265
Chick-fil-A changing its chicken sparks backlash
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
265 points (91.5% liked)
News
23267 readers
3485 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"In a statement to Reuters, Chick-fil-A said the policy change was due to challenges it foresees finding chicken supplies that "meets our rigid standards.""
So, clearly, the solution is "lower your standards"? 🤔
If the other choice is make less money then it's obvious what corporations will do
taking care of their chickens is not lowering their standards, its raising them
I think that's the trick though, they aren't "their" chickens. They're buying them from 3rd party vendors.
If they wanted to be serious about quality, they'd set their own standards and raise their own chickens.
Wawa as well. They have their own cows for their milk.
That god they don’t actually have to do that to have chicken standards.
I mean, lowering standards is a pretty common solution. A friend of mine who was a firefighter said they wanted more female firefighters - so they lowered test standards so they were able to pass.
Not sure if you're a sexist asshole or referring to tests that were originally made to be sexist/racist to only prefer a specific type of person, like the Jim Crow Literary tests that were purposely difficult and confusing to stop black folks from voting.
Evaluations for firefighters have physical requirements. It is a physical job, men and women do tend to have different biological characteristics.
They were test to assure safety of human life, and women couldn't pass them. So they lowered them. The biggest one was being able to carry a person of a specific mass out of an area within a specific amount of time, with all your gear on, in a smoke filled room. Few men were able to pass it, and almost no women. So they lowered the amount of weight and upped the time limit. Sometimes even just flubbed the women passing so they could reach diversity goals.
People will die because of it, but hey...women firefighters! WOO HOO!
Now the thing that's really sexist, is denying sexual dimorphism exists within the human species and that men --in general-- can be better suited among the general populace for specific tasks when it comes to simple brute strength.
That's the thing that's really sexist, huh?
Women firefighters are currently fighting wildfires in my state and actively saving lives. Get fucked, chauvinist
That's great! I never said I had a problem with that. For the women who can legitimately pass the test, that's wonderful!
This is completely off topic, but here's some facts for you, from someone who works at a fire department.
Those physical fitness tests were pretty arbitrary. They don't have much basis in the job itself.
At most departments, physical fitness tests are for the application only, and a LARGE percentage of current firefighters couldn't pass them just a few years later.
There are many, many jobs a firefighter does, and most of them do not require massive amounts of physical strength.
Firefighters deal with the public, and often in a medical capacity far more often than an extinguishing fire capacity. Having female paramedics available to run medical calls is very important for the community. This is the same for having a mix of employees from all socioeconomic groups that are in the area.
There are a LOT of fire departments that are switching to a more fair entrance criteria, and that is making the job better, not worse.
I know you've just kind of had a knee jerk reaction here, but I don't think women should be restricted from that field ya know...I'm perfectly okay with it.
You clearly don't think that.
I literally just told you what I think, and nobody could know that better than me, but...sure.
If you can't tell though -- I was clearly being facetious.