Tucker just became the biggest threat to the establishment

[Eirikrautha]

He claimed that it was the wrong choice because she was a woman.

Do you lie for fun?  Because you are certainly not good at it.  Your statement above is a bald-faced lie.  Zelen said the following:

Elon just hired a woman as the new CEO of Twitter. Your hopes are misplaced.

Those are two statements.  YOU (and Mistwell, the NPC, of course) immediately concluded that the first statement was the premise to the second.  Nowhere did Zelen imply that he was making an argument where the second statement was predicated on the first.  Both could have been (as I read them) statements that were not connected.  Elon just hired a woman as CEO.  Folks who hoped for free speech from Twitter were going to be disappointed (because of who this woman is).  But Mistwell, not being very bright, saw this as syllogistic, and took the statement in the worst possible construction (because he, like you, constantly argues in bad faith).  Regardless of whatever later posters said to support or deny your assumption, Zelen "claimed" no such thing in his post.  So stop lying.

[jhkim]

Those are two statements.  YOU (and Mistwell, the NPC, of course) immediately concluded that the first statement was the premise to the second.  Nowhere did Zelen imply that he was making an argument where the second statement was predicated on the first.  Both could have been (as I read them) statements that were not connected.  Elon just hired a woman as CEO.  Folks who hoped for free speech from Twitter were going to be disappointed (because of who this woman is).

If Zelen intended the two statements to be unrelated, then he can clarify and we don't actually disagree on this point - like with 3catcircus.

I'd still be disagreeing with Grognard GM, who saw the same implication and doubled down on it to say that hiring a woman CEO is a itself a problem because there is an overwhelming pattern that women CEOs make the company a woke mess that drives away the customer base and tanks the stock values.

[GeekyBugle]

She's not just a woman though. He didn't hire a housewife or a crossing guard, he hired a female executive. And after a good decade of every single female CEO hired to a company subsequently turning the company in to a woke mess that drives away the customer base, and tanks the stock values, we Humans that don't artificially blind ourselves to patterns, know what happens next.

I don't know enough about CEOs across all industries to generalize about them all, or about women CEOs. From quick search, I see this:

https://msmagazine.com/2020/11/03/heres-where-top-women-ceos-are-putting-their-political-dollars/
....
From your characterization, I'd expect them to not be donating to Trump funds - but a good fraction of them did, moreso than those donating to DNC funds.

As I'm not prepared to dig deep in to the 4 year old data from Ms. magazine (tagline: not just a magazine, but a movement) I'll switch to more relevant data. Twitter is big tech, and big tech is overwhelmingly very Left wing, and very censorious. I haven't seen a single woman in big Tech calling for free speech, or letting people have access to unfiltered news.

Safra Catz is CEO of Oracle (i.e. big tech) and was on Trump's transition team in 2016, as well as being a major donor to his campaign along with other Republicans.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-catz/oracle-ceo-catz-to-join-trump-transition-team-remain-at-oracle-idUSKBN1442RK

Trump said about Oracle's takeover of TikTok's US operations -- "I think Oracle is a great company, and I think its owner is a tremendous guy," Trump said. "He's a tremendous person. I think that Oracle would be certainly somebody that could handle it."

Claiming that the CEO Catz is left-wing seems incorrect.

-----

Lets assume those are THEIR personal donations, you're aware they donate to buy political favor and not only because they agree with X Party?

But even if they did agree with the party, how does that change the WEF's puppet into anything but?

I don't think it's important what CEOs secretly think in private.

Again, Zelen's initial complaint wasn't that Musk's new CEO was a WEF puppet. He claimed that it was the wrong choice because she was a woman. Grognard GM doubled down on this to say that every single women CEO turned their companies into woke messes, so it was right to complain about her being a woman.

I think that is wrong. Women can be competent as CEOs, and women can also be conservative.

Oracle: $264.18 Billion
Alphabet (Google, Youtube, etc) $1.435 Trillion
Meta (Facebook): $562.19 Billion

Colloquially, "big tech" generally refers to the largest and most influential technology companies in the world, which are often associated with the Silicon Valley area of California in the United States. These companies are typically characterized by their size, reach, and dominance in their respective markets.

Some of the most well-known companies that are often referred to as "big tech" include Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, which collectively have enormous influence over the global economy, digital culture, and society as a whole. They are known for providing services and products such as search engines, social media platforms, online marketplaces, cloud computing, and various software and hardware solutions.

The term "big tech" is often used in discussions about the power and influence of technology companies, particularly with regard to issues such as data privacy, antitrust regulation, and political influence.

Oracle doesn't fulfill the definition, and you know it.

Why do you HAVE TO lie about stuff we can so easily verify? Nope Gorgnard very clearly didn't say what you claim he did.

I haven't seen a single woman in big Tech calling for free speech, or letting people have access to unfiltered news.

[oggsmash]

  Digging up 21 women CEOs in a discussion where the question was about female execs (LOTS of exec positions other than CEO)...seems like it would be better to take a poll of ALL female CEOs to see where the politics fall if it matters that much.  Trying to point to 21 on a very limited scale of company and position seems like bullshitting.

[oggsmash]

 I think its worth noting as well...the sort of republican who ends up CEO of a large company is usually not in any way a conservative.   So constantly squawking about a 2 party scenario where republicans constantly search  for dumb shit like a tranny to endorse their "ideas" and we pretend they are conservative is just goofy.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, I forgot where I read and heard it--I've heard programs quote the various polling research and soon--but generally, anywhere from 25% to 50% of "Republican" WOMEN betray their CONSERVATIVE HUSBANDS when it comes time to vote, and they vote in support of many, many Libtard political issues. That is a primary reason why any Conservative efforts to engage in the "Culture War" against Libtards and fucking Communists have been sabotaged and cut off at the knees for the last 40 years.

Yes, there are a few fire-breathing Dragon Queens that fight relentlessly against the Woke fucking Libtards. Even women that can be a bit crazy, like MTG and Boebert.

However, having said that, at the end of the day, women in general embrace Libtardism and love all the collectivistic, Liberal BS.

So, yeah, women as CEO's? Check that shit hard. Women in any kind of positions of power. Put them under a big fucking magnifying glass of scrutiny. Half the men are worthless, too, so shut the fuck up about "Misogyny!" Even more so, though, women in such positions are generally a bad sign. That is an assumption that you can bet on and take to the bank. The statistics over and over support such a view. CEO's, high officers in the military, political leadership, *teachers*--women tend to be awful at all of these types of jobs, because far too many of them are fucking LIBERAL, and FEMINISTS. That makes them also love collectivism, and easily seduced by Marxism and degeneracy.

Elon Musk appointing this woman as CEO of Twitter is a terrible sign. As my friends have pointed out though, Elon Musk is not a CONSERVATIVE. At best, he seems like a bright, innovative businessman and thinker that is more centrist, with some sanity and right-leanings.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Ratman_tf]

Elon just hired a woman as the new CEO of Twitter. Your hopes are misplaced.

So, just going for straight up misogyny now?

The way activism has utterly poisoined the topics of sexism and racism, I sure don't give a fuck. It's a valid point now that she's likely a diversity hire who got her position because she has a vagina. Especially in light of her background in DIE and the WEF.

[jhkim]

Oracle: $264.18 Billion
Alphabet (Google, Youtube, etc) $1.435 Trillion
Meta (Facebook): $562.19 Billion

Colloquially, "big tech" generally refers to the largest and most influential technology companies in the world, which are often associated with the Silicon Valley area of California in the United States. These companies are typically characterized by their size, reach, and dominance in their respective markets.

Some of the most well-known companies that are often referred to as "big tech" include Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, which collectively have enormous influence over the global economy, digital culture, and society as a whole. They are known for providing services and products such as search engines, social media platforms, online marketplaces, cloud computing, and various software and hardware solutions.

The term "big tech" is often used in discussions about the power and influence of technology companies, particularly with regard to issues such as data privacy, antitrust regulation, and political influence.

Oracle doesn't fulfill the definition, and you know it.

If being only $264 billion doesn't count as "big", then how can that show a trend that women CEOs turned their company into a woke mess that drove away the customer base and tanked stock values? The larger companies are all men CEOs. Given that the topic is women CEOs, then if you restrict the data set to zero, then there is no possible trend in any direction.

----

  Digging up 21 women CEOs in a discussion where the question was about female execs (LOTS of exec positions other than CEO)...seems like it would be better to take a poll of ALL female CEOs to see where the politics fall if it matters that much.  Trying to point to 21 on a very limited scale of company and position seems like bullshitting.

If you have better data, then I'd be happy to check it out. Like I said, I don't claim to have any prior knowledge of all women CEOs. The article I found was just the result of a few minutes of searching.

Across the whole American population, women skew slightly Democrat -- the split was 53% D vs 45% R in the 2022 elections. (ref) However, women CEOs aren't going to be typical of adult women in general. Also, 53/45 isn't a very big split. There are stronger trends for being Asian (58/40), Hispanic (60/39) or Jewish (65/33).

Grognard GM's hyperbole is that every single woman CEO made their company a woke mess that drove away the customer base and tanked stock values. However, I don't see any evidence of that as a trend at all, let alone strong enough to be a red flag. Even if CEOs were typical of their demographic, none of these seem like a strong warning signal for an individual person.


EDITED TO ADD: To Grognard GM, I'm using your exact words and specifically labelling it as "hyperbole" because I'm trying not to misrepresent you. If you want to express that in non-hyperbolic language, I'd substitute that. The point is I don't see evidence that hiring a woman CEO is a red flag either from a business perspective or even from a conservative political perspective. There are companies that are woke messes, but those happen from men CEOs as well as from women CEOs.

[GeekyBugle]

Oracle: $264.18 Billion
Alphabet (Google, Youtube, etc) $1.435 Trillion
Meta (Facebook): $562.19 Billion

Colloquially, "big tech" generally refers to the largest and most influential technology companies in the world, which are often associated with the Silicon Valley area of California in the United States. These companies are typically characterized by their size, reach, and dominance in their respective markets.

Some of the most well-known companies that are often referred to as "big tech" include Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, which collectively have enormous influence over the global economy, digital culture, and society as a whole. They are known for providing services and products such as search engines, social media platforms, online marketplaces, cloud computing, and various software and hardware solutions.

The term "big tech" is often used in discussions about the power and influence of technology companies, particularly with regard to issues such as data privacy, antitrust regulation, and political influence.

Oracle doesn't fulfill the definition, and you know it.

If being only $264 billion doesn't count as "big", then how can that show a trend that women CEOs turned their company into a woke mess that drove away the customer base and tanked stock values? The larger companies are all men CEOs. Given that the topic is women CEOs, then if you restrict the data set to zero, then there is no possible trend in any direction.

I wonder WHY did you focus solelly on the market cap and not the other part, I highlighted it so you don't miss it next time (nobody has EVER claimed Oracle has any influence in those areas).

  Digging up 21 women CEOs in a discussion where the question was about female execs (LOTS of exec positions other than CEO)...seems like it would be better to take a poll of ALL female CEOs to see where the politics fall if it matters that much.  Trying to point to 21 on a very limited scale of company and position seems like bullshitting.

If you have better data, then I'd be happy to check it out. Like I said, I don't claim to have any prior knowledge of all women CEOs. The article I found was just the result of a few minutes of searching.

Across the whole American population, women skew slightly Democrat -- the split was 53% D vs 45% R in the 2022 elections. (ref) However, women CEOs aren't going to be typical of adult women in general. Also, 53/45 isn't a very big split. There are stronger trends for being Asian (58/40), Hispanic (60/39) or Jewish (65/33).

Grognard GM's hyperbole is that every single woman CEO made their company a woke mess that drove away the customer base and tanked stock values. However, I don't see any evidence of that as a trend at all, let alone strong enough to be a red flag. Even if CEOs were typical of their demographic, none of these seem like a strong warning signal for an individual person.


EDITED TO ADD: To Grognard GM, I'm using your exact words and specifically labelling it as "hyperbole" because I'm trying not to misrepresent you. If you want to express that in non-hyperbolic language, I'd substitute that. The point is I don't see evidence that hiring a woman CEO is a red flag either from a business perspective or even from a conservative political perspective. There are companies that are woke messes, but those happen from men CEOs as well as from women CEOs.

WHY do you insist on the lie?

"I haven't seen any" =/= All women

I mean I'm the resident aspie and I can understand the difference, so you're either lying or are also autistic and less functional than I.

[GeekyBugle]

Greetings!

Well, I forgot where I read and heard it--I've heard programs quote the various polling research and soon--but generally, anywhere from 25% to 50% of "Republican" WOMEN betray their CONSERVATIVE HUSBANDS when it comes time to vote, and they vote in support of many, many Libtard political issues. That is a primary reason why any Conservative efforts to engage in the "Culture War" against Libtards and fucking Communists have been sabotaged and cut off at the knees for the last 40 years.

Yes, there are a few fire-breathing Dragon Queens that fight relentlessly against the Woke fucking Libtards. Even women that can be a bit crazy, like MTG and Boebert.

However, having said that, at the end of the day, women in general embrace Libtardism and love all the collectivistic, Liberal BS.

So, yeah, women as CEO's? Check that shit hard. Women in any kind of positions of power. Put them under a big fucking magnifying glass of scrutiny. Half the men are worthless, too, so shut the fuck up about "Misogyny!" Even more so, though, women in such positions are generally a bad sign. That is an assumption that you can bet on and take to the bank. The statistics over and over support such a view. CEO's, high officers in the military, political leadership, *teachers*--women tend to be awful at all of these types of jobs, because far too many of them are fucking LIBERAL, and FEMINISTS. That makes them also love collectivism, and easily seduced by Marxism and degeneracy.

Elon Musk appointing this woman as CEO of Twitter is a terrible sign. As my friends have pointed out though, Elon Musk is not a CONSERVATIVE. At best, he seems like a bright, innovative businessman and thinker that is more centrist, with some sanity and right-leanings.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Elon is bright already, you can't be a billionaire conman for so long as he has without being really smart. But he's not a conservative or a free speech absolutist by any stretch of the imagination, he's at best a centrist liberal not captured by the woke mind virus.

[Mistwell]

I like how you can't criticize her because she's a woman. That's cool. If she was black, would it also be racist? She might be a lesbian, so it's also homophobic, right?

Mistwell has gone full NPC.

Literally his only "criticism" was "she's a woman."

That was it. That was the entire message, "Elon just hired a woman as the new CEO of Twitter. Your hopes are misplaced." The "hopes" of behavior were "ethical." Got that? Elon just hired a woman, so your hopes of the new CEO behaving ethically are misplaced. That was it - the entire criticism was her gender. Not that she had done anything wrong, just that she was hired for the job and is female.

[Mistwell]

one could think hiring a woman is likely to end in "hate speech" bullshit, because women are more likely to care about the hurt fee fees of some random asshole in the internet.

So, are we all clear on the issue now? GeekyBugle just summarized it nicely. Purely because of her gender, she's more likely to behave in a manner perceived to be unethical based on the ethical standards here. Not because she has done anything, but purely based on her gender.

Yes, that is misogynistic. There is no way out of that being misogyny. It's not a comment about who she is or what she has done. It just assumes worse ethical behavior BECAUSE she has a vagina. Couldn't really be more purely stated than that.

[Mistwell]

Elon just hired a woman as the new CEO of Twitter. Your hopes are misplaced.

So, just going for straight up misogyny now?

I like how you can't criticize her because she's a woman. That's cool. If she was black, would it also be racist? She might be a lesbian, so it's also homophobic, right?

Mistwell has gone full NPC.

In Zelen's post, he doesn't have any criticism of her qualifications or even her politics.

The only thing that he refers to about her is that she is a woman.

Saying that she's a poor choice because of her qualifications or skills is reasonable if it's based on actual qualifications or skills. Saying that she's a poor choice simply because she's a woman is prejudiced, unless one actually believes that women are inherently unqualified to be CEOs.

At this point I don't know anything about the new Twitter CEO, but do people think, say, Carly Fiorina is a competent leader?

Yes that is precisely what I was commenting on. I think people are pretending Zelen made some point about her background or history or something. He didn't. He just said woman=bad in that post. And then people jumped on me for pointing out he just did that.

[Mistwell]

She's not just a woman though.

The post y'all are up in arms about purely said she is just a woman and therefore, based purely on that, the odds are she won't behave in an ethical manner. And then a supporter of that thesis repeated it. We're not making this up - you can criticize her for who she is, but that is not in any way what I was responding to. I was responding to criticism of her purely for being a her. That's it - the sole qualification Zelen was bashing was her gender and only her gender. Geekybugle verified that concept, and Shark essentially did as well by saying any woman in power deserved added extreme scrutiny purely for being a woman that is in power.

Meanwhile Eirikrautha is trying to do a "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" white knight dance, not noticing the reading of the two sentences was already well verified by others here as being accurate.

[GeekyBugle]

one could think hiring a woman is likely to end in "hate speech" bullshit, because women are more likely to care about the hurt fee fees of some random asshole in the internet.

So, are we all clear on the issue now? GeekyBugle just summarized it nicely. Purely because of her gender, she's more likely to behave in a manner perceived to be unethical based on the ethical standards here. Not because she has done anything, but purely based on her gender.

Yes, that is misogynistic. There is no way out of that being misogyny. It's not a comment about who she is or what she has done. It just assumes worse ethical behavior BECAUSE she has a vagina. Couldn't really be more purely stated than that.

Yeah, how dare I notice trends!

Next you'll be calling me muhsoggykneestic because I say that women are more likely to watch a movie with a shirtless hot dude in it.

Noticing trends is haram...

You're pathetic.