CEO's keep taking the L's

First that one got shot and now another ousted as a cheater.

I'm sure he'll cry himself to sleep on his bed made out of $100 bills that is worth more than every poster on PotD combined.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/328c26dc.jpg

faramir77 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/328c26dc.jpg

The guy she told Mario not to worry about...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/52a866a1.jpg

dj1200 posted...

The guy she told Mario not to worry about...

https://youtu.be/pWXX60o1Ezs?t=480

fettster777 posted...

now another ousted as a cheater.

So what?

Imagine being in the top 1% of earners and spending it on a coldplay concert

josh posted...

Imagine being in the top 1% of earners and spending it on a coldplay concert

Your skin, oh yeah, your skin and bones

josh posted...

Imagine being in the top 1% of earners and spending it on a coldplay concert

Their seats werent even that good. And since when do they do kiss cams at concerts like that?

Part of me thinks it was staged. I can't stop listening to cold play. Their Spotify traffic will probably double this week

fettster777 posted...

ousted

Surely you mean 'outed'.

I expect more wealthy CEOs are cheating than not. The broad attitude of "I'm rich enough to do whatever I want" often isn't held back by marriage vows.

adjl posted...

I expect more wealthy CEOs are cheating than not. The broad attitude of "I'm rich enough to do whatever I want" often isn't held back by marriage vows.

You don't even really have to be rich.

It's pretty much been a fundamental facet of human nature for most of recorded history that if someone has the ability to get away with breaking a rule, they will absolutely break that rule .

It's why I've always said that the phrase "Power Corrupts" is flawed, because it implies that it is power itself that changes someone from good to bad. When what is actually happening is "Power Frees". Power frees you from the consequences of your own actions. It frees you to be the person you've secretly been all along. It frees you to do whatever you want without fear of judgment or punishment.

And most of what we know about humans is that fear is pretty much the only thing that keeps most of us from being feral little shits. Fear of punishment. Fear of being judged by our peers. Fear of an invisible babysitter in the sky who can see everything we do and is going to throw us into a pit of fire for doing it. Fear of a jolly fat man who sees us when we're sleeping and makes a list of who's good and who's bad. Fear of surveillance cameras, security guards, police. Fear of losing what we already have.

The moment you think you've got enough money or power or influence (or even just anonymity) to get away with shit, you're probably going to start trying to get away with a lot of shit.

It's easy to be moral when you can't get away with anything.

adjl posted...

I expect more wealthy CEOs are cheating than not. The broad attitude of "I'm rich enough to do whatever I want" often isn't held back by marriage vows.

Pretty much, cheaters are going to cheat regardless of how much money they have, plenty of poor people cheat too. Its sad that there are so many cheaters out there.

He should have released a statement apologizing for being a Coldplay fan.

SunWuKung420 posted...

He should have released a statement apologizing for being a Coldplay fan.

He's the 3 evil Cs, Coldplay fan, CEO, and Cheater

adjl posted...

I expect more wealthy CEOs are cheating than not. The broad attitude of "I'm rich enough to do whatever I want" often isn't held back by marriage vows.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You don't even really have to be rich.

It's pretty much been a fundamental facet of human nature for most of recorded history that if someone has the ability to get away with breaking a rule, they will absolutely break that rule.

It's why I've always said that the phrase "Power Corrupts" is flawed, because it implies that it is power itself that changes someone from good to bad. When what is actually happening is "Power Frees". Power frees you from the consequences of your own actions. It frees you to be the person you've secretly been all along. It frees you to do whatever you want without fear of judgment or punishment.

It's not even the getting away with it, it's more the fact they have the option at all. The greatest deterrent to cheating is the lack of willing partners (or, technically, the greatest deterrent would actually simply be a person being in love with their spouse/mate, but for a person interested in cheating, the greatest deterrent would be the lack of a willing partner). The average married guy isn't merely held in line by fear of consequences, but instead the fact he's not going to have any luck. (Meanwhile, the average married woman can find a willing affair partner without any real problem.)

All that said, to the extent that consequences are a deterrent, a good-looking poor guy is far more likely to cheat than a good-looking rich guy since he has far less to lose. And wealth by itself quite often isn't enough to help somebody find a willing affair partner.

I do find it incredibly odd that people cheat every day....but for some reason, we are really focusing on this particular couple.

There used to be a show called "Cheaters"

Perhaps that needs to make a comeback.

GreenKnight127 posted...

I do find it incredibly odd that people cheat every day....but for some reason, we are really focusing on this particular couple.

Probably because it was very public, had a funny reveal because literally everyone could immediately tell they were having an affair by their extremely suspicious reaction alone, and it involved two powerful rich people.

Cheaters almost never face accountability (in fact, they usually are the ones that gain from it), so seeing someone finally having to face consequences for their incredibly shit behaviour is refreshing in a world where, especially recently, it seems like the worst people are winning 24/7. The CEO has been let go, now it's time for the HR lead to be fired as she clearly lacks any authority to be the arbiter of professional conduct.

faramir77 posted...

Probably because it was very public, had a funny reveal because literally everyone could immediately tell they were having an affair by their extremely suspicious reaction alone, and it involved two powerful rich people.

Cheaters almost never face accountability (in fact, they usually are the ones that gain from it), so seeing someone finally having to face consequences for their incredibly shit behaviour is refreshing in a world where, especially recently, it seems like the worst people are winning 24/7. The CEO has been let go, now it's time for the HR lead to be fired as she clearly lacks any authority to be the arbiter of professional conduct.

perfect summary.

Zeus posted...

The greatest deterrent to cheating is the lack of willing partners (or, technically, the greatest deterrent would actually simply be a person being in love with their spouse/mate

..or not wanting to be afraid of every itch, or having to shop for cold cream, or having to ask a doctor "what does this look like to you?"

GreenKnight127 posted...

There used to be a show called "Cheaters"

Perhaps that needs to make a comeback.

It already has a spiritual successor on Mtv called 'Caught in the act: Unfaithful'.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19732922/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_7_nm_1_in_0_q_Caught%2520in%2520the%2520act

Roachmeat posted...

..or not wanting to be afraid of every itch, or having to shop for cold cream, or having to ask a doctor "what does this look like to you?"

Do you think that everyone that has sex gets an STD? Even among cheaters, it's rare.

Zeus posted...

The average married guy isn't merely held in line by fear of consequences, but instead the fact he's not going to have any luck. (Meanwhile, the average married woman can find a willing affair partner without any real problem.)

All that said, to the extent that consequences are a deterrent, a good-looking poor guy is far more likely to cheat than a good-looking rich guy since he has far less to lose. And wealth by itself quite often isn't enough to help somebody find a willing affair partner.

... Did Zeus spend his vacation hanging out in an incel community? He seems more mask-off about it than usual.

Zeus posted...

It's not even the getting away with it, it's more the fact they have the option at all. The greatest deterrent to cheating is the lack of willing partners (or, technically, the greatest deterrent would actually simply be a person being in love with their spouse/mate, but for a person interested in cheating, the greatest deterrent would be the lack of a willing partner). The average married guy isn't merely held in line by fear of consequences, but instead the fact he's not going to have any luck. (Meanwhile, the average married woman can find a willing affair partner without any real problem.)

All that said, to the extent that consequences are a deterrent, a good-looking poor guy is far more likely to cheat than a good-looking rich guy since he has far less to lose. And wealth by itself quite often isn't enough to help somebody find a willing affair partner.

I find that to be bullshit.

I remember someone on here said Kiss Cams were fake. Guess not lol

SunWuKung420 posted...

Do you think that everyone that has sex gets an STD?

Well, multiple partners certainly roll the dice for it.

Roachmeat posted...

Well, multiple partners certainly roll the dice for it.

Cheaters may have multiple partners but in most instances one or both of the individuals involved in the affair only have a single other partner.

I think you're confusing cheating affairs with people constantly seeking anonymous hookups.

SunWuKung420 posted...

I think you're confusing cheating affairs with people constantly seeking anonymous hookups.

Those aren't mutually exclusive but I agree with your underlying sentiment that STIs aren't as common as one may think

adjl posted...

... Did Zeus spend his vacation hanging out in an incel community? He seems more mask-off about it than usual.

Yeah that's straight from the playbook... "Women hold all the cards when it comes to sex they can get it any time they want! Women will give it up for rich guys!" smells very Incel 101

Far-Queue posted...

Those aren't mutually exclusive but I agree with your underlying sentiment that STIs aren't as common as one may think

Yeah that's straight from the playbook... " Women hold all the cards when it comes to sex they can get it any time they want! Women will give it up for rich guys!" smells very Incel 101

What if they're a female magician?

fettster777 posted...

First that one got shot and now another ousted as a cheater.

And that guy that died after getting stung by a bee during a polo match.

adjl posted...

... Did Zeus spend his vacation hanging out in an incel community? He seems more mask-off about it than usual.

It's "good" to see you haven't stopped making bizarre accusations.

Far-Queue posted...

Yeah that's straight from the playbook... "Women hold all the cards when it comes to sex they can get it any time they want!

No, it's called reality. If you don't believe that women have an easier time finding a willing sexual partner than men, I'm not sure I or anybody can help you. You can try to spin that however you want, but it's always been true.

Far-Queue posted...

Women will give it up for rich guys!"

Which is literally the opposite of what I said, but you've never let pesky things like facts get in the way of your "arguments"

dj1200 posted...

I find that to be bullshit.

You don't believe that a poor person has less to lose than a rich person? Do you also not believe in math?

The best take I've seen on this: You have to give credit to Coldplay for producing four singles from a single concert.

Zeus posted...

Which is literally the opposite of what I said, but you've never let pesky things like facts get in the way of your "arguments"

You're right I misread your post.

That said, the point stands as

the average married woman can find a willing affair partner without any real problem

is very "incel-logic" - an incorrect generalization that incels like to make sooooo

Zeus posted...

It's "good" to see you haven't stopped making bizarre accusations.

Zeus posted...

No, it's called reality. If you don't believe that women have an easier time finding a willing sexual partner than men, I'm not sure I or anybody can help you. You can try to spin that however you want, but it's always been true.

You're right. That was a bizarre accusation... lol

Zeus posted...

No, it's called reality. If you don't believe that women have an easier time finding a willing sexual partner than men, I'm not sure I or anybody can help you. You can try to spin that however you want, but it's always been true.

That you're framing it as "finding a willing sexual partner" and not "finding a worthwhile sexual partner" is pretty textbook incel. What's next, talking about "sexual market value"?

since when do they do kiss cams at concerts like that? I never been to a concert where this was done

Tax the rich harder. Let them subsidize their fair share.

teddy241 posted...

Part of me thinks it was staged. I can't stop listening to cold play. Their Spotify traffic will probably double this week

Not only that, but it wouldnt surprise me if this was set up as a distraction from the Epstein stuff lol

Far-Queue posted...

is very "incel-logic" - an incorrect generalization that incels like to make sooooo

The problem with your assessment is that this is neither incorrect nor a generalization. A woman looking for a hook-up won't have many problems finding one. Granted, that would change if EVERY woman was looking for a hook-up, but because the number of men looking for sex at any given moment vastly exceeds the number of women looking for sex, the average woman -- or even a below-average woman -- won't have any problem finding a sexual partner.

While you can pretend that this isn't the case, you've already acknowledged that it's true by bringing up the concept of an incel -- which is a male-specific slur precisely because men are less able to find a willing partner. There's no such thing as a female incel.

adjl posted...

That you're framing it as "finding a willing sexual partner" and not "finding a worthwhile sexual partner" is pretty textbook incel. What's next, talking about "sexual market value"?

What the hell is a "worthwhile sexual partner"? Given that's some bizarre word salad, it'd be more than fair if I cast aspersions on your term choice by wildly speculating about your motives and character for saying something so silly. But that's really where you and I differ.

I suspect you might be conflating the idea of a ROMANTIC partner with a sexual partner. Because if you are just looking for sex, you aren't necessarily going to know what the quality of the experience is going to be beforehand, unless you're listening to reviews from friends who've been with that person. Not to mention that your experience with a person will often be different from others' experience(s) anyway.

But, in general, if you're already in a LTR, you're usually not looking for a second LTR, you're looking for either a hook-up or something more casual. And logically the bar for a hook-up is going to be different than one for a LTR. In the case of men, it can be ridiculously low, but that still doesn't always help.

omarrasec posted...

Tax the rich harder. Let them subsidize their fair share.

"Fair share" is a meaningless slogan. Beyond that, the problem with relying on just taxing the rich is that it's a lot harder budget because the revenue is far less consistent. It's why certain states will randomly swing from massive surpluses to huge deficits.

Beyond that, in at least some cases the real issue might be the rich "earning" that much money in the first place, especially in the case of the public sector and non-profits. Part of the reason why American universities keep getting more expensive is executive compensation and benefits that, quite bluntly, shouldn't exist. Taking the money from those individuals does nothing to correct the actual problem where if they just made less money, the costs would be lower and therefore the tuition would be lower. You know, instead of forcing students to pay higher tuition then giving that money to somebody else.

Leopard never changes spots. Here comes Zeus days later to make bogus, impotent arguments hoping that people won't notice and he can get in the last word and "win" now that days have gone by in a dead topic...

Your rebuttal only strengthens my point. Incel is not a male-specific slur, as evidenced by the variation on the term: "femcel".

So again, it's ignorant to assume women can get laid easier than men. That's an incorrect generalization, and it's one that's that core to incel-logic. Keep trying, bud!

Also, the generalization that men seek sex more than women is false and is more incel-logic. You're firing on all cylinders today

Far-Queue posted...

Incel is not a male-specific slur, as evidenced by the variation on the term: "femcel"

Nah it is.

Far-Queue posted...

Your rebuttal only strengthens my point. Incel is not a male-specific slur, as evidenced by the variation on the term: "femcel".

if you need a completely different word for women, then one of them is male specific.

Not sure if ya'll are aware of this but "femcel" is short for " fem ale in cel ", which means "incel" is not male-specific but keep trying!

Zeus posted...

What the hell is a "worthwhile sexual partner"?

I feel like I'm going to save a whole lot of time addressing everything else you've said if I just ask a question of my own:

Zeus, have you ever had sex?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

if you need a completely different word for women, then one of them is male specific.

We can talk about white cars without implying that no cars are white except those that are specified. Such is the nature of adjectives: they define the scope of the subset you're currently talking about, but indicate nothing about the complete set.

In the case of "femcel," the term exists because it's usually assumed that incels are male (which is a reasonable assumption because the most vocal and visible members of the subculture are and the community is so overtly hostile to women), and is used in contexts where it's deemed necessary to specify that you're talking about female ones. It doesn't mean that female incels can't be acknowledged outside of specific cases where you use the term.

I think there's some truth to the idea that women can get a hookup more easily, but the incel fallacy is ignoring men's roles in enabling it, and assuming that women find hookups desirable as much as men do.

Also, the fundamental "women are constantly getting fucked by men but men can't get laid" part of incel ideology will always be hilarious in how self-contradictory it is

bachewychomp posted...

I think there's some truth to the idea that women can get a hookup more easily, but the incel fallacy is ignoring men's roles in enabling it, and assuming that women find hookups desirable as much as men do.

Also, the fundamental "women are constantly getting fucked by men but men can't get laid" part of incel ideology will always be hilarious in how self-contradictory it is

I mean, you can literally look at info dumps from dating apps and see that the top 10% or so of men are the ones doing most of the fucking.

I am pretty happy I got to miss out on that part of life as the modern dating world looks like absolute hell.

Zeus posted...

"Fair share" is a meaningless slogan.

nobody ever bothers to define what it actually means .

bachewychomp posted...

I think there's some truth to the idea that women can get a hookup more easily, but the incel fallacy is ignoring men's roles in enabling it, and assuming that women find hookups desirable as much as men do.

There's truth to "women can get laid at will if that's all they want," thanks to how desperate so many guys are, but that's often not all they want. The whole "sex is like pizza: even when it's bad, it's still pretty good" saying is overwhelmingly a male perspective, by virtue of the fact that mediocre or even bad sex can still be pretty good for guys because squishy hole feel good. The bar for "a better time than I'd have on my own" is notably higher for women than for men, and that means that when women do look for hookups, they're looking for more than just a convenient dick. They're looking for somebody with whom they have enough chemistry that even if it turns out that the dude sucks at sex, they still feel like they've gotten something out of the liaison (plus chemistry just makes sex better across the board regardless of your partner's skill).

That's also not getting into the whole safety angle, since it's generally much more dangerous for a woman to be alone with a random man than vice versa. There's also the issue that, thanks to homophobia/toxic masculinity discouraging emotional closeness between male friends, men tend to be a lot more reliant on romantic/sexual partners for their emotional fulfillment than women are, which means that women are generally happier single than men are.

bachewychomp posted...

Also, the fundamental "women are constantly getting f***ed by men but men can't get laid" part of incel ideology will always be hilarious in how self-contradictory it is

That's not necessarily contradictory on its own, but the combination of "they should stop being so slutty" (which translates into "they should stop sleeping with guys they like sleeping with") and "they should lower their standards enough to sleep with me" certainly is.

Questionmarktarius posted...

nobody ever bothers to define what it actually means .

It's generally assumed to mean "tax them enough so MY taxes go down".