The Nal wrote: » One of Gemmas supportershttps://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1100430390630797314
Auntie Semite wrote: » In fairness, at the very beginning Q seemed legit. I was 'there' the very first day Q turned up on /pol/ It seemed real, trumps tweets for example were repeating words or phrases mentioned in Q 'drops' a day or two after they appeared online. So either it was an amazing coincidence or Trump was playing along. But It quickly (to me) became apparent that it was bu11sh1t. The moment of realisation for me was "it will happen when the weather cools" (anyone who followed Q will know what that means) It's surprising and disappointing that people still believe it after numerous Q predictions failed to come to pass. What's really interesting about it though is whether it was some person or group engaged in a massive hoax or whether it was set up (by who?) deliberately in order to placate Trump voters.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Did you just assume my gender?lol I am actually an SAR helicopter today but that could change
Wibbs wrote: » Actually he's not so far wrong. Compared to the average Irish man, the average Irish woman will live longer, be better educated, earn more before kids come along, more free to reenter work after any family hiatus, have more medical and social supports, be seen as less "disposable", be less likely to be homeless, an addict, physically assaulted or murdered, die at work, or die by their own hand. On the other hand she's much more likely to be sexually assaulted in adulthood, more likely to suffer from some mental illnesses like anxiety and the like, more likely to be judged on her appearance, age and fertility status. In many areas it's swings and roundabouts and individuals differ in how life and society treats them and they treat society in return, but overall it can be pretty easily argued that yes, White "bourgeois" western women are one of the most(and largest) "privileged" demographics in the Western world. EG: Take two people living rough on the street. One woman, one man. Who will garner more sympathy and attention in society, in the media and personally? Bonus points if she has kids involved. Indeed the words "living rough on the street". Which gender immediately springs to mind? We'd be fibbing if a woman sprang to mind. Very broadly speaking society values in average people in general order of preference; children, women, men. When there's a hostage situation words you will never hear from negotiators are "please release the men and children first". Word to the wise hostage takers, release the men first. Look how much world attention Boko Haram got a few years ago after they took a load of women and girls hostage. "Bring our girls home" and all that, yet they'd been happily been butchering hundreds of men and boys and releasing the girls to go home and be good little Muslims and barely made the papers. "Valued" is often a double edged sword too mind you. Slaves were "valued" and "protected" too.
batgoat wrote: » Honestly, you'd have to be incredibly deluded to believe there was ever credibility to Q ****e...
baby and crumble wrote: » Uh, you literally identified yourself as a white male in the post.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Were you following from the very beginning? With respect If not then you have no idea what you are talking about.
skooterblue2 wrote: » But I am allowed change my mind.
Ipso wrote: » So what kind of mind are you now?
skooterblue2 wrote: » I havent decided. its open to change and interpretation. I will let you know by the medium of dance, when and if I decide.
Ipso wrote: » "You" won't know who "I" am by then.
batgoat wrote: » Can you clarify, would you refuse a woman a job based on the possibility she may become pregnant?
Ipso wrote: » Please tell us what made Q seem genuine?
skooterblue2 wrote: » I am not currently offering a job of any sort so I cannot comment on that possibility, also you havent specified what role or what sort of a work she would be doing? If it was at a deli counter, then no I would not. I would tell go and have plenty of children and contribute to society.
batgoat wrote: » Potential to be pregnant is not a legal reason to reject a candidate and frankly I don't know how you can even make such an assessment.https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/help-and-support-employees/faqs-employees/during-6
batgoat wrote: » With respect, the entire concept was ridiculous from day one. You can claim it initially made sense but it was the likes of The Donald subreddit and 4chan believing any old nonsense. I'm guessing you think Pizzagate made sense.. That didn't either. There is very little to differentiate from the stuff Alex Jones has spread.
Wibbs wrote: » Yes B and that's great in theory, but like I said in some circumstances like I outlined above surely you can see why someone might? Let's take it a step further. Imagine an interview where the candidate shows up already pregnant.
batgoat wrote: » Child bearing age is literally decades of a woman's life. Skooter has implied that he would be less likely to employ for that reason.
skooterblue2 wrote: » I made no assessment like that. Pressing these rights are actually damaging for women. I remember a women only recruitment agency opening in Dublin. I havent heard for them since. Even women managers will tell you single women or newly married women between 28 and 35 are not prefered for hiring. Why would you hire someone who is head off for 6-8 months and come back to the workplace with extra responsibilities? What if it was some role that was highly specialised or in a sensitive industry? Like pharmaceutical or computer programming? These industry employees who were highly qualified in niche industries and invest huge resources in mentoring and training. Those sort of projects and development times, you cannot be swapping out lead technicians and team leaders for.
batgoat wrote: » I'm in software, a colleague is going on maternity leave. Our company is not particularly big, we're simply prepared for the transition and we're in a niche area. Any well managed company is capable of coping with it. Btw, you're leaving yourself wide open if you hire any significant amount of people and are actively avoiding women between 28 and 35. Anyone who cares to look can spot the pattern and that does leave you open legally.
skooterblue2 wrote: » So how are you going to manage the transition? Are you going to get a technic in for 8 months? Unless I was starting out as a graduate or desperate or it was overly well paid I wouldnt take an 8 month contract. You are going to have to train and possibly spend extra money on training or get an experienced technician in. Or you have the rest of the team take on her responsibilites, with or without remuneration? On the other hand a former friend (female) was training to be an accountant. There were 8 trainee accountants in the firm. There was one who was top rugby player and when he would go for training they would have to shovel his work load without remuneration. She wasn't best pleased about it. As for the legal bit. You have to prove it and that would take a lot of work to prove it. There are loads of reasons to discriminate, as long as you dont tell the candidate. lack of experience, poor presentation skills, caught lying on the cv, poor reference. Bouncers do it all the time, just as long as you dont give the reason. You will never be told why you didnt get a job unless they actively want to sued.
batgoat wrote: » In terms of how we prepare, generally software aims to be cross functional. So the team can generally function fine with a member drop. Sometimes hiring another person occurs, probably not in this case. And any competent software house or pharmaceutical company is able to deal with it.
batgoat wrote: » And I would say if you choose to operate a company, you should abide by the laws and not discriminate.
By the very same logic, if I fell ill during my probation period in a job that would be an acceptable reason to fire me on the sly, it could take me out of commission for as long as any maternity leave.(or how about if I look like I'm prone to illness?) So regardless of if a woman is pregnant or not, I don't view it as an acceptable reason to refuse.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Well they served you well if you were white and straight and christian. Not so much for the rest.
