It's a modern element that such a role be needed. Get someone in-house. Buying these "connections" through a community manager is nothing more than buying pozzed elements. Might as well consult with SBI or similar groups, because that's the end result of these people who push marketing, because they ALWAYS apply pressure internally to try and change the culture because "that's what's marketable".
Again, of the three things you mentioned for a community manager, there is only one that has any merit in the slightest, and that's marketing. Controversy and fanbase policing is irrelevant bullshit that marketing losers push to try and further control the core company through fearmongering ("if you don't do what I tell you to do, there will be controversy and the fanbase will lash out unless they're policed well enough!").
Again, I disagree that this position is needed. You're trying to make is seem like a necessary evil, but I don't think it is. You simply need someone who is a part of the core team to take a step back to engage for marketing purposes that will ACTUALLY represent the company, rather than hiring some freak that will ultimately rot the company from the inside out.
Or, let me re-iterate: Hiring one of these freaks is a red flag. Because the kind of people who would hire a freak almost certainly already aligns with said freak. So it's less that they'll rot the company, but rather that a rotting company will rely on these freaks to get the job done and make sure they're as thoroughly pozzed as they possibly can be.
Any space that isn't explicitly anti-SocJus will inevitably fall to SocJus infiltrators. It's happened time and time again, yet people are still deluding themselves that letting foxes into the hen house will somehow work this time and not result in utter shitshows.
I disagree. They don't need to be engaging in their fanbase at all, and marketing is marketing, not a community manager.
I get what you mean, but ignoring the media at large is a far better tact than anything else. Always has been.
That's bullshit. Single parenthood has been the leading connecting factor relating to SO many issues that it's undeniable unless your denial is a coping mechanism to avoid coming to terms with your personal failures and how said failures might impact others.
This ALSO applies to broken families, and children with step parents, though it's definitely at much lower rates. But it's clear that a lack of a proper two parent dynamic leads to serious issues, and while other people can fill that role it's not a guarantee. Equally so though, it's not a guarantee that both roles being filled means you'll turn out fine. There are other elements, but that doesn't mean that a leading factor shouldn't be identified.
Something something "I have a bridge to sell you" something something.
At this stage, any company with a "community manager" is a red flag.
And as per usual, a red flag doesn't instantly mean something is wrong. It's merely an indicator that there very well could be.
And considering the kind of people that dominate the HR/PR/Community Manager demographics, it's blatantly obvious that if you're hiring one of these people, you know what you're ultimately getting yourself into. And at that point, you get what you deserve from the situation.
I know it's absolutely "but media"-brained, but these freaks really looked at Dune and thought "yeah, controlling the water is definitely a good idea".
When Swartz was no longer the one running the site. He was the reason it was freedom oriented to begin with. Then he got arrested and supposedly committed suicide, and from there it was smooth sailing to shift one of the largest forums that were overwhelmingly libertarian oriented towards being the biggest bootlickers imaginable with as little resistance as possible.
I feel sorry when people's legacies are actively and openly twisted into the very opposite of what they stood for. Swartz didn't want Reddit to be like what it is today. And yeah, he wasn't right-wing, but at least at the time he was consistent in his stances and firmly stood against the state.
Based on your history around here, you're one of the people who's terminally susceptible to propaganda that thinks they're immune. The amount of times you fall back on establishment talking points is truly astounding. You are nearly the exact person I am talking about.
Most people are aware that the media is corrupt, lying and propagandistic. The problem is that they believe they're immune to propaganda and that the media they consume is done so critically and therefore it becomes irrelevant.
The other problem is convincing people in which way the media is propagandistic, because a lot of die hard leftists truly believe the media is right-wing and pro-trump. And no just some media, they think outlets like CNN and MSNBC are pro-trump.
It's not that "it won't work", it's that it's irrelevant if you do. Because again, most people agree that the media is fucked. The problem is they think they don't fall for the lies when they continually and routinely do.
Honestly, it's the same thing. The point is to plan to have some kind of value or worth down the track, and the people that Chillin is referring to is the people that spend all their paycheck and leave little to nothing for savings. All because instant gratification is more addictive.
I had a guy at work once actually tell others that they shouldn't be saving or trying to get more money. This is a man who is at retirement age who's working not because he needs to (because he saved and is well off) but to keep himself busy. And while I don't have a problem with him still working, I do have an issue with someone who is well off giving others the worst advice possible.
This is also a man that routinely spouts "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys", because that's what happens at this business. But yeah, you shouldn't save, just spend it all on instant gratification.
And they wonder why they're middle age being a mindless labourer working for bare fucking minimum when they're given this advice by someone who appears to have their own shit together. And I admit, I truly don't know if this man is a blithering idiot that got lucky in his own life with a decent amount of charisma, or if he's actually malicious.
the reform party
I always laugh at these kinds of things. Because I truly do believe it has to be a really hopeful naivety to believe the system can be reformed. At every step it's been actively against the public, and there are people that think this knowing hostility can and more importantly should be saved?
And I know it seems like this is just doomposting and to a certain level it is. But it's also not. It's about coming to terms that the state is something that cannot be reformed and moving forward from that. Anyone that still clings to that at this point is either wilfully naive (and I don't entirely blame them) or subject to a sunk cost mentality and doesn't want to comprehend the idea of giving up on something that has ultimately already failed its purpose.
Because they're ignorant about what is and isn't the left/right dichotomy. And the small percentage that have even a slight idea (but still don't understand it) buy into the idea of The Great Swap, an idea that supposedly only applies to America, but they truly believe that all historical great evils of the left are now evils of the right for some arbitrary reason.
They don't care to look at the horrors of people like Stalin or Pol Pot. They're not interested in the reality that they'd agree with most of NatSoc talking points if it wasn't presented as NatSoc. They're not interested in the reality that Fascism is a threat to the left because it was explicitly an authoritarian reaction (and not one born from the left/right dichotomy) to the failures of current leftist doctrine, namely socialism.
They're not interested in the reality that the vast majority authoritarianism, paternalistic policy and general statism has roots in leftist doctrine. Because one day, they hope that they can be one of the people who can control someone else. Because deep down, that's what kind of person they ultimately are.
To be fair, at least the Kyle situation was politically charged and mainly by the mass media, so that explains some of the division due to partisan lines. Can't really say the same for Gary.
I understand why this needs to be illegal
Personally, I don't. I have no issues with vigilantism like this with the simple clause being that you being convinced someone is guilty doesn't absolve you of criminality if someone you target is innocent.
Basically, this shouldn't be illegal so long as the target is objectively guilty. I have zero issues with this.
It's kind of insane to me that there are people who are actually against what Gary did. It's truly hard to imagine the kind of person (that isn't themselves a pedophile), who is so utterly brain rotted to think that what Gary did wasn't swift and deserved justice.
So you're suggesting it's a chicken/egg kinda situation? That while it could be single women are more prone to paternalistic policy making due to some sort of innate maternal drive, you're suggesting such people are less desirable as a life long partner?
It's not a terrible theory, though there is other elements at play, like long documented generational shifts in voting patterns (eg the young of that era tend to be more inclined to vote left while that same group will end up more right wing as time goes on. Pretty clear cut example of that is hippies being baby boomers). However, there's also the counter point to that about constant political shift, in that today's Republicans are yesterdays Democrats, so have those demographics actually shifted, or has the Overton Window just moved to make them appear more right wing?
The overall point I'm trying to make is that for most of these things that can be presented as chicken vs egg dichotomies, it's less a dichotomy and a little of both, and in some cases can even feed into one another.
Just like when women say they don't want a guy who uses steroids, what they mean is they don't want a guy who looks like a walking beef jerky and garden hose golem. But they love moderate steroid use and a little bit of eating disorder thrown in, you know to be 'naturally' fit like their favorite celebrities.
This is such an easy concept to understand I don't see how even a woman could not get it.
Well you see, it's actually pretty simple, and it boils down to being an egotistical cunt that not only lacks the ability but actively refuses to have any sort of actual empathy. And when I say empathy, I don't mean sympathy where you feel bad for others circumstances, I mean actually trying to understand a given point of view that you don't agree with.
These people lack this ability. They cannot comprehend outside their very narrow, very egotistical mindset. That's why they cannot see their own hypocrisy in this manner.
Oh, and they also ignore that the vast majority of people who "enforce beauty standards" are other women, not men. So it's once again "Women do X, men at fault".
Japan has insanely strict laws, and in some cases it could be easy to suggest it's very much over the top. However. Japan also does NOT have an issue with prison overcrowding.
As per usual, if it's not strict, overzealous laws that cause prison overcrowding, what is it? And the vast majority here already know that answer, but people not paying attention need to be asked in that way because they instinctively reject uncomfortable truths. They need to stumble upon the answer themselves.
This is just objectively false. Are the instances where interpretation is needed? Sure, but in the vast majority of translation, and even more in the specific examples that receive 99.9% of criticism, interpretation isn't something that comes in to play. It's the fact that these worthless turds explicitly, knowingly, and often gleefully alter the translation to push their agenda.
This is a repeat of Gamergate. One group levies legitimate criticism while the defending group focuses on a topic virtually nobody is talking about. It's cliche Motte and Bailey tactics.
It's really amusing because NOTHING about this says they don't care about anything. Merely this one topic.
But as per usual, it's all or nothing for these terminally brainrotted losers.
Congratulations, you've discovered the reality of most internet companies. YouTube also makes no money. Twitch is a disaster. Elon showed that Twitter is trash and even before then it was known they solely survived off government grants.
The reality is that consolidated internet forums/sites are not viable. Centralisation is overwhelmingly a massive mistake. Where centralisation is possible in the physical world (though still not a good idea in my opinion), centralisation on the internet cannot be viably monetised to accommodate users that (rightfully) refuse to pay for these services.
But these companies somehow stay afloat? How? Most of the time, through investors with vested interests, or government grants. Why do these companies get grants? Who knows, but they get them. Almost like it's a scam, and they're able to scam taxpayer money.
Reddit is failing to pull off that scam, and so they're hoping that going public will bring in the money instead. But it won't. They'll get an immediate inflow, and then it'll continue to fail again. Like it always does.
>has dogshit standards
>is surprised he gets dogshit results
Try reading old pulpy romance stories. You'd be surprised how many involve some element of force. Not rape per se, but consent is a very distant consideration.
So just to get this clear: Parents have no rights to raise their own child, however if they do fail to raise their child and that child commits and atrocity, that's now their fault?
I know that pointing out double standards is a meme, but it's just insane how these people operate. That anyone can be held responsible for the actions of another (excluding cases of explicit coercion, extortion, etc), but that those same people can also be jailed for preventing those others from self-harming.