SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Democratic National Committee is hiring IT people for these positions:
- Chief Security Officer
- Data Science Lead
- Full-stack Engineer
- IT Help Desk Manager
- IT Systems Administrator
- Product Designer
- Product Director
- Product Manager
The Daily Wire, a conservative blog, posted an e-mail purportedly from Madeleine Leader, the DNC's Data Services Manager, showing her announcing the openings and writing
I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight while males, since they're already in the majority.
The Daily Wire blogger posted a different screenshot of the e-mail on Twitter.
Also at The Hill
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The DNC is Hiring IT Staff. Allegedly, Cisgendered Straight White Males Need Not Apply.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 189 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 5, Informative) by epitaxial on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:22PM (11 children)
They just violated the EOE act.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:17PM
Yeah, putting something like this in writing is just foolish. It shows such poor judgement. If this is what she wanted, she should have inferred it in a conversation, not put it in writing.
To be clear, I'm not in favour of the opinion to start with, but really it amazes me how some people get into positions of authority with their utter lack of clue. Especially in a political organisation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
This. Discrimination on the basis of race or gender is illegal. Any white male who is qualified, but rejected for the job, now has a solid legal basis for a lawsuit. Idiots.
The DNC is virtue-signalling so hard that they will succeed in alienating essentially their entire base. I mean, once they eliminate all the cisgendered white males, they'll have to start eliminating the cisgendered white females. Then all whites. Then the Asians. Then the Hispanics. Pretty soon their only remaining consituency will be transgendered black females.
Let's face it: they didn't run Bernie at least partially because he's a white male. It won't be any different in 2020 - they'll want a woman or a black - preferably both. Qualifications will be secondary. Unless they accidentally select a qualified candidate, they will lose again. Probably to Trump again.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @10:23AM
And then just when the MSM officially counts them out of the running, 4chan will discover their instagram feeds, rocketing them to socmed stardom and then to the Presidency!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:10PM (7 children)
While the Democrats might be discriminating; those God Fearing™ Republicans would never do such a thing.
The Republicans under Trump's administration actually embrace diversity:
* straight white christian men with black hair
* straight white christian men with brown hair
* straight white christian men with gray hair
* straight white christian men with no hair
* straight white christian men who are tall
* straight white christian men who are short
* straight white christian men with blue eyes
* straight white christian men with brown eyes
* straight white christian men who are rich
* straight white christian men who are richer
* . . . etc
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:59PM (6 children)
The Chief of Staff actually said we could have avoided the Civil War by compromising on slavery.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:43PM (5 children)
Sometimes the truth hurts. It isn't a question on whether or not allowing slavery to continue would have maintained the status quo longer, the question is whether it was preferable to have a war if and end to slavery was part of the victory. I don't recall Kelly saying that we should have allowed slavery to continue in exchange for not having a war, he just said that had we then the war would have been postponed.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:19PM (3 children)
Why postponed and not avoided entirely? I think there's some historical nuances I'm missing here.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:29PM (2 children)
The war was about states rights not slavery. The states rights issue was related to slavery, but slavery wasn't the direct cause of the war. Eventually there may have been a states rights issue and the war would have been then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:57PM (1 child)
The issue was about slavery. No matter what, the whole problem and division would have come up again. And again. For as long as slavery continued to exist. Or until we decided that slavery was really and truly acceptable. God forbid.
There may be other states rights issues unrelated to slavery. But I think mostly, states rights, were a rationalization for slavery, IMO. I could be wrong. But slavery was a huge economic issue -- on the backs of the slaves whose lives were ruined by capturing and enslaving them. It would be only fair to brutally enslave everyone who supports such action.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:09PM
There were some problems regarding tariffs. High tariffs protected the north and low protected the south (might be backwards). There had been conflicts between the states leading up to the civil war over this. Ultimately it was the slavery issue that caused the first batch of states to leave, although Virginia only decided to leave when Lincoln told them to raise three militias and send them south to quell the rebellion. Virginia's house leaned on the union side even after the first batch left, being told to raise troops against their fellow man is what drove them over the edge.
I would argue that for the deep south the issue was slavery, but for the middle states it was more about their soverignty. Maryland had desired to leave along with virginia but there were already federal troops occupying them. Whenever I think about the civil war I think of virginia's fight for soverignty. Until now I didnt realize most others think im talking Georgia or Alabama.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:39PM
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/31/john-kelly-calls-robert-e-lee-honorable-and-ta-nehisi-coates-schools-him/ [salon.com]