All the fucking time. This shit is infuriating.

Good for him. Hope they never catch him.

Yeah, it would have been better if the second panel had been “I’m the UnitedHealthcare CEO!”

Left, right, left, right… What’s confusing?

It’s a weird use of the template; normally the second panel is “I’m the guy who [did this thing]!”, not a specific name. Then the devil puts down his clipboard and escorts him to Extra Hell based on that revelation.

Imagine being this guy’s grieving family, and finding out that 9 out of ten people are going out of their way to let everyone know they’re glad he’s dead.

Do you give this same consideration to other people who get shot? What if he had been the kingpin of a drug cartel - would you still be saying ‘Oh, won’t anyone think of his family!’ if the police raided his meth lab and he got shot?

If a mass shooter kills a dozen people then gets shot and killed, people applaud the one who shot them.

If a CEO directly contributes to the suffering and death of an untold number of people, then gets shot and killed, why should anyone respond differently?

The fact that the deaths he caused were within the bounds of our legal system should be seen as a condemnation of our policies, not as justification for what he did. When other avenues have been exhausted, what did they think people were going to do - just sit around forever and say ‘Well, that sucks’?

it is literally illegal for a CEO to do the right thing if it will cost shareholders

Source?

An ear or a tooth that would contribute towards satisfying your quest, but inexplicably only 10% of the time.

I think that was inherently my problem with the whole thing. It may have had good intentions originally - using metaphor to draw attention to a problem in a way that might have gotten through to people who don’t understand or reject more straight-forward discussion - and that’s great when it works, but because of the absurdity of the premise, it ended up being a magnet for scrutiny and objections. As a result, there were three main kind of responses:

• Accepting the premise at face value, and agreeing that a woman should choose the bear.
• Objecting to the premise, because it is patently ridiculous if taken at face value.
• Objecting to the underlying message.

Group 3 were the truly toxic responses, and they did a good job at highlighting the underlying message (or perhaps at highlighting a specific kind of person, who will just object to anything a woman says no matter what, or who refuses to believe that women are justified in their fear of men, or who are incels, or whatever else), but they, and the responses to them, kind of took over the entirety of the discourse surrounding it… it became about those people objecting and others objecting to their objections. At that point, it felt like the whole point was to shine a spotlight on toxic individuals, and the real message was lost to that.

Here’s a great article about the nuances of various options.

Sure, and that’s fine - but if that’s the case, why do we get long-winded explanations with stats and math like the one linked to earlier? Maybe not everyone got the memo that it wasn’t supposed to hold up to scrutiny, but when someone writes something like that, apparently with the intention of it looking like an actual statistical analysis of an actual situation, they’re opening themself up to analysis and criticism.

recently i started telling candidates right in the first interview that greptile offers no work-life-balance, typical workdays start at 9am and end at 11pm, often later, and we work saturdays, sometimes also sundays. i emphasize the environment is high stress, and there is no tolerance for poor work.

The fact that he ever gets through that interview without the candidate laughing themself right out of his office is just baffling.

It’s pretty neat to me that we’ve created this weird language around laugh onomatopoeia.

There’s a very different tone and meaning between “ha”, “hah”, “haha”, “hahah” and “hahaha”, and I think most people can pick up on it with very little exposure without ever actually being told the difference, or even being able to explain the difference in words. I’d be willing to bet that 30 years ago, it would have been far less of a ubiquitous experience.

This seems to be comparing percent of women who’ve been attacked by a bear to the percent of women who’ve been attacked by a man, which… I mean, I guess? But a more fair statistic would be comparing the percentage of bear encounters that result in an attack to the percentage of man encounters that result in an attack. This is also comparing fatal bear attacks to non-fatal man attacks. Not to mention, their conclusion that a woman is safer in a forest with 260 bears than with one man assumes that the man is with them, and the bears just exist somewhere in the forest and may never see nor even be aware of them.

I agree with the conclusion that a woman has a greater chance of being victimized by a man than by a bear, but this whole argument just feels like it’s designed to not stand up to critical analysis with the intent of labeling whoever tries to call it into question a misogynist, though, and I’m not going to get into all of that again.

I assume that part of the intent with these type of scenarios is to draw attention to toxic masculinity by baiting out toxic responses, which is fine and obviously it’s effective if that is the intent. However, any attempt to respectfully disagree with the premise was also treated as toxicity and that just made me not want to engage with feminists or the discourse at all, which seems counter-productive.

I’m not here to argue about the bear metaphor, but this claim seems spurious at best. Even if there’s only 1 fatal bear encounter per 10 years, the number of bear encounters is so low that I don’t think this statistic can possibly be true. Do you have anything to back up your claim, or is this just a gut feeling sort of thing?

Software engineers at the company can expect to make $120,000 to $200,000 per year, according to job postings on Greptile’s website.

So that’s the equivalent of 60k-100k at a job where you can work normal hours. I could see this maybe if he was paying more than twice the market rate for more than twice the normal amount of work, but he’s not. Not even close.

I singled her out because she’s the easiest person to get stuck seeing on the front page, so it quite literally and unavoidably feels in your face, thus it’s a bit of a meme right now to cite her.

I had to search for her to figure out who you meant; I’ve watched some of her content, but she’s nowhere near my front page. This is just the YouTube algorithm working against you. You can choose ‘Don’t recommend channel’ to avoid seeing her videos if you don’t want to.

I feel like this comment of yours is a jab against me

It’s not, I just assumed (apparently correctly) that you had a specific perspective since you called her (and only her) out by name.

The only way to guarantee that you don’t cause a paradox is to not use the power at all.

Why don’t you tell us about your own experience with Mormonism and how it differs from Alyssa’s?