Slashdot Mirror
Ellen Pao Drops Appeal of Gender Discrimination Suit
McGruber writes: Jeff Bezo's newspaper is reporting that Ellen Pao is dropping her appeal of the gender discrimination suit she lost against her former employer, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Pao sued KPCB in 2012, claiming that women were not given fair consideration in the male-dominated workplace. She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it. She was fired soon after filing her suit. After a bruising month-long trial in which her personal character and work performance were repeatedly brought into question, a jury of six men and six woman ruled that there was no evidence of gender discrimination.
I would say expect another 2-week long series from Wired on what a grave injustice this is and how incredibly brave and heroic Ellen Pao is, but she resigned from their sister company.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Maybe she's just acknowledging what everyone who isn't a die-hard SJW has known all along--that her suit was a joke and so is she.
Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.
Odds are good she's way past that point by now.
Dropping the suit is playing right in to the "it's too hard to fight" theme. Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.
The jury disagreed with your premise that there ever was gender discrimination in this specific case. Just like you can't cure cancer if there is no cancer, you can't fight gender discrimination when incompetent employee was fired for a cause.
Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.
-Styopa
This is a win for common sense everywhere.
If she really wanted to fight discrimination, she might go find some discrimination and fight it. The people who heard all of the evidence say there was no gender discrimination at her workplace.
I've heard only a tiny bit of the evidence, only enough to know that she does some really foolish things.
People like that with such flawed manipulative characters deserved to be tossed out on their rears for wasting everyone's time. She wasn't even a good worker to boot.
Looking at what happened to reddit, I wish Ellen Pao would fuck off already. The whole site is now a shithole.
If she really wanted to fight discrimination, she might go find some discrimination and fight it
I'd normally believe that but people like her and SJW's don't, they won't fight for people who are actually discriminated against, they won't fight or protest actual lack of rights for women in various african or middle eastern countries either. Ideologues are gonna ideologue.
Om, nomnomnom...
Dropping the suit is playing right in to the "it's too hard to fight" theme. Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can.
She tried, but her pockets were not as deep as theirs. She even had to pay THEIR legal fees.
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
The snarky "Jeff Bezo's newspaper" is a crappy lil passive aggressive dig at the paper's owner. Grow a pair submitard.
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Her claim is that "I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror who expressed a belief that sexism exists in tech — a belief that is widely recognized and documented — was not allowed to serve on the jury,"
I don't think I'm somebody who knee-jerk jumps to discrimination. However, if they were filtering out jurors who believe that sexism exists in tech, that certainly seems to be unfair, IMO. Most people certainly would not consider it fair if a gay person was filing a discrimination suit and jurors who believe that discrimination against gay people exists were excluded from sitting on the jury.
I'm not necessarily saying that was the case here, and I haven't read enough to have a strong opinion on whether the case had merit or not. But if those allegations are true then that certainly stands in the way of a fair trial and should be fixed.
Whenever someone makes a claim of wage disparity, ask them to point out an example so that it may be corrected.
If they can, then we correct it and ask for another, fixing injustice one step at a time.
If they cannot, then there is no injustice to fix.
It's win/win.
It is more lucrative to sit back and play the victim rather than actually fight things in court.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
they won't fight or protest actual lack of rights for women in various african or middle eastern countries
That requires actual WORK. Much easier to sit on your lazy hippie ass and nitpick and whine about a bunch of stupid bullshit here.
She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.
These sorts of petty fights aren't uncommon these days. Most project management books and classes talk about things like allocating resources, "managing up," agile vs waterfall, etc, but managers spend a surprising amount of time dealing with bizarre interpersonal issues and personal issues that don't really show up in the books. If I were teaching a management class, the first chapter would be "how to get your underlings to overcome weird personal issues."
The fight about the radio in Office Space feels sadly real.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
She had an inter-office love affair with someone higher up in the foodchain and shit went south....and somehow this is a gender issue??
I've seen this play out just as horribly with male co-workers and its why I will never date anyone I have to work with on a daily basis.
Her comment reads as if someone went through all candidates and rejected *all* those with opinions that agreed with Pao's, which is impossible - the jury is selected from a pool by both sides being able to dismiss a certain number of candidates until the pool fits the jury box. This means that while KP's lawyers could reject those with strong feelings about sexism existing in tech, Pao's lawyers similarly used her selections to load the jury with candidates that would be beneficial for her.
A jury is constructed from "peers", not from "people with beliefs that solely support my case".
She got a fair trial, she's just playing the "unfair" card because she lost.
She brought the court case, not KP - so people should cut the bitching about who had deep pockets...
AC wrote this (with my emphasis added):
"Surely if she wants to actively fight gender discrimination she should push it as long as she can."
I'm tempted to agree, and to conclude that it was not really her goal to actively fight gender discrimination.
In a lawsuit, both sides get to filter out some jurors. I'm sure her lawyers also filtered out plenty of conservative "discrimination NEVER exists" types as well. That's how fairness works.
Both lawyers get unlimited "cause" challenges, where they must convince the judge that the juror cannot make an impartial decision. Ellen Pao is likely claiming every juror who thought sexism is rampant in the tech industry was the target of a successful challenge with cause. If the judge is sufficiently convinced by the defense attorneys, this could have happened.
None of these challenges would count against the defense attorneys' peremptory challenges, which both sides get a limited number of and do not require an explanation. Attorneys can claim their opponent made peremptory challenges based on discriminatory criteria, but I believe this is quite hard to prove.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
"But in her statement on Wednesday, Ms. Pao said that she was still ordered to pay those to resolve the lawsuit."
She's playing the "I am a victim" card, to play that card she needs to portray herself as a victim. Most likely she is just lying here, like she did in the lawsuit itself.
She's not a victim, she's an aggressive attacker, attacking her employer for a failed affair with a co-worker. I have zero pity for her.
Yup...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
i think that gp was suggesting that she lost so hard, the case was of such little merit, that she had to cover the other party's legal fees.
She brought the court case, not KP - so people should cut the bitching about who had deep pockets...
Wasn't bitching.....just quoting her statements.... Someone had mentioned earlier that she should keep pushing, but her checkbook said 'No'. ;)
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Thanks for stopping by, Donald Trump.
Which is why I prefer the term that I first heard from John Ringo, if I remember right. Social Justice Bully. These people aren't warriors in any sense and just want to throw their heft around and go after easy targets.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
I take that as a dig at all those who were outraged yesterday when National Geographic announced it was selling its media outlets to Murdoch. Pot, meet kettle.
Some years ago we had a post from a lawyer who had experience with employment related law suits. He told us that his advice to clients was to give up and not file a lawsuit. He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee. I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way. All I can tell you is that while that may be true, we can't make that assumption. Juries are staffed with stupid people a lot of times who aren't fit to be judges on anything. I know because unlike many of you, I've actually served on juries twice. I hope I never get picked again because the whole process has made me permanently cynical about the law and so-called justice in the USA. My brother got fired more than 20 years ago from a low paying job and his employer lied about the reason he was fired in a hearing about whether my brother should get paid unemployment money or not. Whoever heard the case ruled against my brother because it was just his word against theirs and neither could prove their side. Ellen was facing long odds and I wasn't there to hear testimony so I can't judge the merits of her case, but it's idiotic to just assume the jury got it right. If you actually believe that juries almost always get it right you better pray you don't ever have to go to court and have your important case decided by 12 idiots. The last jury I served on had 3 guys in the jury room prior to the day's testimony trying to out argue the other 2 that they were stupider with technology than the other 2 were. These are the kinds of people who decide cases - morons who try to argue that they're the stupidest person in the room and take pride in winning that argument.
Lets assume that somehow jury got it 100% wrong and there was a clear case of gender discrimination. Then you have a point. Thing is, such premise should be questioned if you intend to ask the government to forcibly intervene via courts. I would go as far as saying that 12 jurors, who heard the case, deliberated and reached conclusion are a lot more likely to be right than wrong.
Thing is, the law and social justice mores diverge quite a bit. She might have a case if you use such imprecise and support-focused standard, and encouraged by the social media support she failed to check her expectations and misjudged the merits of the case when a much more objective approach was applied. That is, when facts were impartially evaluated instead of relying on her narrative and interpretation, the case was found without merit. This doesn't mean that she didn't felt discriminated, and should be denied all support. It does mean that such support should not include any coercion by the government entity.
In other words, they filtered out those who were biased? Sounds like a good idea to me. The jury is ideally supposed to be impartial.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If you're having an affair at work, don't complain when people eventually kick one of the two participants out; having squabbling ex lovers around is disruptive. That's why people don't shit where they eat.
I haven't followed Pao's case so I have no informed opinion on it.
However, I do believe that jury selection processes are so tainted that it's tough to get a fair trial. The process is supposed to be about finding jurors without biases that would affect their decision, but it's actually about putting people on the jury that can be swayed by the prosecution and defense.
I had jury duty a few months ago and, during the selection process, the prosecutor asked who all the scientists and engineers were. It turned out to be about a third of the jury pool, and none of us was selected except a single one who worked for a government lab. Did the case involve any scientific or engineering matters? Not really. It was a drunk driving/hit and run/leaving the scene of an accident thing. My hypothesis is that the police botched the investigation and there was no real physical evidence of guilt, and that the case was based on he said/she said.
The prosecutor deliberately removed people from the jury pool because they could think critically and would not blindly swallow assertions. And it worked: I checked the court records and the defendant was convicted.
On the other hand, you could say they filtered out those who were not biased.
I would think it would be reasonable to have some jurors who can acknowledge that sexism exists in tech, and then decide whether sexism was at play in this particular case.
In the same way, if the decision to be made was whether or not a slashdot poster had a normal social life, it would not be fair to only consider the opinions of people who believed that all posters on slashdot were basement dwellers. Then you have to prove two things: one, that it is possible that slashdot posters can have normal social lives, and two that the poster in question had a normal social life.
On the other hand, you are right in saying that you also don't want only people who believe that all slashdot posters have normal social lives and have to prove the contrary point that not only do not all slashdot posters have normal social lives, but in this particular case as well, the slashdot user did not have a normal social life.
Instead, I think ideally, you want jurors who are open to the idea that it is possible that some slashdot users have active social lives and also possible that some slashdot users are basement dwellers and actively avoid face to face interaction with others. Then you are left to look at the facts and decide what was reality in that particular case.
Again, I'm not saying this did or did not happen in Pao's case. I haven't really read enough to make an informed decision. She does seem a bit narcissistic when she claims that "Pao also said she believes it would be nearly impossible for lawyers to find jurors who weren't familiar with her high-profile case in the Internet age". Maybe her circles are different and she is very isolated, but I would suspect that there are large numbers of people who haven't the faintest clue who she is, let alone are familiar with her case.
You're only describing one side of this. Yes, jurors who are already convinced sexism is happening were filtered out, but so were those that are convinced that sexism isn't happening. The point is to have a set of people that have little to no information or opinion on the topic, to provide them the facts of this case, define sexism as enshrined in law, and to let them reach an unbiased verdict whether the facts entail that the law was violated.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.
What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Pao's essay is bizzare -- she complained about "trolls" while she herself used the troll tactic of claiming to be swamped with private messages of support:
As the trolls on Reddit grew louder and more harassing in recent weeks, another group of users became more vocal. First a few sent positive messages. Then a few more. Soon, I was receiving hundreds of messages a day, and at one point thousands. These messages were thoughtful, well-written and heartfelt, in stark contrast to the trolling messages, which were usually made up of little more than four-letter words. Many shared their own stories of harassment and thanked us for our stance.
The writers of these messages often said they could not imagine the hate I was experiencing. Most apologized for the trolls’ behavior. And some apologized for standing on the sidelines. “I didn’t do anything, and that is why I am sorry,” one user wrote. “I stayed indifferent. I didn’t attack nor defend. I am sorry for my inaction. You are a human. And no one needs to be treated like you were.” Some apologized for their own trollish behavior and promised they had reformed.
As the threats became really violent, people ended their messages with “stay safe.” Eventually, users started responding on Reddit itself, using accurate information and supportive messages to fight back against the trolls.
If Pao had really received "hundreds of messages a day" from supporters, then she should have been easily able to use crowfunding to pay her legal bills.... IMHO.
Yes, and also there is a point of diminishing returns, even if her goal was to just "fight the good fight", or something. She lost in court, and it often makes less and less sense to continue as the losses pile up.
On a side question: what support would she deserve, if the case is without merit? You gave a good explanation of why "government" support is now excluded. What other support do you mean?
"This doesn't mean that she didn't felt discriminated, and should be denied all support."
If it's without merit, then it's without merit, right?
If there is real discrimination then I'm open to hearing about it. But if its just toxic sociopaths spinning tales to intimidate and extort then they can go fuck themselves with a rake.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Oh I'm sorry, Social Justice Warrior is a bit of a misnomer isn't it?
Is Social Justice Bully more appropriate, or how about SJS? Social Justice Sociopath?
She had no case worth pursuing.
Her character is related to why she lost, but not in the way you hope so much.
It's the reason why she brought suit in the first place. See the fable of the frog and the scorpion.
There's a difference between believing sexism is "rampant" and that it exists. Reasonable people can argue that a juror coming to the table with an opinion burdened by qualifiers like "rampant" signifies a predisposition to believe one side or the other. Just as a juror who believes sexism in the tech industry is "minimal" would be prejudiced against Pao's claim, a juror who believed sexism in the tech industry is "rampant" would be prejudiced in favor of her claim.
If Pao is arguing that she didn't get a fair trial because she didn't have a jury stacked with people predisposed to believe her allegations, then she's an even bigger idiot than I thought.
Her husband, Buddy Fletcher, was successful at racial discrimination lawsuits. Right up until someone called his bluff and now he's bankrupt and will probably spend a few years in jail for SEC fraud. Who knows what skeletons are hiding in Ellen's closet... but if her work at KP was like her work at reddit, she should have been fired for gross incompetence years ago.
Unfortunately, we have the feminists and SJWs focused on lambasting everyone for a wage gap in the workplace that turns out to be just their shrill whining over nothing, the same way they go on about man-spreading and fart rape.
Fixed.
Humans are not rational beings, even if she was not in fact victimized/discriminated against, she still can experience negative feelings of being victimized. I can see other people's point of view that social support should be unconditional regardless of actual facts. Such support should be victim-focused, since it lacks actual perpetrator (or more accurately, it is self-inflicted).
Regardless, my primary concern is that we don't conflate social mores and actual laws. Similarly to how we try to adhere to separation of state and religion, we should adhere to separation of state and social-moral justice.
Barbarians at the gate are technically warriors, so the SJW label is appropriate.
Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.
Not really. This is a social policy decision, but especially in discrimination cases there are very good reasons for *not* making an unsuccessful plaintiff pay for the costs of the suit.
First, it gives the defendant an incentive to hire a more expensive legal team to encourage settlement.
Second, while *most* discrimination claims brought to court are bullshit, a lot of legit discrimination claims are never brought to court. We allow the *most* bullshit claims because we think it's *important* to allow the non-bullshit claims. If the plaintiff has to pay costs if they lose, that makes plaintiffs who have actually been discriminated against a lot less willing and able to sue, because it will wreck their lives if they fail. And those plaintiffs are the ones least likely to sue.
What should happen in theory is that the companies that are found *to have discriminated* should have to pay a tax that covers at least a part of the legal expenses of every other company that gets sued over this, because it's the companies that actually discriminate which make all of that litigation necessary. In practice that's politically untenable, though, at least for a while.
The jury is not supposed to be a debating club, and if you selected juries on the principle that they should contain people who believe both sides you'd have nothing but hung juries.
A jury must contain only people who do not already have opinions that are strongly prejudicial to the opinion they are supposed to form from the evidence presented to them. Anyone thinking sexism is rampant in tech should be as disqualified as anyone who thinks is isn't. Ie, you want jurors who have no opinion on the level of sexism in tech.
If you want people with opinions on the level of sexism in tech, call them as witnesses.
From what I've seen of Pao and the case, I think the preponderance of evidence suggests she's a narcissistic asshole. Which, I suspect, is why she didn't want to continue the case as, considering the reddit debacle further demonstrated her capabilities, she wouldn't have a chance of winning it without a jury of her closest friends.
Hmm - if they ask a question like that, are you obligated to answer?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Trolls?
Fuck that worthless cunt!
This is a court of law and everyone in the jury pool is sworn in before answering questions. Lying is a crime.
I don't know what would happened if you refused to answer a question, but I'm sure the judge would jail you for contempt if he/she were sufficiently pissed off.
Ah, so you're sworn in before they do jury selection, got it. Thanks!
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
“I stayed indifferent. I didn’t attack nor defend. I am sorry for my inaction. You are a human. And no one needs to be treated like you were.”
I don't suppose the sociopath who made up the above (*cough Ellen *cough*) had the foggiest idea of how transparent it actually sounds...
This can backfire. I was once empaneled on a jury (the phase where they have too many jurors so the attorneys can each reject some to leave the right number), sworn to answer relevant questions truthfully, for a paternity case.
The defense attorney went around asking jurors if they knew anything about probability or statistics, and I answered truthfully (I'm not a statistician, but I know quite a bit). I was a peremptory strike. There was no actual indication that the defense attorney made that strike, but it sure looked to the rest of the jurors that the defense attorney was trying to eliminate anybody who could see through a snow job (I got this from talking to one of the jurors later).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What happened in the anecdote I related had nothing to do with leanings to either side. Asking the scientists and engineers to identify themselves occured almost at the beginning of the jury selection process. This was all about removing people with critical thinking skills.
Suppose that there is some sexism in tech. In that case, filtering out people who claim there is some gets rid of the people who know what's going on, while filtering out those who claim there is none removes the truly oblivious ones.
I do think there is sexism in tech, but I also think it doesn't happen all the time. I'd have no trouble going through the legal definitions and doing my best to apply them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Each side has a limited number of peremptory strikes. There is no limit on the number of people who can be removed for cause. In a drunken driving jury I was empaneled on, one juror had had a close relative killed by a drunk driver, and was rejected by the judge and another juror selected randomly from the pool.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This sounds like a civil suit, which is decided on the preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if there isn't really enough evidence for either side, there is no preponderance.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd normally believe that, but people who whine all over the internet about SJWs and their various evils won't actually bother getting up of their arse, going out and fighting those supposed evils, they're just going wit at home and whine all over the internet. Ideologues are gonna ideologue.
Pot, meet kettle.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do they know, or do they just think they know? The whole point of this jury selection process is to filter out such assumptions and establish an impartial jury, to let the each side present their case and let the facts speak for themselves.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Are you so deluded that your are comparing yourself or Pao to Jesus? The Bible is just a book, I enjoy it as much as Dr Seuss.
Please show me in the Bible where Jesus has his affair with someone from his job, gets fired for being a disruptive Psychopath, then cries sexism and sues his former employer. Not for his own spiteful reasons mind you, but the good of all other Christians, because you know he's Jesus after all. Then looses and blames the Jews. That sounds like the analogy you just tried to sell us.
Maybe we would stop calling your plays if you had some new material, this washed up drivel from 5 years ago doesn't pass the smell test anymore, much like Pao.
Drunk driving cases are a special breed.
In most states, a criminal defendant has an absolute right to have evidence evaluated in an independent laboratory to confirm the state/county crime lab's results but in many states, that doesn't apply to DUI defendants. The "official" results from the crime lab are the only ones that are permitted.
This is a recipe for abuse.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ask any liberal arts major. We don't have critical thinking skills. We didn't even take the course.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So because of your one limited experience it must happen in every case possible? When people like you stand up and make broad sweeping generalizations like this based on a single experience it really does make me think that you can't think critically.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Her claim is that "I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror who expressed a belief that sexism exists in tech — a belief that is widely recognized and documented — was not allowed to serve on the jury,"
I don't think I'm somebody who knee-jerk jumps to discrimination. However, if they were filtering out jurors who believe that sexism exists in tech, that certainly seems to be unfair, IMO. Most people certainly would not consider it fair if a gay person was filing a discrimination suit and jurors who believe that discrimination against gay people exists were excluded from sitting on the jury.
I'm not necessarily saying that was the case here, and I haven't read enough to have a strong opinion on whether the case had merit or not. But if those allegations are true then that certainly stands in the way of a fair trial and should be fixed.
In other words,
"I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror I wanted to stack things in my favor was not allowed to serve on the jury."
What she doesn't state is whether or not the potential jurors that DID end up on the jury believed that sexism was impossible, or if they simply had a balanced view on the matter. I'm betting her legal team dismissed more than one or two people themselves, and that the balanced view prevailed.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Have an affair with coworker, lose most of your credibility.
File a gender based discrimination suit as a female executive lose all remaining credibility. I can't imagine why anyone would ever hire her for any position ever again.
You seem pretty butthurt, funny that I can find the actual problems with SJW's like "safe spaces" and trying to shout people down, pulling fire alarms, or attacking people because it's something they don't want to hear. Strange you don't know about any of that, perhaps you should go spend some time traveling? After all, their first world problem whining says a lot, much like yours.
Om, nomnomnom...
The left is actually the group that opposed the involuntary sterilization measures that were practiced, and the left doesn't support any extant programs to discourage particular races to reproduce that I know about.
Not explicitly but there is a reason why 80% of Planned Parenthood facilities are in minority communities.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I am actually very anti-SJW, as I see it as mostly tribal virtue signaling and thrill-seeking brigading. You on other hand appear to be engaged in the tribal mentality and already categorized me as belonging to the 'other tribe'.
To answer your question directly - yes, definitely. As someone pointed out to me very recently, in absolute numbers there are a lot more poor disadvantaged white males than oppressed racial minorities. If you buy into that narrative.
I can find the actual problems with SJW's like "safe spaces" and trying to shout people down, pulling fire alarms, or attacking people because it's something they don't want to hear
I too can find problems with a bunch of random stuff I just made up against evil internet boogeymen!
After all, their first world problem whining says a lot, much like yours.
Ah are you one of those people who don't believe first worlders can have problems?
Wait if you're always worried about the poor people in Africa or whatnot, that's pretty much worrying about *social* justice. Congratulations you're an SJW too! Welcome to the club, I'll pop your membership card in the post.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I too can find problems with a bunch of random stuff I just made up against evil internet boogeymen!
I don't have to look up a bunch of random stuff, I can easily find the big names like Jessica Valenti, Jonathan McIntosh or Laurie Penny, and see their ignorance and stupidity on display. No bogyman required.
Ah are you one of those people who don't believe first worlders can have problems?
You mean against imaginary stuff like "how A/C is sexist", or "why smiling at a women is rape?" Wow those sure are pressing problems.
Wait if you're always worried about the poor people in Africa or whatnot, that's pretty much worrying about *social* justice. Congratulations you're an SJW too! Welcome to the club, I'll pop your membership card in the post.
See here's the difference, they'll whine and complain or ignore it, because it might draw undue attention to themselves and they'll actually have to do something instead of spouting off on the net. On the other hand, I've actually gone out into the world and tried to make it a better place, got the t-shirt and all that.
Om, nomnomnom...
It is the left that incentivized it.
The welfare queen is a real thing. I have seen it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I'm blaming the left for reproductive irresponsibility. Abortion and having a bunch of children that one can't support come along with it.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The left is always accusing the right of doing exactly what they're doing. They have the war on women. They think black lives don't matter. Wage discrimination for women has been illegal since the 1930s. Yes, 1930s, updated in the 1960s. Then they use blacks as useful idiots all the time. Look at Trayvon Martin to distract from all the other stuff they're doing. When they can't find that - bring up Bruce Jenner or a lion named Cecil, while ignoring what's happening in the rest of Zimbabwe, or here in America for that matter.
This is not to excuse the right. The Republicans are filled with idiots, as are the Democrats. The Reps have both houses and don't seem to realize it. They do whatever the Dems want. Even announcing it when they took power.
It'll be amazing if the US is still a country in 10 years.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fire alarms?
Rather than just making vague accusations and then posting unrelated lists of names how about you form a coherent argument.
On the other hand, I've actually gone out into the world and tried to make it a better place, got the t-shirt and all that.
So you have actually gone out and fought for social justice! A real warrior! Not just a fake internet one.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ask any liberal arts major. We don't have critical thinking skills. We didn't even take the course.
Did you go to University of Chicago, then, or major in neo-Marxist horseshit somewhere else? ;-)
You have already made up your mind. I didn't say it for you.
I restated the case for the benefit of any observers who may not have understood my position.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fire alarms? Rather than just making vague accusations and then posting unrelated lists of names how about you form a coherent argument.
Oh you don't know about the SJW's pulling fire alarms, trying to drown people out so they can't speak, and so on? And those names? Very much related, so are their followers. That was a coherent argument after all. I'm sure you'd also support someone like sarah nyberg, you know the one that's being all buddy-buddy with their SJW friends, after it came out that they're a pedophile and actively perused their 8 year old cousin.
So you have actually gone out and fought for social justice! A real warrior! Not just a fake internet one.
Of course that's not social justice, or even justice.
Om, nomnomnom...
Oh I see, random nutjob is automatically SJW. Right. Yet more evidence that the term has become meaningless. And therefore anyone using the term is either a fool our dishonest.
I've no idea who Sarah Nyberg is: I've never heard of her. It's funny how the social injustice warriors assume anyone they disagree with is part of a giant hive mind. Anyway, come back when you've got a link to something more credible than Bretbart (e.g. The daily mail, Fox news, the national inquirer, the flat earth society monthly newsletter or timecube.com). That website is utter drek and I'm not going to dignify it by visiting.
And yes what you're talking about is social justice, which is very different from criminal justice.
It's hilarious that you've warped your world view so much that you'll actually spew vitriol in the direction of things you support because you've got a bee in your bonnet about sine all pervading hive mind internet bogeyman. I've got a deep secret from the SJW world I'd like to share with you: it doesn't exist.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you are looking for welfare queens you need to look toward large businesses and the extremely rich. They take more in government welfare than all of the poor combined.
If you think that prosecutors have such a tool and do not abuse it to get convictions you are a complete fool.
Are you claiming there is negligible sexism in tech, and that we should all know that? If there is a significant amount, even if it's far from universal, then the idea of rejecting people because they believe a true statement seems a bit odd. Jurors are not supposed to be complete blank slates, and it's possible to be impartial even if you have some prior knowledge.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh but they're not a random nutjob, that's what's funny. Perhaps you should look into it, after all if you don't know who sarah nyberg is, you should spend a bit of time reading it. They're part of the large SJW clique online. I do like however that you ignored the evidence, would you like the logs? They're out there too. The fact that you dismiss something because it doesn't fit your world view while claiming that someone' world view is warped, is actually what's funny.
See here's what's interesting, I've provided proof. You've yet to provide anything other than your statements. You categorize them as "warped" because they don't fit into your particular viewpoint on something, that's called group think and confirmation bias, your statements make the argument that it doesn't exist. So I'm sure that's all fine with you, but perhaps you should spend a bit of time asking yourself, why you can't provide proofs to anything.
Om, nomnomnom...
Complete bank slates is certainly the ideal, even if it's impossible even in principle. Most people form their opinions from things they've been told, or things they've experienced, neither of which are impartial sources of fact. Hence, "do they know something is true, or do they merely think something is true?".
Furthermore, establishing legal fact is a different process from establishing scientific fact. Even if they were a gender research scientist, that doesn't necessarily make them sufficiently unbiased to judge whether sexism happened in this case.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
I've done jury duty a few times and even served on a murder trial back in 2000. It seems they tend to want to remove people who are critical thinkers in general. Both sides. They want people more easily swayed by emotions. At least it sure seemed like it. Though I did get on for the one trial, even though they knew I was titled an engineer and am technical (Unix Sysadmin). They excused a lot of other technically minded people and ran out of the limited excuses before I got into the top of the pool. At that point, at least one business owner and a couple of other people who were also at least somewhat technical got on as well.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Another broad sweeping generalization. What a shock!
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
A ./ troll denying something blatantly obvious. What a shock!
"It's blatantly obvious because of my one experience - which is actually suspect to begin with - to which I have no other supporting evidence is the gold seal standard by which the entire system should be judged. Clearly one person makes the issue pandemic"
Your'e a moron.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.