Drayke Newall

On the plus side we get better refunds, extra warranties and can take our iPhone's and other products to any repairer not just the manufacturer. All this cause we are "independent cusses who'd tell busybodies where to go and what to do when they got there" 😛

Probably, but because of that lack of information that was critical for the story in not showing her a Mary Sue gave rise to some people then reading into that and saying it had a different 'woke' agenda instead. They also used the example of the leader of the resistance being female and ignoring poe's advise cause of 'reasons' which lead to the destruction of their fleet, whereas poe's tactic was better. Also those people used the example of how Leia miraculously gets sucked out into space but because of 'reasons' unexplained became able to use the force (with no hint of being trained) to not only survive space but also get back to the ship yet Luke dies due to supposedly expending to much force. Rian Johnson didn't help in his rantings against his userbase either. Story telling is an art and without telling it correctly it leads to interpretation. Unfortunately in Star Wars case that interpretation due to all the positives happening to females, led to negative press about 'woke' and fans not liking it which impacted not only the marketing and $$$ but also a backlash against loyal starwars fans who were their main target audience.

It is considered a flop not due to the saga grossing over 4 billion but, because from that they saw a loss of 1 billion in each consecutive movie from the first (half of that gross was from the first movie alone) as well as an entire backlash against Disney owned Star Wars, its actors, head of Lucas Arts, firing of Rian, etc. Not to mention the loss of revenue cause by people unhappy with the first movie negatively impacting other Star Wars future franchises such as Han Solo etc.

I am not saying that. I think and the majority also thought it was good they had a female such as Rey as the lead. The problem many had including me is that she was shown to be a Mary Sue. For example Luke Skywalker was a Jedi Master. Through his saga he was shown as learning how to become a Jedi, use his powers etc and it took him effort. The problem with Rey was that she was stronger than him from the get go with very little to no training. This had the consequence of giving that Mary Sue feel and making the other male leads who should have been far more powerful due to decades of training weak. I am not saying that a female Jedi cant be stronger than a male jedi master, however showing it straight away without much training was the flaw that many didn't like and saw it flop. For another perspective it took 3 movies to show improvement in Luke where even at the last point he struggled to defeat the emperor (in fact he didn't even defeat him it was Vader that did). With Rey she could do everything Luke could from episode 2 and could defeat many force users that should be more powerful than her with ease. The books may have not given this perspective, I don't know I haven't read them however the movies still should have given at least some form of progression in her powers but they didn't show that.

WTF, I have in no way derailed this thread at all and that seems to be your typical response to everything I or someone else says where you cant prove otherwise or that shows a different perspective. Firstly, it was you who brought the discussion to employers becoming woke, which is what I originally responded to you about. It was others that responded saying that they also took offence at the ad. Secondly, if you had bothered to read it correctly (which clearly you never do), my original post using 'an employer getting woke' in the Gillette ad was about how it discriminately gave the view that POC treat women better. Here I will quote what I said: I then used that point to highlight that the word woke is toxic now days due to such discriminative views and perhaps the word should be looked at being changed. So I refute your accusation of me derailing the topic when, in fact I was talking exactly about as you put it "'getting woke' related to POC and the movement taking place in America". The difference is I used that very 'wokeness' to imply discrimination against white males vs black males, which perhaps doesn't go with your agenda. EDIT: Note, I also didn't even mention in that original post my thoughts on the ad at all. I logically and factually responded leaving my opinion out of the that discussion as I wanted a factual discussion relating to how the ad showed discrimination without any bias from my thoughts.

What does that snopes page have to do with discrediting the link I made about many child care centres in Australia attempting to change Fathers Day to Special Persons Day. Go to the links in that page. They point to an article where a Professor of Social something or rather in child care was lobbying for Fathers Day to be renamed and in many cases in those child centres did. Go find a snopes page on that saying its false. Its a ******* list who gives two hoots who made it. Did you bother going to the links all shown in that page for each one of those things and actually read the numerous non Trump supporter links showing it? How about you go look at the reactions, comments numerous negative press those items in the list shows about being woke. Go look at the numerous youtube videos of influences (they have that name for a reason) blasting those items in that list about going woke or attacking their client base for a political agenda. How about this link for Gillette Ad from forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesrtaylor/2019/01/15/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic/#3d5e310f5bc9 That link specifically shows how it was a terrible ad for its toxicity due to attacking males. It also tells of many comments of not buying the product again and guess what they saw a $12 billion decline that quarter due to that add. Even people in this thread have stated they stopped buying cause of that ad. But let me guess forbes in a trump magazine or the journalist is a trump supporter. Good grief, there was a time when people took something for what it is i.e. a list and didn't go oh but that is a trump xyz or is left, right, centre etc. I don't live in America but apparently me not watching those movies (for those reasons) like terminator (which was a flop) where they specifically killed off the lead of over 30 years to a female or made the lead of starwars (which was a flop) outdo (a mary sue) every male jedi prior (with those male jedi's being far better trained and far more knowledgeable). I don't buy Gillette anymore either due to that ad. Ad, movies all that should be just that ad's for a product and movies for entertainment. Leave all the political and other world issues out of them. I want to know why I should by a razor, such as it has 5 blades and is comfortable. I don't buy things because x company think they need to tell me their political stance or think they need to dictate their beliefs or ideals to me. I left religion because of that i don't want it being forced at me from companies either. I buy a product for just that - a product. Not because the razor comes with a serve of man bashing.

It is actually still going on and has been for years. Here is an example from before the Gillette Ad where they wanted to call it (not mothers day but specifically Fathers Day in Australia) 'Special Persons Day'. http://australianmarriage.org/fathers-day-cancelled/

Not to mention Ghostbusters, MIB 4, star wars (the Mary Sue), han solo etc. It is an old list just best I could find at quick glance. I never played Wildstar but did know of some of their issues. Whilst female chest size may not have been the main issue it is once again like I mentioned the negative connotations any form of 'woke' has on a product or business these days. It is instantly perceived as an attack against their userbase. If Wildstar had simply made the change without any form of article from the left or that Anna whosawhatsit that was all the rage saying games like wildstar are sexist, there probably wouldn't have been any impact. The fact though that the move was tied to concerns shown by some and articles that males are sexist cause of liking to use female toons with larger proportions, that instantly impacted on their userbase and saw backlash. As to ME:A, no that as an utter failure both system, story wise but also due to the backlash seen towards developers in relation to racism as well as the whole gay relationship scenario. Even if some are in that list are far fetched (i don't believe they are) you cant deny that everything that is used to either discredit males, females or bring issues like race, LGBT etc in a negative way i.e. 'woke' against the original intent always fails. For example Battlefield V replacing a story in RL that was achieved heroically by males with females (Anna whosawhatsit was their go to for such things) or Gillette implying that black people treat women better. These are undeniable. Woke is toxic at the moment and is why most businesses have learnt to steer clear of any form of it showing. There is a reason why Disney continued with Mandalorian as is despite people complaining no women and why other shows have now continued recently despite backlash as to BLM etc If a person changes for the better due to realisation or research on such topics, good for them, but don't force it down peoples throats as it will only ever end badly for not only the business but also whatever agenda they are trying to push.

The trouble is the word 'woke' now has huge negative connotations to it within the business world so business's are now wary of doing things that will upset the status-qou of their client base however small that change to 'woke' is. A prime example of this negativity is the phrase "get woke, go broke" and was the prime reason why Gillette lost $12billion in revenue and became the how-to of not to do PR ad's. The were blamed for calling their userbase sexist during the MeToo campaign. What's worse is they then brought it down to race. Using their add, of the 43 abusive males in their 'woke' ad – 42 were white. 7 of the 8 hero men in the ad were black. Rather than showing an even percentage of white and black people being the hero's and an even percentage being 'abusive' they not only dominated it with males (their target audience) being abusive to females but what's more also stated through the ad that white males were worse than black males. The result, all males revolted and saw Gillette loose $12 billion in revenue. If you want more examples of the negatives of a business or employer going 'woke' as you say here's a list of a few movies, games, businesses etc that decided to show how 'woke' their business is: http://theperilousfight.us/2019/06/17/get-woke-go-broke-the-master-list/ Perhaps its time to get a different word than 'woke'. What Molly says is correct. There needs to be a better method of achieving this without outright saying everyone has 'implicit bias' or everyone has white privilege. You don't attack people by saying such things without seeing backlash to that very thing you want to have happen. The more of an attack there is the more people will continue to not be interested or push back against that idea. Unfortunately that is how humanity is. Should people educate themselves and changed sure, but you cant expect people to not give backlash or outright refuse change when all they get from the other side is an oppressor.

Ah yes, it has been beaten. There is a reason why LL had minimal staff working on it whilst everyone else was working on Sansar. SL has always been the money cow of LL and that is why whenever they, since around 2010, have ventured into another program like blocksworld, sansar etc, SL development goes dormant. That is the pure definition of been beaten like a dead horse. SL been put on life support wouldn't necessary mean no new features, just that we wouldn't see any form of increase in the speed of development. If this investment group indeed does mean good for Second Life it should equate to a shift in thinking of how to bring SL into the future which would mean quicker development and moving SL forward with some things that may grate against the existing userbase such as another viewer change or features like better land creation tools or prim to mesh tools or backend updating of the code to Vulcan. Only time will tell and as others have mentioned, if there are more layoffs that is then a big hint of a time to jump ship. I know that but that doesnt mean it was Rod's fault. He started it for the time and any good CEO should look at the future and read the market to see if that product will be beneficial still. Therefore as I mentioned Ebbe is to blame. Rather than listening to the tone of the market as well as the enormous amount of people saying it wouldn't work and SL2.0 (New or updated to allow for VR with the possibility to transfer assets from old to new SL versions) should be done instead, he continued with it and spending more on it. He could have stopped it after Rod Left but didn't so no, he takes the blame that's how business works. __________________ Nice to see Brett Linden posting in the thread to alleviate concern, however it is really just a more fleshed out version of Grumpity's post. Until we see actual posts or statements about what the future holds for Second Life independently and not Linden Lab or Tillia then the sky will continue to fall.

I actually meant reasonable sized VW's (such as Blue Mars) that were hyped due to VW's being popular etc, not ones that no one has ever heard of and don't go anywhere due to there being really no hype around VW's. If the new 'owners' actually look at upgrading to the latest Vulcan and re-inventing the inworld scripting there may be some hope for SL in the future. That said, given them stating that they acquire IP that is stable to keep it going for longer, I am more fearful of it actually just being put on life support to milk whilst they split the real money maker away from a dead horse that has been beaten one to many times.

Odd comparing Mark Kingdon and Ebbe as to different sides of the coin. Whilst I would agree Ebbe is far better than Mark, at least Mark saw future for Second Life and actively tried to make it and not another program more appealing. Also, the reason I said it was odd you comparing the two is, because it is Ironic in the paths that they took were in essence identical and proven to take the same unfortunate end, yet one is hated and the other is not. Let me put it this way. Under Mark Kingdon's tenure, he wanted to look at a world in which businesses can create independently hosted grids on users/business computers (aka basically Sansar except using SL as the platform). He called it Second Life Enterprise. It failed and led to many layoffs and the final nail in the SL hype train. Ebbe did, in essence the same except, invested millions more into a separate program to do the same. A separate hostable world except made those worlds downloadable and not streamed. It lead to many layoffs as well as now this where Linden Lab is sold 'Acquired'. You may say coincidence, I say Ironic. The issue now is where can SL go from here? in 2010 SL still had a place where Virtual Worlds were all the rage and new ones popping up left right and centre. Now its a different story with near none being looked at. Any company investing in this world is only going to look at dollars and things it can use to make more- especially an investment group. Given Tillia is so linked to SL and it being unlikely Linden Lab were going to sell one without the other, I worry that Tillia was the main goal and SL is just a necessity afterthought to get that.

There is a difference between disagreeing and people outright overlooking what I write. Take Luna for instance, we have disagreed on many points in this thread but she reads my arguments correctly and responds correctly to them as do I (at least I hope) with her posts and my responses. We have engaged in a good conversation disagreeing and agreeing on many points. She has taught me some things and I hope she has learnt some things from my posts. I am always open to debate as through that I learn many new things and I hope others learn new things from my points and point of view as well. Innula on the other hand, has multiple times in multiple threads completely overlooked my point entirely or even not understood that I have said exactly the same thing over and over. Then has the nerve to post back saying I don't understand that a study said x when I did, of which I then showed I stated the very same thing. So no sorry, I want to engage in a civil discussion where people have basic reading comprehension which in turn shows respect to the person. I have more of an understanding of America than you do of Australia that I am sure. That said, like I mentioned open and polite discourse, including debating is how we learn. I am not afraid to say I have learnt many good and bad things about America through these threads, as well as many things about racism I didn't know. You hark on about people being closed minded to racism and needing to educate themselves about such issues however, then turn around and say I am not welcome in such threads whereby I am educating myself about such issues. Pretty hypocritical. As for your accusation of me bloviating about resumes. It is my right of free speech and was in direct response to Luna's post and I thought it was prudent to offer a differing opinion based on my experience as an employer. If you don't want to read my posts then don't. I'm sorry you feel that they are long and nothing but empty. But by stating such things it shows your maturity level. I would ask where have I shown such things but I would assume like all other times where you have constantly said this and that about the same thing will still fail to prove that I think that way. This thread was continuing perfectly fine and on topic as far as both the OP and by replying within context of what other people had posted trying to keep within the bounds civilly so as not to have another racism thread locked due to abuse. Yet once again, you Beth and Innula have turned this civil discussion into a mess by yet more abuse and unsubstantiated claims slung at other people. All that is missing is your other partner in crime who seems to have gone very quite of late. So lets count, how many threads about racism that were carrying on civilly have you already forced closed (locked) due to your abuse 3? Will this make it 4 now?

Surprised you didn't look in your shoes. Things lost are always in your shoes. I have no idea why but that's what everyone else says.

Wow the more I see in these forums about American society the more they just seem backwards. I do have to correct myself being 1am (now almost 2am D:) when I posted that response it should have read about 5 months + paid maternity leave. In Australia we have for females 5 months paid maternity/parental (newborn or adopt) leave that is paid directly from the government however the employer can if they wish add to that without impacting the government payment. In addition to that if I recall there is allowance for up to 12 months of unpaid parental (male or female) leave whereby your job is secure. Believe in the new Australian financial year this July 1st that is changing again to a form of Flexible paid leave. It used to be all funded by the employer hence my previous employers issue with it. Male parents or caregivers also now get 2 weeks paid parental leave when the have a newborn or adopt. Australia actually 😉. Yes fully agree. Should also do what Australia does and offer a smaller paid parental leave for male employees in the first weeks so they can also enjoy their new gift of life.

This is where I see the issue and wanted some perspective on it. As I mentioned in one of my posts it can be seen in places like urban RP and is why I just wanted to know where people would draw that line. I agree that how you put the last analogy is indeed blackface. My question about blackfishing was really to substantiate as to whether the milder form not involving the acting but just the skin could be defined as blackfishing. But as i also said it would be hard to argue for and against considering as you also say, you can be whoever you want to be. Perfectly. many thanks.

Its a matter of something called peer reviewed research. Unless that research has been reviewed by its peers and acknowledged then a research paper in itself is worth about as much as the paper it is written on. That is also why you have two distinctive and different research papers from different universities showing different results in this thread and even one (MollyMews) going as far as saying the other method shown in your study presented is somewhat flawed. I don't disagree that they know a lot and probably do know more than me however, I also know based on experience attending not only a top architectural school but also having attended a top business school in well respected universities that just because you are a professor or have a PHD doesn't mean you are correct. I personally wouldn't trust my research or group research either which is why peer reviewing exists. Maybe resume writing is different in Australia and that is meaning my reasoning is incorrect, however I will say this. Those resumes in the study MollyMews posted would have been binned in many businesses in Australia as they appear to only be one page long. Well maybe not for a just graduation school leave however definitely at least 2 pages would be needed for a college leaver. EDIT: That said I also do acknowledge that practices in resume writing change. When I first started out and wrote my resume it was common practice to include your date of birth as part of the personal information at the top of your resume. This was later removed from resumes to limit discrimination against age. Perhaps they will evolve again somehow to stop discrimination against race. Who knows.

I meant in as far as your articles never proved there was systemic racism in the employment chances of those persons. That is to say, those tests didn't clearly without bias show that their employment rejection was due to systemic racism. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of what systemic racism means but, I have always understood it to be not just a once off instance but a build up over multiple scenarios. For example poor neighbourhood upbringing, led to lower level of finances, which then constituted a lesser education and then impacted the employment chances. Systemic as far as I have understood it is affecting the system as a whole and therefore one things leads to another. So for a different example of my understanding of the word systemic, a plants roots are poisoned, then it travels up the plant to its tissue and then causes the plant to die. So based on my understanding if those resumes were provided identically across all races then there was no systemic racism as there was no clear defined causes of rejection other than a person just basing it on race. Cant remember the exact term in this instance. The study as I mentioned, I believe and as proven by the article MollyMews posted was flawed due to the manner in which it was conducted. As for the articles, you posted I also believe I showed that it wasn't a clear cut case of racial discrimination but more a case of those applicants negatively impacting their own chances. For example a college senior not putting on his resume he got a scholarship to a prestigious school. I assumed he took up the scholarship which would then imply not systemic racism but his own lack of confidence that he wouldn't be discriminated against. If for instance he was granted the scholarship however found somehow he was unable to attend due to family issues, other finance situations etc then I would say that may be a case of systemic racism. Perhaps my understanding of the term is wrong however that is how I have always understood the word systemic.

This may be true. I recall years ago my old employer looked very harshly at female applicants on the basis that he would have to pay a female not only full pay maternity leave for 7 months (12 months now) but also her replacement for those 7 months resulting in an unsustainable financial situation for him, or so he said.

OMG its like hitting my head against the wall. DID YOU READ WHAT I SAID? Let me quote myself: Look, I bolded it for you in both my and your post. See that right there? That is me saying the exact thing you said. Do you need me to also show it in a bigger font now so you can see it even clearer? Perhaps you need it in a different font like red, or orange? What you missed is, that the study is flawed in the aspect that a) the resumes were identical except for the names and b) it was a study that wasn't controlled as it put all of those resumes in a real world situation where they were NOT just competing against those specific resumes but hundreds from other people across the area. As for point a): I answered this by showing that due to it not being controlled many of those resumes would have been overlooked as they would have appeared fishy to an employer seeing people with EXACLTY the same qualifications and experiences and skills. They also provided NO example of their resumes sent to tell it differently. Secondly I also showed that businesses don't just look at your qualifications but also many other things that you cant seem to understand as all you see is RACE issues. I even mentioned that before an employer even looks at a resume they cull them based on page size. This is also why in my second post I didn't use Luna's first posted study in my example but another article posted by Luna. In that I then further showed how those very same minorities were negatively impacting their chances by not writing a resume properly. It wasn't because the employer was discriminating by race, it was because the applicants themselves were either including things in their resume that shouldn't be there or because they were leaving out massive positives such as the one who left out that he won a scholarship to a prestigious college. As for b) they were competing with hundreds of people in a real world environment. Who is to say that other black or minority persons were not phoned back that were not part of the 50 Resumes (or however many) sent through to those employers by the researchers. To put it a better way, they probably did phone back others of varying racial backgrounds just not those from the study hence why I also said it was FLAWED. Or it could be that you seem to think employers cant tell fake resumes from real ones or that the study was flawed due to competing with other people not part of the study and hence a large portion of people that may have received calls didn't get noticed by the researchers. Take note of the far better study that Mollymews posted. They clearly acknowledge that employers can tell fake resumes as well as acknowledging that the other studies such as that Luna posted WERE FLAWED and therefore came up with a far better way to complete their study in a much better controlled environment. They actually told the employers they were fake resumes and therefore specifically controlled the testing environment by having them ONLY look at those fake applicants. Also notice their response and findings regarding the majority of job fields other than STEM. Look I will quote it for you: Not all research papers are the same, some are good others are bad. Just like some people (based on the real word, i.e. not a study - proven but the other articles Luna posted) automatically play the race card when a person doesn't get a position yet clearly hampered their own chances by not including things in the resume they should have or because they including things they shouldn't. I can tell those in the first study are not an employer and have never had to sift through hundreds of applications or resumes as they clearly don't know how employers read resumes. The study MollyMews posted shows that they do know to some degree and actually involved the employers feedback, something the other study Luna posted didn't even do so it created a skewed bias based purely on the researchers interpretation of why x didn't get a call. Congratulations you have also made my block list and join the esteemed company of only one other person who was a spammer years ago. 👏

A far better study than those posted by Luna as it clearly shows how they went about it in a more controlled environment. Additionally providing examples of the resumes provided. I would still argue there are flaws with their study, as do they however, it certainly is interesting. I would be interested in what the employers would have had to say as to why they believe females are less likely to accept the job. Was it due to previous experience in where it has been a case that they have seen more knockbacks from females in the past or based on pure discrimination. Also found it interesting reading this snippet: "We find no evidence that employers are less interested in female or minority candidates on average, but we find evidence of discrimination among employers recruiting STEM candidates" It certainly does bring an interesting case study especially, since it has shown in the study that on average there is no evidence of discrimination in other non STEM fields against minorities or females. As a STEM business, I would be interested in finding out why the study found that in this area there was more bias. Is it pure discrimination or does it come down to other such things such as research showing males consistently outperform females with spatial awareness, which is something needed in such STEM fields like engineering and architecture? Thanks for the good read Molly!

Meh whatever just a grammatical mistake in a long post. Sue me. I am not getting into a debate on what you posted in your reply as it is irrelevant to what I said about how an employer looks at an application or resume. That is to say, once again you missed the point entirely as systemic racism was not even mentioned or talked about in both the studies Luna provided or my or Luna's posts. If you actually read what studies Luna was linking (which clearly you didn't and so once again got only half of the information), all of the resumes were provided to an employer with EQUAL qualifications and experiences for both black and white people and the studies were purely based on applicants leaving or not leaving out particulars about their race such as their unique name or some form of black/Asian etc. organisation they were part of etc (i.e. the studies weren't trying to prove systemic racism or its effects but, PURE racism based on you know actual race, appearance etc). So I please ask that if your going to reply to something, read all the information first before trying to change the topic and showing you only have a one point agenda. This is the last time I reply to any of your posts as I am trying to have a civil meaningful conversation and don't want to be side tracked by someone that just skims a post and posts a reply that is not relevant to the topic I was discussing.

Stop being discriminative. Jesus walked on water, he didn't need a pogo stick!

Awesome. Haven't looked at the new viewer for a while and not sure if it has been put over to the TPV's yet. Funnily enough when I read Wulfie's response to me about how many presets, I was going to reply that they should then just make it so you can save your own. Seems for once, LL thought outside the box, which is good to hear.