SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update. It appears the original submission was skewing the facts. From the What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case) on the EEOC (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commision) web site:
What You Should Know about EEOC and Shelton D. v. U.S. Postal Service (Gadsden Flag case)
- This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the Complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it.
- Given the procedural nature of this appeal and the fact that no investigative record or evidence had been developed yet, it would have been premature and inappropriate for EEOC to determine, one way or the other, the merits of the U.S. Postal Service's argument that the Gadsden Flag and its slogan do not have any racial connotations whatsoever.
- EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred.
The original story follows. --martyb]
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace. In short, wearing the Gadsden flag while at work can earn you the title of "racist", earn you harassment charges, and cost you your job. The ideological witch hunt started back in 2014 when a black employee at a privately owned company filed a complaint with the EEOC when he saw a co-worker wearing a hat featuring the Gadsden flag and the words "Don't tread on me." The EEOC has decided to side with the over-sensitive employee, despite already admitting that the flag originated in a non-racial context and has been adopted by multiple non-racial political groups, countless companies and more, since it was created.
The ruling is a preliminary ruling and has not yet been made "official" but the preliminary ruling says that you can be charged with "racial harassment." They have not indicated when an "official" ruling will be made and it is ongoing.
Source: American Military News
Better Source: Washington Post
Facts: EEOC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday August 08 2016, @08:37PM
Somebody needs to tell these snowflakes the US Navy uses that motto in an official capacity. It appears on an official patch worn on some uniforms. It appeared on an official 'Navy Jack.' But facts won't matter since this is nothing less than the criminalization of creating bad feelz in a snowflake. But of course only in very special snowflakes, some animals are as always more special/equal than others and it is in fact required for some people to get bad feelz. Try saying a Black Lives Matter t-shirt is racist (which it obviously is) and watch how fast YOU get disemployed as the 'real' racist.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:08PM
False.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:34PM
Correction, TRUE!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Francis on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:00AM
Nope, it is true. They mean well, but they jump on police officers and demand that they be fired and sent to prison prior to any of the facts being known.
That's racist, Now, if they'd either wait for the facts to come out or at least change their mind if the facts back the officer's use of force, that wouldn't be an issue.
But the movement does a piss poor job of denouncing the racist crazies in their midst. But, on the bright side, it is a generally peaceful movement, so it's not like they're as bad as the klan or all that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:12AM
That doesn't make them racist, it just makes them ideologues with poor impulse control.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:54PM
And if they'd get on black cops and Latino cops with similar frequency or change their mind afterwards, I might be more inclined to believe that.
The whole basis for some of these protests is that the white cop is guilty and must be punished even in cases like Tamir rice where we have more than enough evidence to conclude that he was killed for waving what appeared to be a gun around. At the moment they shot him it appears that he was lowering it in their direction.
It's extremely hard for me to believe that out of all these shootings that there isn't a single black cop involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:17AM
Shut up, Francis, you're out of your element.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 09 2016, @11:59AM
Please tell me what you think racism is. You are extremely confused. Prematurely judging someones actions isn't racist. It's more along the lines of a knee-jerk reaction.
So do the people they are rallying against. And those assholes are protected by their own as well. Ever been targeted for a forced unwarranted search or blatant harassment by police because you are brown? No? Then you don't know what the movement is about. Once you are harassed by the police because of what you look like, then you can come back to the conversation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:13PM
I've been harassed due to my color.
The movement is still full of shit.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:30PM
Explain.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:45PM
Having to deal with seven police crusiers for parking out of the rain. Being pulled overr nearly every 100 miles during a roadtrip.
I've got my propers.
The issue is police violence, and it isn't specific to any particular race as that type of emphasis only change who is low man on the totem poll.
I don't need you to speak on my behalf. People of color are not a homogenious group. And even amoung blacks there is a wide range of views on Black Lives Matter.
Once you've been black, you can come back to the conversation. Until then, shut the fuck up.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:21PM
I wanted you to explain your views on why the movement is full of shit. No need to be a hostile dick about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:02PM
Please tell me what you think racism is. You are extremely confused. Prematurely judging someones actions isn't racist. It's more along the lines of a knee-jerk reaction.
Your definitions seem to need an update:
Racism: [merriam-webster.com]
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Prejudice: [merriam-webster.com]
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
How, exactly, is a preconceived (premature) judgement of someone based on skin color not the precise definition of racial prejudice? I'm not sure how much clearer the logic could possibly be based on the definitions used above.
FWIW, the Wikipedia article on racism [wikipedia.org] also mentions race-based prejudice in its first sentence.
Seriously, it takes some Olympic-caliber mental gymnastics to divorce premature judgement from racism.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:03PM
Cops are a race? Did you bother reading the parent post? Or are you going for gold in the mental gymnastics? Tis the season.
This is the bit I was directly referring to (emphasis mine):
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:20PM
Cops are a race?
White cops have a race, and I don't see black cops getting targeted by the BLM.
I don't see this movement being characterized as anything other than a reaction to institutionalized white-on-black prejudice leading to murder under the color of law. That reaction is not colorblind, it's focused on white cops abusing their privilege.
So, yes, Black Lives Matter activists are exercising racism against white cops.
Props, though, for trying to get off on a technicality rather than the typical "change the definition of racism to mean something other than it always has"; that argument was weak when it was created and has only gotten moldier over time.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:02PM
"Police" is not a race!
(why do I have to post this again)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:51PM
I must have missed all the black police officers being targeted by the #BLM folks.
It's kind of interesting how they're basing their accusations on the color of the officer's skin and not bothering to evaluate the evidence. I'm not sure how exactly that isn't racist.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:46PM
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if "they" were mad at black police officers too, as "race traitors," but I haven't been closely following the thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 10 2016, @01:48PM
If you mean white police officers, say white police officers. Y'know, at least once anywhere in your comment. If you (generic "you") don't, I'll just keep posting that line.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:00PM
That gets tricky.
It obviously makes a statement in favor of the worthiness of black lives. Whether that is necessarily racist depends on precisely how you define "racist", and either way is defensible...and there may be more than two defensible ways that are applicable here. E.g., if you define a racist as one who discriminates or talks about some "race" in a negative way, then it isn't racist. If you define racist as one who distinguishes people on the basis of secondary characteristics, like skin color, then it is racist.
My personal opinion is that "race" is a social definition with only minor connections to genetics. This is the opinion of most biologists. But then biologists deal with species where there are actual races, though the preferred term is generally "subspecies". Humans no longer have any, unless perhaps the pygmies are a subspecies. (I haven't looked into that, and reliable sources are thin on the ground.) Neanderthals and Denisovians were clearly subspecies that were in the process of speciating. It's not clear that there are any subspecies around today. People are too mobile for the size of the planet (and uniformity of living conditions) to allow the maintenance of subspecies. I suspect even with horse powered vehicles only a few places would be isolated enough to allow the existence of a subspecies without it being reabsorbed into the main gene-pool.
However, given that you accept race as a social definition, either of the meanings of "racist" that I gave above is compatible with standard English usage.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 08 2016, @09:36PM
But facts won't matter... to jmorris who will gladly go off on a rant based on a factually incorrect summary.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday August 08 2016, @09:47PM
So what is wrong with the summary? Btw, I saw this story a day or two ago so I'm not basing my post on the summary.
The court agreed the flag and slogan date to the earliest days of the pre-revolutionary colonies. The court agreed there is zero reason for a sane person to believe the thing is racist. Because only a congenital idiot would even try to argue any other position in the face of the extensive historical record. Then the court declared that because a snowflake was triggered that none of the facts mattered, the feelz of a protected snowflake was all that mattered, that if a protected person says they felt racism then the Anita Hill rule applies. That it is the seriousness of the charge and not the facts that matter.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday August 08 2016, @09:53PM
So what is wrong with the summary?
The very first sentence!
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined in a preliminary ruling that wearing clothing featuring the Gadsden Flag constitutes legally actionable racial harassment in the workplace.
This is a quote from the actual EEOC ruling: In light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which C1 displayed the symbol in the workplace.
Bit of a difference there...
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday August 08 2016, @10:15PM
I knew if I control-f'd for the word "context" I'd have a chance of finding someone who actually looked at more than the headline.
Indeed, I was right, this whole thread is a pile of hot-takes from disingenuous summary alone with you being a shining beacon of basic textual investigation.
(Score: 2) by DrkShadow on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:50AM
It would seem that the only ambiguity is caused by the complainant.
"OMG! You called me a white snowflake! That's racial harrassment!!"
Slippery slopes, 'n all that. Bullshit, nonsense, oversensitivity, and catering to a mentally disturbed few to the _detriment_ of _all_others_, 'n all that.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @10:42PM
So what is wrong with the summary?
There was no "Government Ruling".
The "privately owned company" was the U.S. Postal Service.
The "the preliminary ruling" does not say "that you can be charged with "racial harassment."".
It isn't your fault that you believed the lies. A biased clickbait article that manipulated facts with the purpose of generating OUTRAGE! slipped into our story queue. This site normally has a good enough S/N ratio where you can skip TFA (or even TFS), but this wasn't one of those cases.