It's not like selling the stock is going to hurt the company or the stock value.
Not the stock value, but it can certainly hurt the company. Ending Apartheid is the usual example of a social goal which was aided by divestment. Here's a little blurb explaining how that works.
Of course, I'm not going to protest "Barbie inaccurately portrays one of her multitudes of professions" anyway...
Once again, the only thing that the book says Barbie can't do is complete the entire game by herself. It doesn't say that she can't code, it only says that she isn't coding right then, it doesn't say that she can't fix her computer, it only says that fixing her computer will go faster if she and her teammates work together. And even if it did, even if there existed a problem that Barbie couldn't solve, I submit that this wouldn't be the fucking end of the world. She's not some kind of wizard, I don't understand why it's weak to ask for help once in a while.
If the complaint was that this was an inaccurate portrayal of what it means to be a computer engineer then I'd be right there with you. Game designers are not necessarily engineers, and high school students aren't engineers anyway. So fine, I'll grant that this isn't a very good book since that is supposed to be the point. But that is not what people are up in arms over here.
she states that she can't actually write the game, that's for the boys to do
This doesn't happen. Read the page scans in TFA, like I suggested, rather than regurgitating the commentary. She says that she's only creating the design ideas (at the time that Skipper asks this question) and that she'll need Steven and Brian's help to turn it into a real game. That's teamwork, not helplessness.
And of course "it's faster if we help." What do you want Barbie to be here, an anti-social loner? Living in her parents' basement and doing everything by herself is supposed to be better? She's working in a team and her teammates offered to help. At no point in any of the pages shown in TFA does Barbie just sit back and "lets the boys do it."
None the less, the idea that Barbie giving orders to a couple of code monkeys would be degrading to Barbie is just bizarre. Very few people look at the person who's in charge and probably better paid and think to themselves, "Well that person must be an idiot."
I did do a cursory search for the book online, since it would be nice to see the full text of the book rather than just what the blogger is willing to show, but unsurprisingly I wasn't able to turn up anything. We're talking about an incredibly trite children's book after all, one of a billion.
Also, and this is the only reason I'm responding to your comment, SNAKE EYES DOESN'T TALK. What is wrong with you and the world that you would use that as an example?
The blog post reads an awful lot of shit into some pretty banal dialogue. Try reading just the images taken from the book and skip the inflammatory commentary that the blog adds: Barbie is the lead designer on a game that she's making with two other students (teamwork!). When something goes wrong with her computer, the three of them work on it together in order to solve the problem faster (cooperation!). The three members of her team are herself, a white guy, and a black guy (diversity! both gender and racial). Barbie and her team do so well that her teacher, an obviously capable woman, gives them extra credit.
Seriously, this whole bruhaha is a bunch of horseshit. There exists real discrimination out there, crying wolf like this causes a lot more harm than good.
Appointment: "I'm declaring that these people will be FCC commissioners and there's nothing that you can do about it."
Nomination: "I'm submitting these people as candidates to be FCC commissioners subject to your approval. As we agreed, in order to secure that approval two of them are members of your party and will vote the way you want them to."
I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest by continually denying this. If Obama were in sole control of the FCC, why wouldn't all of the commissioners vote the same way? Why have dissent at all? Why would he appoint five people who always seem to disagree about everything?
No. The trouble here is with the word "appointment." FCC commissioners aren't really appointed by the president, though that is the common term, they are nominated. There are two Republican commissioners because those are the commissioners that the Republicans in congress were willing to approve.
You can say, quite correctly, that a lobbyist should never have been given that position in the first place. That's fine, though it ignores the reality that former lobbyists and industry insiders are given most such positions. You can say that some sort of anti-consumer policy might have been predictable from making such an appointment. You can say a lot of things, but when you say "you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame" you're suggesting that Obama should shoulder all of the blame for making a nomination that has gone bad, a nomination voted on and approved by congress, and when you say "Not the GOP." you're just fooling yourself.
And it's Obama's guy, Wheeler, who has been pushing for Internet "Slow Lanes" on behalf of the ISPs. So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.
Wheeler, plus the two republican commissioners on the FCC you mean? That's what you meant, right? This whole thing started because Wheeler broke rank with the Democrats and said that he was going to vote with the Republicans on the fast lanes thing, so I assume that's what you meant.
While you're pointing your finger at Obama you might consider that his rhetoric is all that he can actually do about this. Obama nominated Wheeler, that's true, but that's the extent of his influence over the FCC. That's the whole point of having independent agencies - so that one person doesn't have all the power.
The real marvel of Wikipedia is that it has managed to thrive despite its editors.