[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: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 08 2016, @09:24PM
Ok. I give up. I'm a racist in addition to a sexist. How can you tell?
- I didn't like the Ghostbusters reboot.
Did you actually watch it? Why?
I don't like it either, but I can tell just from the trailer and everything I've read about it online. I'm not about to waste a bunch of money and time and subject myself to the misery that is the modern theater experience just to give it a fair chance. Maybe if it comes on Netflix, but I doubt it; I'd rather spend my Netflix time watching something I know I'll like, such as old Star Trek episodes (though I'll skip the one that's nothing but Riker having flashbacks; that episode was terrible. I'd rather watch the Ghostbusters reboot, or worse yet, one of the new JJTrek movies, than that one. Maybe.)
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday August 08 2016, @10:10PM
I reviewed it here https://soylentnews.org/~kurenai.tsubasa/journal/1987 [soylentnews.org] .
Short version: Paul Feig had some white knight agenda and wanted show how oppressed these new Ghostbusters are because they're women. That is, they're oppressed because they live in a world full of men who are walking stereotypes that were put their by Feig. The actresses themselves were not the problem, and Leslie Jones wasn't even really the cringeworthy stereotype I thought she was going to be. I could definitely tell it was a film that failed in spite of the female talent, not because of it. That and we never get to see Thor without a shirt on!
It's basically the first third of a story that would have made a good film stretched out to feature length (so that the story can be a trilogy or even a tetralogy depending on how unlucky we are).