Job Ad WTF - "Progressive Politics Manager"



  • I came across this ad on CrunchBoard:

    Company: Working Assets

    Website: http://www.workingassets.com/

    Contact: employment@wafs.com

    How to Apply: visit www.workingassets.com

    Live in San Francisco. Fight for Social Justice across the siloed issue
    areas typical among progressive nonprofits. Work for a mobile phone company
    with a mission of making the world a better place. Get a competitive salary and awesome benefits.

    Working Assets, a company that has raised over $56 million for progressive
    causes, is looking for a new member for our political team as we launch a
    new mobile phone brand. We are a low overhead, high impact political
    operation that leverages the resources of our mobile phone business to run
    political campaigns that matter. Because we raise our money running
    businesses, we don't have to launch campaigns aimed at bringing in bucks.
    Our bottom line is social change.

    The ideal candidate will be a creative online campaigner with DIY tech and writing skills for
    reaching progressive audiences via email, the web, facebook, myspace, txt
    messaging and other emerging social media. What your experience is holds
    more importance to us than how much experience you have. We're looking for
    someone who can hang with the NOI crowd, keep up with the Save the Internet
    campaign, impress Matt Stoller with her online bar-fighting skills,
    out-innovate the Step It Up crowd on global warming organizing, and cut
    through the hype around mobile phone political applications. One year's
    experience with widgets will help us more than 10 years spent developing
    Internet portals. It would also be great if you can write amazing subject
    lines for our emails.

    If you dream of a job on Capitol Hill, this is not the position for you. But
    if you want to organize across issues - protecting the 2008 election,
    stopping global warming, ending the war, and restoring habeas corpus just
    to name a few - this might be the place to make a real difference. It's the ideal job for the activist at heart who wants full time work with salary and benefits.

    I don't suppose they are willing to hire Republicans, conservatives, moderates...or even men ("..impress Matt Stoller with her online bar-fighting skills..").

    I can just imagine what a smug bunch of phony dweebs that company is full of.  And when did this country suspend habeas corpus? 



  • ...



  • On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[5][6] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[7]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.



  • @Pap said:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#War_on_Terror

    On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[5][6] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[7]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006.

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 



  • Maybe Cpound should apply, i think he's still unemployed



  • @TunnelRat said:

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

    Actually, probably not.  IANAL, but Federal EOE laws prohibit discrimination due to age, sex, religion, disability, national origin, race, color, and probably a couple more I've forgotten to list.  Political affiliation, however, is not among them.  A cursory look through the California Office of Civil Rights doesn't show any evidence that the state bans discrimination based upon political beliefs (federal employees, though, are so prohibited).

    Further, even if California does protect against such discrimination, I suspect a decent attorney could argue that a specific set of political beliefs are central to the company's mission, and therefore qualify as a bona fide occupational qualification (which, for example, is how Hooters is allowed to hire only female wait staff, and ones with certain -- ahem -- assets, so to speak).



  • technically we made a law that didn't do anything.  American's still have habeas corpus.  Alien's never had it... and this just put it into writing.  Now weather that was the right move to make or not I wont comment on, that's for you to decide.

     

     



  • @TunnelRat said:

      And when did this country suspend habeas corpus? 

     See [url]http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm[/url] - The 'Great Emancipator' suspended it twice - in 1861 and 1862.

     

    Yes, I understand your question was 'when did this country suspend habeas corpus recently', but it bears repeating that this sort of thing has been done before.

     Luckily the country was able to keep from tuning into a <font size="-1">totalatarianship </font>last time, I'm hoping it will again.
     



  • <yawn>



  • What your experience is holds
    more importance to us than how much experience you have.

    Isn't that a very weird statement? I mean, how much determines precisely what it is (e.g. 0 years in X implies you don't have experience in X; 1 year of experience in X implies you have it, but less than 2). Probably written by someone who thought it sounded paradoxically interesting, so it must be good.

     

    My advice: ignore the PC crowd as much as you can...



  • @TunnelRat said:

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

    I think maybe you are thinking with your ass again.

    There are many resident aliens here in the USA legally, with full credentials, supporting our country while they work and live here within our borders under full compliance of the law.

    Habeas Corpus literally means "body of evidence", what the suspension here actually means is that the government can say you support hostilities and because you are not a citizens of the USA they don't have to show evidence of it, they do not have to prove it.  If they want to just incarcerate a lot more people because they think their military detention facilities need more residents they can do so without any need for proof. 

    I know this is taking the idea to the extreme, but our government does do this.  To be a free country we need to treat all those that abide by our laws with the same respect and freedom we ourselves enjoy.  That includes the requirement of proof when accusing them of a crime.  If you don't think our government can abuse such "rights" just think back to Roosevelt and the commie scare.



  • @TunnelRat said:

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

     OK, here is one more point to make.  This might have been just a slight mistep on your part.

    If you engage in hostilities or support them and you are detained, then you are detained legally.  If you do as you say and do not support or engage in hostilities and are detained then you are unlawfully detained.

    So in order to not be unlawfully detained you should support or engage in hostilities, because then you are lawfully detained; but you are still detained.

    The thinking here leads to a reduction of security.  If these people are going to be detained anyway, then by god they might as well do something to be detained for.  Our country cares not for them so why should they care for our country.
     



  • @KattMan said:

    @TunnelRat said:

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

     

    Habeas Corpus literally means "body of evidence", what the suspension here actually means is that the government can say you support hostilities and because you are not a citizens of the USA they don't have to show evidence of it, they do not have to prove it.  If they want to just incarcerate a lot more people because they think their military detention facilities need more residents they can do so without any need for proof. 



     

    That's not exactly what it means  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

     

    In a nut shell,  it means to produce the prisoner in court so a judge may determine if the evidence warrants it. 

     

    Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, so that the court can determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

     

    Without Habeas Corpus,   the prisoner is not even required to acknowledged as in custody.



  • ...



  • What's the WTF? They're a politically angled company, they're hiring for a position with activist responsibilities, and they want to make sure that they're hiring somebody who matches their company philosophy. They chose to use the pronoun "her", but I wager that if they'd said "his", nobody would have even noticed that they were allegedly excluding women.



  • @Maciej said:

    They chose to use the pronoun "her", but I wager that if they'd said "his", nobody would have even noticed that they were allegedly excluding women.

     

    That's because she would not have been excluding women; it's just grammatically correct to use "him/his/he". When you walk into a room full of guys, you can say "What's up, guys." When you walk into a room full of guys and girls you can say "What's up, guys."  You don't say "What's up, girls" if a guy is among them.  Just like in spanish how you would refer to your brothers and sisters collectively as "hermanos" (masculine form). Hence, the only proper reason to write the sentence as it was written is if you're specifically excluding men.

     

     



  • Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual.  When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her.  "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate (since "their" has been used as a singular gender-neutral term since before America was a country).

    It sounds like they're quite liberal.  Any male who reads the use of the word "her" and is offended is probably not wanted as an employee anyway (your boss might be a woman!)  Being engaged to a feminist, I've learned that using "her" in place of "their" or "his" is much more inviting to liberal-minded women: while you may be going over the top with your political correctness, that sounds like they are open to feminist ideals.  If that's what they're looking for, then this isn't a WTF at all.
     



  • @TunnelRat said:

    Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.

    The operative phrase is "Many legal and constitutional scholars.."  (not all).  All you have to do not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about -- you will not be unlawfully detained.  Now is the so hard?

    Many historians and researchers believe that we have gone to the moon... (not all). Do you believe in the moon landing, TunnelRat? Or do you believe that it's just as unlikely that we got to the moon, as it is unlikely that anyone will be tempted to if not actually abuse powers given to it?

    @TunnelRat said:

    But the real WTF is the fact that this job is so blatantly discriminatory.  It applies a philosophical litmus test to any candidate that is clearly illegal. 

    That's right. While we're at it, lets demand that abortion clinics advertise for pro-lifers.



  • Any casual Google of "habeas corpus" drops you into the unhinged world of the The Nation, the ACLU, and the rest of the alternative universe where America is a facist state, Jews are Nazis, and the U.S. was behind 9-11.  It's a pet issue for the American left, little more.

    As for your last point, I just find it odd that now "progressives" feel free to pick and choose the ideology of those they work with.  What if someone is sceptical about Global Warming, pro-choice, and against the war, but supports drilling in ANWR?  Is there some kind of checklist progressives inventory to test the pureness of a job candidate?

     



  • @ebs2002 said:

    Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual.  When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her.  "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate.

     

    Sorry, you are wrong.



  • @Pap said:

    @ebs2002 said:

    Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual. When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her. "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate.

    Sorry, you are wrong.


    It's allowed de jure. Doesn't really matter if it's officially grammatically correct. It's still a third person pronoun, the message is conveyed and actually allows for the option of being gender neutral without being offensive by using "it". The English language is unfortunately a giant wtf in its own right. I'm certain a number of other languages have the same problem.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @Pap said:
    @ebs2002 said:

    Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual. When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her. "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate.

    Sorry, you are wrong.


    It's allowed de jure. Doesn't really matter if it's officially grammatically correct. It's still a third person pronoun, the message is conveyed and actually allows for the option of being gender neutral without being offensive by using "it". The English language is unfortunately a giant wtf in its own right. I'm certain a number of other languages have the same problem.



  • The only WTFs here seem to stem from TunnelRat's twisty spaghetti-shaped thinking. Apparently habeas corpus is just "a pet issue for the American left."

    As we all know, "all you have to do is not engage in hostilities or support hostilities against the United States, and you have nothing to be worried about."

    Because, as we all know, the government never makes mistakes and no one is ever falsely accused. Just rest assured that if you are somehow falsely detained, it will all be cleared up in court. OH WAIT, NO IT WON'T.



  • @TunnelPRat said:

    I don't suppose they are willing to hire Republicans, conservatives, moderates...

      I don't suppose they'd hire anyone who doesn't meet the clearly-defined job requirements.  Did you overlook the word "progressive" in there? 

    @TunnelPRat said:

    or even men ("..impress Matt Stoller with her online bar-fighting skills..").

      Hypocrite.  You're operating a double-standard.  If the wording had been "impress Matt Stoller with his
    online bar-fighting skills", and someone had suggested that this
    implied they wouldn't hire women, you would dismiss the complaint as
    some kind of feminist over-sensitivity.

      Your admission
    that you can dish it out but you can't take it is noted,
    though.  Thanks for that rare burst of honesty.

    @TunnelPRat said:

    I can just imagine what a smug bunch of phony dweebs that company is
    full of.

     
    Your admission that your attitudes are based on imagining (read:
    projecting your own beliefs) about what a group of people must be like,
    without any reference to reality, is also noted. 

    @TunnelPRat said:

    And when did this country suspend habeas corpus?

      Your admission that your political opinions are entirely uncontaminated by any actual knowledge of recent political events, awareness of the news, understanding of complex political and philosophical concepts, etc. etc., also gratefully acknowledged.

     

      Still, pool's open, eh?  ;-)

     



  • @TunnelRat said:

    As for your last point, I just find it odd that now "progressives" feel free to pick and choose the ideology of those they work with.  What if someone is sceptical about Global Warming, pro-choice, and against the war, but supports drilling in ANWR?  Is there some kind of checklist progressives inventory to test the pureness of a job candidate?

     

    Is it at all odd that if you are working for cause "X", then you'd want to pick up employees who support cause "X" as well, especially when their job description revolves around it? Would, say, a civil rights group declining to hire Klansmen to work in PR be too much "picking and choosing"?

    Really, I think putting your organization's political leanings right out in the open when searching for employees is great. I certainly wouldn't want to sign up for a job, and on my first day find out that the water cooler talk all comes from the unhinged world of Sean Hennity, where criticism of foreign policy is treason, evolution is a hotly contested issue in the scientific community, and what Barbara Streisand says about anything is of relevance to anyone.



  • @TunnelRat said:

    As for your last point, I just find it odd that now "progressives" feel free to pick and choose the ideology of those they work with.  What if someone is sceptical about Global Warming, pro-choice, and against the war, but supports drilling in ANWR?  Is there some kind of checklist progressives inventory to test the pureness of a job candidate?

    Probably.  This company likely knows what their platform is.  It'd be foolish by both sides for an employee at this company to disagree with principles they are supposed to be supporting.



  • @TGV said:

    What your experience is holds
    more importance to us than how much experience you have.

    Isn't that a very weird statement? I mean, how much determines precisely what it is (e.g. 0 years in X implies you don't have experience in X; 1 year of experience in X implies you have it, but less than 2). Probably written by someone who thought it sounded paradoxically interesting, so it must be good.

    Not a weird statement.  They're saying that one year of experience doing the kind of work that they want is more valuable than ten years of experience in a more traditional job.  A slice of tiramisu is better than a box of Twinkies.  Don't be afraid to apply if the length of your resume is short, but tell us how your limited experience makes you a great candidate. 



  • @Maciej said:

    @TunnelRat said:

    As for your last point, I just find it odd that now "progressives" feel free to pick and choose the ideology of those they work with.  What if someone is sceptical about Global Warming, pro-choice, and against the war, but supports drilling in ANWR?  Is there some kind of checklist progressives inventory to test the pureness of a job candidate?

     

    Is it at all odd that if you are working for cause "X", then you'd want to pick up employees who support cause "X" as well, especially when their job description revolves around it? Would, say, a civil rights group declining to hire Klansmen to work in PR be too much "picking and choosing"?

    Really, I think putting your organization's political leanings right out in the open when searching for employees is great. I certainly wouldn't want to sign up for a job, and on my first day find out that the water cooler talk all comes from the unhinged world of Sean Hennity, where criticism of foreign policy is treason, evolution is a hotly contested issue in the scientific community, and what Barbara Streisand says about anything is of relevance to anyone.

    I would tend to agree; however, it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against someone.  If the best guy to promote your global warming campaign happens to personally disagree vehemently with global warming doesn't mean you can not hire him if he's the best person for the job.  You'd really have to have something that demonstrates he's incapable of doing the job

    Same as the religious-based organizations that operate in the USA.  They do the things they do to try to keep those who don't agree with their perspective from applying.  As far as I know and have seen, it's technically not a legal protection.



  • @TunnelRat said:

    Any casual Google of "habeas corpus" drops you into the unhinged world of the The Nation, the ACLU, and the rest of the alternative universe where America is a facist state, Jews are Nazis, and the U.S. was behind 9-11.  It's a pet issue for the American left, little more.

    As for your last point, I just find it odd that now "progressives" feel free to pick and choose the ideology of those they work with.  What if someone is sceptical about Global Warming, pro-choice, and against the war, but supports drilling in ANWR?  Is there some kind of checklist progressives inventory to test the pureness of a job candidate?

     

    You never answered my question. Most historians believe that we have gone to the moon (not all). Does this mean that we have not gone to the moon? Or does that depend on whether Fox News says we have, this week? (Remember, people who support the moon landing are traitors who would like nothing more than for America to be destroyed by Al Qaeda!)

    And maybe it's just me, but I like to think that the constitution is more than just a "pet issue for the American Left." If this is giving you trouble, imagine that the government stated that citizens may no longer own firearms.



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    I would tend to agree; however, it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against someone.

    Curiously enough, that's not actually true - and this should tell you something about politicians. There are very few places in the world with blanket laws against discrimination in hiring practices. What we actually have is a stack of forbidden words: there's no law against discrimination in general, but there is one against the specific case of discriminating against women, and another against discriminating against black people, and so on and so forth.

    This is utterly retarded. I didn't do it.



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    I would tend to agree; however, it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against someone.  If the best guy to promote your global warming campaign happens to personally disagree vehemently with global warming doesn't mean you can not hire him if he's the best person for the job.  You'd really have to have something that demonstrates he's incapable of doing the job

    Not in California.  The California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination based upon race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, and sexual orientation.  There is no protection for private employees against discrimination based upon political affiliation (Interesting sidenote: It is considered a hate crime to assault someone based upon political affiliation).  Further, had the law prohibited political discrimination, I still maintain that the employer could get around the law anyway by claiming a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).  It just makes it harder.

    Same as the religious-based organizations that operate in the USA.  They do the things they do to try to keep those who don't agree with their perspective from applying.  As far as I know and have seen, it's technically not a legal protection.

    First, religious discrimination is prohibited.  As I've shown above, political affiliation is not.  Second, a religious organization can easily claim a BFOQ for positions that make policy or organizational decisions. Said organization cannot discriminate against religion for, say, a clerk or janitor.  The line is somewhere in the middle, and it'd be up to the courts to find it.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @Pap said:
    @ebs2002 said:

    Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual. When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her. "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate.

     

    Sorry, you are wrong.


    It's allowed de jure. Doesn't really matter if it's officially grammatically correct. It's still a third person pronoun, the message is conveyed and actually allows for the option of being gender neutral without being offensive by using "it". The English language is unfortunately a giant wtf in its own right. I'm certain a number of other languages have the same problem.

     

    It's never allowed to write "their".  You would write "his/her bar-fighting skills" if you want to be politically correct and gramatically correct at the same time.



  • @Pap said:

    @Lingerance said:
    @Pap said:
    @ebs2002 said:

    Sure, except that's when referring to a collection of people, not an individual. When referring to an unknown person, you may use either His or Her. "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate.

     

    Sorry, you are wrong.

    It's allowed de jure. Doesn't really matter if it's officially grammatically correct. It's still a third person pronoun, the message is conveyed and actually allows for the option of being gender neutral without being offensive by using "it". The English language is unfortunately a giant wtf in its own right. I'm certain a number of other languages have the same problem.

     

    It's never allowed to write "their". You would write "his/her bar-fighting skills" if you want to be politically correct and gramatically correct at the same time.

     Bzzt, wrong.  See http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a .  I mean, unless Jane Austen, Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, Maria Edgeworth, Percy Shelley, Lord Byron, William Makepeace Thackeray, Sir Walter Scott, George Eliot [Mary Anne Evans], Charles Dickens, Mrs. Gaskell, Anthony Trollope, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edith Wharton, W. H. Auden, Lord Dunsany, George Orwell, and C. S. Lewis all used improper grammar.
     



  • I could just see my first day there:

    "What, is that the Wall Street Journal?"

    "Uh, excuse me!  We recycle here -- now dig that can out of the trash and throw it in the green bin."

    "Do you want to join us for lunch? We are defacing a Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley..."

    "We don't issue parking stickers.  Can't you take BART?  Wait, is that your SUV parked in Matt Stoller's spot? Oh. My. God..."

    "Your fired."



  • Gee, TunnelRat, maybe you shouldn't apply for this job. 



  • @ebs2002 said:

     Bzzt, wrong.  See http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a .  I mean, unless Jane Austen, Geoffrey Chaucer ... all used improper grammar.
     

     

     How many of those people are still alive?  Language is evolving.  What was incorrect before may not be incorrect now.  What was correct before may not be correct now. And 75 examples of usage doesn't exactly strike me as proof that it was the accepted norm. I can do a search on Google and return in the neighborhood of eleventy billion examples showing my way being used.

     

    If usage is simply the deciding factor of what's right and what's wrong, then you'd just have proof that any construction of a sentence is grammatically correct. Since you cited Geoffrey Chauncer, I shall, too:

    Whan that Aprill with his shoures sote
    The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
    And bathed euery veyne in swich licour,
    Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_english#Sample_text

     

    What part of that constitutes modern english? None. So whatever grammar he used is 100% worthless for our purposes.  You can extend the same logic to all the above authors, who I'm pretty sure are all d-e-a-d DEED.



  • @Pap said:

    @ebs2002 said:

    Bzzt, wrong. See http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a . I mean, unless Jane Austen, Geoffrey Chaucer ... all used improper grammar.

     

    How many of those people are still alive? Language is evolving. What was incorrect before may not be incorrect now. What was correct before may not be correct now. And 75 examples of usage doesn't exactly strike me as proof that it was the accepted norm. I can do a search on Google and return in the neighborhood of eleventy billion examples showing my way being used.

     

    If usage is simply the deciding factor of what's right and what's wrong, then you'd just have proof that any construction of a sentence is grammatically correct. Since you cited Geoffrey Chauncer, I shall, too:

    Whan that Aprill with his shoures sote
    The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
    And bathed euery veyne in swich licour,
    Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_english#Sample_text

     

    What part of that constitutes modern english? None. So whatever grammar he used is 100% worthless for our purposes. You can extend the same logic to all the above authors, who I'm pretty sure are all d-e-a-d DEED.

    So, does that mean you always say 'his/her' in conversation?

    I highly doubt it.

    The use of "His/Her" is hardly part of the 'language evolving', it is just pure bullshit forced on us by the PC thugs.

     



  • No, I say "his", unless I'm specifically referring to a girl.



  • @Rootbeer said:

    Gee, TunnelRat, maybe you shouldn't apply for this job. 

     Think of the blog material though, i think it would be worth it, it'd be like the odd couple
     



  • @Pap said:

    No, I say "his", unless I'm specifically referring to a girl.

    What if you don't know their gender? That is the point.

    Oops, maybe I should have asked 'what if you don't know his/her gender'.   crap. utter crap.


     

     



  • [b]Grammar[/b] - You can use "their" to refer to a single, anonymous person and everyone will understand what you mean.  An English teacher might punch you in the face, however.

    [b]The Job Ad[/b] - Pretty strange, I'm not even sure what this job does.  Can you "reach progressive audiences" from 9-5 in an office?  Is there really a market for a charity cell phone?

    [b]Job Discrimination[/b] - I've always wondered how this works.  How can 95% of the staff at an Asian restaurant be Asian?  How can 95% of bartenders be young women?  How can Disney import people from specific countries to run Epcot Center?



  • @Cap'n Steve said:



    [b]Job Discrimination[/b] - I've always wondered how this works. How can 95% of the staff at an Asian restaurant be Asian? How can 95% of bartenders be young women? How can Disney import people from specific countries to run Epcot Center?

    Selective enforcement. Usually politically motivated. 



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    Job Discrimination - I've always wondered how this works. How can 95% of the staff at an Asian restaurant be Asian? How can 95% of bartenders be young women? How can Disney import people from specific countries to run Epcot Center?

    Disclaimer: The answers I provide below are for the US and based primarily on federal EEOC regulations.  The process will vary some state-to-state.  Also, age and equal pay discrimination have further stipulations.  Don't use these as anything more than a general outline.  IANAL.  Consult your local EEOC office.

    First, understand that a company can essentially discriminate all it wants, so long as nobody complains.  Depending on your jurisdiction, there's little, if any, active enforcement.  Instead, a complaint of discrimination must be filed with the local Equal Employment Opportunities Commision office or the state's equivalent.  Given the results of the EEOC's investigation (see below, should you care), you may or may not be able to sue.

    Let's get Epcot out of the way because it qualifies as a BFOQ, as I explained above.  One of the themes to Epcot is international culture.  The goal, then, is to show people from all over the world.  In particular, they have those pavilions for different countries, and as part of showing off the culture they bring in employees from those companies.

    In the case of the Chinese food restaurant and many other small businesses, there's often a simpler explanation: they don't advertise for job openings.  They're typically filled by friends, family, past coworkers, acquaintances, friends-of-a-friend, etc.  Further, if they do advertise, pay attention to the candidates that respond to the ad.  The reason all the construction crews here in DC are filled with Hispanics is simply that more Hispanics apply.  It's hard to discriminate against someone who doesn't apply for the position.

    Also, it's not uncommon for a company to be "kind of" looking.  My boss, for example, has mentioned to me in the past that they were considering adding another employee, and that if I knew someone, to let him know.  They aren't looking to hire unless a good candidate presents itself, and they're not expending any real effort in the search to get one.

    Sometimes it's just simply the case that discrimination is taking place, and nobody is complaining.  There's nothing in the requirements for bartender that require a young woman, and it's discrimination to consistently hire young women over other equally qualified candidates.  Hooters gets around this by claiming that they are "in the business of providing vicarious sexual recreation and female sexuality is a bonafide occupational qualification."  Of course, they've still been sued a number of times, but I can't find any that weren't settled out of court.

    The biggest problem in bringing a discrimination claim against a company is that the burden of proof is on you as the claimed victim.  Unless the discrimination is blatant, this can be extremely hard to prove, especially in terms of hiring.

    BORING STUFF

    Discrimination claims work roughly as follows:  You have to file with the state for cases of discrimination
    against state law, or the feds for federal violations.  If it violates
    both laws, you can pick which agency to file with.  The state and
    federal agency will cross-file the information where applicable. In
    general, file with the state unless you're a federal employee.

    Now
    that you have filed in a timely manner, should the EEOC (or state) feel
    the charge is clearly discrimination, the agency will investigate.  If
    not, they might investigate.  Should they investigate, they can attempt
    to negotiate a settlement or send the case to mediation, provided both
    parties are willing.  Should mediation or a settlement be accepted,
    then the terms of those agreements are the end of it.  So long as the
    terms are upheld by both parties, it's all said and done.  In other
    words, you can't sue.  If an investigation reveals to the agency that
    no discrimination has occurred, they will notify you and you have a
    small window (typically 90 days) to file a civil suit.  If an
    investigation reveals that there was discrimination, then the EEOC will
    attempt to resolve the situation on your behalf (back pay,
    reinstatement, payment, etc.).  If the employer refuses, then the EEOC
    can take them to court.  If they decide not to, then you can take them
    to court yourself.



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    I would tend to agree; however, it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against someone.  If the best guy to promote your global warming campaign happens to personally disagree vehemently with global warming doesn't mean you can not hire him if he's the best person for the job.  You'd really have to have something that demonstrates he's incapable of doing the job

     

    As has been pointed out, it's not illegal to discriminate against someone -- it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of a few, select "protected classes". Surely, you'd want to be able to discriminate against applicants on the basis of incompetence, or gross personality problems, etc.  



  • @bstorer said:

    @ShadowWolf said:

    I would tend to agree; however, it doesn't change the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against someone.  If the best guy to promote your global warming campaign happens to personally disagree vehemently with global warming doesn't mean you can not hire him if he's the best person for the job.  You'd really have to have something that demonstrates he's incapable of doing the job

    Not in California.  The California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination based upon race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, and sexual orientation.  There is no protection for private employees against discrimination based upon political affiliation (Interesting sidenote: It is considered a hate crime to assault someone based upon political affiliation).  Further, had the law prohibited political discrimination, I still maintain that the employer could get around the law anyway by claiming a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).  It just makes it harder.

    Same as the religious-based organizations that operate in the USA.  They do the things they do to try to keep those who don't agree with their perspective from applying.  As far as I know and have seen, it's technically not a legal protection.

    First, religious discrimination is prohibited.  As I've shown above, political affiliation is not.  Second, a religious organization can easily claim a BFOQ for positions that make policy or organizational decisions. Said organization cannot discriminate against religion for, say, a clerk or janitor.  The line is somewhere in the middle, and it'd be up to the courts to find it.

    Discrimination laws outside the basic religion, sex, age, disability type things is, apparently, a per-state thing.  I have to admit that I didn't know that :)  Further research shows some states provide political discrimination protection whereas a good number of others do not.



  • @ebs2002 said:

    "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate (since "their" has been used as a singular gender-neutral term since before America was a country).

    This is just flat wrong.  The formal language is not determined by the usage of the undereducated and ignorant. 



  • @tster said:

    @ebs2002 said:

    "The ideal candidate would impress me with their bar-fighting skills" is also appropriate (since "their" has been used as a singular gender-neutral term since before America was a country).

    This is just flat wrong.  The formal language is not determined by the usage of the undereducated and ignorant. 

    There's an interesting Wikipedia article & debate on the subject:



  • The undereducated and ignorant...like your high school English teacher, perhaps?  I usually revert the "if it occurs in enough published works, it's acceptable usage" rule.  And since I listed a number of classic authors earlier in this thread (including authors who lived in the 20th century), all of whom have used what you consider "flat wrong", only used by "the undereducated and ignorant", I think I have to call you a undereducated and ignorant yourself.



  • @ebs2002 said:

    The undereducated and ignorant...like your high school English teacher, perhaps?  I usually revert the "if it occurs in enough published works, it's acceptable usage" rule.  And since I listed a number of classic authors earlier in this thread (including authors who lived in the 20th century), all of whom have used what you consider "flat wrong", only used by "the undereducated and ignorant", I think I have to call you a undereducated and ignorant yourself.

    This post is hilarious. 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.