I cannot think of a bigger cuck move than bending over to court bad faith actors and suckling at king maga’s sweaty little man nipples for $$
You’re on a website where people come out of the woodwork to defend “ethical polyamory” and the biggest cuck you can think of is a CEO trying to curry political favor with the current US president?
…, Being poly doesn’t make you a cuck
I hate everything about this comment, but you’re not wrong.
The gender identity of your work places energy is not the damn problem. Raise the damn pay. People will work in a sewer if you paid enough.
People working in a sewer should be paid the most.
I think meta pays pretty well
I hate this, because the idea comes from Hermetic spirituality, but from a very cherry picked version of it that basically says “Be as shitty a person as you want, give into your natural inclinations and vices”
I know because I’ve seen this A LOT!
Because the actual Seventh Principle of Hermeticism does not say to do this, it actually says to balance the masculine and feminine within yourself to acknowledge both as being geniunely within you. It also encourages that the two shouldn’t be seen as opposites but rather two endpoints on a vast spectrum, the same way we see hot and cold.
But sadly too many “Gurus” somehow warped this into
“Reject femininity, see it as weakness, and be a massive chauvinistic asshole.”
When that couldn’t be further from what it’s saying.
So I watched the entire three hour interview.
Technically speaking, Zuckerberg emphasizes the need for balance. He on multiple times either emphasizes that both men and women should feel comfortable in corporate environments, and explicitly says something like “there has to be a balance” on at least two occasions.
The issue is that other parts of the interview don’t really match that idea of balance. Zuckerberg and Rogan spent like a third of the entire interview talking about bro culture stuff. I’m not even talking about “bro culture in the context of corporate America”. Rogan spends like a full ten minutes lecturing Zuckerberg on the proper way to bow hunt.
Overall I think the media is focusing outrage bait while ignoring the serious implications of the interview. Zuckerberg is clearly lobbying the Trump administration to prevent meta and other US tech companies from being subject to EU regulatory security. It has serious implications both as a consumer and in terms of geopolitics.
I really wish CEOs would stop and ask “If I wasn’t the CEO, would I want this regulation to exist?”
But that requires them to have empathy.
I hate outrage bait, as you pointed out it makes us blind to the REAL danger, which is… Zuckerberg trying to get out of playing by the rules.
I agree. Ironically he also went on a bit of a rant about how the traditional media outlets whittle down interviews to the most salacious bits, and that’s part of the reason the American public is slowly losing trust in them.
While the reason for him saying this is to discredit his previous perception as robotic, he’s also not wrong. All the articles I read “highlighting” the interview hyper focused on a few lines, and in doing so left and incomplete or dishonest impression.
I think what most companies actually need is more QA energy 😅
Maybe, but he’s damn sure cucked. Dude 100% has a chair in the corner of his bedroom facing the bed.
Zuck: “we never let gender play a role in our hiring process.”
Also Zuck: “yeah, we need to hire more men.”
It’s the old “Male is normal, Female is special” logical fallacy, he only wants to hire people who’d get hired under “Normal” circumstances
I don’t think he even cares. He wants to appeal to MAGA’s bosses.
In 4 years, if Dems take back power, he will make a vibrant speech about the need for diversity and to tackle fake news.
Agreed, he’s just picking which side he thinks is currently winning the cultural war… and “Woke” being universally considered a bad thing does point to the Right winning that war, but… there are Leftist Arguments against Woke as well so not really.
(Replace the word “Woke” with “Rainbow Capitalism” and you have the Leftist Argument against it)
This is dystopia. The people in control of society pushing insane spiritualist cult mentalities to obfuscate their role in a genocidal empire.
He knows he’ll never make up the loss of subscribers on the left since he’s burned those bridges so he has to double down on the far right to carry his platform.
This way he gets to compete with X for a race to the bottom and see who can gather the most shitbags to support their plateauing businesses.
“he has to” does he though? He has enough money for him and his entire lineage to live lavishly for eternity. He can dip out today and stop working forever, relax on a beach, and disconnect from the world like Tom from MySpace did.
He’s not being forced to do anything.
Listen to the latest zuck episode of jre and he actually sounds pretty reasonable. I know that’s crazy but if you have a couple hours you can actually listen to the dude.
Edit: just to be clear I’m not saying I love the guy, or even like him. But listening to him talk for 2 hours he is atleast semi intelligent and is trying to keep free speech alive.
sitting through any length of jre is going to either waste your time or expose you to hours of garbage.
why?
Watched the episode. Completely disagree. His whole schtick was “yeah moderation is really hard yet super important to get right, that’s why as a cost cutting measure we are curtailing the entire operation lol.”
He explained it wasn’t even about the cost. Yes it’s expensive but he willing to throw billions at it for years. It’s not working and that’s the problem.
That’s why everybody should migrate to smaller platforms - The internet is decentralized by design and people use these stupid sites that swallow personal data and regurgitate propaganda.
Just regulate that they’re legally responsible for the content they host. If their platform is too big for them to police then they need to shrink it or shut it down.
And you believed him
About what? He’s not saying anything unbelievable.
“It’s not about cost.” Running an imperfect system expensively is not grounds to gut the system entirely.
I don’t believe it’s not about cost and in my opinion you’re silly to believe it. You fell for propaganda and even worse it was propaganda on Joe Rogan of all places lmao.
Okay agree to disagree. I think meta is a company/business and obviously is looking at cost vs impact etc. And they deemed it to expensive to continue fighting a losing battle. If you don’t like it don’t use meta which I’m sure you don’t. But I don’t blame them at all for coming to this decision and I don’t think they are responsible to teach you right from wrong either. Like I said it’s not their fault a third of the world uses their services everyday. They made a great social media site and its become one of if not the most popular on earth. But that’s all they are, a social media business. I wouldn’t blame a smaller business that came to similar conclusions that just impact less people. It happens all the time it’s just I think meta gets all the attention because it’s the biggest one. But it’s still just a company making money at the end of the day.
That would mean listening to Joe Rogan, and unfortunately I’d be too busy setting my hair on fire before I ever listened to Joe Rogan.
I actually have listened to Zuckface on a podcast once because I had never heard him talk. He definitely does some good masking as being a human person. And I think if he wasn’t evil he might have some interesting ideas, sure.
Shows me how smart you are. I don’t agree down vote! You didn’t even watch thing or reply with a reasonable comment. You’re not willing to. You are just as bad as the right wing you hate.
If you’re not gonna listen to it then just say so. You’re part of the problem and shouldn’t even reply since you have no clue what you are talking about. You didn’t even listen to thing your commenting about. Do you not see the problem.
Well no I’m not going to listen to 3 hours of intellectual dark web bros. But I did read this wonderful Bluesky fact check thread of what Zuckerberg had to say, which is much more what we should be listening to, instead of Rogan shooting the shit about how climate change isn’t real with Mel Gibson . https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social/post/3lfgh7dbglk2d
Mel Gibson is insane Joe was trying to convince him of evolution and climate change.
Edit: see what you did right there that’s called misinformation.
Um Mel Gibson sat there and said ivermectin is the cure for cancer and old Joe agreed. That’s actually going to kill people. Please stop listening to Joe Rogan.
No he wasn’t, his statement was about disliking being made to feel bad about climate science he doesn’t understand. You’re clearly deep in the Joe mental gymnastics brain rot.
Zucklefuckle regularly lies and shifts about as much as a chameleon. His goal is to raise shareholder value and nothing more. He’s not worth listening to.
A down vote. Wow lmao shows how stuck in your ways you are. You’re just as bad as the right wing you hate.
lol no. Anyone who has paid any attention to Zuckerberg over the last 15 or so years will tell you the exact same thing: The dude is a lying opportunist who will say and do anything to bump his company stock. Musk and or Rogan are not your friends, they are feeding you bull shit.
I wasn’t talking about musk. Rogan is just a doofus with a show that I happen to enjoy but he himself will tell you he’s an idiot when it comes to almost anything that doesn’t include comedy or MMA of which I am a gigantic fan of both those things. Also yes, zuck is a business owner and nothing else. He wants his business to be the largest/most successful one, like every other business owner on earth. He just happens to be at the top. But I would expect him to be ruthless when it comes to running to his business, we live in a capatalisic society unfortunately don’t hate the player hate the game. I don’t think zuck has any personal responsibility to teach users right from wrong. He only had the reposibility of keeping his company making billions of dollars.
Rogan is just a doofus with a show that I happen to enjoy but he himself will tell you he’s an idiot when it comes to almost anything that doesn’t include comedy
And yet he routinely makes declarative statements like “climate science is people making you feel bad about your impact when we don’t even understand the science behind it”. He’s a right wing shill who consistently presents far right ideas like they’re truth, but then tongue in cheeks self deprecates, like it cancels out the massive soap box alt right haranguing he just did. He also consistently platforms far right racist, science denying fascists and then nods along while they drip venom in the ear of his brain-dead audience.
Zuckface’s refusal to take any responsibility for his company has gotten a lot of people killed all in the name of shareholder profits. Stop licking his boots. He has thrown you to the wolves along with the rest of us and you’re defending this dude who doesn’t even care who you are or that you even exist… seriously, why? You should also take the hint: A lot of people here, the people who are not being naive and see who he is, disagree with you.
If you’re not willing to listen to it then you’re part of the problem and you should stfu. Hate when people just for an opinion and haven’t even watched the fuckin thing. You are your own worst enemy you people
You are the other side of the coin you are criticising you knob.
The Billionares are not your friends.
The rhetoric of the right has shown time and time again that they will use disinformation and misinformation to conform their gullible audience towards whatever views suit their needs. Humanity continues to confirm his remarkable susceptible to this practice. This form of deceitful expression is not the ‘free speech’ a society should tolerate and why fact checking entities need to exist with the power to shutdown this discourse.
If you’re not willing to listen to it then stfu
You are just as bad as the right wingers you criticize all day. You don’t even watch the thing you just assume. You are the other side of the coin you constantly criticize and hate.
Is Zuck getting divorced?
I don’t think so, but don’t let that stop you from shooting your shot if your believe you can make him a happy man.
There has got to be better sexbot models out there.
LOL I would never! Unless it’s to get close enough to et tu brutus him
Dude loves Romans that much he would die proud I think.
Most companies just need more ppl that actually work rather than doing politics and profiting off of the 30% working personnel.
nah, they just need to fire some useless managers and reroute the pay to the workers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTdOHBIppx8
bunch of companies are prioritizing woman and non-straight man while hiring (because its better pr i guess) so hes not wrong
Don’t worry! Once all the H-1B visas get relaxed, we can push even MORE straight white men out!
Sure bud it’s all the women’s fault.
wut
There’s two different ways to read the previous poster’s point:
- That any kind of quotas system (no mater whose “born with certain genetic traits” group it favours) is generally bad and causes more problem than it solves. From what I’ve observed in my one and only time working in a place with such quotas, that’s what I saw, with both very incompetent people from the favored group who clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time with competent members of that group having trouble being taken seriously because they were assumed to be incompetent and having only got the position due to having the genetics that made them be a member of said favored group (they were de facto seen as second class), so in general I would agree that priviledging in hiring anybody due to the genetics they were born with is wrong (not to be confused with systems that try and make sure nobody is discriminated against due to the genetics they were born with, systems I totally agree with: basically I disagree with people being given different treatment when it comes to selection for a professinal occupation due their genetics).
- That women and non-straight men are a problem in that profession. If that’s the take, I not only totally disagree with it but find it apalling and unnacceptable. Again, experience tells me that in IT women and non-straight men are neither less nor more competent than straight men: from what I’ve observed gender and sexual orientation are, as expected, entirelly irrelevant when it comes to professional competent in that domain. One needs to have no clue whatsoever about that domain and be an abnormal simpleton to think gender or sexual orientation is what makes somebody a good or bad professional in any of the various areas of the Industry.
idk how someone can read it the second way
Some people genuinely have huge assumptions about the intellectual capability of women and/or their suitability for certain occupations: for example, the “women are very emotional” used as excuse for not giving them certain responsibilities such as management positions, is far too common, especially in countries were the main brand of sexism is the so-called “Benevolent Sexism” (called that not because it’s actually good but because it’s disguised as being for the protection of women) such as Britain.
Similarly there are prejudices about people with sexual orientations other than heterosexuality in the workplace, usually of the “they’ll make other people uncomfortable” kind.
Sadly, still today, far too many people genuinely think along such lines and some aren’t even aware that they’re doing it because their whole lives they’ve lived around people who do it so for them “it’s how everybody thinks” and the “normal” way of thinking.
The problem both of your opinions have is they ignore the baseline improved treatment straight white dudes like myself get. We get better treatment and preferential hiring just by existing. I’m not afraid to talk to anyone in the tiny sithole towns I go to for work. I’ve have so many people walk past my boss and talk to me because he wears a turban, or my other boss getting talked over because she is a women. These examples aren’t directly related to hiring, but you are blind if you don’t see the obvious advantages we have.
I suggest you read the system described by the poster from feddit.nl just below, which just removes the kind of professionally irrelevant information (including gender, race and so on) from being in the candidate selection process.
Such systems are meant to removed descrimination (even subconscious one) rather than discriminating in the opposite direction. “Discriminating but the other way around” just preserves a mindset that people should be seen and treated differently depending on gender or sexual orientation and, as I’ve observed first hand, that kind of system yields environments which are even more sexist.
Having lived in both Britain (which apes a lot of things from the US) and The Netherlands, I can tell you that the latter country is way much more naturally equalitarian (gender-wise and even more so when it comes to sexual orientation) than the former.
(Not perfect, mind you, but way better than average)
The knee-jerk “this must be sexism” reaction to criticism of the “let’s keep treating people differently depending on the genetics they were born with” of the “anti”-descrimination systems in the Anglo-Saxon countries, in my view partly explains why in the decade and a half since I’ve left The Netherlands I’ve seen no improvement towards the much more natural gender and sexual-orientation equality of The Netherlands in either Britain or the US, quite the contrary.
I’m sorry but compared with what I’ve seen working in other countries the system you defend is deeply flawed and preserves the very same ideological architecture of judging people on their gender, sexual-orientation or race rather than actual personal knowledge and track record, as the one that underpins Fascists ideologies. (Which is maybe why the Neoliberals just love it)
Such systems are meant to removed descrimination
emphasis mine.
They actually don’t do a terrible job either, but it’s not a blanket removal of bias.
More pertinent is that they only apply to the initial hiring phase, a lot of jobs have built in probation periods.
In addition, those systems do nothing at all to prevent workplace discrimination once the candidate has started.
As for the rest of your statement, that’s missing quite a few important points.
Your phrasing of “let’s keep treating people differently depending on the genetics they were born with” is itself incredibly misleading in it’s omissions.
Bigotry does exist yes, but most of these systems are supposed to be in place to counteract the inherent conscious and unconscious bias in the system, it’s closer to “Let’s try and lessen some of the harmful treatment people are already facing due to perceived differences”.
The difference between countries your seeing isn’t solely due to the perceived ineffectuality of the systems you are talking about, there is a huge difference in culture, economics, population and history that has a significant impact on how much these systems can help.
Let’s take a completely inoffensive analogy and say that both Britain and the Netherlands are dumpster(skip) fires.
The Netherlands is a very small 30L skip full of paper that is also on fire.
Britain is three of those large skips you get delivered on a truck(lorry) , all piled up on top of each other, filled with wood, doused in accelerant and set alight.
The anti-discrimination system is 3 full buckets of water.
Three buckets on the Netherlands will probably solve the problem.
Three buckets on Britain will do nothing but engender some metaphysical disdain from the fire.
I’m not defending the systems here, i’m saying you are presenting a situation in a way that doesn’t align with reality and then complaining that the results don’t match what you expect.
I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.
What my experience in The Netherlands taught me is that preserving the idea that you can presume things about people (including that they’re “victims” or “discriminated against”) - a.k.a. Prejudice - is a dead-end strategy for fighting discrimination because:
- It’s anchored on the very same architecture of presuming things about people based on race, gender or sexual orientation - in other words, Prejudice - as Fascist ideologies are.
- Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all: that process uses a person’s race/gender/sexual-orientation as an indirect metric to determine something else altogether - if a person has actually suffered due to discrimination - so it has an error rate in the form of people who do belong to a supposedly discriminated against race, gender or sexual orientation but never suffered from discrimination. When such people are helped without deserving it, an injustice is committed, and the more the error rate, the more injustice is being done by helping people who do not deserve that help. The Mathematical impossibility happens because the more that process succeeds at its stated objective of reducing discrimination, the more people of a supposedly discriminated against race, gender or sexual orientation never suffered from discrimination (or in other words, the more the error rate of assuming that race, gender or sexual orientation implies being a victim of discrimination) hence the more injustice that process is committing - the closer the process gets to success the more injustice it is committing, only it’s against people from different races, genders or sexual-orientations.
You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.
I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.
Wait…so you’re belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?
That’s delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal “no basis in reality” way.
You don’t seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.
Real question though
Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all
I’d be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn’t an actual explanation.
There’s so many faulty assumptions in there it’s difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.
You’re assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:
Group A : 20
Group B : 10
Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn’t prejudice against A.
That’s not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.
It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let’s do that one:
- Group A1 : 9
- Group A2 : 11
- Total : 20
- Group B1 : 3
- Group B2 : 7
- Total : 10
Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B
- Group A1 : 8
- Group A2 : 7
- Total : 15
- Group B1 : 6
- Group B2 : 9
- Total : 15
Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.
It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don’t think you’re going to see how what you’re saying doesn’t work.
You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.
You certainly can’t stop prejudice if you don’t understand what it means and when/where it applies.
It’s difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don’t understand the practical applications of it.
Depends… Marketing, PR and Social Media Management are pretty high on female/diverse staff anyways,… its more like men feel like women (like reversed roles) in that industry and maybe that scares them. (Lots of sexism, but that goes both ways now)
I work engineering and it’s mandatory to completely remove any irrelevant info from the CV (including gender, race…) to screen applicants.
Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I’ve seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system meant to remove any and all discrimination, even if subconscious), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around there were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class professionals even though they did not at all deserve it.
In fact, that specific place, which is the only one I ever worked in with an American style quota system, was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things (lest HR punish them), all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people’s gender. Meanwhile the people that got in via quotas tended to be the kind that would play the system rather than do the job, which often made the whole environment even more sexist.
Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people’s gender or sexual orientation.
Frankly one of the things I really missed after I move to Britain from The Netherlands was exactly the general Dutch viewpoint that “that’s about as relevant as eye color” when it came to judging people as professionals based on their gender or sexual orientation.
Maybe the point of the previous poster was about that American-style quotas systems.
CEO’s finding rationale for company poor performace.
If he isn’t he will after this.
What phase of cesar hair-do is he on? Goldy locks?
maybe you should start with humanoid energy you fucking lizardbot
