They probably don’t identify as men............. "man-free"
I spot at least four.
They probably don’t identify as men............. "man-free"
I spot at least four.
I don't think it's the camera angle.Okay. I'm just going to say it. Maybe it's the camera angle. They look kinda freaky.
Pretty sure I know why they hate men...
This is a story about the question of who holds power over what we can say, hear, watch and read on the internet—an increasingly urgent issue that many ordinary people have cause to think about every day. And yet the protagonist in this story, the man whose fate symbolizes the future of social media and the corporate web that controls it, is unknown to the vast majority of educated readers.
...
But while Kjellberg’s brand is unique, the story of how he’s been mobbed is distressingly familiar: Thanks to a small group of journalists who’ve distorted his record, he’s been falsely smeared as a Nazi sympathizer. The main mob cheerleader was Vox Media, which recently published a hit piece accusing PewDiePie of having ties to white supremacists.
...
If PewDiePie is in a position to immediately debunk the attacks against him, broadcasting his detailed case to a mass audience in such a way that the whole world can listen and decide for themselves, what was the point of Vox’s attack? Could it be that Vox simply doesn’t really understand the power wielded by a true YouTube celebrity?
In his rebuttal video, PewDiePie muses that Vox’s real target was YouTube itself—and possibly even its parent company, Google—since they are (along with Facebook) the only consistent success stories in the brutally competitive market for online advertising.
...
Kjellberg’s true crime is that he’s funny. And the online corporate giants have no idea what to do with humour, since humour always will target a society’s prevailing dogmas—including, at the current cultural moment, the earnest mantras that govern corporate messaging. Humour also happens to be the most powerful weapon against authoritarianism (corporate or otherwise), because it leaves an irreversible impression on its audience. Your intellectual ideas may be revised or rejected as you re-evaluate your premises in light of new experiences or reflection. But if you find something funny, that can’t be edited out by intellectual efforts. It will sit with you, and may well fester into thoughtcrime. Humour can turn heretics into folk heroes who must then be shunned and de-platformed. (Just ask Godfrey Elfwick.)
This is hugely rated and upvoted on Reddit... Joe Rogan and Gad Saad discussing the "morbidly obese" cover of Cosmo, and the lies being told from the fat acceptance movement.
Tess Holliday was on the cover of Cosmo?
Yeah. The WHOLE cover.
Couldn’t think of a more appropriate thread so I’ll put it here. Lebron James talking about how NFL owners are like slave owners.
LeBron James of Los Angeles Lakers says NFL owners have slave mentality
Something to the effect of, “you do what I tell you to do or we get rid of you”.
Uhh.....isn’t that every job ever? If you don’t do the job, then you don’t get to keep the job...
He’s talking like the NBA is so much better. Give me a break.
Like entirely too many athletes, he mistakenly thinks we care about his opinions or anything else except his performance on the court/field/diamond/pitch
How many of his stripe even have any academic chops. I might consult him on material choices for a court shoe, but not for his opinion on economics or science or politics
Yes, "We" - as in people of like mind. doesn't necessary include you (or anyone else) overtly or by implication. But if you feel the need to make the distinction, bon appétit
This might be what you're looking for