This is one of the more hilarious hypocrisies of feminism, that women are both equally capable and are functionally indistinguishable from men, and can somehow simultaneously bring unique abilities and perspectives to the table. Which is it? And what the fuck ever happened to unique abilities derived from merit rather than what's between your legs?
We can confidently predict that when we release say a medicine which destroys a particular type of infectious disease into the environment, some percentage of the bacteria will survive and develop resistance, breeding new strains requiring new medicines. This is a prediction which is based upon the theory of evolution.
No, that's communism: chapter 2, proletarians and communists, of the communist manifesto. There's plenty of other good stuff in there too if you take a look, equal liability of all to work (slavery), confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (wow), centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State (delightful), and so on and so forth. Stalin may have been the one to most prominently implement it but he was just playing it by the book.
By "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. -Manifesto of the Communist Party
How about we sweep away the communists/marxists/stalinists/feminists/national socialists/maoists instead and save ourselves the effort of digging graves for another hundred million innocent people.
Who's California going to war with? Much of the rest of the worlds has a surplus of fresh water, because we didn't start building cities in the middle of deserts. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that desalination is orders of magnitude cheaper than wars one way or the other.
Communism certainly was and remains evil. It's funny how wherever Marxist theory and it's family members take root, enormous piles of dead bodies tend to accumulate very quickly. The best thing for the universe would be for the derivatives of that drunken deadbeat racist adulterer's work to be expunged from every social and academic body post haste.
The results of war are already truly horrifying. The only thing that nukes bring to the table is the fact that they'll kill the politicians too. Which, unsurprisingly, is enough to prevent open war.
There's plenty of water just floating around out there without needing to climb out of a gravity well to get it. Still I think we should go to Europa, but with a probe that's able to dig down then dig back up with the data. I'd imagine designing such a probe would be quite difficult given the pressures down there however. I can't see feeding out wire behind it as being a starter, 100km of wire is never going to be that portable... unless the spool was on the surface along with a transmitter... hmm... shearing issues?
Yes, but was that indicative of gender based pay discrimination or employers simply failing to acknowledge and adjust for the social neccessity of families? There's a big difference between the two, one leads to paid maternity leave, the other feeds into all sorts of toxic narratives which have a real human cost.
Such as for example the lack of support for victimised men in relationships with violent women, despite rates of domestic and intimate partner violence being equally divided between the genders.
I don't have the time to access his research, but he's saying the exact same thing as most people are saying right here - once you control for education, experience, hours worked and so on, the gender pay gap basically vanishes. I don't see why it should be any less believable back then than today.
And this, incidentally, is critical thinking; challenging the accepted narrative when new information comes to light.
Play this video instead, an interview with Thomas Sowell from it looks like the 60s, where he's saying exactly the same thing as is apparently being "discovered" these days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
And this mind you was around the time of second wave feminism.
There's quite a lot of dispute that there was ever a gender based wage gap. Reading Dorothy Dix from the 20s and 30s, she seemed to think that men and women were compensated equivalently at that time, and earlier. Which if you think about it makes sense, if a company could hire one gender for less, why wouldn't they hire that gender exclusively?
Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?
"Controlling for observer biases" is a perfectly adequate, accepted, and well recognised way of putting it.
I'm extremely wary of any politicisation of science (and like it or not "check your privilege" is a very political phrase, being used not for a normalisation of perspective but rather to infer a hierarchy of social advantages which may or may not have any grounding in reality) not least due to the real horrors of politicised science brought to us by the 19th and early 20th century, many of which still haunt us to this day. See for reference scientific racism and eugenics.
So yeah, language like this being used in association with actual scientific progress is a big red flag as far as I'm concerned.
I don't like, actually. While I generally agree that a new orthodoxy is bad news in science and scientists shouldn't fear being shunned for putting forward new theories which go against that orthodoxy, I find it disturbing that the language of murky social engineering is finding its way into "scientific" commentary. The only people I've ever heard talk like that are those interested in equality of outcome, not of opportunity, which is pretty much the opposite of science.
There are posters in this very thread who say they make a good living from Megacorps who've licensed their patents. Is there some reason they haven't been "crushed"?
They're already reasonably short lived - most industries don't move at the breakneck speed of the IT/tech business so they may seem overlengthy here, but everywhere else they're acceptable. And even in IT, the guy that invented the mouse didn't get a cent because mice didn't become widespread till after his patent expired, so there's another side to the story.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the more hilarious hypocrisies of feminism, that women are both equally capable and are functionally indistinguishable from men, and can somehow simultaneously bring unique abilities and perspectives to the table. Which is it? And what the fuck ever happened to unique abilities derived from merit rather than what's between your legs?
More affordable than Games Workshop models anyway...
We can confidently predict that when we release say a medicine which destroys a particular type of infectious disease into the environment, some percentage of the bacteria will survive and develop resistance, breeding new strains requiring new medicines. This is a prediction which is based upon the theory of evolution.
That makes sense alright. You'd make an excellent criminal Rich0. :p
Eh kinda hard to get line of sight to a drone through a forest. Maybe they should be looking for the guy clingling grimly to the tops of the trees?
No, that's communism: chapter 2, proletarians and communists, of the communist manifesto. There's plenty of other good stuff in there too if you take a look, equal liability of all to work (slavery), confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (wow), centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State (delightful), and so on and so forth. Stalin may have been the one to most prominently implement it but he was just playing it by the book.
The communist book.
By "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
-Manifesto of the Communist Party
How about we sweep away the communists/marxists/stalinists/feminists/national socialists/maoists instead and save ourselves the effort of digging graves for another hundred million innocent people.
Who's California going to war with? Much of the rest of the worlds has a surplus of fresh water, because we didn't start building cities in the middle of deserts. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that desalination is orders of magnitude cheaper than wars one way or the other.
Communism certainly was and remains evil. It's funny how wherever Marxist theory and it's family members take root, enormous piles of dead bodies tend to accumulate very quickly. The best thing for the universe would be for the derivatives of that drunken deadbeat racist adulterer's work to be expunged from every social and academic body post haste.
Oh you mean like Pakistan?
The results of war are already truly horrifying. The only thing that nukes bring to the table is the fact that they'll kill the politicians too. Which, unsurprisingly, is enough to prevent open war.
Sound could do it easy enough.
There's plenty of water just floating around out there without needing to climb out of a gravity well to get it. Still I think we should go to Europa, but with a probe that's able to dig down then dig back up with the data. I'd imagine designing such a probe would be quite difficult given the pressures down there however. I can't see feeding out wire behind it as being a starter, 100km of wire is never going to be that portable... unless the spool was on the surface along with a transmitter... hmm... shearing issues?
Everyone's got something of value, even if it's only their vote...
Yes, but was that indicative of gender based pay discrimination or employers simply failing to acknowledge and adjust for the social neccessity of families? There's a big difference between the two, one leads to paid maternity leave, the other feeds into all sorts of toxic narratives which have a real human cost.
Such as for example the lack of support for victimised men in relationships with violent women, despite rates of domestic and intimate partner violence being equally divided between the genders.
I don't have the time to access his research, but he's saying the exact same thing as most people are saying right here - once you control for education, experience, hours worked and so on, the gender pay gap basically vanishes. I don't see why it should be any less believable back then than today.
And this, incidentally, is critical thinking; challenging the accepted narrative when new information comes to light.
Play this video instead, an interview with Thomas Sowell from it looks like the 60s, where he's saying exactly the same thing as is apparently being "discovered" these days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
And this mind you was around the time of second wave feminism.
There's quite a lot of dispute that there was ever a gender based wage gap. Reading Dorothy Dix from the 20s and 30s, she seemed to think that men and women were compensated equivalently at that time, and earlier. Which if you think about it makes sense, if a company could hire one gender for less, why wouldn't they hire that gender exclusively?
Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?
3) Behind the third cushion on the right in your couch /NSA //You're welcome
Beautiful, beautiful words from a scientific perspective.
"Controlling for observer biases" is a perfectly adequate, accepted, and well recognised way of putting it.
I'm extremely wary of any politicisation of science (and like it or not "check your privilege" is a very political phrase, being used not for a normalisation of perspective but rather to infer a hierarchy of social advantages which may or may not have any grounding in reality) not least due to the real horrors of politicised science brought to us by the 19th and early 20th century, many of which still haunt us to this day. See for reference scientific racism and eugenics.
So yeah, language like this being used in association with actual scientific progress is a big red flag as far as I'm concerned.
I don't like, actually. While I generally agree that a new orthodoxy is bad news in science and scientists shouldn't fear being shunned for putting forward new theories which go against that orthodoxy, I find it disturbing that the language of murky social engineering is finding its way into "scientific" commentary. The only people I've ever heard talk like that are those interested in equality of outcome, not of opportunity, which is pretty much the opposite of science.
There are posters in this very thread who say they make a good living from Megacorps who've licensed their patents. Is there some reason they haven't been "crushed"?
They're already reasonably short lived - most industries don't move at the breakneck speed of the IT/tech business so they may seem overlengthy here, but everywhere else they're acceptable. And even in IT, the guy that invented the mouse didn't get a cent because mice didn't become widespread till after his patent expired, so there's another side to the story.
For over a grand it seems like you could get a second hand scooter or something.