politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Are they also purging everyone in the agency that ever texted about hooking up with someone over the weekend? Please. People talk about their sex lives all the time, even at work. They just make sure to discuss it an appropriate context. And this discussion group was just that kind of appropriate context.
Again, are they firing everyone who ever texted about a weekend hookup? If not, then it's simple bigotry. Even using lurid words like "gangbang" is honestly almost a slur in this context. Do I participate in that kind of romance? Personally, no. I'm monogamous myself. But I also recognize overt, rank, and despicable bigotry when I see it.
This is how bigotry puts on a polite face. You declare certain sexual practices as obscene while consider others polite and acceptable. On cis het guy brags to another about the time they hooked up with two chicks in one weekend? That's just a player. A queer person has multiple partners and chooses a poor word to describe it? Suddenly it's worth firing every trans person in the agency.
You clearly don't hate this administration enough, as you are completely willing to accept their framing that certain sexualities are inherently deviant and shameful.
Lol, right; the NSA set up a chat for people to talk about sex. That's what they meant - not "Let's have a chat for people to ask about how to address their trans coworkers, other questions of etiquette, and generally make a spot that is welcoming and supportive". They, the NSA, wanted their workers to have a safe space to talk about sex.
I don't talk about fucking my partner with my colleagues over work-provided (let alone government-provided) chat channels; it's not a question of the number of partners or what gender those partners might be, but the fact that if you talk about having sex at work you're probably going to have repercussions.
Just to address a few pieces of your response:
I don't know, are they not? The article you linked doesn't include a lot of quotes. Is there a difference in the language used between the two?
Sure they do, but they don't type it into chat on a server they don't control. That would possibly be the dumbest thing I can imagine someone doing. Fantastic amounts of dumb.
Not anymore than my own - I'm not trying to preach about anybody's morality, I'm probably more "deviant" than most in those chats, but I sure as fuck don't talk about it at work; if I did I wouldn't be putting it in the record.
Who said they were queer? Straight people can have gangbangs. Maybe an ally who had a fantastic weekend brought everyone down. Still a stupid thing to type in.
If you don't think there are limits to what can be talked about in the workplace, regardless of the medium, well I don't know what to tell you. I don't know anyone in meatspace that would be surprised when someone who talked about sex in a public sector job got fired. In the end the current admin were going to do it anyways, but they got a solid reason gift-wrapped because folks were being dumb about a work chat.
Donald Trump probably said worse than what was in those chats - he talked about his own daughter ffs. He paid off prostitutes. He got peed on by a prostitute. Theres so much stuff out there about him and what he did and said that its shocking and overwhelming... Yet he's the president. They can fuck right off with their fake moralising and fake religious prudishness.