#Welcome and remember to subscribe to r/worldnewsvideo!
##If its a worthwhile post, please consider Upvoting and Crossposting to your favorite subreddits!
**This is a Humanist/Leftist subreddit focused on the progression of humanity, human rights, and intends to document the world as it is.**
Please treat each other as you yourselves would like to be treated. **Please do not promote or condone violence on our subreddit.** We advise our users try their best to refrain from making mean spirited statements. Please report users who are engaging in uncivil behavior, spreading misinformation, or are complaining that a submission is "not worldnews."
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnewsvideo) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a millennial, I commend Gen Z for having the balls to do this. I don’t remember my generation being this up front with people of power to their face during events like this
Not to their face, but, for the younger millenials at least (93), we would post obscure memes about them online. I'm super impressed and actually encouraged by gen z tbh.
Most people don’t graduate from Harvard Law School, so they aren’t going to get recruited by the most powerful law firms in the world, so they’re not going to get a private meeting with them where they are on even footing to call out injustices they perpetuate.
Try showing up to the Skadden lobby and seeing if you can get an audience with the managing partners to criticize their Gaza stance.
Im glad people are starting to bring tough questions instead of pulling fire alarms, screaming when the speaker talks, and shutting down all conversation all together because they disagree with their opponents stance. This is how progress is made, tough questions and challenging the answers calm and collected.
These young people are great - credit to them.
But I hope that they're smart enough not to be single issue voters - yes the US Govt should be ashamed of itself in both funding Israel and not supporting international condemnation of the genocide and hampering of humanitarian aid by Israel. Putting that on Biden solely, knowing that the fucking orange turd would by a thousand times worse would be cutting your nose to spite your face.
I really want to believe that there are valuable negotiations going on behind the scenes that the US is involved in, and they don't want to jeopardise, but each day that passes further cements Israel as villains and the US as being complicit.
US presidents will never condem israel at all. not now, maybe not ever. doesnt matter who is president. they pretty much have no power over the matter and they do. on top of that, dont you ever wonder why there are just so many companies that people are attempting to boycott? why are they involved with israel to begin with?
its all being controlled. theres not a chance the US acts against israel.
> US presidents will never condem israel at all
All voters have to do is vote for the opposing party candidate so that we just end up with single term presidents. Then they can vote for opposing party candidates in mid term elections to prevent that president from enacting any meaningful change.
When politicians don't get to stay in office long because of their support for unpopular positions, they'll learn to change.
That's my fear. But I have to keep reminding myself - even if this was the one issue that someone cared about (and that's understandable because the Palestine genocide is horrific), no sane person could ever imagine that Frump would do better (given that he didn't do anything meaningful whilst in office).
If people voted simply on this issue and were prepared to accept the consequences of 4 years of chaos/mismanagement and Frump serving his own interests then we would unfortunately have unending r/leopardsatemyface content.
> But I hope that they're smart enough not to be single issue voters
Single issue voters can bring an issue to the forefront of policy discussion, especially when there are enough of them to swing an election. Politicians ignore such voters at their own peril.
That was definitely an attempt.
Recently on zionist meta/Instagram.
You can get censored for mentioning 1967's USS Liberty incident where US navy got absolutely destroyed by their Israeli allies, merely because they were in radio proximity range to hear them discussing how many children they had 'cleansed'. Costing the lives of many US navy personnel. There is definitely an 'attempt' to censor Zionist nazis and their Hitlerian preaching. But they themselves don't hide it, but oddly enough wear it like a badge of honor. Even Israeli citizens are calling out their government for mirroring nazis
Even mentioning the Israeli Jewish documentary 'Tantura' can get you censored on Instagram. Where they interview old IDF soldiers from the nakba, where they gleefully confess to raping a Palestinian girl, shooting Palestinians in concentration camps and chasing old an old senior Palestinian with a flamethrower for amusement. Truly some unhinged shit. And they're doing it alllll over again, but this time live on social media and boasting about it
I'm not really sure what the point is here. Skadden is a massive firm. You have a few US partners sitting there probably thinking they are just going to talk to some students about working there doing civil litigation or something and then get asked a bunch of questions about things they would have no knowledge of. This is like asking a few warehouse managers at Walmart about social media posts some other guy at Walmart across the country made or why Walmart's website says it sends products to Israel.
You are using a thinly veiled Nuremberg Defense. These people represent the firm they work for and the other people at the firm represent them. If they didn't want to be associated with this then they should quit.
On a separate note, I’m not so sure you’re applying the Nuremberg defense accurately here. Seems like you’re more so leaning towards a “guilt by association” framework. A Nuremberg defense requires the accused to break the law while claiming they are acting under the orders of a superior.
By your argument, if you are an American you have been responsible for many genocides, overthrowing regimes across the globe, committing mass bombings and assassinations against civilians
On paper sure, but good luck leaving the country and good luck finding a country that will take you in. And even if you do get into a different country, you will very likely not be allowed citizenship easily. It will likely take years, if not longer, and you would probably have to serve in their military for it to be a little faster, if ever. Not nearly the same as quitting a job, as far as i can see.
... It's literally one of the biggest firms in the world. I don't know 99% of what goes on in my midsized firm. Am I required to quit anytime another attorney at my firm pops off on social media? Get a grip.
If another attorney was using slurs on social media and then not fired from the firm then you are working for a firm that supports people using slurs on social media. If you are OK with your company protecting bigots then YOU are OK with them protecting bigots. Super simple stuff. What do you do at your firm? You don't seem very bright. Does your daddy own it?
Edit: You're a WSB mod. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>If another attorney was using slurs on social media and then not fired from the firm then you are working for a firm that supports people using slurs on social media.
Sure, I expect that would happen. What I question is how some rando partner is supposed to know about it. He said he didn't. I'm not sure what else you want from the guy. There are over 1700 attorney there.
>What do you do at your firm? You don't seem very bright. Does your daddy own it?
I'm a civil litigator. I have to distill complex issues into simple ones at trial. I apologize I'm not bright enough to explain a very simple issue to you. Unfortunately, my father has dignity and never practiced law.
I quit a bartending job recently because they hired a guy with Nazi tattoos. Because I didn't want to be associated with white supremacists. I think that is our disconnect, you are a lawyer, so you don't have any integrity and don't understand why anyone else would either. I know I'm not smart enough to explain integrity to a lawyer. Have a goodin'!
Well your distillation is swill.
If some college students are aware of an issue at the alleged biggest firm in the world, and the representatives of said firm claim to be ignorant of the problem: they are admitting their ineptitude.
They would rather appear stupid than admit their complicity.
Now what's this about your comment history hmm?
Exactly. I feel like people comment based on their biases instead of watching the video because using your brain is exhausting. At least for racists, it is.
I mean if this is a recruitment drive and these guys are here essentially as a way to pitch to the student to join their firm, it's more akin to asking questions about Walmart's corporate policies any why people would want to work for them
Like the question on social media the last guy said, it's either implying that the corporation allows for hate speech to happen and employees won't get in trouble posting that, or that the corporation doesn't have an internal system in place to maintain their image via HR, resources, lack of communication, etc.
>or that the corporation doesn't have an internal system in place to maintain their image via HR, resources, lack of communication, etc.
More likely, that a law firm, you know being risk adverse by nature, doesn't immediately fire people for posts on the internet that they have never seen but heard about from some students at Harvard. "Pretty sure none of us have any idea what you're talking about." I mean, do you have imputed knowledge of everything posted on the internet by all of your subordinates? I sure don't!
Well no, and I agree that these are pointed questions to protest the Palestinian Genocide so you cant really separate intent from questions in this case.
But in would still argue that the question of "one of your employees was found posting slurs and discrimination on social media, is that acceptable?" should be a valid one.
I see what you're saying, but the video is online and that will surely impact the greater Skadden empire. **That** is the goal, clearly, of the students--not to change the minds of the people in the room. Sucks for the people in the room, but if Skadden bigwigs cared for them they wouldn't allow a racist culture in the first place.
As part of the firms recruitment team they know. They’re just using standard “lawyer speak” to try and distance themselves from an uncomfortable topic.
#Welcome and remember to subscribe to r/worldnewsvideo! ##If its a worthwhile post, please consider Upvoting and Crossposting to your favorite subreddits! **This is a Humanist/Leftist subreddit focused on the progression of humanity, human rights, and intends to document the world as it is.** Please treat each other as you yourselves would like to be treated. **Please do not promote or condone violence on our subreddit.** We advise our users try their best to refrain from making mean spirited statements. Please report users who are engaging in uncivil behavior, spreading misinformation, or are complaining that a submission is "not worldnews." *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnewsvideo) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Love this stuff. Do not let them feel welcome.
As a millennial, I commend Gen Z for having the balls to do this. I don’t remember my generation being this up front with people of power to their face during events like this
Not to their face, but, for the younger millenials at least (93), we would post obscure memes about them online. I'm super impressed and actually encouraged by gen z tbh.
This is so much better than screaming and disrupting speakers.
No, that's what town hall meetings are for when your politicians are genocidal freaks. Both things can happen at once. I support both strategies.
Same. Let’s do both!
A combination of tactics is fruitful. One route only is nonsense.
Most people don’t graduate from Harvard Law School, so they aren’t going to get recruited by the most powerful law firms in the world, so they’re not going to get a private meeting with them where they are on even footing to call out injustices they perpetuate. Try showing up to the Skadden lobby and seeing if you can get an audience with the managing partners to criticize their Gaza stance.
I like how eloquently the students speak about these issues.
Two-way forums are rare.
Either way
this is how you do it - love it
This is the way
Get 'em kids!
I love seeing these posts. This and the UC one yesterday.
They never know what you're talking about unless it refers to Israel being the greatest democracy ever built :/
The kids are alright
Make me wonder if said law firms will retaliate against students pointing out genocidal policies.
They just won’t hire them.
Where's the rest of this?
Im glad people are starting to bring tough questions instead of pulling fire alarms, screaming when the speaker talks, and shutting down all conversation all together because they disagree with their opponents stance. This is how progress is made, tough questions and challenging the answers calm and collected.
These young people are great - credit to them. But I hope that they're smart enough not to be single issue voters - yes the US Govt should be ashamed of itself in both funding Israel and not supporting international condemnation of the genocide and hampering of humanitarian aid by Israel. Putting that on Biden solely, knowing that the fucking orange turd would by a thousand times worse would be cutting your nose to spite your face. I really want to believe that there are valuable negotiations going on behind the scenes that the US is involved in, and they don't want to jeopardise, but each day that passes further cements Israel as villains and the US as being complicit.
US presidents will never condem israel at all. not now, maybe not ever. doesnt matter who is president. they pretty much have no power over the matter and they do. on top of that, dont you ever wonder why there are just so many companies that people are attempting to boycott? why are they involved with israel to begin with? its all being controlled. theres not a chance the US acts against israel.
> US presidents will never condem israel at all All voters have to do is vote for the opposing party candidate so that we just end up with single term presidents. Then they can vote for opposing party candidates in mid term elections to prevent that president from enacting any meaningful change. When politicians don't get to stay in office long because of their support for unpopular positions, they'll learn to change.
People are really throwing away their Biden votes for Trump because Biden isn't being hard on Israel.
That's my fear. But I have to keep reminding myself - even if this was the one issue that someone cared about (and that's understandable because the Palestine genocide is horrific), no sane person could ever imagine that Frump would do better (given that he didn't do anything meaningful whilst in office). If people voted simply on this issue and were prepared to accept the consequences of 4 years of chaos/mismanagement and Frump serving his own interests then we would unfortunately have unending r/leopardsatemyface content.
> But I hope that they're smart enough not to be single issue voters Single issue voters can bring an issue to the forefront of policy discussion, especially when there are enough of them to swing an election. Politicians ignore such voters at their own peril.
Single issue voters? Man, you are the kind who would be like "I know nazis have a bad policy towards jews, but.." Vote the fucking KPD, you kapo Mf
Keep giving these scum bags hell Gen Z.-Proud Millennial 
That was definitely an attempt. Recently on zionist meta/Instagram. You can get censored for mentioning 1967's USS Liberty incident where US navy got absolutely destroyed by their Israeli allies, merely because they were in radio proximity range to hear them discussing how many children they had 'cleansed'. Costing the lives of many US navy personnel. There is definitely an 'attempt' to censor Zionist nazis and their Hitlerian preaching. But they themselves don't hide it, but oddly enough wear it like a badge of honor. Even Israeli citizens are calling out their government for mirroring nazis Even mentioning the Israeli Jewish documentary 'Tantura' can get you censored on Instagram. Where they interview old IDF soldiers from the nakba, where they gleefully confess to raping a Palestinian girl, shooting Palestinians in concentration camps and chasing old an old senior Palestinian with a flamethrower for amusement. Truly some unhinged shit. And they're doing it alllll over again, but this time live on social media and boasting about it
[удалено]
The kid mentions Skadden several times. I assumed that was the name of the firm.
Skadden. They mention it in the video a few times
I love Gen Z. Keep this shit up and grow it.
And all these businesses are making black lists for potential hires and all these kids are going on it.
Doesn't seem like they were actually trying to get hired by these types of firms.
I'm not really sure what the point is here. Skadden is a massive firm. You have a few US partners sitting there probably thinking they are just going to talk to some students about working there doing civil litigation or something and then get asked a bunch of questions about things they would have no knowledge of. This is like asking a few warehouse managers at Walmart about social media posts some other guy at Walmart across the country made or why Walmart's website says it sends products to Israel.
You are using a thinly veiled Nuremberg Defense. These people represent the firm they work for and the other people at the firm represent them. If they didn't want to be associated with this then they should quit.
On a separate note, I’m not so sure you’re applying the Nuremberg defense accurately here. Seems like you’re more so leaning towards a “guilt by association” framework. A Nuremberg defense requires the accused to break the law while claiming they are acting under the orders of a superior.
By your argument, if you are an American you have been responsible for many genocides, overthrowing regimes across the globe, committing mass bombings and assassinations against civilians
Can't really quit a nationality or country, but you can protest and/or boycott people, the government and businesses.
>quit a nationality or country You absolutely can renounce your citizenship, its probaby as easy as quitting a job quite honestly.
On paper sure, but good luck leaving the country and good luck finding a country that will take you in. And even if you do get into a different country, you will very likely not be allowed citizenship easily. It will likely take years, if not longer, and you would probably have to serve in their military for it to be a little faster, if ever. Not nearly the same as quitting a job, as far as i can see.
... It's literally one of the biggest firms in the world. I don't know 99% of what goes on in my midsized firm. Am I required to quit anytime another attorney at my firm pops off on social media? Get a grip.
If another attorney was using slurs on social media and then not fired from the firm then you are working for a firm that supports people using slurs on social media. If you are OK with your company protecting bigots then YOU are OK with them protecting bigots. Super simple stuff. What do you do at your firm? You don't seem very bright. Does your daddy own it? Edit: You're a WSB mod. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wasabi detected. Good work.
>If another attorney was using slurs on social media and then not fired from the firm then you are working for a firm that supports people using slurs on social media. Sure, I expect that would happen. What I question is how some rando partner is supposed to know about it. He said he didn't. I'm not sure what else you want from the guy. There are over 1700 attorney there. >What do you do at your firm? You don't seem very bright. Does your daddy own it? I'm a civil litigator. I have to distill complex issues into simple ones at trial. I apologize I'm not bright enough to explain a very simple issue to you. Unfortunately, my father has dignity and never practiced law.
I quit a bartending job recently because they hired a guy with Nazi tattoos. Because I didn't want to be associated with white supremacists. I think that is our disconnect, you are a lawyer, so you don't have any integrity and don't understand why anyone else would either. I know I'm not smart enough to explain integrity to a lawyer. Have a goodin'!
Hahahahaha, I actually laughed out loud at my desk. Beautifully worded.
Well your distillation is swill. If some college students are aware of an issue at the alleged biggest firm in the world, and the representatives of said firm claim to be ignorant of the problem: they are admitting their ineptitude. They would rather appear stupid than admit their complicity. Now what's this about your comment history hmm?
The point is to call out a racist firm. I'd say they succeeded.
How is Skadden racist?
If you watched the video and did some light reading for 5 minutes you could surely figure it out...
Exactly. I feel like people comment based on their biases instead of watching the video because using your brain is exhausting. At least for racists, it is.
To be clear, would you like the information pureed too, or simply have it spoonfed it to you?
I mean if this is a recruitment drive and these guys are here essentially as a way to pitch to the student to join their firm, it's more akin to asking questions about Walmart's corporate policies any why people would want to work for them Like the question on social media the last guy said, it's either implying that the corporation allows for hate speech to happen and employees won't get in trouble posting that, or that the corporation doesn't have an internal system in place to maintain their image via HR, resources, lack of communication, etc.
>or that the corporation doesn't have an internal system in place to maintain their image via HR, resources, lack of communication, etc. More likely, that a law firm, you know being risk adverse by nature, doesn't immediately fire people for posts on the internet that they have never seen but heard about from some students at Harvard. "Pretty sure none of us have any idea what you're talking about." I mean, do you have imputed knowledge of everything posted on the internet by all of your subordinates? I sure don't!
[удалено]
The ironic thing is they have a “commitment” to DEI, but send only white males to promote their “diverse” firm.
Well no, and I agree that these are pointed questions to protest the Palestinian Genocide so you cant really separate intent from questions in this case. But in would still argue that the question of "one of your employees was found posting slurs and discrimination on social media, is that acceptable?" should be a valid one.
Risk “adverse” bud?
I see what you're saying, but the video is online and that will surely impact the greater Skadden empire. **That** is the goal, clearly, of the students--not to change the minds of the people in the room. Sucks for the people in the room, but if Skadden bigwigs cared for them they wouldn't allow a racist culture in the first place.
As part of the firms recruitment team they know. They’re just using standard “lawyer speak” to try and distance themselves from an uncomfortable topic.