IBM Fired Me Because I’m Not a Millennial, Says Axed Cloud Sales Star

singe_101 said:
So you'll agree the Associated Press and Reuters are 'least biased' and can be trusted? And Snopes
Click to expand...

LOL, I didn't look them up before, but yeah, most AP & Reuters are super short w/ a few data points and could be seen as "least biased".

Snopes - well - IDK - that site has a history...
 
Kinestron said:
There it is. Attack the person not the issue. As predicted so I guess this means you are done arguing as you have judged me unworthy according to the right-wing handbook on liberal stages of discussion.
Click to expand...

That was meant to replace the 'arogant' in your post referring to me.... But sure, jump right to "omg i'm being attacked by name calling!", from the same group that likes to use snowflake.....


Lenard said:
I see you did not cite an actual error in Breitbart reporting. You just complained that their take is too conservative. As I said before, I only write off media outlets when they false report. Cite a False Report by Breitbart and I might think about dropping it as a source for information.
Click to expand...

It's hard to prove false reporting when the false reports disappear form their page..... It was the part of the post you ignored before replying. Read whatever sources you want, obviously neither of us is going to change the others mind. But most people won't take you seriously when you back up your facts using sources like that. There is enough information online to see why, but you do you.
 
Last edited:
Biznatch said:
...Read whatever sources you want, obviously neither of us is going to change the others mind. But most people won't take you seriously when you back up your facts using sources like that...
Click to expand...

You do realize that goes both ways, right?
 
Megalith said:
Despite excelling in his position as worldwide program director and sales lead of Bluemix, Jonathan Langley was fired by IBM and is now suing because he thinks his termination was due to old age: court filings suggest the company has “devoted countless millions of dollars to its effort to rebrand as a hip, millennial-centric tech company.”

"IBM treated substantially younger persons more favorably by signaling through its internal and external branding and marketing that IBM wished to hire and/or retain younger persons," stated Langley in its lawsuit filing. The ex-IBMer has asked the court to force IBM to give him his job back along with lost pay and benefits, damages, his legal fees covered, and so on.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous thing to sue for. I'm of the opinion a company can remove you for any reason they want. ANY reason. You obviously aren't that valuable if they can remove you for laughing annoyingly.
 
talk2troy said:
You do realize that goes both ways, right?
Click to expand...

I never claimed otherwise. Feel free to do the same with any sources you see me reference/quote, but it would never be something like BB/IW or any extreme left garbage either. I'm not looking to read news from sources where their extreme bias oozes out of every word/sentence they write. I would have zero problem bringing back the fairness doctrine so we aren't stuck with extremely polarized news that twists facts/data to suit their specific spectrum of viewers.
 
Biznatch said:
I never claimed otherwise. Feel free to do the same with any sources you see me reference/quote, but it would never be something like BB/IW or any extreme left garbage either. I'm not looking to read news from sources where their extreme bias oozes out of every word/sentence they write. I would have zero problem bringing back the fairness doctrine so we aren't stuck with extremely polarized news that twists facts/data to suit their specific spectrum of viewers.
Click to expand...

OK, I am looking for good sources, so what do you suggest?

It seems that all I can do is look at each extreme sides & sites & walk away in disgust of both.

FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia ~ seems that it can be easily gamed by propagandists - thx FB, google, twitter, etc.
 
Biznatch said:
It's hard to prove false reporting when the false reports disappear form their page.....
Click to expand...

Retracting and pulling down erroneous stories is what responsible journalists do. With the large number of left wing media watch groups it should be easy enough to find a story from them that has a screenshot for citation.


Bill Clinton is a rapist and Webb Hubble is the father of Chelsea.
 
talk2troy said:
You do realize that goes both ways, right?
Click to expand...

No serious person uses a single source. If a Journalist reports something you look for confirmation. It is best to goto the source material. Only emotional unbalanced people go off on the first reports they hear.


Hillary Clinton had Seth Rich murdered to cover up her lesbian affair with an agent of Iran (Huma Abedin)
 
Biznatch said:
I never claimed otherwise. Feel free to do the same with any sources you see me reference/quote, but it would never be something like BB/IW or any extreme left garbage either. I'm not looking to read news from sources where their extreme bias oozes out of every word/sentence they write. I would have zero problem bringing back the fairness doctrine so we aren't stuck with extremely polarized news that twists facts/data to suit their specific spectrum of viewers.
Click to expand...

A source is correct when they report truth. It doesn't matter how biased they are. If Joseph Goebbels said the sky is blue, it would still be blue. dismissing truth because you do not agree with the politics of the truthsayer is foolish.


Barack Obama is a Muslim foreigner who was raised in Kenya to hate America.
 
talk2troy said:
You do realize that goes both ways, right?
Click to expand...

No sources can be trusted nowadays. The only way trust is gained is from hindsight. These articles are left up and in time, we will know who is telling the truth and who is lying. Time will tell, right now it's all conjecture, assumption and lefty childish rage.
 
Lenard said:
I see you did not cite an actual error in Breitbart reporting. You just complained that their take is too conservative. As I said before, I only write off media outlets when they false report. Cite a False Report by Breitbart and I might think about dropping it as a source for information.
Click to expand...
Well, the Weather channel called them out, saying they were making false claims on the weather and details which parts:

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

I'd imagine the Weather channel has some experience in studying and reporting on the weather.
 
talk2troy said:
OK, I am looking for good sources, so what do you suggest?

It seems that all I can do is look at each extreme sides & sites & walk away in disgust of both.

FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia ~ seems that it can be easily gamed by propagandists - thx FB, google, twitter, etc.
Click to expand...

Then it sounds like we are on the same page in that regard. Never gonna find anything truly neutral, but I try to get my news from outlets that lean to each of the sides to try and figure out what's actually happening. I just avoid the extremes at either end, since the agenda they are trying to promote is pretty obvious, and the tactics used are incredibly shitty.


Yes the fairness doctrine could be abused, but at least it was attached to an agency that could audit/enforce/penalize violators. Although I'm not sure I'd want that handled by the current FCC staff...... But something would be better than nothing at this point seeing how polarized/full of straight out lies the 'news' outlets have become. It would also help if we stopped the 24 hour for profit news cycle that encourages 'clickbait' type bullshit news to keep people tuned in to generate ad revenue. Their goal should be presenting news, not generating profit.
 
Biznatch said:
...avoid the extremes at either end...
Click to expand...

That is pretty tough...

Biznatch said:
...if we stopped the 24 hour for profit news cycle that encourages 'clickbait' type bullshit news to keep people tuned in to generate ad revenue. Their goal should be presenting news, not generating profit.
Click to expand...


I would love to read your proposal on that in the GenMay Soapbox.
 
Red Falcon said:
Not everyone in the world is a total socialist or communist, just fyi, and neither is every news outlet in the world.
Click to expand...
Left-biased and far-left are two different things. And even far-leftists aren't all socialists/communists. Iow, I know, you don't have to tell me, etc..

Obviously, not everyone is a leftist, but everyone is more left than people were in the past, generally speaking.
 
talk2troy said:
That is pretty tough...




I would love to read your proposal on that in the GenMay Soapbox.
Click to expand...


It's beyond tough nowadays, avoiding most of the cable news is a pretty good start.

And I don't have a solution. There is so much money being generated from ads, the big outlets would lobby the shit out of any legislation attempting to fix the problem. Plus it's not a problem most politicians would even want to fix as they benefit from the partisan news that keeps people voting along party lines because the other side is <insert made up hyperbolic fearmongering bullshit here>


Lenard said:
Retracting and pulling down erroneous stories is what responsible journalists do. With the large number of left wing media watch groups it should be easy enough to find a story from them that has a screenshot for citation.


Bill Clinton is a rapist and Webb Hubble is the father of Chelsea.
Click to expand...

Printing a retraction is one thing. Pulling the article silently without acknowledging that they lied/misled readers is a completely different, and much bigger issue.
 
Worked at IBM for over 12 years would have liked to have fired 30%+ of employees. Even in the late 90's IBM was all in on the sexual agenda preference. Watched an individual only hired for sexual orientation kill a blade server and 20k with of 5i cards in one day. The individual for full my tenure there never once was reprimanded or fired and failed in every position. Back then I ran and managed back then the fiber lab for the 500 and 700 series. Another gender hire was placed in the lab, I introduced myself and asked what part of the test plan she was working on. She went to my supervisor and said I was possibly a spy and she did not like me asking her what she was working. Even though I bought the hardware and wrote the test plan. Also IBM had 3 internal servers for the sexual agenda, one was rpteagle where you could hook for group parties and take 2 hours lunches if you were of a certain persuasion. I could go on to write pages of hires based on sex and minorities that flat out refused to share the work load in the test plans and were never fired. All the companies have jumped full in with the inversion of everything society once cherished.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not a big fan of most current unions, but at the same time it's not lost on me that organized labor protests and strikes is what got us many of the legal protections and labor laws in the first place, including - among others - the weekend. So I'm torn.
Click to expand...

Unions are not appropriate solutions. Let me tell you why. If we believe in equality then why do we need unions? All the protections that a union offers if they are positive should be federal law and available to anyone whom works anywhere. Unions are themselves selfish organizations and just like all organizations they just seek to grow themselves. Every day in America some waitress is getting royally screwed over and no one is protecting her. The things that changed due to the union movement could have, and should have been granted to every American not just ones that happened to be in powerful unions.

Another thing that happened in MI, where I am from and a massive union state is that in their selfishness the unions actually screwed themselves over. See they were so busy trying to protect their old members that they decided in their selfishness to screw over the younger newer employees. Wasn't long after that MI became a right to work state. Go figure you start alienating voters and you lose support.

For me personally I have worked many jobs in my life and the ones that were unionized well they were the lowest paying worst working jobs I ever had. Not surprisingly I couldn't care less about supporting the unions. See they failed to do their only freaking job, which was stick up for me.
 
Firing older workers to replace with younger & cheaper is now standard practice for most large corporations in America.
This is not just an IT issue.
I know people who worked at Lockheed Martin as old timers and they had pensions. As the old timers were retiring they were hiring younger replacements with no pension plan , this is at the same time there were still many workers with pensions still there.
In general you are screwed either way. If you are older and experienced you are "too expensive" to employ. If you are young, you will likely never get the benefits that previous generation had.
 
Last edited:
tetris42 said:
Well, the Weather channel called them out, saying they were making false claims on the weather and details which parts:

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change

I'd imagine the Weather channel has some experience in studying and reporting on the weather.
Click to expand...

The content of that 'Editorial' shows that what they reported was factually based. Nothing they reported was overtly false. The Author was bringing forth more information to give context.

Again: Cite a Falsehood or Untruth. "We Disagree" is not the same as "They are lying"
 
Biznatch said:
Printing a retraction is one thing. Pulling the article silently without acknowledging that they lied/misled readers is a completely different, and much bigger issue.
Click to expand...

What article did they pull silently?
That is one heck of a claim.

Same logic-
Reporter: "Why did you hide beating your wife?"
Politician: "There is no evidence I beat my wife."
Reporter: "That is why I asked why you hid the evidence of beating your wife"
Politician: "But I didn't beat my wife"

News report that night: "The Politician denied beating his wife today"
 
Lenard said:
The content of that 'Editorial' shows that what they reported was factually based. Nothing they reported was overtly false. The Author was bringing forth more information to give context.

Again: Cite a Falsehood or Untruth. "We Disagree" is not the same as "They are lying"
Click to expand...
Well, they omitted data from the other satellite measurements and just singled out one. I would call it "lying by omission" in the sense that you're not reporting something false, so much as you're leaving out key data that changes the whole perspective, then drawing a conclusion from it that is false as an opinion.

Supposing I say "an unarmed man was gunned down by the police" and say "in this viewer's eyes, this is clearly evidence of police brutality." Then if you investigate, the full truth was the man had no weapons on him, was gunned down by the police, but was holding a water pistol spray painted black that the police thought was a gun AND it happened while he was robbing a bank. Am I lying then? I'm giving half the story, guiding the viewer with my opinion to draw the exact opposite conclusion that any reasonable person would have given the full story. So yeah, I guess you can say that's not lying, but I think you're just arguing semantics at that point.
 
tetris42 said:
Well, they omitted data from the other satellite measurements and just singled out one. I would call it "lying by omission" in the sense that you're not reporting something false, so much as you're leaving out key data that changes the whole perspective, then drawing a conclusion from it that is false as an opinion.

Supposing I say "an unarmed man was gunned down by the police" and say "in this viewer's eyes, this is clearly evidence of police brutality." Then if you investigate, the full truth was the man had no weapons on him, was gunned down by the police, but was holding a water pistol spray painted black that the police thought was a gun AND it happened while he was robbing a bank. Am I lying then? I'm giving half the story, guiding the viewer with my opinion to draw the exact opposite conclusion that any reasonable person would have given the full story. So yeah, I guess you can say that's not lying, but I think you're just arguing semantics at that point.
Click to expand...

You are stretching.

They did not "Omit data from other Satellite measurements" in order to change their opinion. According to weather.com Breitbart reported on one measurement that showed cooling, but the other measurements also showed cooling (although not as much). They were not being deceptive. If they knew about other measurements that showed warming and ignored them it would be dishonest, but all three measurements showed cooling (although to different degrees).

i.e-
2015 # of robberies- 2
2016 # of robberies- 4
2017 # of robberies- 1
2018 # of robberies- 2

You are being deceptive if you report on a robbery and stating "robberies skyrocketing up 100% from last year in a disturbing trend"
You are not being deceptive if you report "Robberies are up 100% form the previous year"
You are more accurate to say "The number of robberies have doubled from last year but is difficult to see a trend"


To be clear According to Weather.com: In this case Breitbart had satellite measurements that showed cooling. They concluded that warming was not happening. Breitbart did not report on other measurements that also showed cooling but to a lesser degree.
 
Lenard said:
You are stretching.

They did not "Omit data from other Satellite measurements" in order to change their opinion. According to weather.com Breitbart reported on one measurement that showed cooling, but the other measurements also showed cooling (although not as much). They were not being deceptive. If they knew about other measurements that showed warming and ignored them it would be dishonest, but all three measurements showed cooling (although to different degrees).

i.e-
2015 # of robberies- 2
2016 # of robberies- 4
2017 # of robberies- 1
2018 # of robberies- 2

You are being deceptive if you report on a robbery and stating "robberies skyrocketing up 100% from last year in a disturbing trend"
You are not being deceptive if you report "Robberies are up 100% form the previous year"
You are more accurate to say "The number of robberies have doubled from last year but is difficult to see a trend"


To be clear According to Weather.com: In this case Breitbart had satellite measurements that showed cooling. They concluded that warming was not happening. Breitbart did not report on other measurements that also showed cooling but to a lesser degree.
Click to expand...
Well, going by your examples, it sounds like Brietbart falls squarely under "deceptive" by your own logic. They're reporting from one source, not including the others. We don't know if that was intentionally left out or if they were simply unaware, so I think that would be jumping the gun to call it dishonest. So far we're still on truthful, but incomplete reporting. Then we progress to these lines:

"The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare."
"The lefties get their climate information from unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed."

For the first part, even though that was the biggest drop, the average is still higher than it was decades earlier. That looks like a perfect analogy to your "skyrocketing up 100% from last year in disturbing trend" example. They were looking at a period of 6 months and making a conclusion that overlooks decades of data. That's almost exactly the scenario you were talking about with the robberies. Moreover, the data released that same week showed a clear reversal of the cooling, but I can't blame them for not reporting what hadn't happened yet. Even without, they were drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion from incomplete data that WAS available.

And the final statement is clearly a non-factual baiting statement, but I guess the idea is it's so blatant it gets a pass?
 
tetris42 said:
... even though that was the biggest drop, the average is still higher than it was decades earlier....

And the final statement is clearly a non-factual baiting statement, but I guess the idea is it's so blatant it gets a pass?
Click to expand...


The data was not available for decades earlier. The satellites doing the measuring were not there. Furthermore the data regarding warming is not 100%. There have been conflicting reports from different sources/scientists. There has also been much speculation as to the causes. It may be that there is global warming, and it is due to Human activity. It may be that there is Warming, but not largely due to our activity. It may be that there is warming, and overall that is a good thing.
My only point was discarding a source of news/information/opinion simply because you don't like their politics is foolish.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ling-defy-global-warming-claims/#28c47da53c1c



Also, these statements by Breitbart are not reporting facts. The first is speculation. The second is characterization of another media source and people who read it.

"The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare."
"The lefties get their climate information from unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed."


Also, Global Warming is communist bullshit invented by China to create trade deficits and take over the US economy.
 
^ That last line, if not sarcasm, would be real world proof that their shitty tactics are working on the general population. Even if you were being sarcastic, the cheeto does actually believe that and is pushing policies based on that belief....... I'm not sure if that's more or less scary than the current situation with the shitty non-fact based, opinion reporting being done all around (some obviously way worse than others).....
 
Biznatch said:
^ That last line, if not sarcasm, would be real world proof that their shitty tactics are working on the general population. Even if you were being sarcastic, the cheeto does actually believe that and is pushing policies based on that belief....... I'm not sure if that's more or less scary than the current situation with the shitty non-fact based, opinion reporting being done all around (some obviously way worse than others).....
Click to expand...


Referring to the President of the United State as "cheeto" tells me all I need to know about your maturity. You are not a serious person. You are a child.


Also, Mexicans are rapists.
 
Lenard said:
Referring to the President of the United State as "cheeto" tells me all I need to know about your maturity. You are not a serious person. You are a child.


Also, Mexicans are rapists.
Click to expand...


And there it is, the typical GOP troll getting off on 'pissin off dem liburls killin ur contry" .... Unless you're saying our country is being run by an "un-mature. un-serious. child". Because that same person you're defending has used far worse names for both internal US and world leaders......

It's just too bad I'm not a liberal that you angur'd. Just an anti-trump/stupidist.
 
Biznatch said:
^ That last line, if not sarcasm, would be real world proof that their shitty tactics are working on the general population. Even if you were being sarcastic, the cheeto does actually believe that and is pushing policies based on that belief....... I'm not sure if that's more or less scary than the current situation with the shitty non-fact based, opinion reporting being done all around (some obviously way worse than others).....
Click to expand...
I find your hypocrisy infuriating.
 
Biznatch said:
And there it is, the typical GOP troll getting off on 'pissin off dem liburls killin ur contry" .... Unless you're saying our country is being run by an "un-mature. un-serious. child". Because that same person you're defending has used far worse names for both internal US and world leaders......

It's just too bad I'm not a liberal that you angur'd. Just an anti-trump/stupidist.
Click to expand...

I am done amusing myself. I will explain this to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
-Most of my most recent posts contain a criticism of your thinking/behavior/language followed by an example of the nonsense I suspect you would be opposed to. The purpose was to demonstrate that you are behaving not unlike those you criticize. I understand it was subtle, and possibly too subtle for most people to pick up.

i.e.- You called the President "Cheeto" (an unthoughtful childish insult meant to dehumanize and demean him). I followed my criticism of you by referring to "All Mexicans are rapists" because of the countless media reports of Trump being unthoughtful and childish in his description of some illegal aliens. His statement was meant to dehumanize. It was my hope that you would associate childish puffery with your own behavior, and maybe that would have some impact to your posting.

Also please note that I did not attack your ideology. "It's just too bad I'm not a liberal that you angur'd"
I do not care what your ideology is. I was criticizing your calling the President Cheeto, not your politics. I was not taking sides and playing for the team. I was specifically referencing your post, declaring it childish, and making a reference to the President's childish statement from the election. You should go back and read my criticisms assuming I share all of the same politics as you. Please understand that I am not trying to be a partisan politico when I made them. I suspect that we agree far more on policy than we disagree.


Also, George Bush was the second greatest president that ever lived, right behind Donald John Trump.
 
If "cloud sales star" is his own description of himself then he's definitely a millenial in the spirit at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top