that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
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.
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
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?
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
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.
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
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.
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
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.
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
Their article seems entirely even-handed on the matter so maybe just personal bias against snopes?
that’s what coca-cola is telling their employees.
.
this is ridiculous!.
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.
Awake!, March 2009, page 30:
From Our ReadersAncient 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.“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.
R. W., United States
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.
i just joined a few days ago and the topic is true.
john (not his real name) is my wife's nephew and got killed in a road accident 2 1/2 years ago.. i've therefore come to the conclusion that most folks wanting me to be their friend are simply a computer algorithm, that my feeling bad by not answering their plea would hurt their feelings and risk our friendship, is not founded on reality.. on another topic, one question that i have is: if i search for a person on facebook does that person somehow learn that i did a search for him?.
my son, who is a facebook expert, of sorts, says no.. what say you?.
If you received a friend request, then it is a specific account holder that sent the request, though the account could be a fraudulent copy of an account, or a bot-controlled account, or another person has taken over the person's account.
However, if it was just a friend recommendation ('people you might know') it would only require that the account is still active (i.e. not closed or memorialised) for the algorithm to suggest the friendship based on whatever criteria Facebook uses.
No, the other person would not be notified that you searched for that person, though it is possible that Facebook might flag it as a factor for suggesting that the person may know you.
