No more smoke and mirrors: Fox Business Alert There's no business like show business, and FOX News Investor group pitches $13B offer to buy Paramount despite Skydance deal Paramount employees are blasting the studio’s decision to roll back their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a searing letter sent to the company’s co-CEOs, according to one report. "As employees of Paramount Global, we are extremely disappointed — but not surprised — by the senior leadership team's decision to roll back our commitments to DEI. This capitulation reflects the profound hypocrisy in extracting labor from diverse communities, creating content from and for diverse communities, targeting the dollars of diverse communities... while committing to the erasure and exclusion of those very same diverse communities," the employees, who are anonymous, said in the letter posted on LinkedIn by the New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin. Paramount is ending some of its DEI policies. Getty Images Paramount is ending some of its DEI policies. Getty Images © Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images The media conglomerate reportedly informed employees that the company would be backtracking on its DEI policies in a February memo. Paramount is ending their aspirational hiring goals with respect to race, gender and sexuality, per the memo. The memo, which was signed by Paramount co-CEOs Brian Robbins, George Cheeks and Chris McCarthy, also stated that the company would end DEI factors in its employee compensation plan and stop collecting diversity data on its U.S. job applicants. myPlan for just $25/line - Verizon official site verizon.com myPlan for just $25/line - Verizon official site Ad PARAMOUNT, SKYDANCE MERGER WAS A ‘CRAZY DEAL’: CHARLIE GASPARINO "With our business objectives firmly in mind, we will continue to evaluate our programs and approach to ensure that we are widening our aperture to attract talent from all geographies, backgrounds and perspectives. That may mean expanding existing programs while ending others," the memo said. READ ON THE FOX BUSINESS APP The CEOs said that they are pulling back on DEI to be in compliance with Trump's executive orders. Getty Images The CEOs said that they are pulling back on DEI to be in compliance with Trump's executive orders. Getty Images © Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post via Getty Images The CEOs said that the changes were necessary due to the Trump administration’s executive orders abolishing DEI in the federal government and targeting the policies among federal contractors, which the memo states "require changes in the way the company [Paramount] approaches inclusion moving forward." Get Metro® 5G Home Internet - Only $50 per Month metrobyt-mobile.com Get Metro® 5G Home Internet - Only $50 per Month Ad Paramount's DEI changes come as the company finds itself under FCC scrutiny regarding its $8 billion merger with independent studio Skydance. Some Paramount employees did not seem to welcome the changes, however, accusing the CEOs of "continuing to kiss the ring and pay off mob bosses," in their letter, which was addressed to them. TRUMP AND PARAMOUNT SEEKING MEDIATOR, FUELING SETTLEMENT CHATTER IN CBS NEWS LAWSUIT "How, in good conscience, can we continue to market to our global audiences and profit from their cultural contributions, while erasing our own internal commitments to equity for and inclusion of those audiences? How can we continue to attract talent with promises that are walked back the moment they become inconvenient?" the letter stated. Paramount employees blasted the company's decision to step back from DEI. Getty Images Paramount employees blasted the company's decision to step back from DEI. Getty Images © Getty Images The employees also slammed the company, which owns CBS, BET, Comedy Central and MTV, for recent layoffs which they claim has forced them to "say goodbye to countless talented and brilliant colleagues," whom they claim were disproportionately from "underrepresented" demographics. Paramount cut 15% of its US workforce in August 2024. Paramount declined to comment for this story.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment