'Chief Impact Officer': Please Explain.

[mingc]

What do these people influence? Nothing that I know.

I hear some of them influence others to smoke Velvet. ??

 

[anotherbob]

Victorians! You mean like some British officer of the Raj keeping a beautiful Indian concubine in the back of his tent? Often reprehensible, certainly not bat shit crazy. Victorians knew how to have fun.

dig a little more they had some weird stuff that's just as weird as the things that make people go "people now o days blah blah blah".

 

[alaskanpiper]

Ok so they mean within the apps. I really did always wonder what they meant by “influencer” as most people outside of the app would have no idea who they are.

I think the term actually comes from their ability to influence followers to buy certain products or support certain causes, which is what the aforementioned advertisers hope they do. But as far as the app is concerned, they don't give a shit what you buy or do, their chief concern is keeping you using the app as long as possible, for as much time per day as possible, so they can market the above mentioned "influence" to their advertising clients.

 

[BROBS]

I would like to add that it’s no wonder zero women stick around here with posters like in this thread. I wouldn’t either.

unless they are here to peddle their onlyfans acct

 

[mingc]

Would some kind soul please explain to me what exactly a 'Chief Impact Officer' does exactly? Clearly it's an American thing as we have no such posts over here

Regards,

Jay.

Sure a Chief Impact Office has the exact same function and utility as a Duke of Sussex. That is, next to nothing?

245 years of independence and we've come full circle.

 

[BROBS]

Sure a Chief Impact Office has the same exact function and utility as a Duke of Sussex. That is, next to nothing?

245 years of independence and we've come full circle.

So.... inbreeding?

 

[mingc]

So.... inbreeding?

Well, he outbred, so they should be thankful for that.

 

[edger]

So rape of indigenous peoples is fun? I know you’re a boomer but think a bit.

Didn't I use the word reprehensible?Not all encounters were nonconsensual I'm sure, and we're talking 150 years ago. You woke youngsters have a problem with historical context.

 

[alaskanpiper]

unless they are here to peddle their onlyfans acct

 

[edger]

Listen Brobs, I 'm not taking the bait. The point I was making was that the Victorians were not as staid a bunch as they tried to portray themselves. All judgements regarding the past need an understanding of the historical context in which they occurred.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Listen Brobs, I 'm not taking the bait. The point I was making was that the Victorians were not as staid a bunch as they tried to portray themselves. All judgements regarding the past need an understanding of the historical context in which they occurred.

This is a fair point, as for many in that era slavery and genocide were simply tools in the toolkit. Doesn't make it right, but the universal attitude toward such things has certainly come a long way, for the better.

I think his issue was more with you describing it as "knowing how to have fun" than any historical judgement of actions that took place hundreds of years ago, the specificity of which has been long lost with the ages.

But as a result of this discourse and its strong divergence from the initial topic of discussion, this thread is likely now doomed. IBTL.

 

[edger]

This is a fair point, as for many in that era slavery and genocide were simply tools in the toolkit. Doesn't make it right, but the universal attitude toward such things has certainly come a long way, for the better.

I think his issue was more with you describing it as "knowing how to have fun" than any historical judgement of actions that took place hundreds of years ago, the specificity of which has been long lost with the ages.

Point taken. My apologies for that turn of phrase. I will say that concubinage was not always exploitative. Many were honored members of their societies.

 

[BROBS]

Didn't I use the word reprehensible?Not all encounters were nonconsensual I'm sure, and we're talking 150 years ago. You woke youngsters have a problem with historical context.

I’m 38, dude.
I also know history quite well, most likely better than you.
I think you’d better just quit while you’re ahead.

I dare you to tell a woman who knows any history about “consensual” concubinism. ?

feel free to let me know what honor in their society was beheld for them?
Concubinage - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

Perhaps you don’t even know what a concubine really is.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Point taken. My apologies for that turn of phrase. I will say that concubinage was not always exploitative. Many were honored members of their societies.

Many may still be. Thankfully I am too for removed from either to make any judgement as to their exploitative nature.

 

[alaskanpiper]

I’m 38, dude.
I also know history quite well, most likely better than you.
I think you’d better just quit while you’re ahead.

I dare you to tell a woman who knows any history about “consensual” concubinism. ?

I think you should both quit while this thread still has a prayer of getting back to its original topic. If you want to debate the historical context of such things do it via PM.

I know, I chimed in too, but this clearly has the makings of a personal dick measuring contest rather than civil debate. While this topic may interest others (as it does me) I assure you that you two are the only ones who care about who ends up being more right or more wrong.

I'm sure the OP would appreciate us returning to the topic that he wished to discuss, which I also happen to find of interest.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I haven’t read this whole thread... at all, but I was hoping to find out what a Chief Impact Officer was, and I had no idea that it had something to do with rape, incest, and.... concubines?

Are jobs like this listed on LinkedIn, or is this one of them “know somebody” kinda things?

 

[edger]

I’m 38, dude.
I also know history quite well, most likely better than you.
I think you’d better just quit while you’re ahead.

I dare you to tell a woman who knows any history about “consensual” concubinism. ?

feel free to let me know what honor in their society was beheld for them?
Concubinage - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

Perhaps you don’t even know what a concubine really is.

You can’t resist the ad hominem attacks. I’m done.

 

[edger]

I think you should both quit while this thread still has a prayer of getting back to its original topic. If you want to debate the historical context of such things do it via PM.

I know, I chimed in too, but this clearly has the makings of a personal dick measuring contest rather than civil debate. While this topic may interest others (as it does me) I assure you that you two are the only ones who care about who ends up being more right or more wrong.

I'm sure the OP would appreciate us returning to the topic that he wished to discuss, which I also happen to find of interest.

Now you make personal attacks. Go back and read what I wrote and you will see who was being emotional and”dick measuring” to use your unpleasant term.

 

[craig61a]

So rape of indigenous peoples is fun? I know you’re a boomer but think a bit.

Do you even know what the term concubine means...? Obviously not. WackyPedia defs don't cut it.

 

[craig61a]

Oh yeah... IBTL.