“Hey HR, can I change my tax election to 0? Thanks!”

It has pools in it!

The one so worried about their 401Ks they won’t risk the ire of the rich.

Yes, but I’m typically missing one or both kidneys.

Oh, well, if Google does it then it must be okay.

Or conservapedia, the fox news of wikipedias.

Let me guess, they’re introducing base-building and crafting elements that they somehow patented ten years ago.

Pretty sure Naomi Wildman was raised by a chef.

… did you used to work at Game Grumps?

My guy, I’m just letting you know what they meant by “Comm” because you seemed to be confused by it. I think their argument is generally fallacious at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Though, I suppose it’s understandable to feel attacked when that seems to be all people want to do in here.

Did it not? It showed, at the very least to them, that there were a large number of female led blockbusters. To have more sexual predators in lead roles than that would take quite a significant amount. Certainly leads to doubt in my mind.

Why, in your opinion, is their opinion invalid because of this?

You need to learn to figure out what an argument is after you read a comment. They never purported to prove that OPs assertion was absolutely false, as you claim, it was to express doubt that it was real.

Your argument was as valid as the argument you imagined they had was.

“Comm” generally refers to “Community”, roughly analogous to a “subreddit” or “subforum”. It refers, in this case, to the /c/showerthoughts community we’re currently in.

No, you said it doesn’t prove that the claim is false. Which isn’t even what they did. They expressed doubt and provided links supporting their doubt.

But a high number of blockbusters with female leads still doesn’t contradict the claim.

Why do they need to contradict a claim you purport not to support?

Then why take it as given that the claim needs to be proven false, rather than the other way around? Your mind seems to be made up before any reliable proof has even been presented.

You mostly seem to be saying that OPs claim is absolute truth until proven otherwise. Which is a wild stance to take when, thus far, no proof has been given.

So youre saying it doesn’t prove anything, and thus OPs original claim is yet to be proven false. Or more importantly, proven true.

That’s if you automatically assume the claim is true without evidence, though. Which wasn’t the original commenter’s position. The original position was whether you could prove OPs titular claim with data.

Thus far? The answer seems to be “Nope.”

Then there’s the club 33 equivalent for the billionaire class.