Slashdot Mirror

Our culture has spent a long time nursing a stereotypical caricature of any "nerdy" interest as belonging to one kind of person. Gamers, programmers, scientists, etc have all been portrayed as neckbeard types with poor social skills. Scientists have begun to get away from that, and it's awesome. But programmers are conflated with hackers, and gamers along with forum-goers are lumped in with them as male basement-dwellers who never see sunlight.

While that whole gamergate nonsense was ongoing, I remember hearing about an editor for some publication who ranted about "nerds", pushing that stereotype as he did. The thing is, this was never an attack on nerds. It was always an attack on females.

By caricaturing these interests as the fodder of not only males but specifically unappealing males, females are steered away. It's that simple. Females grow up in a culture that teaches them that they're supposed to find a certain kind of male undesirable, so they consider that culture to be outside of their own. The only thing that has changed today is that enough women and girls have joined in with these interests that suddenly it's necessary to do away with the old bullshit.

So, how do we do that? By continuing to make it seem like males who are interested in these things are undesirable. Maybe now it's not because these interests confer an automatic nerd status that culture is to portray as undesirable but because these males have the audacity to have an interest or skill/talent set that takes opportunities away from our poor girls. So, it's still the same old bullshit and it will have the same effect. Part of the population will fall for it, but increasingly many will fail to pay attention to traditional media and its stereotypes while just being themselves.

If the goal is ACTUALLY to get more girls interested in computer science and to get more young women into related fields, then the ONLY way to do it is to stop repeating the same mistake the created the disproportion to begin with. See, this is a uniquely American thing. We combat our prejudices by perpetuating exactly the same prejudices, just with different wording. It won't work.

If we want girls interested in programming, then we need to teach all children. If we want young women interested, then we need to make opportunities for all young people. We need to get rid of this antiquated, cartoonish "Revenge of the Nerds" style stereotyping bullshit, and just let people be themselves. Only then will we see that change.

Nah, never mind me, let's just fix disproportionately represented genders in some fields by using gender discrimination for disproportionate opportunities in those fields. MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. You know, because we're Americans. We have to learn the simple less of, "Treat everybody with equal respect," over and over in absolutely every single variation it can possibly take. Because that idea just can't stick in our brains lulz. It would be a sign of the apocalypse if it did.

I think the best choice might be none of the above. I listened to Larry Wilmore on WTF and he referred to Stewart as one of the best straight men in the business, and I think that's an important perspective. Jon Stewart is basically an advocate for the audience and the correspondents are usually his foils.

Colbert's foil character was strong enough that he was able to build a show around it, but the other two correspondents who went on to host were the ones who were able to flip the tables have Jon be the foil to their reasonable outsider perspective (Oliver as the Brit and Wilmore as a minority). I don't think any of the current correspondents aside from Williams are really doing the same, and even Jessica Williams still goes into caricature when doing non-racial reporting.

Bill Mahr could probably do it but he's a bit too controversial and he's a bit to eager to run out on things like anti-vax nonsense. The best bet is either giving one of the current correspondents a straight man role and seeing if they can pull it off, or taking a somewhat known and established comedian and giving them a go.

Dan is part of the Digital Citizens group, a United States non-profit organization focused on Internet safety issues. In 2014 in response to leaked Sony emails, former attorney general Peggy Lautenschlager said the DCA had inappropriately influenced politician Jim Hood. The organization hired lobbyist Mike Moore, who also served Hood as a consultant on a pro-bono basis. The article alleged he used his relationship to serve the agenda of private industry, such as Microsoft and the movie industry. Basically, theyre a collaborative shill for the industry designed to influence government policy.

as for the darknet, its almost as though a small segment predicated up on the subversion of 50 years of failed americian drug policy is a trivial part of what is becoming a vast, collaborative response to an illegal government surveillance program that citizens do not want, and politicians are uninterested in stopping. Its as though the more corrupt governments become, the more inequality is manifest and expressed in the criminalization of speech and knowledge, then the larger this entity grows until it becomes necessary to caricaturize it. That the darknet is universally revered by our media institutions for piracy, spam, theft, and drugs instead of as a safe haven for speech and collaboration is telling to say the least.

I saw a shadow puppet show today. An expert, with only his hands, created landscapes, animals and detailed caricatures of people all in captivating brilliant morphing motion. The thought struck me; "Here's a good 'Turing test' for robotic prosthesis", for the dexterity on display is seldom encountered and seemingly still so far off from being replicated in any capacity by our crude roboticized attempts utilizing rigid polymers and metals.

If a 16 year old teenager can't share his caricature of the Charlie Hebdo shooting because it gets him arrested on the account of "supporting terrorism", I'd say the sliding has already started.

If a Nazi donated $100 to a soup kitchen, does that forgive Auschwitz? And don’t lecture me on Godwin!

No. It would prove there is a real "soup nazi" beyond the comedic caricature conceived by Jerry Seinfeld, a well-known Jew. ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WRxEY8o3kc [ youtube.com ]

So, apparently, all those health fad thingies are really marketeering. In fact science had nothing whatsoever to do with it except failing to study the subject. And therefore people's slavisly following marketeering fads is really science's fault?

Scott, be a dear and don't be a caricature of your own characters, there's a good cartoonist.

I did not say life was purely physical - I said we had no rational reason to believe otherwise. We're still a long, long way away from understanding the physical aspects, and until we do there is no rational reason to assume there's more to it than that.

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that a metaphysical component must be something that exists separate from the physical, even while pointing out that quantum mechanics actually grants the physical incredible freedom of action. I would liken that perspective to assuming that the physical is lifeless "clay", and that life animates it like a puppetmaster sending it's commands from "elsewhere". Another, equally possible perspective is that it is the clay is itself alive - every photon, electron, and atom possessing a tiny spark of consciousness, and everything we consider to be life is actually an expression of those sparks getting together and collaborating in their tiny mindless way to form ever more interesting ways to express themselves - eventually combining their individual dim sparks into a shining beacon of human self-awareness so bright that other sparks pale into invisibility under its reflected glow, leaving the unformed clay looking lifeless in comparison. That is a somewhat Taoist perspective, and has the advantage that at no point in the evolution of life do you require a miraculous transition by which life is formed from non-life, every step is simply a progression of life finding forms with greater expressive potential and, once self-replicating molecules were developed, sharing those discoveries with their peers.

AI is something else again - actual strong, self-aware AI (as opposed to the formulaic pseudo--conscious AI which is, like fire, still becoming incredibly powerful and potentially uncontrollably dangerous) may never be possible in software, where it is isolated by a layer of rigorous logic from the vast potential of quantum uncertainty. On the other hand, eventually we're going to understand the purely physical aspects of life well enough to be able to build a new "consciousness antenna" from scratch - and that will be an interesting day. Will the mere existence of such an antenna be sufficient motivation for a "puppetmaster" to inhabit it? If not, is there something else we could do to coax one in? Or perhaps the purely physical potential will be enough to allow it to become animate, acting in a soulless caricature of life driven by random quantum chaos. Could we tell the difference? Or, if life is born of the universe rather than imposed upon it, perhaps we shall truly succeed in creating new self-awareness from whole, living, cloth.

I think that the transhumans would react like humans, with passion, maybe with better ability to reach their passionate goals.

One human's passion can change history, or the truths about human passion can change history ...Each transhuman would be free to choose alike paths. With humans these paths are bounded by err ... birth, love, suffering, numb, teachings, death ?

Transhumanism is not medecine, is has no "Hippocrates" manifesto, or "Asimov" cyber implants rules. LoL, A transhuman would prove that these kinds of rules must rely on a tangible highest moral/fabric authority.

In 2050, if accumulation of wealth by 1% of the population is irreversible, if climate change is irreversible, what would be irreversible with transhumanism ? Today the idea of mankind, humanity, is still tangible, I think that the alien bars in Star wars, Star trek etc. are entertaining and numb. The heroes always pass the Turing test (The "Sapiens" imitation game) and the universe is filled with happy ends (70th anniversary of the liberation)

Transhumanism is a financial investment, the middle class of the world may mitigate the risks, absorb the impact. Hey ! this is already a movie too, Elysium.

The last movie is about numb sapiens screwing the fragile ideal of transhumanism, Transcendance, LoL.
So transhumans would certainly react with passion, because they are actually so caricatured by their parents.

Oh, well done. You managed to cover at least two common liberal bullet points in that argument, but 3 or more out of 5 is preferred: 1) Name calling - make sure to call someone an idiot or a moron, insults always give your point more credibility!
2) Fox News - even if it has FUCK ALL to do with the topic, this is mandatory, or points will be deducted!

However, you disappointingly failed at several other golden opportunities here:
3) The Koch brothers - always worth a mention to drive home the "evil" branding, relevance not necessary (ala Fox News)
4) A knock on a Bush, preferably W., but nowadays Jeb is a good target
5) A Hate label: your political enemy *must* always be clearly labeled at least one kind of hater of some kind, made into a 2D caricature; from any of the following:
* Racist
* Bigot
* Homophobe
* Islamophobe
* Warmongering / Facist
or in this case,
* Denier
although you didn't actually state as such, so on second thought, you get a "C+", though originally I was leaning towards a "B-".

Well, I suppose a free-market capitalist ought to be offended by this project, if he or she were a caricature living in your head...

... that we get a technical topic to discuss, but instead all we get is YAGS (Yet Another Gripe Session). This is supposed to be a forum for geeks, yet it sounds more like a knitting club for old women (no offence to old women, but there is a caricature portrayed in "The Music Man" of older women coming together to gossip and gripe about the local town that seems fitting to my point).

If we aren't going to chat about the technical issues surrounding DX12, what it has to offer, what cards are likely to implement it, then who will? Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, and half a dozen other places allow chats of reviews, but they don't cover all the geek stuff so that leaves us here where we prefer to relive some real or imagined slight, bicker over preferred widgets etc.

so sad...

I'm sorry, but you'll now really have to come up with some proof. Even your new toned down description still sounds like a poor caricature of real Environmentalist positions.

Nobody sane (including Environmentalists) is against `all forms of power generation', claims that current organic farming can cover all our food needs, or claims that recycling is always a good idea.

We need people to step up and say. this is not alright, this is not okay. we need the moderates to go, "hey you see that guy that just killed a bunch of people? he's not a martyr, he's mentally ill." and "Don't be like him billy."

you know what they'll hear instead. "It's not right to kill people, but those people at that magazine, they really had it coming, they were asking for it" and 'showing the face of the prophet, even in caricature, by anyone anywhere even in some podunk town in denmark or in liberal liberal france, that's an affront to all of islam'

they should have and they should continue having, because when everybody starts thinking 'perhaps they shouldn't have' eventually it will turn into 'perhaps we shouldn't'

And i never want to live in a society where it is the norm to be afraid to speak your mind for fear.

Here's the irony of the situation: the whole idea behind forbidding drawings/sculptures of their prophet is to prevent idolatry. The prohibition of idolatry applies only to Muslims creating/worshiping religious idols. Unless these ISIS guys greatly admired Charlie Hebdo's caricatures, they have no religious justification for what they did. These guys are simply murderers even under their very own Islamic rules.

Yeah... you fail to see this isn't a retaliatory attack against France. If it was in retaliation against French involvement in destroying Libyan targets, they would have attacked military installments, or at the very least government buildings. No, instead they killed 12 innocent people for drawing a picture of some guy they hold very sacred because their bible strictly forbids idolatry... yes, idolatry. Do Muslims all over the world secretely idolize Charlie Hebdo's caricatures?

It's not that you know what you're talking about, it's just that you're an apologist who is willfully blind to the modern, recent reality of islamic extremism. Maybe before throwing the door wide open and embracing islam, we should wait until it's cancer is in remission. Oh, and comparing modern day islamic extremism with modern christianity? That's a really, really, bad caricature of xtianity.

Charlie Hebdo insulted all Muslims. They did it deliberately, they knew it, and that was their goal. Well, they achieved it.

That's your personal interpretation. They criticized extremists of all religions

There was no fun in those cartoons.

The goal of a satirical publication is not just humor but also to get some messages across. And while I don't particularly like Charlie Hebdo in general, some of their drawings make pretty good points.

They were warned many times, but they kept insulting not Christians, not Jewish, only Muslims.

That's a lie: here are pages of Charlie Hebdo caricatures of Jesus and Moise. They even made a Shoah Hebdo edition just like they did a Charia Hebdo one.

What we know is cases like this usually have money involved, and the second known thing is that US Jewish groups support anti-muslim politicians and parties in Europe. Was that the case here? I don't know, looks very likely.

Charlie Hebdo's only source of income was its readership. And suggesting they were funded by politicians really shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

> (Yay, and now after probably pissing off lefties, I've just pissed off righties.. such is the curse of the moderate)

It's not that you're a moderate. It's that you just presented caricatures of lots of people's beliefs, that have little to do with what they actually believe. :)

Islam does not "have a cancer" any more than Christianity does. Ok, you could argue that both of them are cancers, along with most other major religions. I won't discuss that point one way or another. But if you think Islam is somehow worse than other religions... well, no. Islam and Christianity both have fringes of violent, hateful extremists. They also both have much larger numbers of believers who are just ordinary people who are as disgusted by these attacks as anyone else. They both have holy books with many violent, hateful passage. Most of their believers reject those passages as being appropriate guides to their own behavior.

And you just equated Shariah law with... playing the morning call to prayer?

Then you totally caricatured "leftists and atheists". This may surprise you, but Duke is a private university. If they chose to play Christian songs from their bell tower, no leftist or atheist I know would have the least objection. It's their own business what they want to play. Perhaps some people would object if a public university did that, but I strongly doubt it.

And then... what was it "righties" were supposed to be upset about? Saying that universities should be totally secular? There again, we're talking about a private university. All the conservatives I know would say a private organization should be free to be as religious or as secular as it likes. (Strangely enough, all the liberals I know would say exactly the same thing.)

Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to.

So you're saying muslims should have no issue with Mohammed's caricatures. Or are they really worried true believers will start to pray to Charlie Hebdo's front pages?