6 ms·

How do one cope on a day to day basis with this level of blatant bullshittery, apart from justifying it with a golden salary? Is this person aware that her role

How do one cope on a day to day basis with this level of blatant bullshittery, apart from justifying it with a golden salary? Is this person aware that her role is to enact a farce, or even engineer such farce?

lynx97 1y ago
[flagged]
- latexr 1y ago
  > We've been told the world will be generally a better place if we only manage to get more women into management positions. Which is probably true. Not magically because they’re women, but because they’re different from the status quo. Having people of different genders, races, backgrounds, life experiences in positions of power increases the pool of knowledge and understanding of the world and allows solutions to problems which the other groups are blind to. Diversity is the goal, not just specifically women. > They are supposedly the better humans, and would never engage in manipulative tactics... That is an argument no one is making. You’re attacking a straw man. Of course women can be bad leaders too. Anyone can. > So whatever she is doing, it must be good and in good faith. As opposed to your argument, I’d say. Using one single specific example from one single specific person on one single specific case to “counter” a general thought that doesn’t even correspond to what you claimed is disingenuous.
- Cipater 1y ago
  The idea that more diverse leadership leads to better outcomes doesn't mean women are incapable of wrongdoing. Nobody said women are perfect angels who can do no wrong. That's a strawman and you know it. Be better, come on.
  - lynx97 1y ago
    > Be better, come on. I am male. I can't "be better", I am already "the problem". Which is a reason why I am so fed up be the fight of the sexes. Its overboarding accusations on all sides. And I am not willing to "turn the other cheek" anymore. > Nobody said women are perfect angels who can do no wrong Ahem, the "believe all women" crowd did and do.
    - gjm11 1y ago
      Less of this culture-war nonsense here, please. Especially in a thread about something completely unrelated. (No, the fact that the exec in question is female doesn't make it related. If they'd been male then someone could equally-relevantly make the argument "see, this shows that we need more women in leadership".)
    - latexr 1y ago
      > I am male. I can't "be better", I am already "the problem". Whether you are the problem or not is unrelated to your maleness. Being willing to be and do better is the first step on the journey that enables you to realise that truth.
Bluestein 1y ago
(And, to begin with, the whole notion of them having to/having had to focus-group these decisions - so as to, perhaps - give them a "veneer" of grassroots pseudo-democracy is preposterous.- Why don't they just come out and say "because, profit!" or some good ol' fashioned BS about "value-creation" or some other American thing like that ...)
yarekt 1y ago
Pay for services that you use instead of forcing companies to rely on ad revenue to run their useful service? I get it though, no one wants to pay for 100s of little free marginally useful things we use every day, but if you look back at what whatsapp did in the beginning, the £3 a year they were asking is so worth it
- chii 1y ago
  at the beginning, they "charged" $1 (or £3 as you said), but this "fee" was often just waived. You never really had to pay it to use whatsapp. The money was there as a form of advertising, to differentiate whatsapp from the others - because by making it seem more premium via attaching a price, it makes the people using it feel more superior and thus the platform more easily propagates; and it's also why they "secretly" let you use it for free if you refused to pay.
  - dontlaugh 1y ago
    FWIW, £3 is closer to $4.
- avhception 1y ago
  I remember when it was 1€/year. Absolutely totally worth it! And I'd gladly pay again if they would only let me!
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrweasel 1y ago
    It felt a little weird that they didn't differentiated pricing. Charging 1€ is adds a little to much overhead per transaction, and maybe not everyone has a credit card. It seems to me that an alternative would be to charge e.g. 5, 10 maybe even 20€ per year in western countries, then step the amount down depending on the economy in each region, bottoming out at e.g. 5€. Then just let the app be free in the rest of the world. That way a user in Europe could "subsidize" 4-10 users in the developing world. Maybe that's a little to social democratic for a corporation.
JohnKemeny 1y ago
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
yard2010 1y ago
It's either "if you can't beat them join them" or "kill it with fire".

lynx97 1y ago

[flagged]

latexr 1y ago
> We've been told the world will be generally a better place if we only manage to get more women into management positions. Which is probably true. Not magically because they’re women, but because they’re different from the status quo. Having people of different genders, races, backgrounds, life experiences in positions of power increases the pool of knowledge and understanding of the world and allows solutions to problems which the other groups are blind to. Diversity is the goal, not just specifically women. > They are supposedly the better humans, and would never engage in manipulative tactics... That is an argument no one is making. You’re attacking a straw man. Of course women can be bad leaders too. Anyone can. > So whatever she is doing, it must be good and in good faith. As opposed to your argument, I’d say. Using one single specific example from one single specific person on one single specific case to “counter” a general thought that doesn’t even correspond to what you claimed is disingenuous.
Cipater 1y ago
The idea that more diverse leadership leads to better outcomes doesn't mean women are incapable of wrongdoing. Nobody said women are perfect angels who can do no wrong. That's a strawman and you know it. Be better, come on.
- lynx97 1y ago
  > Be better, come on. I am male. I can't "be better", I am already "the problem". Which is a reason why I am so fed up be the fight of the sexes. Its overboarding accusations on all sides. And I am not willing to "turn the other cheek" anymore. > Nobody said women are perfect angels who can do no wrong Ahem, the "believe all women" crowd did and do.
  - gjm11 1y ago
    Less of this culture-war nonsense here, please. Especially in a thread about something completely unrelated. (No, the fact that the exec in question is female doesn't make it related. If they'd been male then someone could equally-relevantly make the argument "see, this shows that we need more women in leadership".)
  - latexr 1y ago
    > I am male. I can't "be better", I am already "the problem". Whether you are the problem or not is unrelated to your maleness. Being willing to be and do better is the first step on the journey that enables you to realise that truth.

Bluestein 1y ago

(And, to begin with, the whole notion of them having to/having had to focus-group these decisions - so as to, perhaps - give them a "veneer" of grassroots pseudo-democracy is preposterous.- Why don't they just come out and say "because, profit!" or some good ol' fashioned BS about "value-creation" or some other American thing like that ...)

yarekt 1y ago

Pay for services that you use instead of forcing companies to rely on ad revenue to run their useful service? I get it though, no one wants to pay for 100s of little free marginally useful things we use every day, but if you look back at what whatsapp did in the beginning, the £3 a year they were asking is so worth it

chii 1y ago
at the beginning, they "charged" $1 (or £3 as you said), but this "fee" was often just waived. You never really had to pay it to use whatsapp. The money was there as a form of advertising, to differentiate whatsapp from the others - because by making it seem more premium via attaching a price, it makes the people using it feel more superior and thus the platform more easily propagates; and it's also why they "secretly" let you use it for free if you refused to pay.
- dontlaugh 1y ago
  FWIW, £3 is closer to $4.
avhception 1y ago
I remember when it was 1€/year. Absolutely totally worth it! And I'd gladly pay again if they would only let me!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mrweasel 1y ago
  It felt a little weird that they didn't differentiated pricing. Charging 1€ is adds a little to much overhead per transaction, and maybe not everyone has a credit card. It seems to me that an alternative would be to charge e.g. 5, 10 maybe even 20€ per year in western countries, then step the amount down depending on the economy in each region, bottoming out at e.g. 5€. Then just let the app be free in the rest of the world. That way a user in Europe could "subsidize" 4-10 users in the developing world. Maybe that's a little to social democratic for a corporation.

JohnKemeny 1y ago

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

yard2010 1y ago

It's either "if you can't beat them join them" or "kill it with fire".