It’s funny how much this comment mirrors the experience of LGBT people left and right. Do you think it’s not awkward for a lesbian to “have to straight up reject” their male “friends” who come on to them? Or gay men and their female “friends”, or asexuals and literally anyone.
If I’m not paid for ALL the time I am required to be on-site and available to my employer (including for security purposes), I’m finding another job asap. Don’t give your time away without being compensated for it.
I don’t deny that. But I posit that it matters not whether it’s a religion or a legislating body, telling women what they can or cannot wear is wrong and it is oppressive. If one must resort to the same tactics as the oppressors, what makes them any better?
Removing the freedom of choice is textbook oppression but ok.
My point was more that more oppression is not the answer to oppression.
Sure and everyone in all the social circles I grew up in have shunned me for giving up my faith. The government banning me from choosing to wear a cross necklace wouldn’t change that or give me any more freedom of choice.
They’re equating a piece of clothing with its use by autocratic regimes to oppress women, while conveniently ignoring the fact that outside of those autocratic regimes, in the most progressive countries in the world women choose to wear burqas and other similar articles of clothing of their own free will every day.
And I’m saying this as an atheist American. I see absolutely no difference between a woman choosing to wear a burqa or to wear the attire of a catholic nun or to wear a potato sack. What she chooses to wear is her own damn business.
I never said that Google is on the verge of collapse, nor did I defend them. I merely stated that Google is a corporation, driven by profit, and expecting Google to act in the interest of anything but their own profits is a fool’s fantasy. Quit putting words in people’s mouths. It’s unbecoming of anyone that wants to have a legitimate discussion and it’s just toxic.
You know they wouldn’t get paid if nobody watched the ads. And if they didn’t get paid they wouldn’t have any reason to pay to run the site. Explaining that a corporation will not run a site like YouTube for free (which it wouldn’t even be, it costs a lot of money to run) if they weren’t getting paid. Quit attacking other users simply for pointing out facts. It’s beneath you (I think)
Triple my salary would be my minimum requirement to offset the additional freedom and lack of commute that I’d have to give up. I’d be spending less time with my family and I won’t give that up for anything less than triple my current pay.
I certainly don’t mean to shame you for what seems to be a desire to play the game without being propositioned for sex at all. That seems to me to be a completely different thing than wanting to remove a particular sexuality from the game but leaving others intact.