You don’t read good. Quotas are quite illegal. That’s the disingenuous argument of someone who doesn’t like having to answer why they thought the most qualified candidate was most qualified in had talked about.

Also, you responded this to a joke about not picking the guy throwing around random sovcit accusations? Man, you two deserve each other

@saltesc@lemmy.world, don’t hire this guy.

I’ve been hiring in a male dominated field for a while, and realistically, in those scenarios, you’re actually being asked to make sure you interview women at all, and if you go with a man, you need to be able to explain why the man was more qualified than the women you interviewed.

Anyone who has said they were forced to hire a woman, in my experience, has been disingenuous, and upset at the layer of accountability

Yes, because any American you meet is very unlikely to be a supporter of what’s going on. Most people’s votes don’t really seem to matter in the electoral college system, and our legislative branch hasn’t… Tried… In several decades. Which is to say, his majority vote came from a minority of the population.

That, and the minority that voted for him are so goddamn afraid of the world and everything in it that they don’t leave their communities for anything.

Can’t wait for the Jan. 6 committee committee committee that’ll eventually investigate this Jan. 6 committee committee

Oop, and you need to have the last word too, checking that off the bingo card

Edited to add: they just couldn’t help themselves

“Loser” still fits nicely in that caricature.

Um actually

I am not a Nazi, but you are a caricature of an internet argument

Ah yes, calling a stranger a Nazi on the Internet. A compelling point

Everything is black and white, gray is for apologists, then?

Well, Germany does have some history there

I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget

I mean, it’s pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn’t work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I’ve read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.

It’s not really a bot’s opinion though? It’s reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That’s all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.

And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.

If you’re down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you’re upset that Salon doesn’t have a perfect rating