Oh boy! Not all ads! Oh yippee! I have been blessed on this fine day! 🥰

Crumbs is such a cute name, but a little small when he's the whole loaf

Are you also against diverse representation in media? That's been pushed for years, and to an extent we've succeeded. There's no reason we can't do the same for male role models

This is the pick yourself up by your bootstraps version of raising a child. You can't seriously expect a 12 year old to have enough wisdom and initiative to do this? Why do we have this unrealistic expectation that men are super capable and just choose to be failures? It's the same system that fails everybody else, that's also failing them

I feel like a lot of "woke" shows are not great, but they get a cult of defenders and haters boosting it's popularity because of some perceived culture war. When it's really just execs trying to make their ~~milk toast~~ milquetoast slop shamelessly appeal to a wider audience.

No one complains about Spiderverse (after it came out) because it was good

The original 20 minute video in the article makes it clear he's talking about job roles, and mentions writers a few times (admittedly not close enough to draw an 100% certain link). I don't think it's enough to discredit this just based on the assumption that he's talking about actors or that there isn't enough context. Obviously it's vague enough that we can't draw any solid conclusions, so I agree with you there.

The main reason I think this is bullshit is that the guy's testimony isn't credible for two main reasons:

• The guy was recently passed up for promotion, and blames it on being white and male
• The interviewer is posing as a romantically interested date and asking plenty of leading questions, the guy is at least partially telling her what she wants to hear

These two points, regardless of how true his story is, give him an ulterior motive for embellishing the story and exaggerating facts, which ultimately means we can't trust this.

I'd like to see a full investigation, as with any accusation of discrimination. But we all know that when nothing turns up, it wouldn't shut the right wingers up

It takes a lot of energy to send them back in time

Yeah, we once adopted an Australian Kelpie that was misidentified as a Doberman, and I was a dumb fuck and didn't know better.

Australian Kelpies are nutcases at the best of times, and are capable of jumping garden fences. Our rescue had some extra issues on top of that.

He really need a huge farm to run around on. He was a darling, but had too much energy for us to handle

The problem is that the argument isn't about the bear, it's about emotions.

The dudes trying to defend themselves feel personally attacked, because telling someone that the average woman thinks they're more dangerous than a bear feels both unfair and discriminatory.

The people on bear side, encounter enough shitty men that they feel like the average man is more likely to harm them compared to bear.

The scenario is so unlikely to occur that any factual arguments are impossible to prove either way. And the way the question is structured (either accidentally or otherwise) is inflammatory and divisive.

I'm sure everyone can agree that women have to deal with shitty predatory men way too often. And that's the thought that the question is meant to provoke.

People defending most men aren't automatically predators and stalkers, please have a little empathy for them, and hopefully they'll have a little empathy for you

The above post seemed to be saying that:

1. Bill Gates pays less taxes as he donates to a charity

2. Bill Gates runs that charity

3. Bill Gates then gets to decide how that charity spends his donated money

This then means that he can use what should have been tax to:

4. Pay himself with the charities money, as he is an employee of the charity

5. Lobby politicians using the charity's money

6. Otherwise direct the charity to work in his best interests

Which part are you disagreeing with? I guess he doesn't "make money" in the strictest sense, but it sure seems like he's exploiting the system to keep more of it

The company should be able to determine that your productivity isn't good enough by the work you produce. Not micromanaging the keystrokes per minute.

If your work is really so unimportant that slacking off for 4+ hours a day isn't noticed, they should be making you redundant. Not forcing spyware on every innocent employee

Exactly, headline should be more like "Google executives want Google engineers to make ad-blocking (near) impossible"