Did you even look them up for a second? I can remotely imagine you think that about Jenna Marbles (and I don’t think a “virtual nobody” can get a wax statue at Madame Tussauds honestly), but Kobayashi was supposed to be the Director of the Tokyo Olympics Opening Ceremony. So not really a nobody either, much less virtual since he barely did anything online.
Did you just google the first name and skimmed through the results page without even opening them?
It’s not a matter of “not supporting”. Marbles was harassed into closing her channel and Kobayashi lost probably the most important job of his life. Those have nothing to do with the “free market”.
Jenna Marbles? Kentaro Kobayashi? Pretty much anyone who got “cancelled” for stuff they said or did 10 years before?
People should be held accountable for what they’re currently doing, ruining a career for something that happened ages ago which no one at the time found wrong is just stupid.
EDIT: Meanwhile, can you tell me some other examples of cancel culture actually doing something good? Because looking at common examples it seems pretty much every time it targeted someone who actually deserved it nothing came out of that (JK Rowling, Chris Brown… even people like Hulk Hogan or Kanye West are still around and doing sold-outs)
From Joe Biden, the man who said he was going to beat Joe Biden?
I mean, it could definitely be a joke, but I wouldn’t put it past him to do that. He’s definitely senile, the wrong thing about the “speech” in the article is that Trump is in no position to say that when he’s even worse.
Still not the BBC itself, but it's definitely more reputable and should probably not be glossing over female friendships declining as well. The linked article is also a bit too much focused on men, which is weird because the original one, on the same site and by the same author, seems to be much more gender-neutral.
So yes, I think that's wrong too. Would I write a comment complaining about that if I saw it in a post? Not sure, being a male I'm probably biased and notice discrimination against men more than one against women. But if someone commented on it pointing out how that "men's social circles are shrinking" should've been just titled "social circles are shrinking", I would definitely agree.
The title is indeed a problem since it would’ve cost them nothing to just remove “female” and have a gender-neutral one, but again, the issue is how dismissive it is towards men who suffered the same harassment they’re denouncing.
Those three pages have pretty much nothing close to that, and again they’re not really supposed to be unbiased articles: the first one is on a site for some sort of online course (I think?), the second is on a hospital’s site (and under the “Men’s Health” section), and while the third seems to be an actual news site, the article is very clearly just meant to promote that guy’s movie.
Closest to what annoyed me would be this paragraph from the first one:
According to a recent YouGov poll in the UK, almost one in five men (18 per cent) owned up to not having a single close friend. Furthermore, one in three (32 per cent) stated that they didn’t have a best friend. For women, these figures were lower at 12 and 24 per cent respectively, suggesting that, on average, men in the UK are leading more solitary lives compared to women.
Which also gives off a similar vibe of “yeah one woman out of four doesn’t have a best friend, but who cares about that”, and that’s definitely not ok, but it’s different to see that in a sketchy website compared to literally bbc.com. They’re both examples of unprofessional journalism, but I don’t think the ones at “happiness.com” are even meant to be journalists.
That’s not even an article. That’s a support page, in a support site, under the “men” section. Obviously they don’t mention women, like in support pages for women they don’t mention men.
And I’m not that great at using Kbin, but it seems to me the most upvoted article on that community is this one. From that article:
Furthermore, the absence of male teachers in early education can perpetuate gender stereotypes and suggest that caregiving is a women’s job.
In order to achieve gender equality, the researchers said, it is necessary to ensure that women have equal opportunities in traditionally male-dominated fields such as STEM while also creating opportunities for men to work in historically feminine/HEED positions.
That seems like pretty supportive for an article that should be on the same level of one that states “male and female surgeons live different realities” in the face of 1/4th of them having reported sexual harassment.
Fuck the algorithm. My favorite Youtubers still do quality videos, luckily, but now they take longer because they have to fill their channels periodically with less inspired stuff or the all-seeing algorithm will toss them out. I hate it.
Considering the title of the study is “Sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape by colleagues in the surgical workforce, and how women and men are living different realities: observational study using NHS population-derived weights”, I feel like the stress on the ratio is intentional.
Among women, 63.3% reported being the target of sexual harassment versus 23.7% of men
29.9% of women had been sexually assaulted versus 6.9% of men
10.9% of women experiencing forced physical contact for career opportunities (a form of sexual assault) versus 0.7% of men
Being raped by a colleague was reported by 0.8% of women versus 0.1% of men
Not sure why it keeps being framed as “versus” like it’s some sort of competition and it doesn’t mean both sexes get sexually harassed and that’s not fucking okay for either.
Article talking about female surgeons and their struggles at work
“Oh by the way one in four male surgeons gets sexually harassed too”
Article keeps talking about women
Like, really what the fuck? Why is that just a small thing in the middle of the article that’s presented as barely relevant? Would it have hurt them to remove “female” from the headline and have the article talk about the whole culture, maybe interviewing a male as well?
Seriously, the double standard is ridiculous. The entire field seems to be corrupt and fucking horrible to work in, but only one side of the coin matters?
The CCP controls the entirety of TikTok. Here you might have some instances controlled by tankies and a higher percentage of tankie users, but the vast majority of instances are managed by “normal” people.
Well, Maricopa county (and Arizona as a whole) was pretty much evenly split last election, and in the end it came out as blue, so I think it’s not that much of a leopards situation.
Communism in itself is a great ideology, it’s just that applying it correctly requires an unreal amount of effort and cooperation between millions of people.
And since that’s extremely hard, if not impossible, to do in a realistic setting, the only countries that identify as communist are actually fascist ones who try to fool people into believing they aren’t.
“I don’t know them so they must be nobodies”, ok.
Did you even look them up for a second? I can remotely imagine you think that about Jenna Marbles (and I don’t think a “virtual nobody” can get a wax statue at Madame Tussauds honestly), but Kobayashi was supposed to be the Director of the Tokyo Olympics Opening Ceremony. So not really a nobody either, much less virtual since he barely did anything online.
Did you just google the first name and skimmed through the results page without even opening them?