divito

I use it all the time for shortcuts.

I also dislike that they expressed being "committed to publishing the findings." While the purpose behind that sentiment of being transparent is obvious and appreciated, it was never known if they'd be able to properly promise and divulge something like that. Especially if certain parties, whether LMG/Madison/other employee retain counsel and work out a settlement/NDA/etc..

Ultimately depends on the results of the investigation. As has been pointed out, what has/hasn't been found, could include actual legal issues that prevent a more transparent disclosure on what actually did or didn't happen, due to employment/privacy laws. And if there were any legal things, those types of processes also take a lot longer than some people realize. On top of that, I imagine along with the investigator(s), they'd probably be consulting with an HR firm and possibly a PR firm to cover their bases. Even in the event of total absolution or a guilty employee, not addressing it, (to say nothing of the possibility that they might legally be unable to), is a general better course of action. Now, LMG being a Youtube-focused company, it's possible some aspect of the results might be told, but in my experience, I would mostly doubt it. That will unlikely not satisfy some people, but such is the case with these types of occurrences.

While this company's specific claims may or may not pan out, the actual research in this space is continuing towards actual results, whether you want to believe it or not. Attributing it to magic is a bit naive.

This is the same problem as people who comment on Instagram or Facebook things they dislike or disagree with. Viewing, and commenting increases "engagement" which reinforces whatever topic or tactic they're using. Game purchases are the ultimate benchmark for publishers. Even with bad reviews in publications and on Steam et al, if people continue to buy games despite that, there's little incentive for the developer/publisher to alter anything. Don't comment on that meme or reel, and don't purchase games for the sake of purchasing them.

This is a bit disingenuous. Any service provider will keep metrics for features, users, etc...; developers would be supremely dumb not to. I'm not sure people grasp what an actually privacy-focused service would actually look like, and the kinds of things people take for granted. With zero "tracking" or analyzing usage information specific to users, regions, etc.., most services would have no clue how to better serve those users, or you "individually," without relying on surveys (which most people hate), or keeping tabs on extremely basic metrics. Granularity is the reason services can adapt and flourish the way they do and provide value to those users. A side effect of that granularity is that while it helps their service and subsequently their users, it also is valuable to advertisers. They can either charge for their service, or use that data to help sustain their business. In Meta's case, they will still likely collect those finer details, but simply not pass that information to a third party, or more accurately, keep you out of the buckets that advertisers select when they want to run ads. More similar to Apple holding your stuff close to the vest.

There wasn't more to any of the statements. If someone is offended by something, that's their right, their feelings are valid. Pointing out that it might have a deeper meaning that can be addressed and investigated is all that is, because as has been taught to me through my own therapy, expressing myself is one thing, but letting coping mechanisms dictate your life, or pushing your feelings onto other people, isn't the right answer. If that's what you're taking away from his performances, I'm not sure I'd agree. He "insults" <insert group here> primarily from a logical and rational point of view because of their hypocrisy or other illogical factors. Sometimes those "immature sex jokes" are funny, most times I don't care for them. But I simply ignore them in that case. There are definitely people in the world, who if they came across an LMG video with immature jokes, they would choose to be offended by it. As above and previously, having trauma isn't a bad thing. I have plenty of traumas I've been dealing with; but what I've learned is that you don't put them on other people. As for LMG and pushing people away, maybe if there was dislikes on that video, or some of the discourse from this topic make it through, they'll be able to use that to decide how they proceed with other jokes that flirt with the line of being inappropriate or not. Your view seems a bit oxymoronic. I associate right wing with intolerance (inflexible, anti-abortion, opposed to certain anti-discrimination laws, pro-gun, religious rigidity) - they are the types of individuals that would stifle freedom of expression and opposing views. I don't like the idea of censoring people (especially in regards to comedy), it seems non-liberal to me. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

So my Daily Show question asked earlier also applies here: do you think they should receive consent from the individuals/organizations they're roasting/poking fun at? I think why we disagree is because you're placing responsibility outside of the organization. If Timmy in Accounting made remarks in jest about a quota at XYZ Company, that is something that is potentially concerning, as regardless of its truth, it can disrupt the workplace because of his internal role. There are workplace policies and laws that would also come into play. But Joe from the street, or a Youtube channel, who has no knowledge of the inner workings of XYZ Company and are not bound by those workplace policies, making a speculative remark or conjecture in an attempt at humor, does not carry the same context or inappropriateness as an actual privy person. People who choose offense are not disturbed. But they have conditioning that has made them sensitive towards certain things and are projecting that onto other people. It's akin to phobias; some are learnt or the result of an early childhood event, or influenced by environmental factors. People with phobias are also not disturbed, but it doesn't mean they can't seek a remedy through therapy. Do you think a 'twink quota' is a real thing a board or company has? Even if you did or it is a real thing, courts have been pretty clear in most jurisdictions over defamation when comedy or satire is involved. As above, if this was someone from OpenAI making that comment on Twitter or something, the context is definitely different. Affirmative action was nonsense, and what it did in workplaces psychologically and even today is unhelpful. The other thing is, D'Angelo is a ridiculously successful entrepreneur. You'd have to take a fairly large leap to even suggest plausibility to the joke as being a serious accusation. ---------- As with the other individual, who ended up just attacking me and not reading the rest of my responses, I appreciate this discussion, even if we aren't in agreement. Sometimes my phrasing can probably trigger some people, but I feel we've at least been fairly respectful of each other.

I'm not even sure what you believe to be an assumption in this case. Practically everyone has insecurities or past trauma, acknowledging that isn't bad. My issue with referencing that the world owes you nothing is that you've been very condescending, and taking offense has been written to be related to issues in one's past. I've never thought that we're past discrimination, biases and other psychological issues. In fact, earlier I said "Intolerance and trauma-based reactions are growing instead of people dealing with their mental health. They're externalizing things as if they're infallible." Again, externalizing. Other people have issues and we can definitely research and try to help people move past that. But that doesn't mean you're perfect and you should never work on yourself. Philosophically, no there are no limits; any human can do or say whatever they are physically or mentally capable of doing/saying. Even if I were to disagree with the statements or actions of an individual and think of them as ill-advised or subjectively hurtful, I'm not some superior being to throw stones. As to your hypothetical, I have no past trauma or insecurity that would cause me to take offense to that specific scenario, especially if done in jest. And that's a fair take. Other than the "idiotic" comment thrown in, I appreciate your responses, even if we don't seem to agree. Hopefully they're able to constructively take this topic's comments to heart in the future scripts.

Firstly, there are things you can do, if you were so inclined. That it made you angered and uncomfortable, that's a bit interesting and unfortunate. Does having it make you feel ashamed? While I don't think I ever had shame, there are tinges of regret for not being diagnosed with ADHD earlier, to prevent certain things in my youth. But those thoughts aren't really productive, so I let them go. If you were referenced by your height, would that also bother you, since you can't do something about it? For the joke? I think there were using it as referenced on Wikipedia, as a neutral descriptor, "traits may include a slim to average physique, a youthful appearance that may belie an older age, having little or no body hair, flamboyancy, and general physical attractiveness." As also referenced in the Wiki, it does have pejorative use, but most of that seems limited to between gay individuals, where the nuance of their trauma and experience play roles in their perspective of the word and its usage. It seems those with lingering self-image and self-esteem issues have the most problems with its usage. I've personally heard it used by gay individuals I know, and it's anecdotally always been as a descriptor, never insulting. Same as bear, otter, bull, cub, etc..

Which is all the more concerning. Intolerance and trauma-based reactions are growing instead of people dealing with their mental health. They're externalizing things as if they're infallible. Voicing displeasure is fine, even encouraged. That there are this many people disliking that joke, perhaps they'll take that into editorial consideration for the future. However, the level of one's feelings and some of the sentiments expressed here definitely require some individual reflection. Dealing with past trauma can be tough, but projection is not the answer, whatever short term 'benefits' you might get.

It seems that you're judging the joke as if it's strictly news. Techlinked is effectively tech news sprinkled with a satirical slant, and projecting your expectations is unhelpful. Do you think The Daily Show (or any other similar program) contacted the people they referenced in their relaying of events/news to make sure those people/organizations are okay with the jokes they've written for that episode? He doesn't need to be Ricky Gervais to be humorous (or approve jokes for the scripts). Instead of censoring people and their speech, addressing the reason for taking offense is far more productive. All censoring does is allow unhealthy coping mechanisms to fester and invade other areas of one's life instead of dealing with the root cause. It also helps exacerbate NPD and other disorders that have issues with entitlement. You clearly dislike the joke or see it as irrelevant, so I'm naturally curious as to what has caused that in you. There are jokes or comedians I don't find funny, or distasteful, etc... but I don't have the right to tell them to stop, because that's ridiculous. They're my feelings, and valid or not, I don't get to project my feelings onto other people to manipulate them. If something ever did bother me, I have the proper tools to deal with it and address it. If anything, it will help me to investigate to discover why it bothered me in the first place. The world doesn't exist to cater to you and your insecurities or past trauma. Again, there is nothing wrong with being gay and/or a twink.

Wait. You're implying that because something can/might be true, it can never be joked about? Does that mean you dislike the concept of roasts? That entirely depends on her frame of mind. Given her intelligence and her status, I imagine she'd find it funny, or just call me a troll and move on with her day. There's no way she didn't hear mean-spirited talk like that internally before she accepted being CEO, which is again, different from humor. Stereotypes by definition are a simplistic, generalized belief about a group of people. Oftentimes they are based in something tangible or anecdotal, and no longer or never really accurately described reality, but were a microcosm of a time or geographic period. Being intolerant or hateful with stereotypes is a lot different than using them for humor. I'm of Italian descent, and Italian stereotypes are funny to me, because they reflect some of my mannerisms and/or childhood experiences. Does that mean every Italian can relate? Of course not. Does that mean every stereotype is positive or neutral? Also no. Whether someone is using a 'negative' stereotype for humor, or attempting to insult me, that's their prerogative and right to free speech. Depending on the situation, it's either funny, or perhaps I try to get to the root of their issue and help them, or I simply ignore it. Being offended is a choice that is generally unproductive and is typically the result of trauma that has negatively sensitized an individual's perception and self-image/self-esteem, and causes them to be volatile to innocuous happenings, and they imply intent where there is none. Why use humor? As a mental health professional, you probably know about humor and its mental health benefits. If you're going to ask every comedy writer or comedian "why that phrase?" for every joke, that's problematic and belies something deeper inside of you. Humans are capable of freely speaking their mind; you can call me whatever you like. It is not my job to stifle someone's speech or censor their thoughts, whether your statements are factually correct or not. If I did have an issue with a joke/insult, I can express that, or I can simply practice radical acceptance and move on, as everyone should. As someone who had no idea what Adam D'Angelo looked like, 'twink' definitely helped describe his look based on the definition of the word, before subsequently having to Google him for the purposes of this discussion. Perhaps authors should avoid descriptive nouns altogether, to avoid the readers using their own biases and phobias when reading.

Substituting those words evokes malice compared to other available words. Those words (other than f*g's British usage) are probabilistically derogatory. I have no problems in general with using any words, because intent and context are important in writing. Outside of 'gay' when I was younger being synonymous with something bad or unideal, 'twink' hasn't carried such connotations, nor does 'gay' due to our societal advancement; it's tantamount to describing someone as 'husky' or having a 'baby face.' I'm not sure why we're going back in time to less acceptance. Calling your friend 'straight' when they're gay in most friendships would be funny, especially when the entire point is comedic in nature. If I was called 'gay' for my appearance or actions (stereotypical or not) I similarly would not take offense, as I'm not homophobic, and am comfortable with myself as an individual. Why is factually stating if someone is a woman or a minority in their geographic location problematic? I assume it's because you're conflating physical/factual description with something negative, or you're discounting any humor and conjoining it with below: That's. The. Joke. It's comedically implying something that is outlandish for humor. Jokes are essentially finding creative perspectives and diction to illicit laughter. There is no serious expose of OpenAI having quotas, especially ones involving a 'type' of male homosexual. Even your mind going there is horrendously disturbing.