Hey guy, I just found out Real-life Riri. Except she is actually less of an asshole

It's not playing.
>As if men don’t shit on each other a hundred times worse than they do to women.
Well isn't that a reason on its own to make the place less shitty for everyone.

"hey, it suck for me too" is never a vallid rebuttal. Quite the opposite the logical thing to do is "hey, it sucks for me too, let's work together to make the place less shitty".

Psychology do follow the scientific method. Look at the pavlov experiment. or the Milgram one.

>"not an asshole"
>Her comment

She's an asshole.

Those exact same kind of comments would have appeared under a male body builder making the same claims. It has nothing to do with your cunt you dumb cunt.

Setting the record straight is not being an asshole.

You are not an asshole if you lash out at people who were asshole to you to begin with.

Because females are mentally weaker than males and can’t handle the bants at a workplace

>Those exact same kind of comments would have appeared under a male body builder making the same claims.
Hmmm, no they probably wouldn't have.

Doubt it.

>Those exact same kind of comments would have appeared under a male body builder making the same claims.
No, the joke would have been more along the line of "how do I calculate gain?"

Standing up for yourself means you're an asshole?

And before anyone ask, those keep being new clients (their job is about rewriting resume), so they don't know beforehand the competence of each other and the clients do not know the guy was her supervisor.

Attached: WorkForManAndWoman.png (500x2958, 1.34M)

What? I'm asking why the writers chose the name, obviously.

I know, but your complain make no sense. Unless there is an intended pun in the name, you don't need any justification to name a character anything. Riri's origins are enough to justify her name, no matter how smart she is.

>people spamming this one anomalous example because they know in reality women are less productive than men
Maybe if women weren't so bad at their jobs then people wouldn't be burned out at having to deal with them so often.

>because they know in reality women are less productive than men
source?
>Maybe if women weren't so bad at their jobs
Maybe if you didn't made useless generalisation, you don't judge someone one the actions of others.

To be fair the article title seems kinda misleading, she is a professional with a stellar record but it just made it sound like she did some random bullshit once and that's it.

>this one anomalous
How do we know it is anomalous?

Amazing. Just amazing.

Attached: c's'.gif (320x240, 2.42M)

not surprising most of those comments are from Indians
Fuck India, and fuck China too

brightworkresearch.com/enterprisesoftwarepolicy/2019/01/31/how-indian-it-workers-discriminate-against-non-indian-workers/

techinsurgent.com/post/2009/10/08/Indian-Testimonial-To-India-Nepotism-And-Bigotry-In-IT.aspx

nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/12iht-letter12.html

Attached: d3222.jpg (1098x926, 116K)

>but it just made it sound like she did some random bullshit once and that's it.
It really doesn't. nothing is indicative of it.

If an article says someone can do stuff and stuff, the fair assumption is that the person do it frequently. If it is a one-time stuff, then articles usually says someone has done stuff. "has done" being the key vern compared to "can" that is more indicative of an action that is possible for the person to do several time.

youtube.com/watch?v=inePKtXyFdQ