^^^^^^another piece of “journalism” that repeats the same thing several times through the piece.

It what happens when these pathetic delusional groups have power, they prey on the weak.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
And just like that: The MS Society joins the Salvation Army in a list of orgs that will never (again) see a donation from us.

This is the way.

I don’t have words to adequately express my disappointment with this organization. FFS!

Compliance over common sense.

The manager simply could have ignored the rule and let the senior continue to work.

All this negativity would have been avoided.

Hang on to your hats fellows . This shit is only going to get worse . Every time the bar gets lowered it becomes the new standard .

so how do we hurt the organization so that they learn a lesson?

^^^^
Post the article to your social media account...TWITTER is a good start. Also, simply don't donate UNLESS the woke-ass MF'ers that fired this sweet woman are told to hit the bricks and Ms. Itkoff is reinstated. I know it sucks for the research that's being done and those that suffer from MS, but the message needs to be sent; the line in the sand has to be drawn SOMEWHERE.

I personally don't support MS, as St. Jude and Ronald McDonald House are my passions.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
The manager simply could have ignored the rule

Seems like a little compassion and they'd explain the rule to her and maybe offer a little help to her.

After 60 years of volunteering and being 90 years old she deserves to be treated better.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Article was horrible to try to read and about 500 words too long.

But, I guess that passes for reporting these days. Didn’t need to repeat multiple times in different ways that she was 90, and had been there 60 years. I guess these guys get paid by the word?

At least some of the redundant text is because the cut and past includes the text under the pictures in the article that are not pasted over.

From the horse's mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFG4YGK-0I

These DEI people have lost their fucking minds. Even if I agreed w/ the letter, which I don't, this 90 yo lady was in no way breaking the spirit of the letter.

She's probably done more than these pissant DEI cretins will ever do in their lifetimes. Fucking insane.

This is why we have the 2A. So that someday, when the need arises, we will be able to defend and protect against the insane in charge. Unfuckingbeleivable.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
B) I presume charities to be grossly corrupt/incompetent, until proven otherwise, and capable of degenerating at a moment’s notice.

I am also of this belief. I have a family member with MS and am fortunate, they are able to live a normal life.

On a side note/example,my organization used to collect for MD, the Jerry Lewis organization/"charity" and in one year they said our donations,(over $40K from my area alone), raised enough money to buy- x2 wheelchairs or therapy for a few people or send a few people to a MS camp for the week,(most of which other organizations donate the food, workers, supplies for the camp and the land used is either bought for/from the MD organization or given to them to use free of charge). I looked up how much out of every dollar given goes to actually treating MD and it is/was only 11 cents. Most of the money given to the "MD charity" goes to payroll/advertising,etc.. It's also funny that every other year we had a new person/liaison from the MD organization and we were told why that is,and I quote,"they weren't making their quota". You can't make this stuff up any more and this was over 12 years ago.

Similar to why I quit giving to CFC decades ago. They take 10% before sending money to the organizations, who take their cut, leaving pennies for the REAL work.

The CFC coordinators would come by asking if I was going to donate to CFC. I would tell them why would I waste 10% of my money when I could donate to any one of the charities directly? All I ever got back was a dumbfounded look.

Although some would call me on CFC's 10%. I'd tell them look in the CFC booklet you are holding in your own hand - it's in there.

quote:

I presume charities to be grossly corrupt/incompetent, until proven otherwise

Ain't this the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I don't understand the "use her pronouns in email signatures" thing.

"Oh, your pronouns are zir/zer?" "Congratulations."

"Hey, did you hear that fuckhead wants me to use pronouns? I prefer to use "shithead instead."

It’s some kind of new trendy thing to put at the end of a letter or email:

Thank you for your consideration,


signature

name
address
phone number
preferred pronouns

I’m guessing she didn’t play that game and list her preferred pronouns. Good on her! Ain’t nobody got time for that crap, especially in his/her 90s.

I understand where the pronouns are placed. But, think about it: the pronouns are third person pronouns. You're saying if someone is talking to somebody else about you, in which case, they would be using the third person pronouns, you want to specify what pronouns they use.

Well, fuck that shit. If I'm going to talking about you with somebody else, I'm going to use fuckhead when I'm referring to you (not you, you, I'm talking about zer/sim fuckhead).

It would make more sense to specify second pronoun persons thereby dictating what pronouns a person should use when talking to you. I would specify "Your Royal Hiney" that others should use when talking to me and by default, I will refer to people I'm talking to as dum/durr.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
But, think about it: the pronouns are third person pronouns.

This is one of those things that occurred to me after thinking about the matter for a little bit, and yet seems to be impossible to fathom for the people who support that nonsense.

As you say, the personal pronouns that have become such a vital issue these days are the ones that are used when we interact with someone other than the person to whom they refer. If I’m interacting directly with someone, the pronouns I use are “you” or some variation such as “your,” etc.
“He,” “she,” “him,” “her,” are only used when communicating with third persons. I’m not in your face refusing to address you as you prefer.

If I want someone to refer to me as Chuck rather than Clarence, I can make that a condition of our association. If you refuse, I have the option of not talking to you, not eating at your restaurant, or not buying a car from you. I don’t have any right, however, to demand in any way that you refer to me as Chuck when you are interacting with someone else.

As is obvious about so many of these movements today, it’s all about trying to control the actions of other people. That’s a drive that’s hardwired into humans by evolution to help us thrive as communal animals because when we influence or control others that often benefits us, and it manifests itself in countless ways. Ironically, though (or perhaps not), these days the ones who are most insistent and strident about controlling others over meaningless issues are also the most likely to object to any attempt to control them even to the degree of just fitting in with the rest of society.

Many of the rest of us, though, don’t seem to realize that being controlled by others is something that we should resist when it isn’t to our benefit. Yes, there have always been more people who are followers and are willing to be controlled than who are effective controllers. In the past, though, being a follower was usually for more personally beneficial reasons such as keeping the barbarians outside the gates. Now it seems more and more to be just for the sake of submitting to the drive to follow something, no matter how meaningless or even harmful it may be.
“Is that you, Jim Jones?”

Back when I was employed as a fed, if I saw this silly pronoun shit in emails, I refused to engage them. If I was required to communicate with them, there was no opening, no signature, no nothing. My communications were as simple as a text message. Anyone trying to get me to play along with this silly shit in retirement gets a “I am a normal human being, I don’t care about your pronouns”.

They are getting hit hard on their official YouTube site.

Don't pay any attention to the YT content but just read the comments.

It is on their last video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82O-SDpv89M&t=68s

The MS Society is free to run their organization anyway they wish, and I am free to decide who does and who does not get one thin dime in donations.
Rod

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
Compliance over common sense.

The manager simply could have ignored the rule and let the senior continue to work.

All this negativity would have been avoided.

Oh heck, the woman sounded confused to me. She wasn’t saying, “You guys are freaking nuts with this stupid pronouns shit!” (as I likely would given the way my filters are weakening), she said “I don’t understand.”

If this retarded shit is important to you and a valued team member doesn’t understand it, then you educate them on it. If once they understand it they say, “You guys are nuts with this stupid pronouns shit!”, then they are too rational to work in your organization.

If you fire a long time valued team member for ignorance of something you’ve never explained to them, then you are a pathetic excuse for a leader and probably a pathetic excuse for a human being.