"it has been debunked". Sure. Convenient you leave no source to said debunking. So thoroughly debunked, Robert Creamer had to resign after Project Veritas exposed him : http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/...
Even CNN had to report on it. "Debunked" means "It was factual, but I hate it" to some of you people.
This is all a matter of public record, you can verify it yourself and don't have to take my word for it.
So you shouldn't have any issues in providing a source for your claim.
No, the "Educate yourself" schtick doesn't fly. Never has. You make a claim, you dig up the citation. Otherwise, your statement is baseless and most likely wrong.
DACA granted work permits to people without a status allowing them to get such a permit. It was not merely a decision to not enforce provisions on the books, it was a program granting added privileges to a group of people without force of law.
So instead of using 2 hours of time by 2 people to end action that is seen by most as unconstitutional, we let the courts go on a lengthy battle, that needs to get appealed to every level of the Judiciary, over months if not years ?
Inefficient. This way, Congress (the actual Legislative branch) gets to fix the laws as it should.
The similar legislation, DAPA, that applied to parents, was overtuned and the same legal arguments could overturn DACA if it were ever challenged. 10 state AGs threatened to do just that if the White House did not act on DACA before September 5th.
So it's not that it wasn't successfully challenged. It's that it was about to be and the precedents meant it didn't really stand a chance.
You're conflating discretionary powers and prosecutor's evaluation of indivual cases based on the strength of the evidence, with complete refusal to enforce laws as a matter of policy enforced from the top down.
Don't make this emotional and make false equivalencies. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced, subject to discretionary powers and the strength of evidence. If the Executive Branch wants to simply ignore a law completely, then they need to petition the Legislative to first change it.
This is not a decision the Executive Branch can make on its own.
Simple concept. Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.
The Executive Branch does not make laws. DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers, with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch. Ending it is the right choice.
She was just mocking the MRA and anti-feminist movement, but of course they took the bait and immediately claimed she was a misandrist.
Sounds like you when you claim Slashdotters are Misogynists because they disagree with a woman. Never mind the fact that the woman can be wrong (you know that's actually a thing right ? That woman can in fact be wrong on some things, sometimes ? Just checking that you know the difference between "hatred" and "Disagreement with supporting evidence"...). The point is, "mocking" people will cause those people to react to you. That is exactly the description of Trolling.
So you say "she doesn't troll!" and then proceed to give an example where she trolls. Well good job on proving the point of the person you were replying to. Jessica Valenti is a no-talent Hack that threats The Guardian like her personal Turmblr blog.
but there is actually a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Citation Needed.
I'm trying to make a reasoned argument, but you make absolute statements
False, I made a reasoned argument. You are the one making absolute statements. You made the statement it was because one gender is being institutionally repressed, and that it is due to systemic problems and social pressure. And we are supposed to accept that as FACT from you.
There is no reasoning with you, you are the same way on all these discussions. You literally bring the rageposts everywhere you go.
I don't know where the rage comes from exactly.
Look in the mirror. It comes from your polarizing language and you constant demeaning and assault on the current crop of IT/CS engineers, calling them "a problem" (aka, Brogrammer culture idiocy). Stop calling everyone who disagrees there even is a problem "part of the problem", and maybe you'll get more open mindedness.
People call you a SJW not because they disagree with you, but because you're an Internet Slacktivists who uses Social Justice to do Virtue Signaling, while constantly responding in an attempt at damage control in all these Gender/Race baiting article comment sections.
SJW is a pejorative for a bunch of blowhards who talk a lot of smack online, but don't do much IRL about Social Justice. And the posturing they do online is more sexist and racist (Color blindness, learn it, stop asking for seggration of "minorities" in "Safe spaces") than the "bigots" they are attacking.
Make a reasoned argument, not just concern trolling, and people will stop calling you a SJW. BTW : you'll have to accept meritocracy and human agency, so you'll have to accept that not everything needs to respect population quotas. STEM having 90% male is not wrong, as long as it's a choice made by all involved parties.
"In this particular field, I see 10 women for 100 men"
Amimojo said :
"The overall ratio of men and women at your university".
This is how things like the Wage Gap myth get started. Someone makes an observation about a niche or specific field, Internet Slacktivists blow it up into a "Applies to everyone, all the time" scenario.
In STEM, the ratio of women to men advantages MEN. In University in GENERAL, there are more women enrolled than there are men. There are more women graduating than men do.
It can be BOTH. And to answer Amimojo : No, we don't particularly care to know why women don't enroll in STEM, we assume it's because they aren't interested. The ones that are interested enroll and that's good enough for us.
Don't take my word for it though, a quick google turns up the GG wiki and Reddit channel:
You linked GamerGhazi, and you're pretending that's THEIR reddit sub-reddit ? That reddit's sidebar mentions its sole purpose is mocking Gamergate, talk about a biased source. Are you even trying to hide your own bias ? Do you think we're idiots ?
She was making a wider point about games that were overtly misogynistic
How can games be misogynistic ? Games are not sentient, and as such cannot "Hate women because they are women".
Plus what's misogynistic about boobs or equal opportunity slaughter of both genders ? I don't get what "hatred of women" there is in shooting both genders equally, or showing off a man's pecs or a woman's boobs equally.
Anita is just using her early tele-seminar scam skills in a new industry to make money. Basically, if you contributed to her Kickstarter (which she has failed to deliver on) or donated to her non-profit, you got scammed.
That's the Link. The top banner uses a screenshot of the game in question, the name of the Article is a play on the name of the Game. It's by Nathan Grayson, the responsible party, there is no disclosure, and the game is mentionned in the opening Paragraph with only 2 other games out of the list of 50.
That is the coverage at issue, people were simply asking why there was no disclosure of Nathan's relationship with DQ's developer.
Can we stop pretending it was a "review" and that "it doesn't exist" when it's still up, linked from Deepfreeze and available for all to see ?
You're advocating Culturecide. Bro culture is fine. Wanting guys not to act like guys is what is wrong. This is why people are upset when you walk into a room and tell them not to use.bro as a 3 letter extension for Brotli, because it has nothing to do with the "Guys being Guys", but you're making it sound like it does. Then you claim "Guys being Guys" is toxic, to a room full of guys. And you're surprised they get upset.
Stop assuming everything is about your feminist agenda..Bro has nothing to do with "Bro culture" in the first place, never has, never will. The only reason it does, is because self-proclaimed WRA want it to be so they can test their control over others using shaming language like "Misogyny". How does Bro even relate to Hatred of Women ?
It's in the title. Misogyny. The hatred of all women. No one is over-sensitive, that's what the word means. How did you miss that ? Or do you not even know what Misogyny means anymore (to be fair, online feminist activists have twisted it to mean "disagreeing with a woman", but I digress...) ?
So yeah, segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, introductory CS classes, fine, there are clear reasons
Wait WHAT ?!?
I mean, Bathrooms and Changing rooms have to do with Lady parts vs Man parts, but I'm not clear on what CLEAR reason you see for Introductory CS classes... Last I checked (and I admit my introductory CS classes were about 20 years ago), there was no genital involvement.
That's basically what it is. Computers didn't come into their own as a "Thinkerer" field until the early 80s. By that time, most degrees had gone to women, and you were still seeing that population into the early 90s.
The shift in degrees occurred early/mid-80s with the release of the PC platform and Home computers, these things don't happen in the span of a few days. It takes years to change a trend like that in emerging fields. In the 90s, when I did my Comp Sci classes, we had like 80% of our teachers being women, while 90% of the class were guys.
Why is it so hard to accept that maybe women in general don't prefer the field, just like men in general don't prefer nursing ?
Guys don't want women coming in to their existing communities
Your are intentionally obtuse and it's not doing you any favors. Guys want women coming in to their existing communities. What guys don't want is women changing their communities.
You don't go into a community and change it to suit you. You go into a community and you adapt to its culture or you start your own Casino... well you know how that quote goes.
Back in the '70s and '80s, computers and programming were seen more as secretarial work than actual technical work. The field had more women participation because of stereotypes of the time being that "Secretarial" work meant work for women. As the industry progressed and created and identity for itself as a tinkerer field, guys managed to overcome the sexist stereotype that "Computers are for secretaries and secretaries are women".
Being told that girls are not interested in CS by teachers and parents. The "resume test" (identical applicants, one with female name and one with male name). Unwanted attention and comments in the workplace. The kind of bullshit we see on the LKML, that even some men won't put up with. The wage gap (yes, it's real, even after you account for absolutely everything). Brogrammers. I could go on.
I wish you would, because you have yet to name a BARRIER to entry. The resume test is BS, being told anything by your parents is bull (my parents told me all the time that computers were a waste of time and I'm a guy). The kind of thing we see on LKML is gender agnostic. The wage gap myth is based off a maid's salary compared to a CEO's salary, not 2 individuals in IT, Brogrammers were an April's fool joke (and frankly, girls can be as big of Bros as guys are, that's sexist of you to say otherwise).
So what BARRIER is there ? What is PREVENTING women in Tech ? Because as far as I can see and as far as you can explain, if a girl wants to go in Tech, she'll go in tech, get a job and have a good career.
Err... not really. "Not good work" is not the same as "this shit sucks". "This shit sucks" means it's downright bottom of the barrel bad and is never going to be even be considered for usage, not if anyone's life depended on it. We'd let entire star systems we reduced to a single ash before even thinking of looking at using it.
"This is not good work" just means it's not good. It can be passable, it can be bad, but usable, it can be used in the case of an emergency if we have nothing else to work it while you work on something better.
Garbage is garbage. It goes in the garbage. "Not good" is still a pretty large scale. Is it passable ? Just barely usable ? Usable if we have nothing else ? Downright unusable ? Which is it ? Too vague.
"This is garbage" is 100% clear. Clarity > Politeness. If you can't preserve clarity and remain polite, then screw politeness. The receiving person will be mad for a time, but at least he'll know where you stand.
You insulted him many times in that discussion, but refusing to answer his very simple question. He asked you to explain the bug. You have failed to even provide that basic response to him, basically completely disrespecting him the whole way and insulting our collective intelligence.
And we should not insult you back ? Double standards much ?
I suggest you go to her blog again, and CTRL-F for "Fart". Then read the sentence that comes up. Then come back here, take out the foot that's firmly implemented in your mouth, and proceed to apologize to the class.
Sarah Sharp is a person of no consequence who tried to Tone police a whole community and is now throwing a kindergarten level tanthrum because people just told her to shove it.
You don't insert yourself into a community and expect the entire culture to change to suit you. You adapt to the new community.
Slashdot Mirror
"it has been debunked". Sure. Convenient you leave no source to said debunking. So thoroughly debunked, Robert Creamer had to resign after Project Veritas exposed him : http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/...
Even CNN had to report on it. "Debunked" means "It was factual, but I hate it" to some of you people.
This is all a matter of public record, you can verify it yourself and don't have to take my word for it.
So you shouldn't have any issues in providing a source for your claim.
No, the "Educate yourself" schtick doesn't fly. Never has. You make a claim, you dig up the citation. Otherwise, your statement is baseless and most likely wrong.
DACA granted work permits to people without a status allowing them to get such a permit. It was not merely a decision to not enforce provisions on the books, it was a program granting added privileges to a group of people without force of law.
So instead of using 2 hours of time by 2 people to end action that is seen by most as unconstitutional, we let the courts go on a lengthy battle, that needs to get appealed to every level of the Judiciary, over months if not years ?
Inefficient. This way, Congress (the actual Legislative branch) gets to fix the laws as it should.
The similar legislation, DAPA, that applied to parents, was overtuned and the same legal arguments could overturn DACA if it were ever challenged. 10 state AGs threatened to do just that if the White House did not act on DACA before September 5th.
So it's not that it wasn't successfully challenged. It's that it was about to be and the precedents meant it didn't really stand a chance.
You're conflating discretionary powers and prosecutor's evaluation of indivual cases based on the strength of the evidence, with complete refusal to enforce laws as a matter of policy enforced from the top down.
Don't make this emotional and make false equivalencies. If the law is on the books, it needs to be enforced, subject to discretionary powers and the strength of evidence. If the Executive Branch wants to simply ignore a law completely, then they need to petition the Legislative to first change it.
This is not a decision the Executive Branch can make on its own.
Change the law.
Simple concept. Executive orders to selectively enforce or refuse to enforce certain laws on the books are not sustainable models of immigration.
The Executive Branch does not make laws. DACA was a travesty of the seperation of powers, with the Executive Branch appointing itself powers of the Legislative Branch. Ending it is the right choice.
She was just mocking the MRA and anti-feminist movement, but of course they took the bait and immediately claimed she was a misandrist.
Sounds like you when you claim Slashdotters are Misogynists because they disagree with a woman. Never mind the fact that the woman can be wrong (you know that's actually a thing right ? That woman can in fact be wrong on some things, sometimes ? Just checking that you know the difference between "hatred" and "Disagreement with supporting evidence"...). The point is, "mocking" people will cause those people to react to you. That is exactly the description of Trolling.
So you say "she doesn't troll!" and then proceed to give an example where she trolls. Well good job on proving the point of the person you were replying to. Jessica Valenti is a no-talent Hack that threats The Guardian like her personal Turmblr blog.
but there is actually a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Citation Needed.
I'm trying to make a reasoned argument, but you make absolute statements
False, I made a reasoned argument. You are the one making absolute statements. You made the statement it was because one gender is being institutionally repressed, and that it is due to systemic problems and social pressure. And we are supposed to accept that as FACT from you.
There is no reasoning with you, you are the same way on all these discussions. You literally bring the rageposts everywhere you go.
I don't know where the rage comes from exactly.
Look in the mirror. It comes from your polarizing language and you constant demeaning and assault on the current crop of IT/CS engineers, calling them "a problem" (aka, Brogrammer culture idiocy). Stop calling everyone who disagrees there even is a problem "part of the problem", and maybe you'll get more open mindedness.
People call you a SJW not because they disagree with you, but because you're an Internet Slacktivists who uses Social Justice to do Virtue Signaling, while constantly responding in an attempt at damage control in all these Gender/Race baiting article comment sections.
SJW is a pejorative for a bunch of blowhards who talk a lot of smack online, but don't do much IRL about Social Justice. And the posturing they do online is more sexist and racist (Color blindness, learn it, stop asking for seggration of "minorities" in "Safe spaces") than the "bigots" they are attacking.
Make a reasoned argument, not just concern trolling, and people will stop calling you a SJW. BTW : you'll have to accept meritocracy and human agency, so you'll have to accept that not everything needs to respect population quotas. STEM having 90% male is not wrong, as long as it's a choice made by all involved parties.
So you know better than gl4ss
Man, the simple mindness continues.
To make it 100% clear, gl4ss said :
"In this particular field, I see 10 women for 100 men"
Amimojo said :
"The overall ratio of men and women at your university".
This is how things like the Wage Gap myth get started. Someone makes an observation about a niche or specific field, Internet Slacktivists blow it up into a "Applies to everyone, all the time" scenario.
In STEM, the ratio of women to men advantages MEN. In University in GENERAL, there are more women enrolled than there are men. There are more women graduating than men do.
It can be BOTH. And to answer Amimojo : No, we don't particularly care to know why women don't enroll in STEM, we assume it's because they aren't interested. The ones that are interested enroll and that's good enough for us.
Don't take my word for it though, a quick google turns up the GG wiki and Reddit channel:
You linked GamerGhazi, and you're pretending that's THEIR reddit sub-reddit ? That reddit's sidebar mentions its sole purpose is mocking Gamergate, talk about a biased source. Are you even trying to hide your own bias ? Do you think we're idiots ?
She was making a wider point about games that were overtly misogynistic
How can games be misogynistic ? Games are not sentient, and as such cannot "Hate women because they are women".
Plus what's misogynistic about boobs or equal opportunity slaughter of both genders ? I don't get what "hatred of women" there is in shooting both genders equally, or showing off a man's pecs or a woman's boobs equally.
Anita is just using her early tele-seminar scam skills in a new industry to make money. Basically, if you contributed to her Kickstarter (which she has failed to deliver on) or donated to her non-profit, you got scammed.
The review does not exist. If it does, I'm sure you can post a link
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/
That's the Link. The top banner uses a screenshot of the game in question, the name of the Article is a play on the name of the Game. It's by Nathan Grayson, the responsible party, there is no disclosure, and the game is mentionned in the opening Paragraph with only 2 other games out of the list of 50.
That is the coverage at issue, people were simply asking why there was no disclosure of Nathan's relationship with DQ's developer.
Can we stop pretending it was a "review" and that "it doesn't exist" when it's still up, linked from Deepfreeze and available for all to see ?
You're advocating Culturecide. Bro culture is fine. Wanting guys not to act like guys is what is wrong. This is why people are upset when you walk into a room and tell them not to use .bro as a 3 letter extension for Brotli, because it has nothing to do with the "Guys being Guys", but you're making it sound like it does. Then you claim "Guys being Guys" is toxic, to a room full of guys. And you're surprised they get upset.
Stop assuming everything is about your feminist agenda. .Bro has nothing to do with "Bro culture" in the first place, never has, never will. The only reason it does, is because self-proclaimed WRA want it to be so they can test their control over others using shaming language like "Misogyny". How does Bro even relate to Hatred of Women ?
It's in the title. Misogyny. The hatred of all women. No one is over-sensitive, that's what the word means. How did you miss that ? Or do you not even know what Misogyny means anymore (to be fair, online feminist activists have twisted it to mean "disagreeing with a woman", but I digress...) ?
How are that sexist that you believe that women need men to stand up for them in the first place ?
So yeah, segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, introductory CS classes, fine, there are clear reasons
Wait WHAT ?!?
I mean, Bathrooms and Changing rooms have to do with Lady parts vs Man parts, but I'm not clear on what CLEAR reason you see for Introductory CS classes... Last I checked (and I admit my introductory CS classes were about 20 years ago), there was no genital involvement.
That's basically what it is. Computers didn't come into their own as a "Thinkerer" field until the early 80s. By that time, most degrees had gone to women, and you were still seeing that population into the early 90s.
The shift in degrees occurred early/mid-80s with the release of the PC platform and Home computers, these things don't happen in the span of a few days. It takes years to change a trend like that in emerging fields. In the 90s, when I did my Comp Sci classes, we had like 80% of our teachers being women, while 90% of the class were guys.
Why is it so hard to accept that maybe women in general don't prefer the field, just like men in general don't prefer nursing ?
Guys don't want women coming in to their existing communities
Your are intentionally obtuse and it's not doing you any favors. Guys want women coming in to their existing communities. What guys don't want is women changing their communities.
You don't go into a community and change it to suit you. You go into a community and you adapt to its culture or you start your own Casino... well you know how that quote goes.
Something has changed.
Back in the '70s and '80s, computers and programming were seen more as secretarial work than actual technical work. The field had more women participation because of stereotypes of the time being that "Secretarial" work meant work for women. As the industry progressed and created and identity for itself as a tinkerer field, guys managed to overcome the sexist stereotype that "Computers are for secretaries and secretaries are women".
That's what changed.
Being told that girls are not interested in CS by teachers and parents. The "resume test" (identical applicants, one with female name and one with male name). Unwanted attention and comments in the workplace. The kind of bullshit we see on the LKML, that even some men won't put up with. The wage gap (yes, it's real, even after you account for absolutely everything). Brogrammers. I could go on.
I wish you would, because you have yet to name a BARRIER to entry. The resume test is BS, being told anything by your parents is bull (my parents told me all the time that computers were a waste of time and I'm a guy). The kind of thing we see on LKML is gender agnostic. The wage gap myth is based off a maid's salary compared to a CEO's salary, not 2 individuals in IT, Brogrammers were an April's fool joke (and frankly, girls can be as big of Bros as guys are, that's sexist of you to say otherwise).
So what BARRIER is there ? What is PREVENTING women in Tech ? Because as far as I can see and as far as you can explain, if a girl wants to go in Tech, she'll go in tech, get a job and have a good career.
"This is not good work."
"This shit sucks."
Same content. Same feedback.
Err... not really. "Not good work" is not the same as "this shit sucks". "This shit sucks" means it's downright bottom of the barrel bad and is never going to be even be considered for usage, not if anyone's life depended on it. We'd let entire star systems we reduced to a single ash before even thinking of looking at using it.
"This is not good work" just means it's not good. It can be passable, it can be bad, but usable, it can be used in the case of an emergency if we have nothing else to work it while you work on something better.
Garbage is garbage. It goes in the garbage. "Not good" is still a pretty large scale. Is it passable ? Just barely usable ? Usable if we have nothing else ? Downright unusable ? Which is it ? Too vague.
"This is garbage" is 100% clear. Clarity > Politeness. If you can't preserve clarity and remain polite, then screw politeness. The receiving person will be mad for a time, but at least he'll know where you stand.
You insulted him many times in that discussion, but refusing to answer his very simple question. He asked you to explain the bug. You have failed to even provide that basic response to him, basically completely disrespecting him the whole way and insulting our collective intelligence.
And we should not insult you back ? Double standards much ?
I suggest you go to her blog again, and CTRL-F for "Fart". Then read the sentence that comes up. Then come back here, take out the foot that's firmly implemented in your mouth, and proceed to apologize to the class.
Sarah Sharp is a person of no consequence who tried to Tone police a whole community and is now throwing a kindergarten level tanthrum because people just told her to shove it.
You don't insert yourself into a community and expect the entire culture to change to suit you. You adapt to the new community.