The Emmys are advertising. If fewer people consume them, that's a loss.

I wish I had a local PBS station. I get one broadcast with three digital channels, at least one of which seems Christian and all of which are shit. And since they split their bandwidth three ways, they all look like shit, too.

No, edge is the least safe browser. It's even worse.

They are arresting and sometimes deporting people who met all of the requirements. They are also doing international family separation, and forcing children to appear before a judge without legal counsel. Shit like that is how we know that maggots only actually think about the children when they're horny.

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.

NGL, I'm definitely liberal-leaning, yet I sincerely believed the "pay gap" was 99% explained by reproductive status and a general willingness to negotiate more aggressively for better pay (or similarly, willingness to apply for more aspirational jobs beyond the applicant's qualifications and experience level)>

The former is clearly protected under Title VII, but that doesn't change the physical reality of someone who left the workforce for five years having five years' less experience than their peers. The latter is a much harder social indoctrination (or maybe just a testosterone) problem.

This new study though... Holy shit, that's pretty black-and-white! Barring some non-obvious methodological issues, there's nothing here to argue with. We now have concrete data that even the label "male" or "female" applied to a genderless construct adversely affects perceived value.