her support for her husband's signing of a law to prevent such things, and Barack Obama was sticking with his "marriage should be between one man and one woman" position. Trump has created more jobs jumped-on by gay people (in the entertainment, pagent, and hospitality businesses) that Hillary Clinton ever could or would. Why shouldn't a gay person support him? Are gay people supposed to like illegal immigration, higher taxes, more regulation, feckless foreign policy, and a nanny state that makes class and racial tensions WORSE instead of better? Please explain.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act. As far as I can see, in a meritocracy merit is defined as the collection of qualities that enable you to get to the top. Which are probably the same qualities that enable anyone to get to the top of any organization. Which, as we can see by inspection of our top CEOs and political leaders, are entirely compatible with (and maybe identical to) selfishness, the ability to fake friendliness, skill in manipulation, callousness and cold calculation.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Actually most of the gays I know are Trump supporters in general. Since they generally know where the best food is, where the best bars are, and always seem to be having fun and have way more sex than most people do, one must wonder if they have some insight into this choice as well.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Don't you mean "comeuppance"? Or am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. The GP is a woman, and can't spell.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Given that 50 percent of the population is female, yet most jobs and management positions are held by males - a correction is in order.
Given that many females still become mothers, a position that entails a huge amount of work no matter how much paid or unpaid help is available... and given that many females still like to run their own households with all the work that entails... and given how many women are emotionally disinclined to give orders and boss other people around... good luck with that.
I am all for female managers, and have seen some very good ones. I have also seen some real Medusas, but nothing worse than many male managers. It's just a question of practicality and feasibility.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"Won't someone think of the Rich White Men!!"
Yes, every middle-aged guy sitting in a cubicle at Yahoo making just enough to pay for a house in SV is "rich."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I for one welcome our new female overlords.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
This is what I came here to say too. These male employees should be thankful they were forced out early! That company is a resume stain these days. All the women who stuck with it to the end are going to have a harder time getting a job with that black mark on their resumes.
I urge them to carefully consider the Republican platform and to reflect on what it just might mean for their ability to be openly gay if the alt-right were to become a legitimate political movement.
Trump made a believer out of me for about a week a while back after he declared that in Trump Tower, people can use the restroom without presenting a birth certificate. If the Republican party looked more like Trump and Thiel and whoever else you wanted to name, I would not have needed to resign myself to voting for a lizard person this year. In that strange political fantasy of a Republican party that isn't a party of bigots frothing at the mouth against them, homosexual men may be forgetting that the reality is that the Log Cabin Republicans nearly got thrown the fuck out of the Republican convention as I understand it.
The alt-right believes that homosexuality is a disease or worse a political movement closely tied to Marxism. The alt-right believes that homosexual men have sex with children and attempt to "recruit" children into their "ranks." The alt-right believes that homosexual men destroy families. The alt-right worship a god who has commanded them to murder homosexual men by stoning.
This is the true face of the Republican Party. Homosexual men should not be fooled by Trump's easy-going nature when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Disclaimer: I am not in a position to evaluate the taco bowls in Trump Tower. However, I was sold on voting lizard person when I learned that there would be taco trucks on every corner if Trump lost!
Its because a muslim walked into a gay night club and killed lots of homosexuals, and the response from the left was to push their gun control agenda while saying "dont call them radical extremists."
Gay people have realized that within the SJW pyramid, they are at the bottom getting crushed.
"His name was James Damore."
I wouldn't blame Yahoo failing on this alone as it was already doing that before Marissa Mayer took over as CEO. Outside of some extreme brilliance, the best I expect out of anyone would be to drag out the death spiral for a few more years. Anyone with the kind of vision or capability to save Yahoo is probably far better off starting their own company and building it into something great rather than trying to salvage an industry behemoth that's circling the drain.
Mayer did nothing to help the company, but it's hard to say that she's blundered more than anyone else who might be doing the job instead of her.
The two gay guys I know best (my brother and his long time partner) are on completely different sides this election. One can't stand Trump and thinks Hillary would be OK. The other can't stand Clinton, and thinks Trump would be better than her, at least.
So you're saying that the "alt-right" you find so disturbing IS the Republican party, but the hardcore lefties who literally attack Trump supporters in the street, say they hate him as they burn down parts of their own cities, screech that the First Amendment's protections shouldn't apply to non-liberals, and who think that (for example) Julian Assange should be shot for endangering Hillary Clinton's campaign ... those are all people who ARE the Democrat party, right? People who align with Hillary Clinton but who actually call for police to be killed and for the tearing down of any privately owned businesses ... that's what Democrats stand for, and thus why you should vote for Clinton, right? Because you like those ideas?
Or is there a chance that you're being a totally disingenuous hypocrite in using one fraction of one group to define the whole, but carefully avoiding that exact same standard when it comes to the person you like?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others," Clark said. "We believe this process allows our team to develop and do their best work. Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out."
Mayer still has a job, therefore something here isn't true.
Do you have ESP?
Do we know for a fact that it's because of discrimination and not, say, because men are so much more likely to choose risky ways or something else?
Did you know that married men earn much more than bachelors?
No. GP missed a session of English class.
Well to be fair, she pretty much screwed over employees of both genders
(and yes, I realise that either gender can take care of kids - my wife and I split our shifts to do so - but the negative effects of the work-from-home seemed to affect female employees more than male)
I'm sure Milo is campaigning for his own annihilation, because he doesn't want a long life of screwing black guys. Right.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Busy finding demons where there are none, which implies you're an idiot. Or it could be worse, you actually think that creating a false narrative is the only way to preserve political power for the failed leftists in charge now. In which case you're a scumbag. Either way...not good.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I'm going to argue with "Men are more natural leaders than women" on the grounds of how you're sure of that. We don't know what's natural and what's nurture. Things that look entirely natural can wind up varying from culture to culture.
We've got a lot of history of men running things, and very little of women running things. We've got cultural expectations that men will lead.
So, I don't know. There's likely a difference in leadership between men and women, but I don't know what it is.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I wonder how much of that is correlation rather than causation.
The types of men that are likely to get married are probably more reliable and trustworthy than men who don't get married.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Hillary didn't need the superdelegates to win; she had enough votes and delegates to win without them. It's true that the DNC rigged things, along with the mainstream media (esp. WaPo) spinning things in her favor as much as possible, but in the end, it was the Democratic voters who picked her. And unlike the GOP side where the vote was badly split among SO many candidates, allowing Trump to win with a minority of votes, the Dem side didn't have this: O'Malley, Chafffee and Webb barely got any votes at all and two of those dropped out very early on.
Basically, in this election the GOP proved that it's incompetent at getting their establishment pick selected, and the DNC proved that they're masters of it. But still, the ultimate responsibility on the Democrat side (NOT the Republican side) is with the voters themselves. *They* made the choice for Hillary.
(The same is not true on the Republican side; the voters there are not responsible, because of the first-past-the-post voting system, and the fact that Trump only got a minority of votes. The nomination of Trump really shows that FPTP voting systems should be banned everywhere, and anyone who thinks they're a good system should be summarily executed so that their stupidity does not spread.)
Your FPTP theory only applies to the initial states of IA and NH - the field winnowed pretty rapidly from that point onwards. First of all, even before IA, some of the candidates, like Perry, Walker, Jindal, Patakis and IIRC Graham dropped out. After IA, Rand Paul, Huckabee and Santorum were gone. After NH, Christie, Gilmore and Carly disappeared, and following SC, Bush was gone. So for Super Tuesday, you already had against Trump a short list of Cruz, Carson, Rubio and Kasich. Of these guys, Carson was already in free fall, something that had started since the San Bernardino killings, and wasn't taking votes from anybody. Cruz was in some quarters of the party hated even more than Trump. So that left just Rubio and Kasich, and the establishment was split b/w them. While the Conservative establishment was happy to back Rubio, the Liberal part of the establishment - Schwarzenegger, Christie Todd Whitman, et al, backed Kasich.
Point is - the only state where Trump had a 'mere' plurality was in NH. Otherwise, he won big in SC, and following that, even more so on Super-Tuesday. By the time FL was over and Rubio had dropped out, it was a 2 man race (aside from OH, and aside from Kasich's delusional belief that there was a third track in the race that was just him). And Cruz did put up a good fight, and was the only one who looked like one who could snatch it from Trump. Some, like Graham and Bush, rallied behind him, but it was farcical: Trump just had to run ads showing their past statements about him. There was no way Cruz had the establishment support, and the much anticipated evangelical support that Cruz expected just walked away to Trump, w/ endorsements by Falwell Jr and Robert Jeffreys.
Bottom line - Trump had as tough a ride as Bernie, but he did not have a fractured opposition. In fact, by the time IA came around, his opposition was already down to 12, and once Bush was gone, his real opposition was 2 - Cruz & Rubio: Carson and Kasich were really also-rans.
By removing them from her doomed company, hinting them to pursue a career where there's still hope and opportunity?
the hardcore lefties who literally attack Trump supporters in the street, say they hate him as they burn down parts of their own cities, screech that the First Amendment's protections shouldn't apply to non-liberals, and who think that (for example) Julian Assange should be shot for endangering Hillary Clinton's campaign ... those are all people who ARE the Democrat party, right?
Right. Not much of an argument here for/against that point.
However, I look at the Democrat platform, and I see quite a world of difference from the Republican platform. It's startling to see such a contrast when usually nothing tangible is different. Let's face it. I voted for Johnson in 2012. I urged my liberal friends to vote for Stein in 2012. Stein and Johnson are not going to be elected any more this year than they were in 2012.
And frankly, if it's going to come down to you vs. me... Have you already placed me on the same team with the screeching assholes burning down their own cities and assaulting people at Trump rallies just because I'm t3h g4y or because I look like a woman? Have you identified me already as a communist sympathizer who's trying to burn our country down? Are you scared shitless of me using my advanced infiltrator-class woman suit to rape little girls in bathrooms?
In that case, why the fuck shouldn't I vote for the lizard person? At least in some theoretical way the lizard people seem the better option for my own self-preservation. Thanks to local feminists, I now need to drive over 150 miles to see a doctor. Is that clinic going to get shut down with Republicans in power? Straight from being fucked by the feminists to being fucked by the alt-right, eh? But here comes the lizard people! All of a sudden, feminism seems to be changing and the alt-right is taking over the mantle of pants-on-head stupid legislation, propaganda, and hysteria getting between my doctor and me.
I'd rather get herded into the FEMA concentration camps because I hold a political opinion rather than because I wasn't born in a way that meets your standards.
Well, time's running out if you want to convince me! We're down to a calendar month tomorrow! Care to help me out?
Why should I believe that the alt-right doesn't want to stone gays to death in the street? Are there any philosophical essays I should be aware of? I tried Moldbug, but he couldn't seem to articulate just why exactly 18th century values (along with rampant sodomy laws, but he glossed over that in what I read) were great. Where else should I look?
The only reason I'm voting lizard person is because I'm frankly scared to death of what I've seen from the alt-right.
The alt-right believes that homosexuality is a disease or worse a political movement closely tied to Marxism
You're confused. Who do you think the "alt-right" is the alternative to? It's the right that's not the religious right. Yeah, there are some nutters there as with any somewhat-fringe movement, but they're really quite distant from the religious right.
This is the true face of the Republican Party
Wait, I thought you were talking about the alt right? Now you're talking about the Republican Party? Well, those guys are completely useless.
There may be a conservative US party again one day (in ways different from the Dems, that is), but whatever that new coalition will look like, it won't include the religious right. Give him this: Trump proved you don't need the religious right to win the primary.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why do you think hey incompetence is linked to her gender?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The question you should be putting is why does the OP think that greater competence is tied to the feminine gender.
"You're a gay Trump supporter?"
Movement conservatives dislike Trump for being gay-tolerant and not being obsessed with single-cellar fetuses.
Hehehe, funny. So far the few poster-girl CEOs are demonstrating they can fuck up and line their own pockets with the best of them. No idea whether women are doing better out of the spot-light, but I somehow doubt it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It must be true..all of it...
Bernie Sanders is a bona-fide Communist, actually — a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Complete with nationalizing means of production.
He may be talking about making America more like Scandinavia, but the end result would've been more like Venezuela.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Hillary to "disown" and reject the Communist endorsement.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Bullshit. Most men throughout history were horribly oppressed, usually by other men and the women at the oppressors' sides.
Note that Hillary is pretty much repeating that pattern.
Yeah? tell me that when scoiety doesn't trat women better than men., such as "women and children first", or when prostate cancer (that kills more men than breast cancer does women) gets equal funding /awreness to breast cancer, or when equal numbers of women are doing the shittier jobs and society doesn't see a problem with it, like fighting on front lines or even just taking the trash out.
This is, indeed, one possible explanation.
A couple of my former-then-returned-back-to-company colleagues explained it as "didn't like it there" and "much stress", yes, you could guess their gender.
I could never imagine that kind of justifications working for me, job is a place where I go to earn money.
Truthful reporting about Trump is going to end up negative, if anything, they're too reticent to call him out.
You may to claim to think he's great, but be honest, you know you have no esteem for him and you know he's as authentic as dime store jewelry.
Which is it? Also, nice misdirection to emphasize your point. You do this a lot? A less cynical bastard than myself would have missed it.
The Great Society programs didn't create single parent families. Men didn't leave because they were chased away by the welfare cops. What actually happened was we started to fund a bunch of programs to put the breaks on bad trends and then political winds changed (the phrase "Welfare Queen" was coined and dog whistling became a thing) and those programs got yanked.
First, make no mistake that things weren't puppy dogs and kittens for blacks before the G.S.. Life was nasty/brutish/short for everyone, but _especially_ blacks. They were the underclass used as a social cushion to keep the white working class from getting uppity (similar to what India does with the Untouchables and their whole caste system).
Wanna solve those problems? More socialism. Given the lack of factory jobs and the fact that robots are cheaper than humans unless you treat 'em worse than pack mules that's your only option. But you don't really want to solve anything, do you? You want to sound like you do so you have plausible deniability and don't feel too bad about yourself.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the left has been working hard to protect _everybody's_ rights. And I wouldn't call that guy a radical extremist. I'd call him mentally ill and very likely a closet homosexual (he'd been hanging around the bar a bit too much to just be 'casing' the joint, they recognized him).
There is no pyramid. Everybody gets protected. Nobody gets left behind. Nobody thrown under the bus. And that includes Muslims.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Feminism is really, really easy to understand when your a woman. Here's how it works:
If your a woman you're physically weaker than just about any man alive. A woman at peak fitness can barely match the strength of an average male (/. crowd not withstanding).
Now, if you've been paying attention you've seen 5000+ years of history where women were treated like absolute garbage with maybe a dozen exceptions. Then you've got about 100 years of history where a _very_small_ subset of women get treated as equals. You can spend 5 minutes on google and find horror stories in 80% of the world with pictures of women with acid burns and missing their hands because they went out dancing.
So you'll have to forgive the ditzy little things if they're just a tad fucking nervous. They've got damn good reason to be.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Edir: Single-cell fetuses
Why should I believe that the alt-right doesn't want to stone gays to death in the street?
What if they do? They aren't in charge. Should we be concerned that "the Democrats" want to kill all the police officers, just because a fringe group of movements associated with lefty politics shouts about wanting that?
How about Hillary? She's best buds and on the take (in the millions of dollars) from people who like to see gays thrown from rooftops to their deaths, burned alive, and other hideous fates. Clearly, the Democrats support killing gays, because their leader and the person they think best embodies their values happily associates with and is handsomely paid by people who openly call for and follow through with the routine killing of LBGTQEVERYTHINGELSE. Why aren't you scared of what's happening in Europe? Waves of immigrants from that part of the world are bringing with them an embrace of the very medieval world view that brings about the actual thing you say you fear - and it's the Democrats who are insisting that we aren't doing nearly enough to bring in enough of that culture to the US.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act.
You mean besides the ability to get to the top based on skills? Why do I have a feeling you're one of those people that believes meritocracy is a MRA construct.
Om, nomnomnom...
The alt-right
Oh. The mythical bogeyman that do everything you hate?
Enough of the fucking identity politics. Enough labelling. Stop with utter bullshit like
The alt-right believes
The alt-right doesn't exist. There isn't a political party, a group of people, anything that declared "We're the alt-right, here's our manifesto". It's a fucking marketing term made up by idiots pushing their own agenda.
Used by them too.
Interestingly diverse view there of anal sex.
How would you describe oral sex?
Wait..
Your really saying that 18 months of bad coverage has usurped the 25 years of shit Hillary has dealt with?
You should consider what meds you missed.
Cheap storage VM.
Yup. Just another angry lib. Just yesterday I was another angry feminist-hating conservative, too!
You people are fucking idiots.
Most of it well-deserved and, unlike some decades-old name calling, substantive and pertinent to her becoming a President (or not). She's been both personally nasty and at odds with the voters on a host of major issues for a very long time. So at odds, she even admits to having "a private and a public position on some issues" — that is, to lying to the public about her convictions.
You should consider refreshing your cliché-collection, cupcake.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I know, you're trying SO hard to miss the point. Which was a rebuttal of the earlier poster's assertion that the party he opposes is all about the worst things he doesn't like about a sub-set of one faction of that party. So the question is, why is it unreasonable to say that the party he supports is all about the worst things we see in sub-sets of factions that support his party? We DO have video of activist marchers carrying signs and chanting about the need to kill police. And we have people who praise those groups actually doing things like shooting down half a dozen cops in the street specifically to support that agenda. But wait, you say, that's not representative of the Democrat party. Right. But it's OK to disingenuously use a different standard when talking about Republicans, right? Sure, of course.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I have private opinions that don't match my professional acts as well. That's life, not hypocrisy. See Tim Kaine's excellent explanation of his view on abortion for an example.
Cheap storage VM.
Not acts — Hillary admitted to have privately held opinions that contradict her publicly-stated opinions. Which means, she lies to the public, whenever she states them:
She is as crooked as it gets — so much so, her camp's only hope is to keep talking about Trump's rudeness and imaginary racism.
Yeah, ask him about his sympathies for Communism/Socialism next time you meet him — and what would he do differently from Hugo Chavez, should he ever find himself President.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
At least he doesn't have to work at Yahoo! anymore.
The OP - which is me - didn't say that competence was tied to gender, only that gender is not fairly represented.
Given how screwed up the system is today under the last 800,000 years of male rule, my implication is having women in charge could certainly not be any worse.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain