Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,803 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Anony Mous, read slowly so you understand... Coca-Cola didn’t remove, and didn’t need to remove, the course in question. The course was removed by the third-party provider, LinkedIn Learning, from their course offerings.

  All the claims about vague orders from managers are anecdotal. It is of course possible that some individuals endorsed the training but there is no evidence the course was mandatory. All the course offerings from LinkedIn Learning are available to its subscribers, including employees of Coca-Cola. This includes the course in question, until it was removed by LinkedIn Learning.

  I suppose you could argue that Coca-Cola subscribing to LinkedIn Learning implies an endorsement of all of LinkedIn Learning’s 16,700 course offerings (though it is doubtful that management reviewed all of them), but aside from that, there is no evidence of specific corporate endorsement of the course in question.
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Corney:
  

  There are countless instances of the insane Woke religion being promoted and imposed by government agencies and public schools, not just by corporate bureaucracy.

  Yes, I'm quite aware that this kind of nonsense is widespread (a woeful and poorly received Gillette campaign also springs to mind), and also well aware that some people imagine that misrepresenting or ignoring the facts of a matter is fine so long as it supports the narrative.
  
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  The typical misrepresentations of the source and also of what I’ve said. (Just one example, the course in question was later removed by LinkedIn Learning from their course offerings, not ‘removed from mandatory training by CocaCola’; it was the course that was removed rather than just one slide from it.) No wonder I don’t participate much on this forum anymore.
  
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  No one has presented any evidence that the training was mandatory. The best they can do is a screenshot showing the training exists. If it were mandatory there would typically be an email to staff listing mandatory training. So where is the evidence?
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  minimus:

  Jef, keep your blinders on.

  Haha, yes I kind of expected some kind of trite personal attack. Though it's not really clear what you imagine I'm 'blind' to. I indicated, correctly, that there is no evidence the training in question was mandatory for Coca-Cola employees. But you're acting as though I either endorse the racist training or deny it exists at all. You're so clouded by your own biases that you feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees with the smallest element of what you say, whereas you automatically accept the weakest of claims as 'evidence' if it supports your existing views.

  Anony Mous:

  the NY Post is one of the oldest newspapers founded by Alexander Hamilton

  So? It was bought by Murdoch in the 1970s and transformed into a tabloid analogous to the UK's Sun newspaper. If you're pointing out that it's sad that a once great institution has decayed into an unreliable source of sensationalist nonsense, yes I agree.
  
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  The New York Post, a conservative tabloid, isn't especially 'journalistic'. Someone - not just anyone but someone with a well-known agenda - went off about a stupid training course that wasn't mandatory. If there was evidence of some document saying 'staff have to do this specific training', you might have a point. But Borysenko's 'evidence' that the course was mandatory consists of a screenshot of a video that could be accessed on a training site. There's nothing of import whatsoever in this little storm in a teacup. It's just fodder for the usual conservative right-wing zealots versus 'progressive' left-wing nutters.
  
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Anony Mous, it appears you didn’t actually read the article. CocaCola provides training from a third-party training provider, and all of that provider’s online training courses are available but only some are mandatory. The course in question, which is indeed racist, is not listed among their mandatory training, it’s just available from the provider. If they actually endorsed the training course in question, they would have no reason to deny it.
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Their article seems entirely even-handed on the matter so maybe just personal bias against snopes?
• 
  113

  Try To Be Less White

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.

  .

  this is ridiculous!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca-cola-training-less-white/
  
• 
  25

  Jehovah Witness cult is Anti-christ.... proof seen in the use of BCE/CE instead of AD/BC

  by goingthruthemotions in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so being around this cult, i always found it interesting that the rest of christianity use ad/bc and the non christians use bce/ce.

  i never put two and two together.

  but, it dawned on me that once again there is hidden proof that the witness cult is and anti-christ cult.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Awake!, March 2009, page 30:

  From Our Readers
  

  Ancient Manuscripts—How Are They Dated? (February 2008) This article upset me. It is my understanding that C.E. stands for “Common Era” and B.C.E. stands for “Before the Common Era.” In all of my 70 years, I have seen the terms B.C. and A.D. used as a time reference, referring to before and after the birth of Jesus. It seems to me that using B.C.E. or C.E. somehow denies the birth of Jesus.
  R. W., United States

  “Awake!” responds: Although A.D. (Anno Domini, meaning “in the year of our Lord”) and B.C. (before Christ) are used in lands where professed Christianity predominates, we have chosen to use the terms C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era). Why? First, there is considerable evidence pointing to the year 2 B.C.E. as the date of Jesus’ birth. Second, the literature printed by Jehovah’s Witnesses is widely distributed in languages read by many non-Christians. Third, the title “Christ” means “Anointed One.” Jesus became the Messiah, or Christ, when he was anointed with God’s spirit at the time he was baptized in 29 C.E. (Matthew 3:13-17) Thus, Jesus was not born Christ; he became Christ the year of his baptism. Significantly, the descriptions C.E. and B.C.E. are growing in usage, and they appear in almost all modern dictionaries and in many scholarly works. Please be assured that Jehovah’s Witnesses consider Jesus and his sacrifice indispensable to the outworking of God’s purposes and our personal salvation.
  

  There is no 'anti-Christ' intent in their usage. However, their assertion that Jesus was born in 2 BCE is incorrect. Though there is little evidence for almost all claims made about Jesus, he was most likely born in or prior to 4 BCE, baptised in about 26 CE and executed in 30 CE. The discrepancy is a result of their superstitious numerological misinterpretations of Daniel chapter 9.