Which was also rumored to be the work of Christians

I figure it was the same as the reason Elon bought Twitter, kinda. They got it as part of a larger purchase so that's different, but the goal seems to be the same - destroy what's good about it so that the people who were accomplishing things with it stopped. We used to have discussions here that moved conversations forwards... Occasionally anyway.

Tolerance of abuse is enablement, but enablement of abuse is all you want because you want to be enabled to abuse, so that checks out. You have that in common with all rapeublicans. That's why you all voted for the child rapist, you admire his rapes.

Not to mention that Trump is also a white supremacist, and there's lots and lots of evidence of that available.

Those are all good reasons why you would do the updates, and very bad reasons not to, so those are puzzling statements to make in this context even though they are accurate.

The example of minstrel shows was given upthread.

They perpetuated harmful racist stereotypes, which contributed to harm.

You want to bring those back or what?

I think Slashdot has pretty successfully picked apart this study, though I see no need to depend on anything to discredit this study but the weird avatar choices. They make the entire study invalid because of the confounding factors of the avatars' appearances.

Yeah, that question is not just bad, it's going to cause you legal problems if any applicant who was turned down finds out. Interview questions and processes are supposed to be designed to eliminate bias, but that question is literally designed to allow bias to influence the hiring decision, and will be a major exhibit in a discrimination case. Your employer's HR department is run by a spectacular fuckup.

Yeah, there's a reason for that.

No they fucking are not.

Yes, they approve of people who protect child rapists. See? Not irrelevant.

I'm not complaining about the company doing advertising, I'm complaining about Slashdot presenting it without irony.

Yeah, it's not a good study. If nothing else (and there is much else) the sample size is too small.

OTOH, I find it difficult to understand why so many people seem to think it's "obviously wrong", when I would have predicted that result from a good study. People tend to be unreasonably biased, and not just about sex. There've been studies where two groups of people were divided at random. Those who ended up in each group tended to prefer their group over the other, even though the group didn't exist outside of the study. (I say that, but I don't know for sure that the folks didn't maintain their groups after the study was over...but it was a pretty short study.)

Lots of people anthropomorphize their car or motorcycle. It's one of the things people do.

That's a difference, it's just not a significant difference. It might well justify a larger study with more careful controls. But the result they produced is what I would have guessed, so I'm a bit biased.

Still, look at any sports team match. People tend to favor one side over the other for reasons that have nothing to do with skill.

I'm sure that's happening. I'm also sure it's only a part of the story. Some of the other posts have raised other contributory issues, like image quality. And actually I think your point is a valid example of a more general trend, i.e. people tend to favor those who are more socially approved. The reasons for the social approval are nearly irrelevant, but different groups within society will use different measures. (E.g. Catholics will tend to approve of different people than Unitarians, even if they adopt the same proposals.) Think of how some people rate their favorites sports team vs. the way they rate the other side.

That's a single data point. I've seen it be true, but I've also seen it be false. Also they tend to be differently Machiavellian, but I wouldn't say men were more Machiavellian than women, or the converse. Just that they tend to do it differently.