I was in a minor accident on a motorcycle once, I fell over, no injuries, no dent, etc. This was before mobile phones. A fire truck was there within a minute to embarrass me.
Except this was an ongoing crime. If they police had shown up they could have made easy arrests, boosting their quotas, looking good to the citizens, etc.
Mansplaining happens, I've seen it, and I've done it. It's not necessarily against women though, I've seen men essentially repeating what someone said in slightly different words. I think often this is just about being in the conversation, but it also strays into the territory of trying to get in the last word.
Now it is ok I think to replay someone's conversation in an attempt to get it cleared up for yourself. But that works best if you start off by saying "let me understand, I think you mean..."
The rude parts of it comes from the implication that you weren't even listening or that others weren't listening. There's no point in repeating what was already explained. I see this the most from some teams where someone who is senior or merely thinks he is senior wants to repeat what was said for the benefit of others. It backfires a lot because it does make the person seem like an idiot. It's frustrating in long meetings when there's this guy who just seems to insist on being in the conversation without adding anything of value.
Yes, it is subtle at times. But it does feel like a male thing to do, I've rarely seen women doing this in conversations.
It may be a mental model, but it's one that is born out by the evidence. There is a big current of anti-female out there in gaming arenas. There are indeed men who feel that they're being discriminated against just by being men or that they're becoming second class citizens, or that games are getting dumbed down so that girlz can play; but they need to realize that women have been second class citizens for millenia through the present.
I was wondering if a male had been the one to correct a commenter, would the same thing have happened. I think not, because there wouldn't have been the rush to defend the commenter.
It feels like a double standard, as rude men get a pass all the time, or maybe a quiet talking down later by the boss. We're conditioned to assume that if men are aggressive that this is normal and expected, whereas we're supposed to assume that women are polite and agreeable. So when that expectation is broken a lot of people get upset.
Pleasant or rude, being a female on the internet will cause many males to start being rude. They consider the internet, and games, to be their own personal preserve.
Victimization was when all the other males rose to the defense of one of their own group. The rule I think is, never interrupt a man when he's mansplaining.
Bad. She was in the right, Deroir was being a typical asshat. Maybe she should have just ignored him, as everyone learn to do that when confronted with trolls, but everyone human also hits their breaking point.
It's not "accepted" dogma since only a minority of people think that way. They may be loud and obnoxious people but they aren't in the majority around the world.
Do you mean $10,000 a month or year? I see a limit on amount of acquisition mortage of $750,000 (if married, unclear what it is for single filers though $375,000 was for married filing jointly). That's not an uncommon amount for a dual income family in many locales. Having that much mortgage doesn't mean someone is rich, the higher salary is eaten very quickly by the added housing expenses.
What seems to be the big hurt next year would be the $10,000 limit on state and local taxes, and that's likely to be capped just with state income tax in many states leaving no room for a property tax deduction. So yes, higher taxes overall even though I'm not one of the rich.
Actually news this morning shows unemployment going up slightly, with the commentary that "more people are looking for work". Meaning that they weren't counted before. Wages however are not increasing by much. I always felt that was a good indicator of how well an economy is really doing for the average worker. For instance, I remember being out of work for a big chunk of time in the mid 90s with everyone telling me they'd like to hire me but hiring is frozen or there was no budget, while simultaneously all the news was trumpeting how awesome the economy was. Believe me it sucks to be out of work and hearing the radio tell you about how great the things are going. That's probably why I'm dubious about reports of a good economy.
Really? $9+ a month (price I pay at work for low bandwidth modem sim cards) will be less than they get by selling data? This still baffles me. How can someone's viewing habits be worth that much. Why aren't advertisers paying ME for this data? I'll turn off my adblock for $10/month.
I think there's a dotcom like bubble going on yet again where companies are overestimating the value of advertising.
Those aren't free though. The consumer would have to pay a monthly fee and would notice pretty quickly.
For the few customers who use a third party streaming device instead of using the "smarts" in the TV, they don't care. As long as they're collecting data from the other 99% they're happy. After all, they don't need LTE as long as the consumer hooks the TV up to some fat broadband for streamng.
I've got a dumb TV. Even if you do have a smart TV, nothing prevents you from plugging in an ethernet or giving it your wifi password. Stick on a Roku or other streaming device instead. That way if you find out it's spying on you then it's a lot cheaper to replace that $50 device than to get a new TV.
This is only because people have been changing the meanings of those words over time. I think the vast majority of environmentalists are what you call a conservationist, they do not want to get rid of all people. You look at a few outliers and assume this represents the whole.
EPA isn't really a huge agency. It exists because of those situations where pollution from one state affects another state, it falls squarely under interstate commerce. Sure, the states could have just sued each other, but that just puts the solution onto the supreme court rather than congress.
I think Nixon was pressured into it. Pollution was big at the time, lots of embarassing things like rivers catching fire. So he wanted to do something about it but not to that extent. Problem was that the states weren't doing much about the problem, and since the problem in one state caused a mess in the state that was downstream it turned into a federal problem. Back then the Republicans weren't the anti-federalists they are now but they didn't want to upset the big corporate campaign donors either.
Slashdot Mirror
I was in a minor accident on a motorcycle once, I fell over, no injuries, no dent, etc. This was before mobile phones. A fire truck was there within a minute to embarrass me.
Up and down are always perpendicular to widdershins.
Except this was an ongoing crime. If they police had shown up they could have made easy arrests, boosting their quotas, looking good to the citizens, etc.
Or call the police. It shouldn't have taken 90 minutes for police to show up.
People that they bite are the batteries.
It's like gravity, just a theory with no proof. :-)
Of course, civilization is supposed to teach people to stop being primitive and keep the aggression in check.
Mansplaining happens, I've seen it, and I've done it. It's not necessarily against women though, I've seen men essentially repeating what someone said in slightly different words. I think often this is just about being in the conversation, but it also strays into the territory of trying to get in the last word.
Now it is ok I think to replay someone's conversation in an attempt to get it cleared up for yourself. But that works best if you start off by saying "let me understand, I think you mean..."
The rude parts of it comes from the implication that you weren't even listening or that others weren't listening. There's no point in repeating what was already explained. I see this the most from some teams where someone who is senior or merely thinks he is senior wants to repeat what was said for the benefit of others. It backfires a lot because it does make the person seem like an idiot. It's frustrating in long meetings when there's this guy who just seems to insist on being in the conversation without adding anything of value.
Yes, it is subtle at times. But it does feel like a male thing to do, I've rarely seen women doing this in conversations.
So, she tweets like a guy?
It may be a mental model, but it's one that is born out by the evidence. There is a big current of anti-female out there in gaming arenas. There are indeed men who feel that they're being discriminated against just by being men or that they're becoming second class citizens, or that games are getting dumbed down so that girlz can play; but they need to realize that women have been second class citizens for millenia through the present.
I was wondering if a male had been the one to correct a commenter, would the same thing have happened. I think not, because there wouldn't have been the rush to defend the commenter.
It feels like a double standard, as rude men get a pass all the time, or maybe a quiet talking down later by the boss. We're conditioned to assume that if men are aggressive that this is normal and expected, whereas we're supposed to assume that women are polite and agreeable. So when that expectation is broken a lot of people get upset.
But she was responding to someone who seemed like a woman hating asshat who wants women to stop gaming and leave it to real men instead.
Pleasant or rude, being a female on the internet will cause many males to start being rude. They consider the internet, and games, to be their own personal preserve.
II agree, men today are way too sensitive that they all seem to jump to defense if one of theirs is criticized rightly for being an asshole.
Victimization was when all the other males rose to the defense of one of their own group. The rule I think is, never interrupt a man when he's mansplaining.
Bad. She was in the right, Deroir was being a typical asshat. Maybe she should have just ignored him, as everyone learn to do that when confronted with trolls, but everyone human also hits their breaking point.
It's not "accepted" dogma since only a minority of people think that way. They may be loud and obnoxious people but they aren't in the majority around the world.
Do you mean $10,000 a month or year? I see a limit on amount of acquisition mortage of $750,000 (if married, unclear what it is for single filers though $375,000 was for married filing jointly). That's not an uncommon amount for a dual income family in many locales. Having that much mortgage doesn't mean someone is rich, the higher salary is eaten very quickly by the added housing expenses.
What seems to be the big hurt next year would be the $10,000 limit on state and local taxes, and that's likely to be capped just with state income tax in many states leaving no room for a property tax deduction. So yes, higher taxes overall even though I'm not one of the rich.
Actually news this morning shows unemployment going up slightly, with the commentary that "more people are looking for work". Meaning that they weren't counted before. Wages however are not increasing by much. I always felt that was a good indicator of how well an economy is really doing for the average worker. For instance, I remember being out of work for a big chunk of time in the mid 90s with everyone telling me they'd like to hire me but hiring is frozen or there was no budget, while simultaneously all the news was trumpeting how awesome the economy was. Believe me it sucks to be out of work and hearing the radio tell you about how great the things are going. That's probably why I'm dubious about reports of a good economy.
Really? $9+ a month (price I pay at work for low bandwidth modem sim cards) will be less than they get by selling data? This still baffles me. How can someone's viewing habits be worth that much. Why aren't advertisers paying ME for this data? I'll turn off my adblock for $10/month.
I think there's a dotcom like bubble going on yet again where companies are overestimating the value of advertising.
Those aren't free though. The consumer would have to pay a monthly fee and would notice pretty quickly.
For the few customers who use a third party streaming device instead of using the "smarts" in the TV, they don't care. As long as they're collecting data from the other 99% they're happy. After all, they don't need LTE as long as the consumer hooks the TV up to some fat broadband for streamng.
I've got a dumb TV. Even if you do have a smart TV, nothing prevents you from plugging in an ethernet or giving it your wifi password. Stick on a Roku or other streaming device instead. That way if you find out it's spying on you then it's a lot cheaper to replace that $50 device than to get a new TV.
This is only because people have been changing the meanings of those words over time. I think the vast majority of environmentalists are what you call a conservationist, they do not want to get rid of all people. You look at a few outliers and assume this represents the whole.
EPA isn't really a huge agency. It exists because of those situations where pollution from one state affects another state, it falls squarely under interstate commerce. Sure, the states could have just sued each other, but that just puts the solution onto the supreme court rather than congress.
I think Nixon was pressured into it. Pollution was big at the time, lots of embarassing things like rivers catching fire. So he wanted to do something about it but not to that extent. Problem was that the states weren't doing much about the problem, and since the problem in one state caused a mess in the state that was downstream it turned into a federal problem. Back then the Republicans weren't the anti-federalists they are now but they didn't want to upset the big corporate campaign donors either.
Please, we're having a political discussion and don't have time for someone sane!