Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owners and employees
Capitalists and workers?
Worker and parasite?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=z2_dhUv_CrI (The Simpsons)
'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
41–50 of 320 posts
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet people who met her were stupid enough to think she is some kind of genius and gave her millions of dollars. Sometimes I think if Charles Manson started a startup instead of killing people he would have had millions in investments and be praised as some sort of wunder kind...
>were stupid enough to think she is some kind of genius and gave her millions of dollars. The tech industry is rife with such suckers. We wouldn't have the wealth we have without them.
Who was it again that said money is thrown out the window without any concern, you just have to stand below the right window? It was true then and it is true now. Really helps if the money you are throwing out isn't your own, too.
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#43Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#44Imagine a world where we held Musk to the same standard as Holmes.
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.
Scamming as a male can actually improve your reputation. Donald Trump is currently the president of the united states despite years of ripping people off. If Bernie Madoff could run as a republican senator, I'd given him decent odds to win.
> If Bernie Madoff could run as a republican senator, I'd given him decent odds to win.
And yet somehow he - a man - is in jail. A jail built by men, condemned by a justice system designed by men to lock bad men up.
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#46Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.
> Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted. Only if you're determined to look for it. No one promotes companies, or gives special grants, or runs special funding groups, or special networking breakfasts, for men. It's only for women. Women are currently viewed as intrinsically a good thing to run a company, and it's a problem if your company has fewer than 50% women. It's all about identity and not competence. She…
I regret engaging, comment removed.
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.
No one markets ‘male founder’ as a reason to trust the business. Once gender is framed as a virtue, people start asking whether that claim actually means anything.
The government does! At least right now in the United States. And yeah, I think it's reasonable for people to start asking.
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted. Only if you're determined to look for it. No one promotes companies, or gives special grants, or runs special funding groups, or special networking breakfasts, for men. It's only for women. Women are currently viewed as intrinsically a good thing to run a company, and it's a problem if your company has fewer than 50% women. It's all about identity and not competence. She…
I regret engaging, comment removed.
EDIT: luckily I quoted the things I was replying to, because the above poster drastically edited his/her post, just resorting finally to namecalling.
> Even this “trans women in sports” issue you brought up for no reason is deeply rooted misogyny in action. As soon as someone becomes a woman they are a second-class citizen.
Claiming this does not make it so. I said nothing misogynistic. You can't just claim this any more and expect people to believe you, because who would lie about a thing like that? People now know that someone such as yourself would definitely lie, and so they will check for themselves. You need evidence.
> Case in point: there has been zero outrage about trans men. If you looked at a trans man you’d never suggest that a person who looks like this [1] should compete in women’s sports. You’d probably never even realize they were trans unless you were specifically told.
That's because a lot of the aim of society is to protect women, in various ways. So men who claim to be women who can beat women in women-only sports competitions, or can go in their changing rooms or bathrooms means women are not being afforded the protections we have tried to give them. That's why we have different bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports contests in the first place. No one cares about a woman entering a men's sporting contest, because a) she almost certainly will never get anywhere and b) if she did, it would be an amazing achievement, and would be men losing out, which very few people would care about.
> Just so you are factually and scientifically informed, when trans women transition, they are taking hormone replacement therapy that blocks testosterone. It tends to make them significantly worse at sports as a result.
No, you are misinforming here. They don't have to do anything. "Self ID" exists. That's why a male rapist claiming to be a woman got put in a woman's prison in Scotland[0]. Also, for those who do take hormones, hormones don't help with lung capacity, size, Q angle, bone density, and all the many other things that make men better at sport.
Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
#50I watched the entire trailer fully believing that Nathan Fielder had managed to find the most unhinged uncanny look-alike actress to play Elizabeth Holmes. This trailer was so good that I would have been fully prepared to watch a 2 hour dramatised mockumentary about Theranos. Finding out that this was really Elizabeth Holmes was a huge shock
Yet people who met her were stupid enough to think she is some kind of genius and gave her millions of dollars. Sometimes I think if Charles Manson started a startup instead of killing people he would have had millions in investments and be praised as some sort of wunder kind...
All founders and CEOs are like this, to the point that when I meet a person in leadership who clearly isn't a sociopath my default reaction is to assume that they're not successful.
The only reason I'm somewhat confident that I am not a sociopath is because I am still frequently presented business ideas that make me think "WTF how did you even think of that and why am I so angry that it's probably going to work"