The picture, snapped by a White House photographer traveling with the president as he left his golf course in Sterling, Va., went viral almost immediately. [...]
The woman's name is Juli Briskman. Her employer, government contractor Akima LLC, wasn't so happy about the photo. They fired her over it. [...] By Tuesday, her bosses called her into a meeting and said she had violated the company's social media policy by using the photo as her profile picture on Twitter and Facebook.
"They said, 'We're separating from you,'" said Briskman. "Basically, you cannot have 'lewd' or 'obscene' things in your social media. So they were calling flipping him off 'obscene.'"
Briskman, who worked in marketing and communications at Akima for just over six months, said she emphasized to the executives that she wasn't on the job when the incident happened and that her social media pages don't mention her employer. They told her that because Akima was a government contractor, the photo could hurt their business, she said. [...]
Let's hope so!
Despite getting fired, she said she has no regrets about the attention her public show of displeasure with Trump received. In fact, she said she's happy to be an image of protest that resonates with many Americans.
"In some ways, I'm doing better than ever," she said. "I'm angry about where our country is right now. I am appalled. This was an opportunity for me to say something."
Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.
The headline on their web presence is 'Enabling superior mission outcomes': that should be on the list of 'things which cause you to close the tab and erase whatever browser history it was that resulted in you looking at that web page, lest you ever see it again'. Does it mean anything at all?
To be boring serious, look at this page instead: http://www.akima.com/about/
Let me quote one of their job listings for you (see https://www.ziprecruiter.com/jobs/akima-llc-4f7fe6be/intelligence-analyst-entry-level-29901339):
These are high level slavers and nothing more. They have punished someone who got too uppity. There are lots of firms like this. The vague public facing web pages are a tell.
I've worked for banks: I worked for the bank that nearly caused the zombie apocalypse in 2008, in 2008. I might work for them again. I am the mercenary who doesn't ask too hard about where the money comes from so long as it keeps coming. But if I worked for an organisation like this I would kill myself. Banks have a socially-useful purpose even if they sometimes forget it: these people are just parasitic worms slowly digesting us all from inside.
Funny how you are compulsive about making that assertion, unprompted.
I guess written humour is hard: I was trying to say 'look, banks are well-known to be leeches, and I'm a parasite who lives off these leeches, but compared to these people ...' (Of course, they do gave a socially useful purpose -- although I am sure you keep all your money under your bed, if you are so bourgeois as to have money at all -- but that wasn't the point).
Touched a nerve, huh?
I get the feeling of being creeped out by some entity on the internet quoting and psychoanalyzing some idea with half-finished and quarrelsome replies.
I'm interested in tfb's assertion that working for Akima is justification for suicide but that banks serve a useful social function. It startled me that tfb spontaneously brought up and defended banks that way, even jokingly.
Banks such as tfb works for presumably depend on the US dollar being the world currency. That depends on the military dominance of the US. That in turn depends on organizations and activities like Akima. Completing the circle, the ability of the US to deficit spend forever in order to maintain its social and military hegemony depends on its supporting the existence of these banks (in addition to, or as part of, the social and military dominance).
Which part of this is "socially useful"? and who exactly is meant by "society" here?
Because of the cycle described above, and for other reasons, I can't imagine banks existing absent such social ills as Akima. Others take as some kind of vaguely explained article of faith that an ideal and peaceable capitalist mode of production lies just over the horizon.
I can't work out whether replying will make you think you have or whether not replying will. Anyway: no. There are things I feel strongly about but this isn't one of them. I was just idly wasting time baiting you: sorry.
She blows up brown people for a living. Mr. Lord is dissembling.
I'm sorry but can you explain the contradiction? Slavers commit war crimes using slaves -- where is the contradiction?
Hold onto your guillotines, folks.
Wait. It gets even more obscene.
Because Briskman was in charge of the firm’s social-media presence during her six-month tenure there, she recently flagged something that did link her company to some pretty ugly stuff.
As she was monitoring Facebook this summer, she found a public comment by a senior director at the company in an otherwise civil discussion by one of his employees about the Black Lives Matter movement.
“You’re a f------ Libtard a------,” the director injected, using his profile that clearly and repeatedly identifies himself as an employee of the firm.
In fact, the person he aimed that comment at was so offended by the intrusion into the conversation and the coarse nature of it that he challenged the director on representing Akima that way.
So Briskman flagged the exchange to senior management.
Did the man, a middle-aged executive who had been with the company for seven years, get the old “Section 4.3” boot?
Nope. He cleaned up the comment, spit-shined his public profile and kept on trucking at work.
But the single mother of two teens who made an impulsive gesture while on her bike on her day off?
The problem is that so many of the people screaming and crying about this outcome are A-OK with indiscriminate firing for people whose opinions they don't like.
Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
I would have thought that it would be much more likely that the kind of person who would want to flip off President Fuckface von Clownstick would be a left-leaning type, and therefore have a relatively high likelihood of supporting unions and strong employee/labor protection laws, as opposed to the at-will, indiscriminate-termination climate preferred by the right.
Of course they're in favor of this. Until the employee shows any sign of Nazi ideology*.
* Usually not actual Nazism
Boy, aren't those strawmen just THE WORST? Am I right??
Not a strawman:
Leftists are perfectly happy to get people fired if they express views contrary to their own.
Well, apparently you're the kind of "good people on both sides" equivocating idiot who doesn't understand that what that charming poster-bro did (beyond simply proving himself to be garbage wrapped in skin) was also massively fucking illegal by creating a textbook hostile work environment.
Yeah, certain "opinions" can legitimately get your ass fired if you're stupid enough to say them out loud. That's so weird and unfair, right? "We shouldn't hire women" is one of those opinions. "The President is garbage" is not. There's this goofball little thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Women happen to be a protected class. Presidents are not.
I guess this might be hard distinction for some people to grasp.
Whoops, hit the wrong reply button. I guess that could be easy flame material idk? Go to it.
Also: "anyone can learn to code".
That right there gives Zunger's untenable blank slate thinking away. Programming requires at least moderately high intelligence:
...and only so much can be done environmentally to raise intelligence. It is well-known that the majority of the observed variance in intelligence in adulthood is due to heredity. There are some caveats around interpreting heritability estimates but none of them actually save blank slate thinking and justify these kinds of opinion pieces that are short on actual cognitive science but very long on self-righteousness. This is something these "lrn2kode XDXD" initiatives responding to a new economy are eventually going to run up against.
Oh and one other thing I forgot to say earlier: if thinking empirically is contrary to a human right then I'm in favor of abolishing that right.
Now that you put it that way, I realize you're right. What makes it worse is that his only sources came from
discredited Nazi websites like The Daily Stormerplaces like PubMed Central. Blandly bringing up facts and evidence should not be a part of anyone's work environment.
(See, this is why I think Skynet was the good guy in the Terminator movies.)