Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[~Rocktar~]

Well, the video link doesn't want to work the right way. Anyways, it's Dan Bongino with a couple of clips from Sky News talking about Sleepy Joe and how he is perceived overseas.


https://fb.watch/8Jf2gDbnvD/

[Methais]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chicago-m...150838189.html

"Chicago museum fires all of it's mostly White female, financially well-off docents for lack of diversity"

ROFL.. firing volunteers... ROFL.. fucking idiots.

Think they forgot about - https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-...imination.aspx - "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex. This law also protects employees against retaliation for going forward with a claim regarding discrimination in the workplace."

Guess they forgot about this one too - "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA): Protects employees or future employees who are 40 or older from discrimination in the workplace."

Fucking idiots I swear... the above law is how you stop discrimination and racism... what the current "woke" crowd is doing is blatantly racist by Federal law... not surprising that the party that spawned the KKK would support this madness.

I wonder if this falls under those discrimination laws, since they're technically unpaid volunteers.

Also, good luck replacing them with young low income people who are probably going to be too busy with their regular jobs to work at a museum for free.

[Gelston]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chicago-m...150838189.html

"Chicago museum fires all of it's mostly White female, financially well-off docents for lack of diversity"

ROFL.. firing volunteers... ROFL.. fucking idiots.

Think they forgot about - https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-...imination.aspx - "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex. This law also protects employees against retaliation for going forward with a claim regarding discrimination in the workplace."

Guess they forgot about this one too - "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA): Protects employees or future employees who are 40 or older from discrimination in the workplace."

Fucking idiots I swear... the above law is how you stop discrimination and racism... what the current "woke" crowd is doing is blatantly racist by Federal law... not surprising that the party that spawned the KKK would support this madness.

Volunteers are not protected by either of those acts.

[Shaps]

Volunteers are not protected by either of those acts.

Are they not? I'm open to seeing the information or argument that they aren't if it's available.

They are volunteers, which are unpaid employees, who are still subject to the rules and practices of the company they are volunteering for. Under that idea, I would contend they are technically "employees", and to be dismissed based on their race as the sole issue falls under the statutes I highlighted.

Example: If a "volunteer" had accosted someone while at work for the museum, could the museum be held liable?.. since the individual is "employed" by the museum? Just because the "employee" is not paid, and does it voluntarily, doesn't mean they are not "employed"...

If have something to contradict that, then I'm open to it.

It's still stupid and racist as fuck.

[Alfster]

Are they not? I'm open to seeing the information or argument that they aren't if it's available.

They are volunteers, which are unpaid employees, who are still subject to the rules and practices of the company they are volunteering for. Under that idea, I would contend they are technically "employees", and to be dismissed based on their race as the sole issue falls under the statutes I highlighted.

Example: If a "volunteer" had accosted someone while at work for the museum, could the museum be held liable?.. since the individual is "employed" by the museum? Just because the "employee" is not paid, and does it voluntarily, doesn't mean they are not "employed"...

If have something to contradict that, then I'm open to it.

It's still stupid and racist as fuck.

Marie v. American Red Cross answers your question. Kinda fun too cuz nothing says america like nuns suing people.

Your nonsense example ignores the idea that the museum could be held liable if anyone accosted someone there. Employee, volunteer, or visitors.

[Candor]

I don't think the museum deserves those volunteers. I expect the place will start going downhill after this ridiculous decision.

[time4fun]

Are they not? I'm open to seeing the information or argument that they aren't if it's available.

They are volunteers, which are unpaid employees, who are still subject to the rules and practices of the company they are volunteering for. Under that idea, I would contend they are technically "employees", and to be dismissed based on their race as the sole issue falls under the statutes I highlighted.

Example: If a "volunteer" had accosted someone while at work for the museum, could the museum be held liable?.. since the individual is "employed" by the museum? Just because the "employee" is not paid, and does it voluntarily, doesn't mean they are not "employed"...

If have something to contradict that, then I'm open to it.

It's still stupid and racist as fuck.

They didn't fire the docents- they ended the docent program. They want to build an entirely new program that is more flexible and allows more members of the community to be a part of it. i.e. A program that isn't basically a full-time job. And it's not just this one museum- a lot of museums, zoos, etc. have done this over the last decade. This is hardly news, and it's definitely not discrimination against rich white women. Docent programs are falling out of favor, and people are looking to replace them with new programs that are more accessible.

Be wary of political spin. This whole "They fired them because they're white and rich!" tagline is running around in hyper conservative circles right now, but it's just another highly misleading, cynical white panic spin on something for the sake of manufactured outrage.

[Tgo01]

Be wary of political spin. This whole "They fired them because they're white and rich!" tagline is running around in hyper conservative circles right now, but it's just another highly misleading, cynical white panic spin

That’s basically what the museum said the reason was though so…

[Shaps]

This seems just like more double-speak and changing of terms to try and explain something away.

The administration said themselves they needed to "diversify".. then fired their trained employees/volunteers.

People can try to explain it away with new, friendly terms.. doesn't change what it is. Shit is getting really weird in that way.

Just like "safe spaces" aren't segregation somehow..

Sorry, not drinking the kool-aid.

[Parkbandit]

Be wary of political spin.