Hamas offensive against Israel

[Fangthane]

I didn't exactly do a deep dive on it. Watched a few YT videos from ostensibly reliable sources that didn't mention anything said anywhere that they felt was offensive. Could have just been fanboys, or legitimately unaware of whatever inflammatory posts she may have made that hadn't come to light yet. They didn't seem to focus on a single post as if there was only 1 that was potentially problematic. Amongst the posts they did highlight, it all seemed pretty innocuous.

 

[Fogdog]

I didn't exactly do a deep dive on it. Watched a few YT videos from ostensibly reliable sources that didn't mention anything said anywhere that they felt was offensive. Could have just been fanboys, or legitimately unaware of whatever inflammatory posts she may have made that hadn't come to light yet. They didn't seem to focus on a single post as if there was only 1 that was potentially problematic. Amongst the posts they did highlight, it all seemed pretty innocuous.

"I believe a group of people are NOT their leadership, and that no governing body should be above criticism," Barrera continued. "

Hamas attacked and killed or took hostage several thousand people inside Israel. Israel is making war on Hamas. So what "group" is she talking about here? The Palestinian people? The only "group" that I can name that Israel is directly attacking is Hamas and that sentence, to me, is like when Trump said that some Klansmen are good people.

The rest of her post reads to me like what white people in the US say when they tell Black people that "All Lives Matter". It's ignorant and deflects from the issue that is at the core of the BLM complaint.

As I also said in my earlier post that replied to you, that missive in the etonline article was just the tip of the iceberg of what Barrera has written and it wasn't even a good reflection of it. So, maybe you are focusing on a cherry picked article that makes it seem as if this just a mole hill. As reported in Time:

Melissa Barrera and Others in Hollywood Lose Jobs, Representation Over War Commentary

In recent weeks, those who have been most outspoken in support of Palestinians and against Israel’s military actions in Gaza have begun to be met with professional blowback.

time.com

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, Barrera, 33, has used her social media platform frequently to showcase her support for the Palestinian cause and to share information about the situation in Gaza, including resharing Instagram posts and articles describing Israeli forces’ attacks as “genocide and ethnic cleansing” and referring to Israel as a “colonized land.”
She wrote on Instagram stories she had been trying to look for online information about the war from Palestinians’ perspectives “because Western media only shows the other side.”

“Why they do that, I will let you deduce for yourself,” she wrote. She also reshared a post from Jewish Currents that included a reference to “the distortion of the Holocaust to boost the Israeli arms industry.”

So, if the article you shared reports the last post by Barrera before she got fired, it was just the last straw, not the whole thing.

I'm expressing my views and if I've offended, that was not my intent. But I still think that you tube is a terrible place to get one's information.

edit: I pulled out some stuff that was off-topic. Nobody told me to, I simply did so because it had nothing to do with the OP and distracted from the reason for my reply. Apologies to Fangthane if I offended.

 

[cannabineer]

"I believe a group of people are NOT their leadership, and that no governing body should be above criticism," Barrera continued. "

Hamas attacked and killed or took hostage several thousand people inside Israel. Israel is making war on Hamas. So what "group" is she talking about here? The Palestinian people? The only "group" that I can name that Israel is directly attacking is Hamas and that sentence, to me, is like when Trump said that some Klansmen are good people.

The rest of her post reads to me like what white people in the US say when they tell Black people that "All Lives Matter". It's ignorant and deflects from the issue that is at the core of the BLM complaint.

As I also said in my earlier post that replied to you, that missive in the etonline article was just the tip of the iceberg of what Barrera has written and it wasn't even a good reflection of it. So, maybe you are focusing on a cherry picked article that makes it seem as if this just a mole hill. As reported in Time:

Melissa Barrera and Others in Hollywood Lose Jobs, Representation Over War Commentary

In recent weeks, those who have been most outspoken in support of Palestinians and against Israel’s military actions in Gaza have begun to be met with professional blowback.

time.com

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, Barrera, 33, has used her social media platform frequently to showcase her support for the Palestinian cause and to share information about the situation in Gaza, including resharing Instagram posts and articles describing Israeli forces’ attacks as “genocide and ethnic cleansing” and referring to Israel as a “colonized land.”
She wrote on Instagram stories she had been trying to look for online information about the war from Palestinians’ perspectives “because Western media only shows the other side.”

“Why they do that, I will let you deduce for yourself,” she wrote. She also reshared a post from Jewish Currents that included a reference to “the distortion of the Holocaust to boost the Israeli arms industry.”

So, if the article you shared reports the last post by Barrera before she got fired, it was just the last straw, not the whole thing.

I'm expressing my views and if I've offended, that was not my intent. But I still think that you tube is a terrible place to get one's information.

edit: I pulled out some stuff that was off-topic. Nobody told me to, I simply did so because it had nothing to do with the OP and distracted from the reason for my reply. Apologies to Fangthane if I offended.

Jane Fonda got herself into a similar bind half a century ago. Good intentions exploited by the opponents for propaganda value leading to a negative outcome.

The Complicated Story Behind Jane Fonda’s ‘Hanoi Jane’ Nickname

Megyn Kelly once called Fonda "synonymous with outrage"

time.com

 

[Fogdog]

Jane Fonda got herself into a similar bind half a century ago. Good intentions exploited by the opponents for propaganda value leading to a negative outcome.

The Complicated Story Behind Jane Fonda’s ‘Hanoi Jane’ Nickname

Megyn Kelly once called Fonda "synonymous with outrage"

time.com

To people who lost brothers or sons or husbands or saw them come back wounded or even lived through the trauma of their loved one going off to that war, much less the people who served and came back, Fonda certainly has something to atone for. But the point of this is not did Fonda or Barrera say or do the wrong thing. It's whether or not their employer is obligated to stick with them given the heat they would take and the profits they stand to lose if they did. It's also a response to Fangthane's post where he opines that he sees no reason for Jews to be offended by what Barrera said. Just because he doesn't see it does not mean her message doesn't contain words that are offensive to many Jews. If Barrera listened instead of airing grievance, they could hear the offended explain in their own words. It doesn't really matter what Barrera thinks about the validity of the complaint.

People are free to say what they want within fairly broad limits in this country. But to think you should be able to offend a substantial number of people without facing consequences is naïve, self centered and borderline insane. An employer has every right to consider their own self interest when an employee does that.

 

[cannabineer]

To people who lost brothers or sons or husbands or saw them come back wounded or even lived through the trauma of their loved one going off to that war, much less the people who served and came back, Fonda certainly has something to atone for. But the point of this is not did Fonda or Barrera say or do the wrong thing. It's whether or not their employer is obligated to stick with them given the heat they would take and the profits they stand to lose if they did. It's also a response to Fangthane's post where he opines that he sees no reason for Jews to be offended by what Barrera said. Just because he doesn't see it does not mean her message doesn't contain words that are offensive to many Jews. If Barrera listened instead of airing grievance, they could hear the offended explain in their own words. It doesn't really matter what Barrera thinks about the validity of the complaint.

People are free to say what they want within fairly broad limits in this country. But to think you should be able to offend a substantial number of people without facing consequences is naïve, self centered and borderline insane. An employer has every right to consider their own self interest when an employee does that.

I did not consider that angle. My comment is more about how an arguably humanitarian but naive impulse can have the reverse effect. Lenin’s “useful idiots”.

From an employer’s perspective— if the employee generates a liability (intentions be damned), it’s a slam dunk that the employer must protect itself.

 

[CANON_Grow]

To people who lost brothers or sons or husbands or saw them come back wounded or even lived through the trauma of their loved one going off to that war, much less the people who served and came back, Fonda certainly has something to atone for. But the point of this is not did Fonda or Barrera say or do the wrong thing. It's whether or not their employer is obligated to stick with them given the heat they would take and the profits they stand to lose if they did. It's also a response to Fangthane's post where he opines that he sees no reason for Jews to be offended by what Barrera said. Just because he doesn't see it does not mean her message doesn't contain words that are offensive to many Jews. If Barrera listened instead of airing grievance, they could hear the offended explain in their own words. It doesn't really matter what Barrera thinks about the validity of the complaint.

People are free to say what they want within fairly broad limits in this country. But to think you should be able to offend a substantial number of people without facing consequences is naïve, self centered and borderline insane. An employer has every right to consider their own self interest when an employee does that.

I did not consider that angle. My comment is more about how an arguably humanitarian but naive impulse can have the reverse effect. Lenin’s “useful idiots”.

From an employer’s perspective— if the employee generates a liability (intentions be damned), it’s a slam dunk that the employer must protect itself.

So there would be no issue if Chick-fil-A fired an employee that put something on social media supporting LGBT+ rights? What about an employee of the NRA posting in support of any kind of gun legislation? How about simply stating Joe Biden is the President if you live in a MAGA stronghold? All valid reasons to be fired?

 

[Fogdog]

So there would be no issue if Chick-fil-A fired an employee that put something on social media supporting LGBT+ rights? What about an employee of the NRA posting in support of any kind of gun legislation? How about simply stating Joe Biden is the President if you live in a MAGA stronghold? All valid reasons to be fired?

People can say what they want and I'm making no comment about my own feelings about what was said. I'm just saying that its not anybody else's call. Jewish people saw what she was saying, they were offended and said so. She made more statements, and her employer didn't like the blowback they were getting. There are always consequences to be considered when speaking one's mind. There are some things that are better left unsaid. Calling Israel a colony. Calling the actions Israel is taking in Gaza, genocide. Don't say that and get upset when the blowback comes. I'm not making a comment in this post about my own feelings on this, just saying that public figures who say shit like that shouldn't cry foul when the expected happens.

There is a difference between posting something in support of gun legislation and accusing Jews of perpetrating their own holocaust. The result may be the same regarding employment but there is a difference.

 

[cannabineer]

So there would be no issue if Chick-fil-A fired an employee that put something on social media supporting LGBT+ rights? What about an employee of the NRA posting in support of any kind of gun legislation? How about simply stating Joe Biden is the President if you live in a MAGA stronghold? All valid reasons to be fired?

None of your examples are an actor or other big influencer. You’re listing things covered by diversity, equity, inclusion law.

And, what Fogdog said.

 

[CANON_Grow]

People can say what they want and I'm making no comment about my own feelings about what was said. I'm just saying that its not anybody else's call. Jewish people saw what she was saying, they were offended and said so. She made more statements, and her employer didn't like the blowback they were getting. There are always consequences to be considered when speaking one's mind. There are some things that are better left unsaid. Calling Israel a colony. Calling the actions Israel is taking in Gaza, genocide. Don't say that and get upset when the blowback comes. I'm not making a comment in this post about my own feelings on this, just saying that public figures who say shit like that shouldn't cry foul when the expected happens.

There is a difference between posting something in support of gun legislation and accusing Jews of perpetrating their own holocaust. The result may be the same regarding employment but there is a difference.

I am not commenting on what she said, I don’t keep up on celebrity stuff so I can’t speak about everything she had said, nor do I know what stipulations there are in any employment contract that may or may not exist.

I was focusing more on the fact of an employer having the right to terminate employment of someone for expressing their beliefs if it offends someone else. If that justification can be used, how long before not saying anything at all about one of many religious topics (say, abortion) is said to be offensive and used for termination.

There are many things better left unsaid, especially around a workplace, and in the real world an employer can terminate any employee easily enough. Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be accepted without pushback.

 

[CANON_Grow]

None of your examples are an actor or other big influencer. You’re listing things covered by diversity, equity, inclusion law.

And, what Fogdog said.

I may be mistaken, but I don’t believe showing support or speaking out against one of many controversial topics would be covered. Agree that it is different when they are a public figure, but I was not using a public figure in my examples.

 

[Fogdog]

I am not commenting on what she said, I don’t keep up on celebrity stuff so I can’t speak about everything she had said, nor do I know what stipulations there are in any employment contract that may or may not exist.

I was focusing more on the fact of an employer having the right to terminate employment of someone for expressing their beliefs if it offends someone else. If that justification can be used, how long before not saying anything at all about one of many religious topics (say, abortion) is said to be offensive and used for termination.

There are many things better left unsaid, especially around a workplace, and in the real world an employer can terminate any employee easily enough. Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be accepted without pushback.

I think this is an interesting topic for discussion and worth debating. So, thanks for this. I was thinking about what you said this morning while making breakfast. It's a good question. Should employers have the right to fire employees for making comments outside of work that offends others?

My response is, does there have to be a law about this one way or the other? The government must observe the 1A and wide range of speech that others might feel is offensive is protected from the government. At this time, protection of speech does not extend into private businesses. If an employee makes a statement that the business owner deems to be harmful to their business, they can take action to protect it? The employee may say they are gay and their employment is protected because a person can't be fired just because they are gay. A bible thumping owner like the one at Chick fil A can't fire a person because of that. Supreme Court ruled on this in 2020

Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

In a landmark ruling for LGBT rights, the Supreme Court said workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

www.cnbc.com

But, can they be fired for the things they say outside of work?

From this article,

What your rights are at work when it comes to getting involved in social or political activism

If you're unsure whether your company can fire you for social or political activism, experts said there are a few instances where you're protected.

www.businessinsider.com

the answer is, "It Depends". States have their own laws, some workers have extra protections in those states. Also, government employees are protected under the 1A. Finally, employers have to be clear about their policies and treat everybody the same, consistent with those policies. In most cases, if a person is following the law, is acting on their own and on their time and does not mention their company when speaking, they should be fine but this is a grey area. Employers don't have the right to fire a person simply because they are politically active. However if there is a company policy in place and the employee violated that, then they can be fired.

This how it's described in the article I linked to (above)

"Private employers still have the ability and pretty wide latitude to regulate an employee's off-duty conduct to the extent it damages the company's reputation or any of its internal policies or values," Holt said.
Say a worker is off duty but found to be saying things that violate a company's anti-discrimination or harassment policies — the employer can and should step in, he explained. Not only does the employee's behavior make a company look bad, it could also put an organization at risk legally if they knowingly employ someone engaging in discriminatory behaviors.

So, it's not a clear and bright line that we can just point at and say, she crossed it or what they did was OK. However, according to Spyglass, Barrera crossed a line they drew in their policy on conditions of employment. They say her actions violated policies regarding statements she made that they claim were anti-Semitic and "hate speech". People may agree or disagree but that's what they said.

So, now this drifts into how companies protect their brand value and what kind of behavior people are willing to boycott by spending their money elsewhere. Is this an appropriate way to regulate behavior?

 

[cannabineer]

I think this is an interesting topic for discussion and worth debating. So, thanks for this. I was thinking about what you said this morning while making breakfast. It's a good question. Should employers have the right to fire employees for making comments outside of work that offends others?

My response is, does there have to be a law about this one way or the other? The government must observe the 1A and wide range of speech that others might feel is offensive is protected from the government. At this time, protection of speech does not extend into private businesses. If an employee makes a statement that the business owner deems to be harmful to their business, they can take action to protect it? The employee may say they are gay and their employment is protected because a person can't be fired just because they are gay. A bible thumping owner like the one at Chick fil A can't fire a person because of that. Supreme Court ruled on this in 2020

Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

In a landmark ruling for LGBT rights, the Supreme Court said workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

www.cnbc.com

But, can they be fired for the things they say outside of work?

From this article,

What your rights are at work when it comes to getting involved in social or political activism

If you're unsure whether your company can fire you for social or political activism, experts said there are a few instances where you're protected.

www.businessinsider.com

the answer is, "It Depends". States have their own laws, some workers have extra protections in those states. Also, government employees are protected under the 1A. Finally, employers have to be clear about their policies and treat everybody the same, consistent with those policies. In most cases, if a person is following the law, is acting on their own and on their time and does not mention their company when speaking, they should be fine but this is a grey area. Employers don't have the right to fire a person simply because they are politically active. However if there is a company policy in place and the employee violated that, then they can be fired.

This how it's described in the article I linked to (above)

"Private employers still have the ability and pretty wide latitude to regulate an employee's off-duty conduct to the extent it damages the company's reputation or any of its internal policies or values," Holt said.
Say a worker is off duty but found to be saying things that violate a company's anti-discrimination or harassment policies — the employer can and should step in, he explained. Not only does the employee's behavior make a company look bad, it could also put an organization at risk legally if they knowingly employ someone engaging in discriminatory behaviors.

So, it's not a clear and bright line that we can just point at and say, she crossed it or what they did was OK. However, according to Spyglass, Barrera crossed a line they drew in their policy on conditions of employment. They say her actions violated policies regarding statements she made that they claim were anti-Semitic and "hate speech". People may agree or disagree but that's what they said.

So, now this drifts into how companies protect their brand value and what kind of behavior people are willing to boycott by spending their money elsewhere. Is this an appropriate way to regulate behavior?

Thank you for this. It is a thorny and evolving legal landscape. My take-home lesson is that there is no firewall preventing a corporation from looking at and acting upon someone’s social media activities.

Simplest thing is, don’t use social media to say something you don’t want your current or prospective employer to know.

Back before we left a written record of our opinions and feelings on social media, it was hard for an employer to act because an accusation would run afoul of hearsay law. Posts make it impossible to say “I never said that!”

The good news is that individual discretion provides a universal solution. Those who choose activism while employed need to factor the employer’s rules and reputation into their decisions.

An interesting and nuanced case study:

Case Study: Should He Be Fired for That Facebook Post?

A small-business owner deals with a prized employee’s very public misstep.

hbr.org

 

[GenericEnigma]

Thank you for this. It is a thorny and evolving legal landscape. My take-home lesson is that there is no firewall preventing a corporation from looking at and acting upon someone’s social media activities.

Simplest thing is, don’t use social media to say something you don’t want your current or prospective employer to know.

Back before we left a written record of our opinions and feelings on social media, it was hard for an employer to act because an accusation would run afoul of hearsay law. Posts make it impossible to say “I never said that!”

The good news is that individual discretion provides a universal solution. Those who choose activism while employed need to factor the employer’s rules and reputation into their decisions.

An interesting and nuanced case study:

Case Study: Should He Be Fired for That Facebook Post?

A small-business owner deals with a prized employee’s very public misstep.

hbr.org

I do appreciate the takes from everyone on DEI. Generally speaking, if prejude can be established based on protected status (gender, religion, etc.), then the victim's rights have been violated.

In practice, however, any business can find a legal reason to fire someone whether it's the actual reason or not. And most people won't fight back regardless of the reason.

Social media can either show employers who they really hired (or are considering hiring) - or even help them find that legal reason.

Major grey areas. And the current flavor of fasco-libertarianism seems intent on convincing aggrieved conservatives that the First applies to private business (spoiler: it does not).

 

[Kassiopeija]

A decent state cannot, under the pretext of "self-defense" commit an outrageous number of warcrimes and atrocities no matter how horrible the attacks on the 7th were. The Israeli politics is currently dominated by a racistic and fascistoid agenda intent to exacerbate the roots of the problems even further, to be able to continue to militarize up and grab foreign land by force and steal more of the resources in the West Bank. Now what they are doing will result in the genocide of mostly the innocent. They're numbers are mostly fabricated and hilarious given how many non-adults and woman are living in the bombed houses. "20% terrorists". Now if that is true they still have to murder 400.000 people more.

Let's see how the EU can pay all what Israel left like a wasteland. With ammunition from the USA. At this point Israel lost all political integrity except with the US. They don't even recognize the ICC or play according to the Geneva Convention. They've deliberately targeted the media & journalists, the UN, and each and any important civil building that is prohibited to target, to increase the lethality of their attacks.

 

[CANON_Grow]

I think this is an interesting topic for discussion and worth debating. So, thanks for this. I was thinking about what you said this morning while making breakfast. It's a good question. Should employers have the right to fire employees for making comments outside of work that offends others?

My response is, does there have to be a law about this one way or the other? The government must observe the 1A and wide range of speech that others might feel is offensive is protected from the government. At this time, protection of speech does not extend into private businesses. If an employee makes a statement that the business owner deems to be harmful to their business, they can take action to protect it? The employee may say they are gay and their employment is protected because a person can't be fired just because they are gay. A bible thumping owner like the one at Chick fil A can't fire a person because of that. Supreme Court ruled on this in 2020

Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

In a landmark ruling for LGBT rights, the Supreme Court said workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.

www.cnbc.com

But, can they be fired for the things they say outside of work?

From this article,

What your rights are at work when it comes to getting involved in social or political activism

If you're unsure whether your company can fire you for social or political activism, experts said there are a few instances where you're protected.

www.businessinsider.com

the answer is, "It Depends". States have their own laws, some workers have extra protections in those states. Also, government employees are protected under the 1A. Finally, employers have to be clear about their policies and treat everybody the same, consistent with those policies. In most cases, if a person is following the law, is acting on their own and on their time and does not mention their company when speaking, they should be fine but this is a grey area. Employers don't have the right to fire a person simply because they are politically active. However if there is a company policy in place and the employee violated that, then they can be fired.

This how it's described in the article I linked to (above)

"Private employers still have the ability and pretty wide latitude to regulate an employee's off-duty conduct to the extent it damages the company's reputation or any of its internal policies or values," Holt said.
Say a worker is off duty but found to be saying things that violate a company's anti-discrimination or harassment policies — the employer can and should step in, he explained. Not only does the employee's behavior make a company look bad, it could also put an organization at risk legally if they knowingly employ someone engaging in discriminatory behaviors.

So, it's not a clear and bright line that we can just point at and say, she crossed it or what they did was OK. However, according to Spyglass, Barrera crossed a line they drew in their policy on conditions of employment. They say her actions violated policies regarding statements she made that they claim were anti-Semitic and "hate speech". People may agree or disagree but that's what they said.

So, now this drifts into how companies protect their brand value and what kind of behavior people are willing to boycott by spending their money elsewhere. Is this an appropriate way to regulate behavior?

We see what is happening to the University Presidents' because of they got caught in the game of gotcha by Elise Stefanik; although their job doesn't allow them to have those kind of slip ups and getting axed for it is justified because that comes with being at the top. Blacklisting students that signed something they may not have fully understood or didn't feel comfortable going against what their peers were doing, or whatever other reason - is getting into really uncomfortable territory. Anyone that has had to deal with university/college students on a regular basis understands you are dealing with... minds that are still figuring out how the world works (that's the nicest way I can say it). This is already happening which is why it is concerning.

Billionaires like Bill Ackman and Elon Musk already get an outsized influence on how society acts, not sure they should be allowed to control via employment conditions what any of their employees discuss if it is not on company time and has nothing to do with the company they are employed by. I'm sure it won't be long before the cost of determining anyone's full online presence with no anonymity becomes so inexpensive that it will be a standard hiring procedure, and/or HR procedure before an employee review, salary negotiation, etc. Protecting brand value is one thing, but this is so much bigger than that IMHO.

 

[GenericEnigma]

l

We see what is happening to the University Presidents' because of they got caught in the game of gotcha by Elise Stefanik; although their job doesn't allow them to have those kind of slip ups and getting axed for it is justified because that comes with being at the top. Blacklisting students that signed something they may not have fully understood or didn't feel comfortable going against what their peers were doing, or whatever other reason - is getting into really uncomfortable territory. Anyone that has had to deal with university/college students on a regular basis understands you are dealing with... minds that are still figuring out how the world works (that's the nicest way I can say it). This is already happening which is why it is concerning.

Billionaires like Bill Ackman and Elon Musk already get an outsized influence on how society acts, not sure they should be allowed to control via employment conditions what any of their employees discuss if it is not on company time and has nothing to do with the company they are employed by. I'm sure it won't be long before the cost of determining anyone's full online presence with no anonymity becomes so inexpensive that it will be a standard hiring procedure, and/or HR procedure before an employee review, salary negotiation, etc. Protecting brand value is one thing, but this is so much bigger than that IMHO.

I understand your valid point. Right now the social media effect looms large. However, in the future most will have a social media presence stretching all the way through childhood - and it will be impossible to find anyone to hire without questionable posts/likes.

Even the FBI is making it so that Secret/Top Secret designations allow for past cannabis use. My neighbor can now smoke because his work had to stop testing for cannabis (to hire/retain).

We're at a rough period of growing pains where, e.g., Gen-X still thinks everything on the internet is true.

In the meantime, we'll have to stumble through the dark while we figure it out. A few liar females from the Me Too era seemed to temper the blood rage. This dynamic will also be tempered.

 

[CCGNZ]

l

I understand your valid point. Right now the social media effect looms large. However, in the future most will have a social media presence stretching all the way through childhood - and it will be impossible to find anyone to hire without questionable posts/likes.

Even the FBI is making it so that Secret/Top Secret designations allow for past cannabis use. My neighbor can now smoke because his work had to stop testing for cannabis (to hire/retain).

We're at a rough period of growing pains where, e.g., Gen-X still thinks everything on the internet is true.

In the meantime, we'll have to stumble through the dark while we figure it out. A few liar females from the Me Too era seemed to temper the blood rage. This dynamic will also be tempered.

I'm the beginning of Genx (1965),for all the convenience of the Net,I feel the repercussions will only get worse w/AI, I resisted going digital for yrs.,I hated having to give my employer routing #'s to get paid through DD,now just got my Xmas bonus DD,which was the last paper check we got till this yr.For someone raised in the physical world all this change feels empty and insecure and causes me anxiety in spite of the conveniences it brings.I do,however find rapping w/people on this site from geographical areas once impossible to exchange views from enjoyable.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm the beginning of Genx (1965),for all the convenience of the Net,I feel the repercussions will only get worse w/AI, I resisted going digital for yrs.,I hated having to give my employer routing #'s to get paid through DD,now just got my Xmas bonus DD,which was the last paper check we got till this yr.For someone raised in the physical world all this change feels empty and insecure and causes me anxiety in spite of the conveniences it brings.I do,however find rapping w/people on this site from geographical areas once impossible to exchange views from enjoyable.

I remember when personal security amounted to not leaving the physical receipts from one of these lying around.



Just a few years ago, my replacement cards stopped having raised type on the front.

 

[CCGNZ]

I remember when personal security amounted to not leaving the physical receipts from one of these lying around.

View attachment 5350796

Just a few years ago, my replacement cards stopped having raised type on the front.

Yeah,it's crazy,and the most aggravating thing is being FORCED into these changes when news of all these security breeches abound,all these digital banks offering way higher interest rates on savings?, if I don't have a physical location to go and pursue a problem I have ,sorry I'm out,to go online and see my savings unaccessable or not taking my password would probably cause me a stroke,just got a letter from Blue Cross stating some peoples info has been compromised w/some BS explanation of actions taken,I fear the can of worms opened have wiggled farther away than can be reached.

 

[CCGNZ]

A decent state cannot, under the pretext of "self-defense" commit an outrageous number of warcrimes and atrocities no matter how horrible the attacks on the 7th were. The Israeli politics is currently dominated by a racistic and fascistoid agenda intent to exacerbate the roots of the problems even further, to be able to continue to militarize up and grab foreign land by force and steal more of the resources in the West Bank. Now what they are doing will result in the genocide of mostly the innocent. They're numbers are mostly fabricated and hilarious given how many non-adults and woman are living in the bombed houses. "20% terrorists". Now if that is true they still have to murder 400.000 people more.

Let's see how the EU can pay all what Israel left like a wasteland. With ammunition from the USA. At this point Israel lost all political integrity except with the US. They don't even recognize the ICC or play according to the Geneva Convention. They've deliberately targeted the media & journalists, the UN, and each and any important civil building that is prohibited to target, to increase the lethality of their attacks.

I'm also sickened by the BLUNT force used by Israel,makes no sense to scatter more seeds of hate on all these Palestinian children for Israel. Smacks of Netanyahu trying to provoke a endless war to delay his reckoning.I'm not a expert on the Jewish history but it seems to me it was a noble idea to create a state for the Jews whose oppression goes back centuries. That said solving one problem created another (displacement of Palestinians). Can't the Israelis see that they themselves have become the Romans who oppressed them. To throw salt in the wounds w/illegal settlements is ridiculous,Netanyahu played Hamas off the Palestinian Authority specifically to derail any 2 state solution. While I admire much about Israel their far right gov. needs to go and a moderate gov. needs to replace it and negotiate a 2 state solution. The Palestinians also need representation that accepts an Israeli state. Between all the rich Gulf states (who also despise Iran) and the US, pressure has to be exerted on all sides to finally fix this region. They all have to get over the fact that religious zealotry and embracing the past hatreds will only lead to a apocalyptic outcome for all involved.