Quote from: jimmy olsen on Today at 09:16:06 AMChicago Blackhawks locker room in shambles
https://twitter.com/theicebb/status/1729298211498602635
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 11:05:33 AMIf the HR group is good at what it does, employees will naturally view HR as being helpful to them. And might even view HR as working in their interests.
Quote from: Jacob on Today at 10:57:46 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2023, 09:38:58 PMQuoteI HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying. And this goes both ways.I have to be honest I tend to ignore any article that has "rooted in" in the title - at best you'll get some interesting analysis of discourse. And I feel like we're already overburdened with commentary on the discourse
Edit: I actually think it's possibly a dangerous sign - you look at Russia as an extreme example where everything is about de-code and explaining discourse for the real meaning underneath. It's not healthy, especially in a democracy.
1) Your quote makes it seem like you're attributing BB's words to me.
2) When people are taking to the streets in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" (we had one protest n town just this weekend - using the same approach as the convoy sympathy protests we had during that time), when they're protesting at schools and doxxing teachers because they hate "radical gender ideology", when legislation is being passed to ensure trans kids don't get support - again in the name of fighting "radical gender ideology" - you think it's "not healthy in a democracy" to link those things to a politician who makes "fighting radical gender ideology" a speaking point?
Is this because the article used the term "rooted in"? Or is it because you're persuaded by BB's argument that Pierre Poillievre doesn't actually mean anything specific when he says he think we should "fight radical gender ideology" even though actual specific policy changes are being argued for by people using those exact terms.
This is not a question about whether someone is using the right terminology due to whatever implications, this is a matter of concerted attempts to make life more difficult for LGTBQ+ folks (with a specific focus on those who are trans) via specific policy initiatives in the provincial and municipal levels (or equivalent jursidictions elsewhere in the world).
Quote from: Jacob on Today at 10:40:39 AMQuote from: Barrister on November 27, 2023, 04:15:20 PMI HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying. And this goes both ways.
In this case what he's being judged on what he actually is saying:
- That the exploding car was a terrorist attack, which it wasn't.
- That it's the journalists who are making him look bad, when it wasn't.
- That "radical gender ideology is being imposed on children" when it isn't.
Quote from: garbon on Today at 02:35:04 AMQuote from: HVC on November 27, 2023, 08:53:09 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on November 27, 2023, 08:17:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 27, 2023, 10:51:44 AMAnd yes. HR are fucking awful. Getting past the HR gatekeeper is always a challenge.
It always fascinates me (maybe because I've never dealt with them, being a government slave) that HR is talked about almost as if they are an entity independent of the company they work for.
If a company has fucking awful HR...isn't that company responsible and thus also fucking awful?
People hate HR because they work fir the company, not the employee.
In the context of hiring they're bad because they don't really know what's a good resume vs a bad one. They don't really know what roles entail.
I don't think anyone in the company works for the employee...bar maybe the employee.
Though I do think naive, junior employees often think HR is there to help them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2023, 09:38:58 PMQuoteI HATE HATE HATE this trend in politics - of ignoring what someone actually says, and instead attacking what people "on that side" are saying. And this goes both ways.I have to be honest I tend to ignore any article that has "rooted in" in the title - at best you'll get some interesting analysis of discourse. And I feel like we're already overburdened with commentary on the discourse
Edit: I actually think it's possibly a dangerous sign - you look at Russia as an extreme example where everything is about de-code and explaining discourse for the real meaning underneath. It's not healthy, especially in a democracy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on Today at 10:04:10 AMCarney, and others would be leaders, should make sure they are candidates for the next partial election
There are different errors of Ignatieff but I think being in parliament for only 2 years prior to becoming leader was a big one for public perception of him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 12:49:17 AMYeah and you could slightly adjust it. I get GF's point - but, to Jake's point, not sure asset management is a great immediate background for someone planning a political run.
Page created in 0.019 seconds with 14 queries.