A good portion of the modern media can be explained through the 1984 newspeak term: doublethink. I assume you already have an idea of what it is, so to answer your question most feminists are using doublethink to have contradicting ideas in their heads. As feminism has gotten older, more misinformation has been spread about the plight of oppressed women, and as a result Pao is just another oppressed minority attacked by the Patriarchy.
I don't personally believe these things, but the media uses these clickbait titles because marketing to SJWs is very profitable nowadays. A "social justice warrior" tends to be someone passionate enough to talk the talk, but never walk the walk, so they tend to be the main audience in these stories about "being oppressed". All that being said, I think the whole mess will die down soon since the media is just craving for a new scandal every day.
Not sure how much this has to do with business motivations now that Pao is unemployed, but Wired and reddit are owned by the same parent company. I haven't checked the connections between verge, or guardian yet, but there are always inside motives when there is this much movement on anything that can make money.
But why zero mentioning of Victoria? Why do they want to stir up this hatred to say "the whole world is against women!"? It's hard to think it's only clickbait/profit only.
I can't imagine what this does to non-reddit/non-internet users.
It goes back to Rome. Once a region was conquered they would put tribes that were hostile to one another close together because their hostilities towards each other made them easier to rule. Same reason the media stoke black vs white, man vs woman, immigrant vs American. I believe Rome started many of the practices that have been perfected by the elite today. My favorite example is Bread and Circuses aka keep the citizen entertained and they will not only tolerate rule but their civic duty will erode to nothing.
I think it's mostly because if they mention men supporting a woman their entire argument falls apart. I myself don't understand why people keep peddling the same narrative about women being fragile and weak in the workplace, while simultaneously complaining about the lack of women in said place. In a lot of ways people that peddle this argument want to remain the victim forever until it is no longer popular to have that opinion. The media, in my opinion, is either half-researching the story or is omitting Victoria's support on Reddit because their audience can't understand a grey area where a woman's actions were bad against another women. It's double standards, but that's the logic behind it as far as I know.
But why haven't a single article been written to tell the truth? Why would that not generate tons of revenue when it's actually an interesting story where the whole internet is protesting against this one giant censorship-machine who fired a beloved person of theirs and started revolting through various means? There's clearly more too it then just the money I think.
view the rest of the comments →
Shaden ago
A good portion of the modern media can be explained through the 1984 newspeak term: doublethink. I assume you already have an idea of what it is, so to answer your question most feminists are using doublethink to have contradicting ideas in their heads. As feminism has gotten older, more misinformation has been spread about the plight of oppressed women, and as a result Pao is just another oppressed minority attacked by the Patriarchy.
I don't personally believe these things, but the media uses these clickbait titles because marketing to SJWs is very profitable nowadays. A "social justice warrior" tends to be someone passionate enough to talk the talk, but never walk the walk, so they tend to be the main audience in these stories about "being oppressed". All that being said, I think the whole mess will die down soon since the media is just craving for a new scandal every day.
Sciency ago
Not sure how much this has to do with business motivations now that Pao is unemployed, but Wired and reddit are owned by the same parent company. I haven't checked the connections between verge, or guardian yet, but there are always inside motives when there is this much movement on anything that can make money.
wootnessmonsters ago
But why zero mentioning of Victoria? Why do they want to stir up this hatred to say "the whole world is against women!"? It's hard to think it's only clickbait/profit only.
I can't imagine what this does to non-reddit/non-internet users.
DJexs ago
It goes back to Rome. Once a region was conquered they would put tribes that were hostile to one another close together because their hostilities towards each other made them easier to rule. Same reason the media stoke black vs white, man vs woman, immigrant vs American. I believe Rome started many of the practices that have been perfected by the elite today. My favorite example is Bread and Circuses aka keep the citizen entertained and they will not only tolerate rule but their civic duty will erode to nothing.
Shaden ago
I think it's mostly because if they mention men supporting a woman their entire argument falls apart. I myself don't understand why people keep peddling the same narrative about women being fragile and weak in the workplace, while simultaneously complaining about the lack of women in said place. In a lot of ways people that peddle this argument want to remain the victim forever until it is no longer popular to have that opinion. The media, in my opinion, is either half-researching the story or is omitting Victoria's support on Reddit because their audience can't understand a grey area where a woman's actions were bad against another women. It's double standards, but that's the logic behind it as far as I know.
wootnessmonsters ago
But why haven't a single article been written to tell the truth? Why would that not generate tons of revenue when it's actually an interesting story where the whole internet is protesting against this one giant censorship-machine who fired a beloved person of theirs and started revolting through various means? There's clearly more too it then just the money I think.