I'm tied and bored, and read the whole thing. The sponsor is an AI service provider - did I get that right? So, is the article AI generated? It certainly has all the hall marks.
South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
41–50 of 60 posts
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.
Sure you can. I have no problem with billionaires as long as they are enjoying their money without hurting people in the process. Having the money doesn’t mean you actively abuse your influence. But once you have that kind of fuck off money and insist on abusing your power, or kowtowing to other people to get more power, and other BS, then you are an evil asshole. There’s a good reason why Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk etc…
Which billionaires haven't hurt anyone in the process? To accumulate a billion dollars, don't you necessarily have to hurt people in the process?
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#43South park is one of my favourite shows. I think that matt and trey aren't the usual billionaires but it would still be cool if they actually donate some of that money since they feel like the guys who don't need a billion dollars and feel humble imo.
The article quoted that they take $10m salaries each and the business invests in more production (eg movies, Book of Mormon musical etc). So whether they donate or not personally, their billionaire status is based on owning their company (ie that is their total worth, not liquid assets).
What the hell does do with almost a million per month ?!
I'm not judging, I'm wondering.
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disliking political correctness isn't even limited to the right on the political scale. Bill Maher has spoken out against it for example.
I consider myself liberal on most issues - strong social safety, universal healthcare , pro vax, strong separation between church and state, and hate the demonization of other. But this is political correctness gone crazy. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-gender... I as a Black guy was also put off by the forced indoctrination that BigTech did post 2020 (when I worked there) with all of the “ally…
How is this political correctness?
If the legal language mandates an equal split between men and women, where could that possibly leave non-binary people, other than without representation, right?
I’m curious especially as a black guy, why this wouldn’t land for you. Imagine a legal body obligated to be composed of equal representation, racially, that explicitly requires white, brown, red, and yellow members - but doesn’t mention black.
That hardly sounds fair, does it? So why deride efforts to institutionalize inclusivity, integration, and equal representation as ‘crazy?’
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider myself liberal on most issues - strong social safety, universal healthcare , pro vax, strong separation between church and state, and hate the demonization of other. But this is political correctness gone crazy. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-gender... I as a Black guy was also put off by the forced indoctrination that BigTech did post 2020 (when I worked there) with all of the “ally…
How is this political correctness? If the legal language mandates an equal split between men and women, where could that possibly leave non-binary people, other than without representation, right? I’m curious especially as a black guy, why this wouldn’t land for you. Imagine a legal body obligated to be composed of equal representation, racially, that explicitly requires white, brown, red, and yellow members - but do…
It was a “policy” decision that had nothing to do with the law.
I would think it was just as crazy if the committee had language around they must have an equal number of Black and White members and if one person was a biracial …
If they had a committee focused on women’s health issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, should they include transgender women?
What happens in the case where they want equal representation if my mom had a Black father and White mother and my dad had an Hispanic father and Japanese mother?
But from a real politick angle, this was dumb and cringy knowing the mood of the majority of Americans. The job is to win elections. Bill Clinton invented the “Sister Souljah” moment and Obama followed suit by distancing himself from the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson wing of the party.
A lot of moderate Democrats and Republicans who have no issue respecting anyone for whatever life they decide to live, find that the left has gone too far.
As much as I distrust the police and the entire justice system for instance, I thought the phrase “defund the police” went too far and I understood the point they were making underneath.
It’s the same with enforced (he/him) labels on everyone and having to be really sure you aren’t accused of being some type of “ist” because you only speak in “heteronormative terms”.
If (hypothetical) you want to call out your preferred pronouns, go for it and I’ll respect them.
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider myself liberal on most issues - strong social safety, universal healthcare , pro vax, strong separation between church and state, and hate the demonization of other. But this is political correctness gone crazy. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-gender... I as a Black guy was also put off by the forced indoctrination that BigTech did post 2020 (when I worked there) with all of the “ally…
How is this political correctness? If the legal language mandates an equal split between men and women, where could that possibly leave non-binary people, other than without representation, right? I’m curious especially as a black guy, why this wouldn’t land for you. Imagine a legal body obligated to be composed of equal representation, racially, that explicitly requires white, brown, red, and yellow members - but do…
Well non binary people are still biologically male or female.
The UK for example doesnt legally recognise a non binary gender or sex.
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#47Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig More to the point, you haven’t heard about their current season’s Trump episode? The alt right aren’t exactly deep thinkers. It’s just like the police glorifying the Punisher. https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-s...…
> They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong. Eh, I wouldn't say that. Nor would I say they were really taking a stand on climate change in the first place. They just thought it would be funny to have Al Gore tilting at windmills (and indeed it was), and then thought it would be funny to have him proven right (and indeed i…
They have publicly said it was about climate change.
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this political correctness? If the legal language mandates an equal split between men and women, where could that possibly leave non-binary people, other than without representation, right? I’m curious especially as a black guy, why this wouldn’t land for you. Imagine a legal body obligated to be composed of equal representation, racially, that explicitly requires white, brown, red, and yellow members - but do…
It was a “policy” decision that had nothing to do with the law. I would think it was just as crazy if the committee had language around they must have an equal number of Black and White members and if one person was a biracial … If they had a committee focused on women’s health issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, should they include transgender women? What happens in the case where they want equal representa…
“This has gone too far” is the war cry of people enforcing that they refuse to educate themselves on the real meaning of the phrases and come to the table for discussion. It is a cop out and you will look back and think “why was I so unreasonable they weren’t asking for much”.
It is a sign that you aren’t really resistant to the ideas but looking for a way to resist because it’s change.
> if they had a committee focused on women’s health issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, should they include transgender women?
This is the entire problem with the “this has gone too far” crowd. You’re making up hypotheticals and claiming them as active truths. In your situation it’s pretty clear humans are capable of forming committee's relevant to the topic. You don’t have to over apply policy to make it fair. Furthermore, most of these types of committees are probably and have been historically staffed by white men. Why do they get a double standard?
Was anyone actually negatively affected by DEI policies? No. You just had a bunch of handwringing from “this is too far people” and executive leadership teams. No one has actually any proof of these so called negatives though. So much so they have black people saying “let the white man handle it again”.
Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a “policy” decision that had nothing to do with the law. I would think it was just as crazy if the committee had language around they must have an equal number of Black and White members and if one person was a biracial … If they had a committee focused on women’s health issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, should they include transgender women? What happens in the case where they want equal representa…
“This has gone too far” is the war cry of people enforcing that they refuse to educate themselves on the real meaning of the phrases and come to the table for discussion. It is a cop out and you will look back and think “why was I so unreasonable they weren’t asking for much”. It is a sign that you aren’t really resistant to the ideas but looking for a way to resist because it’s change. > if they had a committee focu…
The primary job of a politician and political committee is to win elections and accept facts on the ground. Yes the indoctrination went too far that I found at BigTech when they had “allies” and making sure that I wouldn’t be offended by “micro aggressions”.
> In your situation it’s pretty clear humans are capable of forming committee's relevant to the topic
You mean the same humans who are fighting to allow biological men in women’s sports?
The midsize company in the same vertical I work for now (cloud consulting) focuses almost purely on how much money we made, this is how it affects your bonus and this is what you can do to increase our profits - no ally ship, no “celebrating diversity” (for people who haven’t been keeping up, I’m black), no “you must label your profile with your preferred pronouns” nonsense. I go to work to collect a check. It’s not a social mission. I don’t go to talk about systemic racism, police brutality, etc.
But they do have Juneteenth as a company holiday, offer classes and reimbursements for our LatAm employees to become better English speakers because it’s a requirement to be promoted to the higher level positions that are customer facing and offer English speakers the chance to take Spanish classes (I’m currently around an A2 proficiency).
DEI is harming people because of the silly “right speech” like not saying “pow wow” or “war room” turns people off and has them voting for politicians that don’t serve your interest and actively harm you.
How the heck did Democrats go so far that even Hispanics Americans are increasingly voting Republican?