It’ll be great, after all these years, to finally get to the bottom of the whole Benghazi treason.
That was then, this is now. Now, its all about giving the Russians all our uranium! True, they couldn’t take it anywhere, but that’s the point! They didn’t have to take the uranium and shove it into ICBMs and shoot it at us, because the uranium was already here!
Connect the dot, people!
My bold.
It has not been determined that the sender of the email is a recruiter. She may be a hiring manager for some of the roles in the email, but she seems to be some low level manager at best, and maybe a “manager” in the sense of “project manager”, i.e., a nobody.
Can I support a party where one low level idiot does something stupid and she is immediately disciplined for yet? Yes, yes I can.
Can I support a party that elects a fucking white supremacist to the presidency and enables his crackpot agenda? Not as much, honestly.
I think it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of us find her comments distasteful, and are on board with terminating her. So your little “gatcha-ya” thread has only served to make you look silly.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: While the Democrats/liberals certainly have their self-righteous sanctimonious pain-in-the-ass supporters who are very vocal about how others should live their lives, the majority of us are really focused on ensuring there is fairness and equity in the society that we all live in.
Conversely, Republicans have, over the last 30+ years, been actively working to tilt every aspect of our society in the favor of the rich and powerful, and they have made progress in this effort by courting bigots, religious nuts who seek to dictate their twisted morality on others, the ignorant (willfully or otherwise), misogynists, and others. And they have continually made it clear that their hate/bigotry/et al isn’t wrong, but that liberals are demonizing them for merely having a different opinion.
Now, the question that wolfpup posed to you originally wasn’t “why do you support Trump / Republicans?”. He was asking how you can reconcile that fact that the Republicans have made it part of their fundamental platform to appeal to, fuel, and empower the worst of our society, with the non-story that you started this thread with?
There are two Data Services Manager roles currently posted on democrats.org:
Jr. Data Services Manager
Regional Data Services Manager
These roles are responsible for things like making sure the data in the database is clean, producing reports, and training users. They are not leadership roles. They are not hiring managers.
According to their LinkedIn profile, the DNC has between 200 and 500 employees. One of them did something really dumb. Big. Fucking. Deal.
And in case anyone is unclear, “making sure the data is clean” isn’t a euphemism for anything nefarious. It means preventing problems like Little Bobby Tables.
Hey, man, it’s his quote–talk to Jesus.
More seriously, there’s something to what you’re saying. When someone is making a legitimate argument, responding to it with a contorted, “Well, this situation is a bit like this other situation from five years ago that I’ve never seen you complaining about, so your entire point is flawed” is a dumb response. Even dumber is the, “Well, if the situation were reversed, you would presumably make a different argument, so based on what I imagine you saying in other circumstances, I refute your argument.”
But that’s not what’s going on here. Here, based on a stupid postscript in an email sent by a low-level staffer with virtually no authority–a postscript rejected by party leaders in less than 24 hours–we’re supposed to renounce the DNC. We’re told this by someone who hasn’t renounced the RNC despite nearly a year of constant bigoted tweeting by its leader, bigotry that gets repeatedly ignored or endorsed by the majority of party officials.
The argument isn’t legitimate. It doesn’t admit to much more than mockery. So I’m fine bringing up Jesus in this instance.
I agree that I’m clearly not an outlier, and it warms my heart to see that, but I disagree with “unanimous consensus” and “nobody here on the left is defending this woman”.
As I understand what you’re saying - and feel free to clarify if otherwise - what you’re saying effectively boils down to saying that yes, you still maintain that the hypocrisy argument is entirely an ad hominem argument, however in some cases the argument being countered thereby is so stupid that all it’s worth is ad hominem mockery.
The problem is that this relies on what will inevitably be a highly subjective assessment of the merits of the opposing argument. So that all your previously expressed opposition to hypocrisy arguments is completely dependent on your own assessment of your arguments (or those of others on your side) as being serious arguments unworthy of such mockery while many arguments from the other side will of course be at that level. Not much in that.
There’s not much point in advocating for any approach and “rules” for debate if their application is going to be dependent on this type of self-serving and subjective judgment. But at any rate, it’s good to be more clear that that’s what the approach you advocate for is dependent on, when you advocate for it.
Fair. I’m glad we warmed your heart today. Pay it forward.
Wrong, but that’s cool 
That explains it! I thought it was my dusty furnace.
Oh.
I am discussing the OP. I’m saying that it’s so obviously a pathetic attempt to (a) smear an entire organization based on the actions of one low level employee and (b) distract attention from your own party’s massive, catastrophic failings that it’s fucking humorous that you would even try to bring this up and expect anybody to take it seriously. Nice try junior modding, though.
“low-level employees in the Cincinnati office”
Seems to me we’ve heard that excuse before. :rolleyes:
I guess I’m the outlier. I’m not bothered by this at all.
You mean like Papadopalous?
#snowflakes
I take the email to be saying something equivalent to: “if you’re going to make a special effort to disseminate this more broadly, please don’t forward to the dudes we already seem to be reaching just fine.”
I’m not offended by that. Personal contacts are a big part of the reason that job openings are filled on some basis other than personal merit. It makes sense to be especially sensitive to the ways in which these kind of informal connections tend to recreate existing social power structures. There’s nothing wrong with trying to undermine the disproportionate and undeserved social power enjoyed by cis- white men in US society.
I would be mildly offended if the plan was to keep the jobs secret from cis- white males, or worse, to refuse to hire them outright. Those efforts would strike me as going too far. But I don’t think that’s what is happening here.
Of course, I understand why saying something like this in an email is impolitic. Most Americans share John Roberts notion of racism (“the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”). But that’s the result of a mix of ignorance and self-interest. It is a manifestly wrong conception of racism and how best to end it. The DNC needs to win votes in the political sphere, so they should meet people where they are, even when those people are wrong. But that doesn’t mean this kind of thing is morally bad. Just politically unwise.
Does anyone know the current gender/racial balance of the technology team? If it consists of 100 people of which 98 are cis white males, then it might make sense to encourage diversity.
The way she worded it was of course ham handed. I better way would be to say that, “I would particularly encourage you to forward this to those outside the CIS white male demographic which is already over represented on the team.”
IMHO: Clumsy wording shouldn’t be a one-strike-you’re-out firing offense.
Ah, the old “both sides do it” ploy.