the recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity. Here is a great example. Because the reviewer wrote something which didn't effusively glow about a how ripped Momoa was, about how manly he looked, about how his character portrayed all that is manly (based on the above blurb it seemed the character did not do that), the "men" came out in droves to criticize, belittle and of course, threaten the person who gave their honest opinion.
It's almost as if Gillette was sending out a not so subtle message about reality.
We live in a funny world, where women are pure, honest and upstanding, and it is just, right, and fair to stereotype males - a level of prejudice that would make the Grand Dragon of the KuKlux Klan blush.
We're probably never going to eliminate these toxic males any more than we are going to eliminate toxic females. Especially since it is social suicide to even admit that there is such a thing as toxic femininity. Well, mon chichi - there sure is. So try not to be so prejudicial and using stereotypes that fit a narrative that dishonestly preaches inclusivity while labeling everything like a 19th century phrenologist.
But to the matter at hand - I have a presence on the internet, and get invitations to kill myself, or that someone wants to take out a second amendment solution all the time. And despite your thoughts, not all from men. (as far as I can tell - in the internet a person can be anyone) But by the way - if someone makes a credible death threat - I have law enforcement on my side.
The real solution for this person is to not allow commentary, and not post her email address on the stories. If she wants, she can have huffpost filter responses for her. Because short of a one strike you're out rule that kills any male who bothers a woman, or potentially bothers one - it just isn't possible to fix that sort of problem. Besides, there is still the problem of toxic women.
Just so you know, the same applies to much of Europe, since that's the way Napoleon's Civil Code worked and he conquered much of Europe.
The point is that your father is the person that raised you, not the person who provided your genes.
Is their any point to your wife going out and fucking some guy she met once, getting pregnant, and morally right and just that you have to pay for her infidelity?
State sanctioned and approved women's right to have children with anyone they feel like while married. If you think that's moral, it explains so much about Europe.
And a T posing Leia doing a Mary Poppins in space was the moment the franchise "jumped the shark".
The purple haired sjw preachy lesbian was completely unnecessary and made zero sense to the plot.
Leia should have went out piloting the ship that suicide bombed the fleet.
Beside that a slow speed chase over running out of gas also had zero place and made no sense in star wars lore.
You forgot the part about how Luke Skywalker must have been taking meds or had a mental breakdown that completely changed his character. Talk about jarring.
Who fucking cares? Does having weak male characters threaten you some how?
Seriously, you mistake not likeing something with being threatened by it.
Kennedy and Johnson belittled and insulted anyone who dared to disagree with them.
Let's take a restaraunt for example. If you order a rare steak and it comes out well done, and you complain, so the manager comes out and calls you an asshole, upbraids you publicly, and if you don't like it you just aren't man enough to handle a well done steak - are you going to come back?
Unless you are a masochist - probably not.
Why don't you ask these presumably threatened males if they like the Alien Trilogy. Or if they like the early Terminator movies. TThere is a disconnect between how "strong women" were portrayed then, and the insecure vibe you get from present day movies, which has a strong undercurrent of misandry.
This thinking is what is wrong with Supergirl. The show succeeds because the side characters are not inherently weak.
I'm waiting for a Superman movie with a female Superman, and a Supergirl Movie with a trans guy who used to be a trans woman who used to be a trans guy.
You don't have a point. The story is weak because it is contrived, and it is contrived because of the requirement to show "strong womens" in a particular manner.
That's all.
You need to do some research on Kathleen Kennedy, et al.
I don't watch "animated movies", so I have nothing to say about them, but from what you say, they are not a story with strong female/weak male characters by producer request. I've seen E.T., though, and I definitely remember it NOT being "a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters". So maybe you really don't know what you're talking about.
That wasn't what he was talking about. They had characters who were whatever they needed to be. Besides, what is supposed to be a strong femal character today is some woman with a bad attitude. Which is strange, because I read today's "strong female leads" as insecure instead of strong.
Can you aspire to be a toy? A car? A robot? A feeling?
Not really, but Disney Pixar made it work somehow in their respective animated movies.
Have you seen Short Circuit or E.T?
How do they manage that? My hypothesis is that they probably know how to write characters and plots the audience can identify with no matter what the characters are specifically.
But they couldn't have the line "Mmmm, nice software, Stephanie!" in a movie today. Well, maybe if it was a female robot walking in on Sheedy in the bath.
You can have a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters. I
No, you cannot. For a story to be good, it needs characters that all can aspire to. We have plenty of "strong" female and "weak" male characters in the sequels. And you need no feeling search to know it is crap. Or that you're wrong.
SJWars is simply taking the Television model of the Stupid Dumpy Husband and the Hot Smart Wife and tried to apply it to movies, only substituting not so hot women.
You simply cannot win with the people they are trying to appeal to. Remember what should have been the ultimate strong female movie, Wonder Woman, they enraged the easily offended set because Gadot didn't have armpit hair, and that since she came from a female only culture, she was raped because she couldn't really give consent.
Rose is basically the same worthless character and dragged Finn into her worthless story arc, and Luke has turned into a soy boy to make our Mary Sue look better in comparison.
I heard that Rose was put in the movie to Make JarJar Binks look good.
So...you're saying that Rian Johnson killed Star Wars, because they were the one that went a head with pissing all over existing cannon, lore, and so-forth.
Pretty much. And the out of character Luke Skywalker - the most revered character in the whole series - was jarring.
Perhaps the gaping plot holes, illogical character actions, and inconsistency with decades of in-universe lore have something to do with it?
Just a thought.
Yup, that's a big point. As well, the response to criticism was to insult and belittle those who complained. The people who complained were called unable to handle strong women, called racist and sexist.
Now while I suppose that we might make a case that fans of Star Wars are immature and foolish for attending the movies multiple times, and spending thousands on memorabilia.
But in a different Universe, Ferengi's Rules of acquisition number 57. Good customers are almost as rare as Latinum - treasure them.
The abuse hurled at passionate fans who cared enough to complain show that Kennedy, Johnson et al, who don't take telling and seem to think that the people they insulted will put up with anything. and still open their wallets. The fans said they weren't going to watch Solo. It appears to be true.
And the people the new Star Wars Power Brokers have tried to appeal to don't appear to have the same spending habits as the former fans.
Weirdest damn thing I ever saw. Apparently women are allowed to rut with whoever they feel like and their husbands must submit. Institutionalized approval of female infidelity.
French Psychologists have determined that paternity is not related to biology, but society. Sorry Psychologists that's so wrong as to demand a total breakdown of society.
There are apparently human chimeras who merged with fraternal twins in the womb to form one infant. One of the more bizarre but verified cases was Lydia Fairchild, who was found not to be genetically related to her children. The DNA of her cervical smear differed from that measured in other parts of her body, which helped establish her parentage of her own children.
A lot of men are finding out that they are not related to their children. DIY paternity testing kits are very popular. Although in France they are banned, and you can get a year in prison and 15000 Euro fine if you attempt it. How short sighted, the woman and her children need that money. Germany is working on that as well.
I guess this is giving official government sanction and approval to cuckholding. In any event, that woman you spoke of need not worry, as parentage is officially unrelated to who mated with who in the EU. Koo Koo Ka Joo.
If I were a CEO I would task the CIO/CTO to worry about Cyber Security, just make sure you have enough money set aside to help pay for their recommendations. But the CEO should be more worried about recessions. Because Recessions cut the number of customers, a cut in customers cuts profit and growth.
One of the first things that should, but probably won't happen is the cyber security depratment needs to be turned into something other than a cost center.
Then there is another problem. While its easy to blame the minions, a tremendous number of breaches come from top levels.
The Chief cyber officer needs to be at the same level as the Chief Security officer, have the same level of impunity as a ship's surgeon, and be protected from retaliation - ie, can go into the CEO's or CFO's office and force them to follow procedures, as well as suspension/termination authority over them if they do not. That will go a long way
In other words, the breaches will continue unabated, and Charlie the night janitor or some other poor schmedlock will be fired for any problem.
In 2007, the crash was the result of repackaged bad mortgage debt traded like it was good debt.
That was the big cause. In addition, many of the same people who had the bad mortgages (as well as many who didn't) were drowning in debt. Multiple credit cards, most all maxxed out. multiple re-fi's based on inflated housing prices.
I knew it was coming the day I saw my first "Buy a million dollar house with monthly payments of 250 dollars!" ad on Yahoo. That was simple math and no way around it. Human lifespan, take home pay, and mortgage amortization. So simple a caveman could figure it out. So there was one guy hailed as some sort of genius when he predicted a coming recession. Shit - I had him beat to the inevitable end years before that.
Anyhow, I made money during the great recession by modification of investments.
The only thing close to that now is student debt. However, I would hope that the Universities would be held accountable for that since the cost inflation and the lack of suitable employment skills falls directly in their laps.
Now you got me started! The universities in their pursuit of money, also built a system that was doomed to failure. The ease with which to get student loans resulted in a lot of students with a road to unemployment major like Gender studies and philosophy. And inculcating the idea that without a degree you were subhuman, and the lack of instructing people in financial common sense, have created a generation of degreed people who have degrees based on giving their opinion, and nothing marketable. A lot of Gender studies and philosophy majors working the drive through at McDonald's with precious little chance of paying off that 100K of debt.
Yes - the Universities should be held accountable. While there is room in this world for education in these fields, entrance needs to be pretty tightly restricted, because the only in-field careers are teaching in that department.
But the universities were counting that easy cash. The results? Broke students with unuseable "skills". Toxic campuses that are overloaded with useless majors, but bent on making little islands of exclusivity. I'll just note to check the Female to male ratio. This has both social and biological issues in the post graduation world. Tis a real mess brewing, and I'm not certain it won't collapse.
A cyber security breach would just mean they short a bunch of stock before the announcement, making them even wealthier.
Well there's Equifax...https://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-executives-sold-stock-after-data-breach-before-informing-public-2017-09-07 so you aren't wrong
Nah, not the same. If you smoke, it's because one day you made a decision to smoke. And although you may feel like you made the decision to use a phone, you really have to have a phone today to operate as a normal person (very few people don't have a phone). And now they make these phones specifically to track you, so you have no choice in the matter of "the creation of data on you".
So it's worse than them finding a way to kill you and make money. They found a way to make you live as a slave to the market and make money off of you. Don't forget, most all of the money that empowers these huge corporations has to do with personal data, and marketing to based on that data.
You are mixing points, and losing the main point. Corporations have zero concern for the customer, including if their activities damage or kill you. There is money to be made by selling your personal data, so it simply will be sold, and if a corporation like Sprint says they aren't selling it, that comes under the heading of not providing enough value to the stockholders. As amoral entities, the human mouthpiece serving the corporation and stockholders is simply lying.
Exact 1:1 correlation with specific activities is not relevant, the amoral pursuit of money even if it harms the individual customer is the point.
Slashdot Mirror
the recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity. Here is a great example. Because the reviewer wrote something which didn't effusively glow about a how ripped Momoa was, about how manly he looked, about how his character portrayed all that is manly (based on the above blurb it seemed the character did not do that), the "men" came out in droves to criticize, belittle and of course, threaten the person who gave their honest opinion.
It's almost as if Gillette was sending out a not so subtle message about reality.
Here's a little video based on the Gillete video for your perusal - I hope you'll comment on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We live in a funny world, where women are pure, honest and upstanding, and it is just, right, and fair to stereotype males - a level of prejudice that would make the Grand Dragon of the KuKlux Klan blush.
We're probably never going to eliminate these toxic males any more than we are going to eliminate toxic females. Especially since it is social suicide to even admit that there is such a thing as toxic femininity. Well, mon chichi - there sure is. So try not to be so prejudicial and using stereotypes that fit a narrative that dishonestly preaches inclusivity while labeling everything like a 19th century phrenologist.
But to the matter at hand - I have a presence on the internet, and get invitations to kill myself, or that someone wants to take out a second amendment solution all the time. And despite your thoughts, not all from men. (as far as I can tell - in the internet a person can be anyone) But by the way - if someone makes a credible death threat - I have law enforcement on my side.
The real solution for this person is to not allow commentary, and not post her email address on the stories. If she wants, she can have huffpost filter responses for her. Because short of a one strike you're out rule that kills any male who bothers a woman, or potentially bothers one - it just isn't possible to fix that sort of problem. Besides, there is still the problem of toxic women.
Just so you know, the same applies to much of Europe, since that's the way Napoleon's Civil Code worked and he conquered much of Europe.
The point is that your father is the person that raised you, not the person who provided your genes.
Is their any point to your wife going out and fucking some guy she met once, getting pregnant, and morally right and just that you have to pay for her infidelity?
State sanctioned and approved women's right to have children with anyone they feel like while married. If you think that's moral, it explains so much about Europe.
Release too many things, too quickly, without enough time between your releases, and people get tired of it and lose interest.
You might want to talk to Marvel.
That's exactly why it failed...
And a T posing Leia doing a Mary Poppins in space was the moment the franchise "jumped the shark".
The purple haired sjw preachy lesbian was completely unnecessary and made zero sense to the plot.
Leia should have went out piloting the ship that suicide bombed the fleet.
Beside that a slow speed chase over running out of gas also had zero place and made no sense in star wars lore.
You forgot the part about how Luke Skywalker must have been taking meds or had a mental breakdown that completely changed his character. Talk about jarring.
Who fucking cares? Does having weak male characters threaten you some how?
Seriously, you mistake not likeing something with being threatened by it.
Kennedy and Johnson belittled and insulted anyone who dared to disagree with them.
Let's take a restaraunt for example. If you order a rare steak and it comes out well done, and you complain, so the manager comes out and calls you an asshole, upbraids you publicly, and if you don't like it you just aren't man enough to handle a well done steak - are you going to come back?
Unless you are a masochist - probably not.
Why don't you ask these presumably threatened males if they like the Alien Trilogy. Or if they like the early Terminator movies. TThere is a disconnect between how "strong women" were portrayed then, and the insecure vibe you get from present day movies, which has a strong undercurrent of misandry.
By the way - manshaming doesn't work any more.
You had me until you brought the SJW thing into it. The movie just sucked in it's own right not because you are threatened by women.
Not jumping off a bridge is a SJW move. Now you have to because I wrote that.
No, don't. Just understand that your outlook makes you as manipulable as a Fox News viewer, who wants rebellion because we had a Kenyan president.
This thinking is what is wrong with Supergirl. The show succeeds because the side characters are not inherently weak.
I'm waiting for a Superman movie with a female Superman, and a Supergirl Movie with a trans guy who used to be a trans woman who used to be a trans guy.
You don't have a point. The story is weak because it is contrived, and it is contrived because of the requirement to show "strong womens" in a particular manner.
That's all.
You need to do some research on Kathleen Kennedy, et al.
I don't watch "animated movies", so I have nothing to say about them, but from what you say, they are not a story with strong female/weak male characters by producer request. I've seen E.T., though, and I definitely remember it NOT being "a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters". So maybe you really don't know what you're talking about.
That wasn't what he was talking about. They had characters who were whatever they needed to be. Besides, what is supposed to be a strong femal character today is some woman with a bad attitude. Which is strange, because I read today's "strong female leads" as insecure instead of strong.
Can you aspire to be a toy? A car? A robot? A feeling? Not really, but Disney Pixar made it work somehow in their respective animated movies. Have you seen Short Circuit or E.T? How do they manage that? My hypothesis is that they probably know how to write characters and plots the audience can identify with no matter what the characters are specifically.
But they couldn't have the line "Mmmm, nice software, Stephanie!" in a movie today. Well, maybe if it was a female robot walking in on Sheedy in the bath.
You can have a good story with strong female characters and weak male characters. I
No, you cannot. For a story to be good, it needs characters that all can aspire to. We have plenty of "strong" female and "weak" male characters in the sequels. And you need no feeling search to know it is crap. Or that you're wrong.
SJWars is simply taking the Television model of the Stupid Dumpy Husband and the Hot Smart Wife and tried to apply it to movies, only substituting not so hot women.
You simply cannot win with the people they are trying to appeal to. Remember what should have been the ultimate strong female movie, Wonder Woman, they enraged the easily offended set because Gadot didn't have armpit hair, and that since she came from a female only culture, she was raped because she couldn't really give consent.
Rose is basically the same worthless character and dragged Finn into her worthless story arc, and Luke has turned into a soy boy to make our Mary Sue look better in comparison.
I heard that Rose was put in the movie to Make JarJar Binks look good.
So...you're saying that Rian Johnson killed Star Wars, because they were the one that went a head with pissing all over existing cannon, lore, and so-forth.
Pretty much. And the out of character Luke Skywalker - the most revered character in the whole series - was jarring.
Perhaps the gaping plot holes, illogical character actions, and inconsistency with decades of in-universe lore have something to do with it?
Just a thought.
Yup, that's a big point. As well, the response to criticism was to insult and belittle those who complained. The people who complained were called unable to handle strong women, called racist and sexist.
Now while I suppose that we might make a case that fans of Star Wars are immature and foolish for attending the movies multiple times, and spending thousands on memorabilia.
But in a different Universe, Ferengi's Rules of acquisition number 57. Good customers are almost as rare as Latinum - treasure them.
The abuse hurled at passionate fans who cared enough to complain show that Kennedy, Johnson et al, who don't take telling and seem to think that the people they insulted will put up with anything. and still open their wallets. The fans said they weren't going to watch Solo. It appears to be true.
And the people the new Star Wars Power Brokers have tried to appeal to don't appear to have the same spending habits as the former fans.
Paternity test are illegal in France? Coo coo ka choo I'm indeed.
https://www.avoiceformen.com/m...
Weirdest damn thing I ever saw. Apparently women are allowed to rut with whoever they feel like and their husbands must submit. Institutionalized approval of female infidelity.
French Psychologists have determined that paternity is not related to biology, but society. Sorry Psychologists that's so wrong as to demand a total breakdown of society.
There are apparently human chimeras who merged with fraternal twins in the womb to form one infant. One of the more bizarre but verified cases was Lydia Fairchild, who was found not to be genetically related to her children. The DNA of her cervical smear differed from that measured in other parts of her body, which helped establish her parentage of her own children.
A lot of men are finding out that they are not related to their children. DIY paternity testing kits are very popular. Although in France they are banned, and you can get a year in prison and 15000 Euro fine if you attempt it. How short sighted, the woman and her children need that money. Germany is working on that as well.
I guess this is giving official government sanction and approval to cuckholding. In any event, that woman you spoke of need not worry, as parentage is officially unrelated to who mated with who in the EU. Koo Koo Ka Joo.
Now stop stealing my clothes and trying to trick my girlfriend, asshole!
Good use of commas there.
If I were a CEO I would task the CIO/CTO to worry about Cyber Security, just make sure you have enough money set aside to help pay for their recommendations. But the CEO should be more worried about recessions. Because Recessions cut the number of customers, a cut in customers cuts profit and growth.
One of the first things that should, but probably won't happen is the cyber security depratment needs to be turned into something other than a cost center.
Then there is another problem. While its easy to blame the minions, a tremendous number of breaches come from top levels.
The Chief cyber officer needs to be at the same level as the Chief Security officer, have the same level of impunity as a ship's surgeon, and be protected from retaliation - ie, can go into the CEO's or CFO's office and force them to follow procedures, as well as suspension/termination authority over them if they do not. That will go a long way
In other words, the breaches will continue unabated, and Charlie the night janitor or some other poor schmedlock will be fired for any problem.
Wel, not necessarily. For an example, you could find the nearest mirror.
I see, we gots ourself someone that doesn't know his insult terms.
You have the weakest insult game I've ever seen.
ITT: armchair C-suite wannabes give business advice to millionaires with decades of executive experience
This was a problem of basic math, and the actuarial tables. Pick which one you wish to refute, my dear coward.
In 2007, the crash was the result of repackaged bad mortgage debt traded like it was good debt.
That was the big cause. In addition, many of the same people who had the bad mortgages (as well as many who didn't) were drowning in debt. Multiple credit cards, most all maxxed out. multiple re-fi's based on inflated housing prices.
I knew it was coming the day I saw my first "Buy a million dollar house with monthly payments of 250 dollars!" ad on Yahoo. That was simple math and no way around it. Human lifespan, take home pay, and mortgage amortization. So simple a caveman could figure it out. So there was one guy hailed as some sort of genius when he predicted a coming recession. Shit - I had him beat to the inevitable end years before that.
Anyhow, I made money during the great recession by modification of investments.
The only thing close to that now is student debt. However, I would hope that the Universities would be held accountable for that since the cost inflation and the lack of suitable employment skills falls directly in their laps.
Now you got me started! The universities in their pursuit of money, also built a system that was doomed to failure. The ease with which to get student loans resulted in a lot of students with a road to unemployment major like Gender studies and philosophy. And inculcating the idea that without a degree you were subhuman, and the lack of instructing people in financial common sense, have created a generation of degreed people who have degrees based on giving their opinion, and nothing marketable. A lot of Gender studies and philosophy majors working the drive through at McDonald's with precious little chance of paying off that 100K of debt.
Yes - the Universities should be held accountable. While there is room in this world for education in these fields, entrance needs to be pretty tightly restricted, because the only in-field careers are teaching in that department.
But the universities were counting that easy cash. The results? Broke students with unuseable "skills". Toxic campuses that are overloaded with useless majors, but bent on making little islands of exclusivity. I'll just note to check the Female to male ratio. This has both social and biological issues in the post graduation world. Tis a real mess brewing, and I'm not certain it won't collapse.
A cyber security breach would just mean they short a bunch of stock before the announcement, making them even wealthier.
Well there's Equifax...https://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-executives-sold-stock-after-data-breach-before-informing-public-2017-09-07 so you aren't wrong
You incel GOP kike faggots and your jew-worshiping cunt leader will hang.
I know you're an AC, and don't know better, but the terms "incel" and "faggots" are mutually exclusive. So come back when you can make sense.
Might want to be worried about both, my bois.
Nah, not the same. If you smoke, it's because one day you made a decision to smoke. And although you may feel like you made the decision to use a phone, you really have to have a phone today to operate as a normal person (very few people don't have a phone). And now they make these phones specifically to track you, so you have no choice in the matter of "the creation of data on you". So it's worse than them finding a way to kill you and make money. They found a way to make you live as a slave to the market and make money off of you. Don't forget, most all of the money that empowers these huge corporations has to do with personal data, and marketing to based on that data.
You are mixing points, and losing the main point. Corporations have zero concern for the customer, including if their activities damage or kill you. There is money to be made by selling your personal data, so it simply will be sold, and if a corporation like Sprint says they aren't selling it, that comes under the heading of not providing enough value to the stockholders. As amoral entities, the human mouthpiece serving the corporation and stockholders is simply lying. Exact 1:1 correlation with specific activities is not relevant, the amoral pursuit of money even if it harms the individual customer is the point.