The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#2> Seriously, who has a cuddle puddle at a fucking company party?
West of the Mississippi, there are no rules, or so it seems.
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#3[deleted]
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#4Anyone else find the invasion into the people lives of consenting adults chilling? This feels like a puritanical purge.
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#5> Seriously, who has a cuddle puddle at a fucking company party? West of the Mississippi, there are no rules, or so it seems.
Uhh, yeah because Alabama isn't west of the Mississippi and didn't just almost elect a religious and racial bigot, and accused child molester for Senate rather than vote for a Democrat? Sure thing...
Abhorrent behaviors happen all over this country, it's probably best to focus on exposing them and holding people accountable rather than trying to claim these problems happen over there but not in my backyard.
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#6Anyone else find the invasion into the people lives of consenting adults chilling? This feels like a puritanical purge.
An official company party is not the private lives of anyone. That's the whole point of the article. It was an official company party.
Edit: for what it's worth, there's also no consent possible when there's an external power dynamic at play.
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#7[deleted]
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#8Anyone else find the invasion into the people lives of consenting adults chilling? This feels like a puritanical purge.
Maybe if you're concerned about that, don't hold what is essentially a public party that will inevitably have a member of the press show up and cover it. You have to be pretty stupid to set up something like this and then get all whiny about it being exposed. If you want it private, then actually keep it private. There is no effort here to keep it private, if anything it's flaunted as if everyone else is the fool for not noticing the intentional exploitation that's going on routinely in the industry.
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#9> The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
And by "worse," the author must mean more boring and less scandalous.
tl;dr: The author went to a VC party; saw a celebrity, but no sex or drugs; and went home. Despite that, he wants to use it to put his allyship on display.
There's nothing to see here.
Re: The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds
#10> The Vanity Fair 'Brotopia' party was way worse than it sounds And by "worse," the author must mean more boring and less scandalous. tl;dr: The author went to a VC party; saw a celebrity, but no sex or drugs; and went home. Despite that, he wants to use it to put his allyship on display. There's nothing to see here.
The author explicitly states that he posted in order to corroborate what aspects of Jane Doe's description of the event that he could. The more people that provide evidence about a thing, the more likely others are to take it seriously. So there is everything to see here. (edited to fix verb tense)