You are going off with anecdotal bullshit again. "It's not uncommon" does not mean anything. It's hand waving to make it seem common.
FeministFrequency's "in depth" talks are laughably horrible. I agree though, everyone should watch them so that they understand the intellectual honesty behind the "sexism is everywhere" griefers. It is completely biased nonsense that has been pointed out hundreds of times. Of course every time someone explains why she is wrong then she and people like you use that as proof that she is right.
The best thing you could do to help women in this struggle is to shut up. You are exactly the one-sided, brazenly biased overtly obtuse caricature that people have a problem with.
You are of the opinion that nothing bad happens to men and it always happens to women. This does nothing but hurt the conversation because it's demonstrably untrue. I assure you that, as a man, I have been groped at bars, grabbed on the bus, shouted at, "objectified" and all manner of things that would be considered "sexual harassment" in the workplace if it happened to a woman. Just because it doesn't happen to you does not mean it doesn't happen. Some of us guys actually have nice asses.
RAINN's "1 in 6" stat's reference defines rape as:
Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis.
It is exactly this completely biased "survey" method that make people conclude these groups have an ideology to push. The methodology in all of these surveys that show high numbers is always pretty poor and clearly biased. This is as close to "only men can rape" as they could get without explicitly stating "only men can rape".
An ad-hom fallacy is attacking someone's character to disprove their argument. For example: "serviscope_minor is an idiot and doesn't understand what logical fallacies are and therefore everything they say can be considered stupid and wrong".
You are trying to commit a fallacy fallacy (asserting someone committed a fallacy so their argument can be ignored). But you seem to have no idea what a fallacy is (lying isn't a fallacy by the way) and ended up just committing one yourself.
Almost never happens to guys and happens "pretty much constantly" to girls. I guess I should just accept your bold assertion without any evidence? It is easy to make a problem look one sided when you completely ignore all but one side.
If it happens to a man it's made up and we should ignore it. If it happens to a woman it's super important, not exaggerated, totally legit and we have to "realise the universality of it and the impact on a real person". Got it.
And men were supposed to go out and work themselves to death to pay for that woman to not have to do the same. They were expected to always put woman's health and well-being above their own (and still are according to this article). Stop being so myopic.
Ah yes, the old "sometimes a white man gets shit so sexism and racism doesn't exist" argument. You do know that's an unsound argument, right?
You do know that's not what the poster was saying at all, right? You do know that strawmaning is an unsound argument, right?
You continually repeat that white men don't deal with these issues. Then when a white man comes out a says "well actually I do have to deal with those issues" you insult them and say they're implying racism/sexism doesn't exit.
Congrats on exemplifying exactly why the parent poster is so fed up with you idiots.
The questions are designed to establish a pattern of behaviour.
You can say that again. The questions are designed with a conclusion already in mind.
If you are depending on "the context" and what's "fairly clear" in a study you want to pass off as scientific then you need to be ousted from the field immediately. I would say that only people looking to deliberately misrepresent data would ask such an ambiguous statement in a survey.
It seems that for all the progress that has been made we still have a very long way to go, with such a large number of people still in denial.
Yeah, idiots like you keep getting in the way of real progress.
Women do use that as an excuse for irritability and bad behaviour frequently enough that maybe these men are just willing to take women's word for something that they, as men, have no experience with. And being that many women do experience cramps and general uncomfortableness they may very well be extra irritable. But you're right, it's probably just horrible sexism from men again.
So constantly propositioning some one is not sexual harassment because that is a sexual preference thing and not a gender thing? No, sexual harassment absolutely refers to the sex act part. The term has been watered down to absurdity by this "women are weak and need to be constantly protected over everything" mentality. The term should mean something specific and instead it has been morphed into a nebulous term that can be applied to anything and nothing at the same time.
People say that this kind of thing should not be included in the definition because it muddies the term. Any fact of "legal definition" is not a counter point to "it shouldn't be part of the legal definition".
And what exactly are you doing? Does he have to give you the exact "dig coding" gene and explain why it's not expressed in women before you'll stop chanting "you're talking out of your ass"? It's not exactly outrages to say that two genders that often exhibit different preferences and interests might have different preferences and interests.
In my experience it is the "far left" that considers "controversial" discussion as trolling that needs to be banned. If anything I would say jellomizer is pushing back against the far left trying to force everything to suit them. There is no wanting anything to change to suit. The current set of affairs seems to suit jellomizer fine and they are expressing they don't want others to change that.
What's reality101 is we do not transmit power for distances that great for a reason. It is lossy. It is expensive and hard to interface with. It is dangerous. And most importantly there is no infrastructure for it.
Powering the entire United States from a single source is just not feasible (or possible). Both because transmitting the power over distances that long and because there is no way to support that kind of load. You would need millions of high voltage power lines coming out of that central space. It also takes "single point of failure" to a whole new level.
Not to make a "no u" but have you read the drivel you've posted? Classic projection. Especially when you literally claimed victory earlier after spouting some lame insults. Tried to imply that everyone here is a "techno-illiterate" now. Compared to when? The ten months ago that you got here? Then turn around and claim that it's everyone else that isn't backing up their statements. Laughable.
You make some absurd statement about how things should be done a completely different way despite numerous people telling you why it isn't currently done that way. You cavalierly make the declaration that it would "just totally work" based entirely on your own assumption that you are smarter than everyone else.
The reason they aren't that modular is because technology changes rather quickly. In five years your non-modular competition makes a better fridge because they aren't locked to supporting antiquated technology. Or do you think you have a better solution to the free market now?
I'm a twit? Does that negate the fact that you are a self-righteous and arrogant blow-hard that isn't half as smart as you seem to think you are in some way?
Modular what? Modular freon systems? Do you even understand the engineering you are demanding? Modularity and energy efficiency are often at odds with one another.
Used to be? What are you talking about? Your UID is huge. You barely scraped in before the Twitter users. The only "techno-illiterate" here is you. You have some moronic notion of "if everyone just did things how I've imagined them everything would be glorious". You've clearly never thought through the details which is why people are disagreeing with you. You are performing lame grand-standing seemingly for validation based on your subsequent statements and your arrogant and narcissistic demeanor.
That's just not true. HVDC can have "acceptable" losses for what we currently consider "long hauls". These are no where near as long as across the entire continent. Losses also increase with demand and I can imagine having all power from one location being pretty demanding on it.
Depending on the failure rate (which is quite low despite what people seem to claim) those replacement parts would be sitting on shelves for long periods of time and probably never be used. Shelf space is one of the biggest costs to retail. Low failure rate and high cost of shelf space is why replacement parts are not stocked and you have to order them from pretty much anywhere. Stocking them would eat in to revenue and allow competition that didn't waste shelf space to out-compete. This is ignoring the logistics of employing someone that can repair whatever item in the rare occurrence that they're needed.
Wow, you might be the most pretentious blow-hard I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Most big ticket items today do get repaired if they break. Most items are far more reliable than in the past. Electronics were easier to repair because they were huge with big spaced out components. They also happened to use way more electricity because they were so large with big spaced out components.
What happens when your car breaks. Do you get a new car? Or do you get it repaired?
What broke? Is it a head gasket? Transmission? I would wager that most vehicles are replaced when buying a new one becomes more economical than repairing the problems with the old.
Replacing things can very often be good for the environment in place of repairing old things. A modern refrigerator is far more energy efficient than a 15 year old one. Same with most appliances. Same with most vehicles.
Your nonsense about it being all about repairability is "utterly and totally wrong". But you can continue acting like a smug asshole so that you can feel that you get to be right if you want.
Coding tests like FizzBuzz (that one is useless because people can merely memorize the answer) are only useful for high level filtering. As in once you're down to 10 or so candidates. You can't watch or evaluate 100 people code FizzBuzz- it's impractical.
It's not just "clueless HR drones" that use degrees as requirements. A lot of people use it as a baseline to avoid wasting countless amounts of time. The percentage of useless people with degrees is going to be less than the percentage of useless people without.
Without economic incentive you do cut off higher education for anyone below upper class. You think people can afford to take loans and have to pay them off while starting from the bottom of the job market? Higher education has always given people a leg-up in employment.
I do agree with you that there are problems with higher education. The required degree in jobs that should not require it is a symptom not a cause. The employee market is over saturated with people with degrees (and those without) so employers might as well try to filter things down to their own benefit.
In my opinion there are a lot of people taking useless degrees that are becoming more useless as time goes on. But that's my opinion and who am I to tell people they shouldn't get a degree in something I don't like? You could make higher education harder and more stressful but then you will be filtering out otherwise intelligent people that do not like that kind of environment.
It's not a "this isn't what college is for" issue.
There is no such thing as "simply" testing for aptitude. Which again is the point of the degree. That individual should have had to go through several levels of not simple testing to get the degree.
All requiring degrees does is turn colleges into half-assed trade schools that people go to because they think it'll get them a job, defeating the point of college entirely.
It's a cute cliche but complete nonsense in practice. In your world I suppose college and university are only for those rich enough to be able to afford taking 4 or so years off of working with no economic benefit to themselves? There is a large gap between requiring an applicant to prove their aptitude through earning a degree and expecting universities to do all job training.
Slashdot Mirror
You are going off with anecdotal bullshit again. "It's not uncommon" does not mean anything. It's hand waving to make it seem common.
FeministFrequency's "in depth" talks are laughably horrible. I agree though, everyone should watch them so that they understand the intellectual honesty behind the "sexism is everywhere" griefers. It is completely biased nonsense that has been pointed out hundreds of times. Of course every time someone explains why she is wrong then she and people like you use that as proof that she is right.
The best thing you could do to help women in this struggle is to shut up. You are exactly the one-sided, brazenly biased overtly obtuse caricature that people have a problem with.
You are of the opinion that nothing bad happens to men and it always happens to women. This does nothing but hurt the conversation because it's demonstrably untrue. I assure you that, as a man, I have been groped at bars, grabbed on the bus, shouted at, "objectified" and all manner of things that would be considered "sexual harassment" in the workplace if it happened to a woman. Just because it doesn't happen to you does not mean it doesn't happen. Some of us guys actually have nice asses.
RAINN's "1 in 6" stat's reference defines rape as:
Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis.
It is exactly this completely biased "survey" method that make people conclude these groups have an ideology to push. The methodology in all of these surveys that show high numbers is always pretty poor and clearly biased. This is as close to "only men can rape" as they could get without explicitly stating "only men can rape".
An ad-hom fallacy is attacking someone's character to disprove their argument. For example: "serviscope_minor is an idiot and doesn't understand what logical fallacies are and therefore everything they say can be considered stupid and wrong".
You are trying to commit a fallacy fallacy (asserting someone committed a fallacy so their argument can be ignored). But you seem to have no idea what a fallacy is (lying isn't a fallacy by the way) and ended up just committing one yourself.
Almost never happens to guys and happens "pretty much constantly" to girls. I guess I should just accept your bold assertion without any evidence? It is easy to make a problem look one sided when you completely ignore all but one side.
If it happens to a man it's made up and we should ignore it. If it happens to a woman it's super important, not exaggerated, totally legit and we have to "realise the universality of it and the impact on a real person". Got it.
And men were supposed to go out and work themselves to death to pay for that woman to not have to do the same. They were expected to always put woman's health and well-being above their own (and still are according to this article). Stop being so myopic.
"Countless" would be the answer to your question.
Ah yes, the old "sometimes a white man gets shit so sexism and racism doesn't exist" argument. You do know that's an unsound argument, right?
You do know that's not what the poster was saying at all, right? You do know that strawmaning is an unsound argument, right?
You continually repeat that white men don't deal with these issues. Then when a white man comes out a says "well actually I do have to deal with those issues" you insult them and say they're implying racism/sexism doesn't exit.
Congrats on exemplifying exactly why the parent poster is so fed up with you idiots.
The questions are designed to establish a pattern of behaviour.
You can say that again. The questions are designed with a conclusion already in mind.
If you are depending on "the context" and what's "fairly clear" in a study you want to pass off as scientific then you need to be ousted from the field immediately. I would say that only people looking to deliberately misrepresent data would ask such an ambiguous statement in a survey.
It seems that for all the progress that has been made we still have a very long way to go, with such a large number of people still in denial.
Yeah, idiots like you keep getting in the way of real progress.
An erection is probably evidence of consent
How come I never see something like this mentioned when feminists talk about "rape culture"?
To answer your actual question they do it by saying that the act of penetration has to be done by the aggressor. Otherwise it's not rape.
Women do use that as an excuse for irritability and bad behaviour frequently enough that maybe these men are just willing to take women's word for something that they, as men, have no experience with. And being that many women do experience cramps and general uncomfortableness they may very well be extra irritable. But you're right, it's probably just horrible sexism from men again.
So constantly propositioning some one is not sexual harassment because that is a sexual preference thing and not a gender thing? No, sexual harassment absolutely refers to the sex act part. The term has been watered down to absurdity by this "women are weak and need to be constantly protected over everything" mentality. The term should mean something specific and instead it has been morphed into a nebulous term that can be applied to anything and nothing at the same time.
People say that this kind of thing should not be included in the definition because it muddies the term. Any fact of "legal definition" is not a counter point to "it shouldn't be part of the legal definition".
And what exactly are you doing? Does he have to give you the exact "dig coding" gene and explain why it's not expressed in women before you'll stop chanting "you're talking out of your ass"? It's not exactly outrages to say that two genders that often exhibit different preferences and interests might have different preferences and interests.
Somebody disagrees with you in a debate!? The nerve of some people!
In my experience it is the "far left" that considers "controversial" discussion as trolling that needs to be banned. If anything I would say jellomizer is pushing back against the far left trying to force everything to suit them. There is no wanting anything to change to suit. The current set of affairs seems to suit jellomizer fine and they are expressing they don't want others to change that.
What's reality101 is we do not transmit power for distances that great for a reason. It is lossy. It is expensive and hard to interface with. It is dangerous. And most importantly there is no infrastructure for it.
Powering the entire United States from a single source is just not feasible (or possible). Both because transmitting the power over distances that long and because there is no way to support that kind of load. You would need millions of high voltage power lines coming out of that central space. It also takes "single point of failure" to a whole new level.
Not to make a "no u" but have you read the drivel you've posted? Classic projection. Especially when you literally claimed victory earlier after spouting some lame insults. Tried to imply that everyone here is a "techno-illiterate" now. Compared to when? The ten months ago that you got here? Then turn around and claim that it's everyone else that isn't backing up their statements. Laughable.
You make some absurd statement about how things should be done a completely different way despite numerous people telling you why it isn't currently done that way. You cavalierly make the declaration that it would "just totally work" based entirely on your own assumption that you are smarter than everyone else.
The reason they aren't that modular is because technology changes rather quickly. In five years your non-modular competition makes a better fridge because they aren't locked to supporting antiquated technology. Or do you think you have a better solution to the free market now?
I'm a twit? Does that negate the fact that you are a self-righteous and arrogant blow-hard that isn't half as smart as you seem to think you are in some way?
Modular what? Modular freon systems? Do you even understand the engineering you are demanding? Modularity and energy efficiency are often at odds with one another.
Used to be? What are you talking about? Your UID is huge. You barely scraped in before the Twitter users. The only "techno-illiterate" here is you. You have some moronic notion of "if everyone just did things how I've imagined them everything would be glorious". You've clearly never thought through the details which is why people are disagreeing with you. You are performing lame grand-standing seemingly for validation based on your subsequent statements and your arrogant and narcissistic demeanor.
That's just not true. HVDC can have "acceptable" losses for what we currently consider "long hauls". These are no where near as long as across the entire continent. Losses also increase with demand and I can imagine having all power from one location being pretty demanding on it.
Depending on the failure rate (which is quite low despite what people seem to claim) those replacement parts would be sitting on shelves for long periods of time and probably never be used. Shelf space is one of the biggest costs to retail. Low failure rate and high cost of shelf space is why replacement parts are not stocked and you have to order them from pretty much anywhere. Stocking them would eat in to revenue and allow competition that didn't waste shelf space to out-compete. This is ignoring the logistics of employing someone that can repair whatever item in the rare occurrence that they're needed.
Wow, you might be the most pretentious blow-hard I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Most big ticket items today do get repaired if they break. Most items are far more reliable than in the past. Electronics were easier to repair because they were huge with big spaced out components. They also happened to use way more electricity because they were so large with big spaced out components.
What happens when your car breaks. Do you get a new car? Or do you get it repaired?
What broke? Is it a head gasket? Transmission? I would wager that most vehicles are replaced when buying a new one becomes more economical than repairing the problems with the old.
Replacing things can very often be good for the environment in place of repairing old things. A modern refrigerator is far more energy efficient than a 15 year old one. Same with most appliances. Same with most vehicles.
Your nonsense about it being all about repairability is "utterly and totally wrong". But you can continue acting like a smug asshole so that you can feel that you get to be right if you want.
And run a superconducting power transmission network across the country. But who cares about technical details like that?
Coding tests like FizzBuzz (that one is useless because people can merely memorize the answer) are only useful for high level filtering. As in once you're down to 10 or so candidates. You can't watch or evaluate 100 people code FizzBuzz- it's impractical.
It's not just "clueless HR drones" that use degrees as requirements. A lot of people use it as a baseline to avoid wasting countless amounts of time. The percentage of useless people with degrees is going to be less than the percentage of useless people without.
Without economic incentive you do cut off higher education for anyone below upper class. You think people can afford to take loans and have to pay them off while starting from the bottom of the job market? Higher education has always given people a leg-up in employment.
I do agree with you that there are problems with higher education. The required degree in jobs that should not require it is a symptom not a cause. The employee market is over saturated with people with degrees (and those without) so employers might as well try to filter things down to their own benefit.
In my opinion there are a lot of people taking useless degrees that are becoming more useless as time goes on. But that's my opinion and who am I to tell people they shouldn't get a degree in something I don't like? You could make higher education harder and more stressful but then you will be filtering out otherwise intelligent people that do not like that kind of environment.
It's not a "this isn't what college is for" issue.
There is no such thing as "simply" testing for aptitude. Which again is the point of the degree. That individual should have had to go through several levels of not simple testing to get the degree.
All requiring degrees does is turn colleges into half-assed trade schools that people go to because they think it'll get them a job, defeating the point of college entirely.
It's a cute cliche but complete nonsense in practice. In your world I suppose college and university are only for those rich enough to be able to afford taking 4 or so years off of working with no economic benefit to themselves? There is a large gap between requiring an applicant to prove their aptitude through earning a degree and expecting universities to do all job training.