https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york...ter-2020-7

The illiberal left is so insane that it's now considered odious for a journalist to sign an anti-cancel culture paper that was also signed by Noam Chomsky and Gloria Steinem.

I have to attend yearly workplace harassment training where one percent of what happened to her at the NYT's would be grounds for termination.

Reads like a preparatory letter to a lawsuit.

The stuff that happens at Google is flat out nuts and would be grounds for termination at any sane organization.

Quote:"The lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned," she wrote. "Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

She was on the Rogan podcast a while ago and I wasn't impressed. However, judging by the socials today, maybe it was a bad day for her.

Sounds like she is basically saying what we on this board have been saying for years. The Times is little more than an agenda, rather than fact, driven rag. After the 2016 election and 3 years of a totally fake Russia Russia Russia agenda driven narrative that was found to be baseless---Is there really any way to say Weiss is not dead on accurate in her description of the formally legendary Times? I think not. She's dead on accurate.

(07-14-2020 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sounds like she is basically saying what we on this board have been saying for years. The Times is little more than an agenda, rather than fact, driven rag. After the 2016 election and 3 years of a totally fake Russia Russia Russia agenda driven narrative that was found to be baseless---Is there really any way to say Weiss is not dead on accurate in her description of the formally legendary Times? I think not. She's dead on accurate.

Well its worse than that:

"...My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong...."

I'm trying to figure out what type of people think this is acceptable workplace behavior. Almost all large companies have policies against bullying.

Is this a generational thing as everyone acts in person like they are an anonymous poster on twitter? Or is it a progressive thing?

Once again members of the party that constantly tells us that "they are the tolerant ones" let their own actions disprove what they keep telling us.

No surprise there and she isn't even a conservative. Just not left enough to be blind to the intolerance they promote and practice.

'We won't stand for others telling us we are iceholes.'

(07-14-2020 03:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm trying to figure out what type of people think this is acceptable workplace behavior. Almost all large companies have policies against bullying.

Is this a generational thing as everyone acts in person like they are an anonymous poster on twitter? Or is it a progressive thing?

Totalitarianists

(07-14-2020 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sounds like she is basically saying what we on this board have been saying for years. The Times is little more than an agenda, rather than fact, driven rag. After the 2016 election and 3 years of a totally fake Russia Russia Russia agenda driven narrative that was found to be baseless---Is there really any way to say Weiss is not dead on accurate in her description of the formally legendary Times? I think not. She's dead on accurate.

Well its worse than that:

"...My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong...."

"we have to get rid of her to be inclusive!"


I love that one.

Never trust a traitor

By her words it seems that she won't be needing a NYT paycheck, thank you, a nice lawsuit will settle that problem. She will win easily unless like a lot of cases we've seen lately there will be a Liberal judge to see her case. Then too bad she might need to place an application at Oan or Fox News. Two networks that at least resemble a conservative "viewpoint".

(07-14-2020 01:50 PM)fsquid Wrote:  She was on the Rogan podcast a while ago and I wasn't impressed. However, judging by the socials today, maybe it was a bad day for her.

Yeah, it certainly wasn't a great podcast but compared to the Project 1619 Peanut Gallery and the jelly-brained snowflakes that complained bout Tom Cotton's Op Ed, she's Voltaire.

(07-14-2020 07:18 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 01:50 PM)fsquid Wrote:  She was on the Rogan podcast a while ago and I wasn't impressed. However, judging by the socials today, maybe it was a bad day for her.

Yeah, it certainly wasn't a great podcast but compared to the Project 1619 Peanut Gallery and the jelly-brained snowflakes that complained bout Tom Cotton's Op Ed, she's Voltaire.

I lumped her in with the 1619 idiots, am I off?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

(07-14-2020 07:54 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 07:18 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 01:50 PM)fsquid Wrote:  She was on the Rogan podcast a while ago and I wasn't impressed. However, judging by the socials today, maybe it was a bad day for her.

Yeah, it certainly wasn't a great podcast but compared to the Project 1619 Peanut Gallery and the jelly-brained snowflakes that complained bout Tom Cotton's Op Ed, she's Voltaire.

I lumped her in with the 1619 idiots, am I off?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

She's liberal, but more concerned with matters that pertain to New York Jews and Israel than racial antagonism. She'll have work at places like Tablet after this, I'm sure.

Even libs like Maher see that things have gotten out of control:

Cornell Law professor talks about efforts to cancel him. What was his crime? He pointed out that "Hands up, don't shoot" was a lie and yet people still chanted it. The 2nd was criticizing rioting and looting and pointing out that studies show Blacks weren't more likely to be shot by police.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl..._real.html

"...A group of 21 of my colleagues in the clinical program then denounced me in a letter to the Cornell Daily Sun student newspaper. While my name was not used in the letter, it was shared with students in advance of publication as a denunciation of me. The letter falsely accused me of supporting “institutionalized racism and violence” and threatened to “continue to expose and respond to racism masquerading as informed commentary.”

Not one of the 21 signatories, some of whom had been my colleagues for more than a decade and I considered friends, approached me with any concerns before running to the school newspaper and sharing their letter with students. It was reminiscent of so many revolutionary movements, where friends and neighbors rush to denounce each other...."

(07-14-2020 03:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Sounds like she is basically saying what we on this board have been saying for years. The Times is little more than an agenda, rather than fact, driven rag. After the 2016 election and 3 years of a totally fake Russia Russia Russia agenda driven narrative that was found to be baseless---Is there really any way to say Weiss is not dead on accurate in her description of the formally legendary Times? I think not. She's dead on accurate.

it's WRH at its finest in an effort to survive and stir the mongrels....

how's NYC been doing lately, Ja?!!!

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/bar...fter-2016/

"...This is the progressive-or-bigot binary we’ve written so much about in recent weeks. (I traced the academic roots of the phenomenon in a lecture here.) Weiss’s colleagues relentlessly targeted her until she resigned because even a bisexual Jewish centrist falls into the bigot category should she question leftist dogma.

This explains the backlash to the Harper’s letter last week. It explains the breathless attacks on J.K. Rowling. It explains white protesters shouting at black police officers. It explains the uproar over Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) column in the Times last month. It explains Andrew Sullivan’s departure from New York magazine this week. It explains why a Boeing executive revealed to have penned an op-ed against women in combat 30 years ago was pushed to resign.

Finally, it explains the elite backlash over “bothsidesism.” When one side is bigoted, why should they be given a platform that effectively legitimizes their ideas as perspectives within the range of reasonable beliefs? When the definitions of terms like racism and white supremacy are expanded to encompass 90 percent of the population, their ideological leanings will necessarily come to have no representation in the media...."