It is important to recontextuilize harassers. They are typically parasites on the organization, destroying others by stealing their work and eliminating others from the work force.
Undoubtedly he came off as clever, but being a harasser means that his achievements were outweighed by the benefits.
"he's a harasser => he must be a parasite on the organization"
because then you end up with
"he's provably an excellent worker and hugely productive => he can't be a harasser, you're mistaken/lying"
Some people are really smart and productive and a credit to their profession and also awful to women and/or minorities, and you'd never know if you didn't witness/experience it.
Recontextualizing harassment as stealing someone's work is not just inaccurate, it's degrading to harassment victims and not accepting that somebody can be a bad person in some situations (on offsite when he's drunk) and be an amazing engineer at the same time when he's sober at the workplace.
Harassment is harassment, stealing someone's work is stealing someone's work, let's keep changing the meaning of words to politicians.
I think it's a big mistake to assume that if someone is toxic, they must also be stupid/incompetent/generally useless, all evidence to the contrary. If nothing else, it will make you consistently underestimate some pretty dangerous people. It's important to know your enemy, especially their strengths.
> For women every day, those negative experiences are the difference from men that keep them from being in the industry.
That's conjecture that isn't supported by any evidence. And in fact, there's considerable evidence that women don't choose STEM for far more fundamental reasons.
The very existence of the gender equality paradox, and the fact that women have achieved gender parity in fields they actually care about but which were arguably even more sexist, like medicine and law, and did it without people fawning over whether they are having "negative experiences", completely undermines your narrative.
And if you read about Cantor you will find he defined a term called 'countably infinite'. No 'countably infinite' set has a higher cardinality than any other.
Even if you agree with him that population control is needed, I don't see how you wouldn't criticize him harshly on his method both on the technical grounds of being ineffective and on various moral grounds. His comic-book motivation of trying to impress a certain lady is much more relateable for the particular action he took.
I saw a fan theory suggested on Reddit that it would make more sense if population control was also a means to an end for Thanos, and that Thanos's ultimate reason for doing what he does was to stave off the arrival of Galactus.
Still makes no sense -- universal replacement rate is probably > 2, almost certainly now with so many deaths + resources freed up, the overall population will be back to its pre-snap number in a few solar years tops (ed: ok maybe longer, on earth it took ~200 years for Europeans to recover from the plague, but that's just earth and just Europeans). Would have been better to target fertility rates, or kill more females than males and more asexually reproducing sentients than non.
Or you know....if we're arguing about potential solutions to unhappiness in the universe when the infinity gauntlet literally allows the wearer to do anything they desire, then why not just give everyone limitless resources, or just make everyone permanently happy, or eliminate greed or fear or violence.
I still like the idea of wiping half of life in the entire universe though, it works well from the narrative perspective.
Especially within the discourse of black folks, there is a lively debate on the extent to which Killmonger is a villain in Black Panther. My biggest criticism of the movie is that they could have written it to make it even more ambiguous, by making Killmonger less openly ruthless.
Same goes for the much maligned Marvel's Inhumans, where it's not clear exactly why the Royal Family is deserving of any sympathy.
Undoubtedly he came off as clever, but being a harasser means that his achievements were outweighed by the benefits.