It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNC: White men shouldn't apply for tech jobs

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

There is no problem hiring the right person. "Right person" can be a subjective term though.




posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Maybe they would hire me? I can mess up anything IT related with the best of them.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
The Democrat Party keeps sliding farther and farther Left...



White men need not apply.

That’s the message out of the Democratic National Committee’s hiring team, currently on the hunt to filll multiple vacancies in their tech department.

The political organization, which routinely makes grand statements about inclusion, recently sent an email to its employees looking to recruit people for eight open spots including IT Systems Administrator, Product Manager and Chief Security Officer.


But it is not only "white men" who are encouraged to not apply...it is anybody who still identifies with the gender they were born with!


DNC’s Data Service Manager Madeleine Leader purportedly wrote in an email that the desire for diversity excludes “cisgender straight white males.”

Leader adds, “I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, as they are already in the majority.” Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned to at birth.


I am trying to wrap my mind around the combination term "cisgender straight males". So if you are a male at birth, who still identifies as a male, and is sexually oriented toward females...don't apply. But if you now identify as a female, do you have to be attracted to other "females", or is it okay to prefer males (as a "now identified as" female)?

The entire thing is absurd. Here's a crazy idea...how about hiring the most qualified candidates for each position, without regard for their skin tone, gender identification or sexual orientation?

If the Dems keep on this path, it will be a wonder that they get any votes from anybody in the future - because the vast majority of people in the U.S. will get tripped up on one of their identity-politic guideposts.

Need not apply if a:

Hispanic straight woman
Black gay man who still identifies as a male
White female who identifies as a male (making her now a "white male")

Dems have officially gone full retard


tech jobs are nothing to do with the left or right political spectrum.
what makes you think that?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale Did you go full tard when making this thread? This is just a hate thread made to sway people to the right. Have you ever thought about working together? Prob not but yes keep going. Maybe even try to join infowars, you may have a place there!




posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
They dont need to worry about losing voters or winning any elections in the near future.
They can simply keep pushing this insane rhetoric for the next 20 years and then when whites are a minority in the US they will never have to campaign again.

When you think long term its actually a great piece of 4d chess as opposed to a short term recipe for disaster



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. One IT Manager sends a memo but you guys think it's the whole Democratic party? Interesting.

Didn't there used to be a time when we were smarter than this?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

It's just one IT manager
It's just one teacher
It's just one school
It's just one student
It's just university
It's just one flag
It's just one statue
It's just one book
It's just one politician
It's just one . . . . .

Plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one. . . . . . .





posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Whelp, draw straws you seven. Short one gets laid off!"



Ummm...is that not intolerant to altitudinally challenged diminutive folk...the world over...?
Especially the straight white male ones...?

Poor lil fellers...




YouSir



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seagull

There is no problem hiring the right person. "Right person" can be a subjective term though.


No, legally, "right person" cannot be a subjective term. If the only reason you aren't hiring someone is because of how they look, how they pray, or whom they sleep with, and it's one or more of those things that disqualifies them from being the "right person" and only one of those things, legally there is nothing subjective about it.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

You are right that this is about one person. But is it?

This person felt comfortable enough in their environment to send that memo. I suspect that means that they did not expect anyone outside of their peers to see it. That seems to trip people up often and expose the inner culture in their group.

It's particularly bad coming from the Party of inclusion. The DNC certainly wasted no time throwing that person under the bus.

ETA: If they are credible they will run that person down the road, if they are not they will likely pretend to and move her to another job and pay her more to shut her up. Time will tell.
edit on 11/1/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

^^^^This is what true racism looks like folks



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yes because the same people being outraged about this want a certain race or religion banned from coming into the country.

Faux outrage because it effects no one who is outraged about it because they are the same people who are already against the DNC and wouldn't work for them anyways.

Faux outrage because it's a form of "reverse virtue signaling" by the DNC that is only made public for the purpose of causing this faux outrage from their opposition.
edit on 11/1/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No. we want people from certain countries put on hold until we can weed out the terrorists, but please continue to tell yourself lies to help that false equivalence along.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
the DNC shouldn't be offering any tech advice or hiring solutions to anyone, not judging by their track record



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I once had two people up for the same job. They were both equally qualified. One was not more qualified than the other. One was a white male and one was a black female. I hired the black female because I wanted more diversity. I didn't hire her just because she was a black female. I hired her because she was perfectly qualified for the job AND she was a black female. Another manager might have picked the guy because he was perfectly qualified and that manager felt more comfortable working with a man. I don't think either of us would be considered discriminatory, as long as our first criteria was the qualifications needed to do the job.

This is what I mean about the right person for the job being subjective.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you agree that the DNC should be allowed to just tell white males not even to bother applying?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Now I'm neither a Democrat or Republican and honestly disgusted with both.

You don't think there are any straight White males in the Democratic Party who might want a job there? Are you saying all Democrats who are White straight men are cool with intentional discrimination against them, because that's who that message is intended to stop from being hired.

I kind of doubt they are expecting a lot of Republicans to apply, so who it's directed at is obvious don't you think?

Apparently the DNC was bothered enough by it to throw that person under the bus without hesitation and they would never do that were what she wrote not both wrong and illegal.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

I once had two people up for the same job. They were both equally qualified. One was not more qualified than the other. One was a white male and one was a black female. I hired the black female because I wanted more diversity. I didn't hire her just because she was a black female. I hired her because she was perfectly qualified for the job AND she was a black female. Another manager might have picked the guy because he was perfectly qualified and that manager felt more comfortable working with a man. I don't think either of us would be considered discriminatory, as long as our first criteria was the qualifications needed to do the job.

This is what I mean about the right person for the job being subjective.


Actually..you exactly did hire her because she was a black female. That was her 1 quality that separated her from the other person, her skin color.

Racist!
edit on 1-11-2017 by Throes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you agree that the DNC should be allowed to just tell white males not even to bother applying?


I don't know that this is what happened. I think a manager said she would personally prefer that this particular email not be shared with white males. How do we know a general classifieds ad didn't run in the paper, and they had already gotten a couple hundred resumes from white guys, and she was just looking for some diversity in resumes?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Throes

Oh sorry. I guess I supposed to hire the white guy.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join