It's his fault for offering the deal, and also [his/her] fault for taking it. The whole transaction is repugnant, and everyone involved should be viewed with disgust for participating.
You aren't wrong to say that Harvey Weinstein should probably get some punishment for offering. You are wrong to say that the women have no agency in accepting. You draw the analogy of an "attacker," but he did not "attack" anyone. These people walked into the office, they were offered "fame and fortune for your body," and they said "yes."
Realistically, the whole thing is closest to prostitution, except that in this case the john and the pimp are essentially one guy. Ergo, the prostitute and the john/pimp should both be punished. Unfortunately, we are not operating under that system, and the substitute system we have, of lying about what actually occurred to displace all the blame onto one party, is not good. When you call Weinstein an "attacker," who "forces mindrape" on people, you are siding with that system, because you are also displacing agency and thus culpability from the women who willingly took the deal.
I think what this misses is the responsibility of the fame-chasing whores (of both sexes, although my understanding is that this particular pimp was only into women) for accepting the deal.
But he really expected support from the US state department.
I don’t understand how so many people in alt tech (and this is true of a lot of alternative conservative media, too) are still so naive.
I don’t think I know this reference.
-Migrants and homeless people moved to other cities :(
Is the sad face on this one because they're not being deported, imprisoned, or executed as appropriate?
Like “the total elimination of this group [is contextually understood to be desirable].”
You might see it in the context of a news story about a member of one group or another doing something particularly heinous, and then a commenter would post “T[X]D.”
He has the most important qualification: a dedication to putting things in his tunnel.
Yeah, but do you think she cares about any of that? I suspect that any sting she’s feeling is in the blow to her ego and the reduction in salary and personal prestige. On an individual level for her, staying employed at Harvard is a win.
There is no win for Claudine Gay in this one.
The school has shown it will burn itself down to keep giving her a six figure job, and that’s assuming people keep on the pressure to actually make the burn-down happen. Assuming she’s completely shameless—and she is a black, female academic—I think there are a lot of scenarios that are wins for her here.
Hey now, it does seem like reading other people’s research might be her only skill….
To be honest, this one seems pretty minor. Some of the others I saw are much bigger… if my only introduction to localization issues was this post, I’d assume the complainers are nitpicking.
X-phobia the forbidden one(s)
Impossible! No one's ever been able to correctly gender Xem before!
“Diversity” in almost any modern context should be understood to mean “anti-white racial Marxism.”
Do you know for sure they’re aware of it?
Is there any way to report this behavior to Steam?
Given what kind of "organization" it was, the Diversity Officer may have actually had a more relevant and important job.
I also enjoyed that film, but looking back I am of the opinion that—since it is a version of an English cultural myth—it is unacceptably diverse and should be regarded as bad, even if it is fun.
The implication is that red piller activity on Twitter was incentivized and turned to engagement farming when Elon started giving out part of the advertising revenue to to large accounts that had Twitter subscriptions. This is at least a little true, but no more than any other ideology, group, or subculture has gained their own engagement farmers hoping to cash in.
The further implication, from that, is that these red pill accounts have driven women away from the right, ergo they are selling out conservatism for money. This is laughably false, as women have leaned heavily left since long before Elon buying Twitter. There would probably be relatively more truth in blaming the leftward leaning of women for red pill philosophy than vice versa.
A small disclaimer, though—while women do lean left relative to men, and we see even here users that like to blame “white women” for the ills of modern liberalism, I do feel it fair to point out that when one accounts for race as well as sex, white women still support Republicans at a higher rate than non-white men.
I thought they hit that point at least five years ago.
The Daily Wire should have crashed and burned when Crowder leaked their contract (if not well before then). They got defenders saying Crowder shouldn't have leaked the contract and it was just an opening offer and yadda yadda yadda, but that entire debate is all a sideshow distracting from the real problem, which is that The Daily Wire claims to be an anti-(excessive) censorship, conservative, non-mainstream organization, and then it makes a contract where its employees are greatly punished for running afoul of the most mainstream of leftist standards. There’s “unfair opening offer” and then there’s “structured in such a way as to fundamentally undercut the entire alleged premise of the company.”
All questions of “fairness,” “negotiation,” and “friendship” aside, that contract deserved to be leaked simply because it exposes a massive open question about The Daily Wire’s commitment to its claimed values. Hypothetically, if I join “the organization to oppose cannibalism” and someone leaks that they stop their employees from saying cannibalism is bad, I don’t give a shit about whether the leaker was betraying trust or not and I don’t care if it turns out you can get permission to say cannibalism is bad if you ask nicely—I want to know why the organization to oppose cannibalism ever took that position on any level.
That’s the most insane part. The Daily Wire claims to be an anti-(excessive) censorship, conservative, non-mainstream organization, and then it makes a contract where its employees are greatly punished for running afoul of the most mainstream of leftist standards. There’s “unfair opening offer” and then there’s “structured in such a way as to fundamentally undercut the entire alleged premise of the company.”
All questions of “fairness,” “negotiation,” and “friendship” aside, that contract deserved to be leaked simply because it exposes a massive open question about The Daily Wire’s commitment to its claimed values. Hypothetically, if I join “the organization to oppose cannibalism” and someone leaks that they stop their employees from saying cannibalism is bad, I don’t give a shit about whether the leaker was betraying trust or not and I don’t care if it turns out you can get permission to say cannibalism is bad if you ask nicely—I want to know why the organization to oppose cannibalism ever took that position on any level.
I will never understand why it was Crowder betraying his friends to publish an insultingly bad contract, but not those friends betraying Crowder when they offered that contract. The usual response is “it’s an opening offer! You’re supposed to negotiate!” but are you telling me that if you drew up a contract to employ one of your friends, you would intentionally draw up an awful, one-sided deal for that friend under the assumption they’ll go through and throw out every bad clause? Then what, you slap them on the back and go “good job buddy, you saw through my prank, let’s go a drink!” If they were foolish enough to accept, would you stop them from doing so? I know you’re a lawyer, but that still seems harsh.
Some of it, maybe, but my issue with this line of thought (and with the poem quoted by u/SoctaticMethod1 ) is that they both work from an assumption that the government picks its targets with a dartboard. That it oppresses for the sake of oppressing, that it has no favored classes or people with motivations steering the ship.
Sometimes, that may be true, but in this case, you have to remember that you’re applying it as “hey, black guy, you know those other black people telling you you’re noble, whites are evil, and they’re gonna take everything from whites and give it to you? Imagine if they turned on you!” (And you can substitute “gays/straights,” “trans/cis,” or any such pairing here). The argument that “it could be turned on you!” entirely misses the friend/enemy distinction. The goal is to give these powers to your friends to use against your enemies so that your enemies can’t create similar powers to use against you.
Truthfully, I find myself more aligned with the more authoritarian forms of the right for exactly this reason. I don’t agree with the normiecons and the lolberts going “but if we use the power of government against them, what if it turns on us?” That philosophy of surrendering power is exactly what got us where we are today, and I have no desire for my side’s end goal to be “take out the current crop of bad guys, set us back to 1990, and say ‘pretty please, ideology that ruthlessly infiltrates, subverts, and seizes power, don’t do that this time around!’” It is necessary to crush communism, and no moralizing poems about “what if the people that crush communism turn on you" will change my mind. Likewise for the black supremacists or the LGBT identitarians or whatever—it is necessary for them to seize power out of the hands of their opponents, they’ve been doing a bang up job of it thus far, and of course they aren’t going to say “but what if my enemies use this power against me,” because they are killing their enemies. Their enemies will be dead.