It is utterly futile. One thing which happened is that a significant amount of this got pushed into conservative space since it is mostly the left wing types pushing to shut these places down. And right or wrong a lot of obstensively left wing people found allies in right wing sources if only because they were allowed to keep talking. The whole GG thing was really sort of amazing. There are were a lot of life long democrats that literally switched political affiliations because of that thing.
There is no real way to shut down speech in our society and the technology just makes it extremely futile. All you can do is out yourself as a fascist by trying to shut down speech. That is the closest you can get to limiting speech... declaring yourself as a fascist. It has no other long term effect.
How long did it take after moot started fucking around with 4chan before 8chan existed? No time at all. The people trying to shut down speech are only making fools of themselves. Its like fighting the war on drugs or something. The harder you try to shut it down the more pressure there is for someone to provide the product. It is a feed back loop. You can't win.
Fair point. However, a huge amount of the gender studies stuff does go through a uniformly female academic program and nearly all of it is peer reviewed by literally 5 people. So in this case not the case... point to you.
If you can't handle the occasional goatse then just get off the internet. It is one of the nice things about communities like that in that they self filter out whining babies that lose their shit at anything.
If you just pulse something horrible every now and again they all leave and what is left is ironically more mature. The whiners talk about civility but it really just boils down to an endless list of things they expect everyone to do. Go to tumblr to find out where they all went apparently.
Show a picture of a 50 year old guy in his underwear that looks really excited. Then say something like "Do you really want your naked body to be what this guy is staring at tonight?"
Or something like that. That should get the message home to the stupid 13 year old girls. Nothing short of a sledgehammer gets through to teenagers.
You pull out your trans card like it somehow is a rhetorical auto win.
You believe in our equality yes? Then why are you presuming to cite your persuasion and some how instantly win without actually presenting a reason for it?
You say "maybe people speak about me like you behind my back"... like what? What did I say that was wrong?
Even someone that is trans should get the humor of the trans feminists shutting down the vagina monologues because they don't have vaginas. Come on. That's hilarious.
I'm not afraid of your trans nature. It doesn't mean anything to me. What offends me if anything is that people of any gender presume to use their gender to exert power over other people when they didn't earn that power.
You're trans? Great. Remind me why I care. I don't look down upon you.
I also don't look down upon the women feminists or otherwise but their vaginas are not an excuse to tell anyone to shut up about anything. That's plumbing.
We are both individuals. You. Me. Individuals.
You talk to me individual to individual and we can respect each other. You presume to play your trans card and that frankly gives me the right to play my hetro male card. You can doubtless slam some very powerful politically correct punches at me. But then if I play my hetro male card I can just laugh at and not care. That's how the hetro male card works. I didn't make those rules they're printed on the card.
Now, I'd rather not do that. So you don't try to use your gender against me and I won't use my gender against you.
Seems fair. We can all just respect and love each other... if people aren't going out of their way to be assholes to each other. And the feminists are going out of their way to be assholes. And you shoving your trans in my face and presuming to make me feel bad for you or something is also a dick move.
Be nice or how is it immoral if your opposition takes the gloves off and engages?
I am not your enemy. All I ask is to be left alone. You leave me alone. I leave you alone. Feminists get in my face... then they want to play. What do you expect men to do? Roll over and die because some confused bats get tweaked by some seriously silly propaganda?
Saying something deserves inquiry is no more an admission of your correctness then an accused man refusing to speak is evidence that he is guilty.
What you have is evidence of something interesting. I didn't say that it wasn't worth looking into because really even if it isn't sexism clearly something is going on. And whatever it is will be interesting.
... personality is tracable to your real life personality.
That should be a day in computer "science" class in... grade school.
"Okay kids"... "Repeat after me, NEVER use your real name or post pictures of yourself on the internet".
If you want to share photos with a friend, email them to him/her. If you want to have a place where you can store videos and photos, then do that on a private server or on some system you can wipe.
Do not use facebook. I know, that's hard. But if you use facebook, the principle will ask for your password at some point for no reason and you'll be compelled to provide it on pain of expulsion. So. Don't be that dumb. Don't use facebook.
that place always had a different vibe... Rotten is more cesspit of hell rather then the anarchy of 4chan. 4chan would have people going just to look at all the weirdos. Or possibly dragon slay some crazy people. But rotten was pretty much demons and devils 69 skull raping each other... and apparently loving every horrifying minute of it.
I believe rotten is what gave rise to the term "eye bleach" and "mind bleach" because you'd see something so disturbing that you needed it erased from your life to carry on without emotional scars.
It is hard not to associate this with 8chan
on
Moot Retires From 4chan
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
... I don't want to kick a man while he's down and it is nice that he's not taking any parting shots at anyone as he goes. But I think the stress of running the community was that at some point he forgot the point of 4chan.
4chan was the place you could say ANYTHING. People would go on the most insane rants on that site. Say some positively evil things. And judge that as you will, there are very few places on the internet that are well known that you could get away with that sort of thing. And was sort of cathordic in its wild west post apocalypic simplicity.
4chan was chaos and anarchy. It was full of people rhetorically stuffing kittens with explosives and then offering them to people with grin. The trolling was incredible.
But there was also a savage beauty to the place.
At some point, I think Moot tried to civilize it. And that was a huge mistake. These people... were already civilized. They spent every day being civilized and polite people going throughout their lives. And 4chan was a place people could go to be wild... people would spray paint their faces blue and randomly shiv someone because that was what they felt like doing. Wrong? that sort of thing is in us at some level. Might as well let it out on an internet forum rather then elsewhere.
Anyway, lets hope either 4chan returns to what it was or 8chan picks up the slack.
Those that say "8chan has something in it I don't like"... that's the point. Its there because it can't be anywhere else. Which is what 4chan used to be.
But are we not told that not all women have vaginas and that some women can be women while also having penises?
So... why so bigoted?:-D
I believe a production put on by a feminist organization of the vagina monologues was canceled because it was discriminatory towards women without vaginas. True story.
True enough. Though capitalism, much to the frustration of socialists and communists and politicians, is not a popularity contest.
Hated people do well all the time because while someone might not like a person, they'd rather pay that person 2.05 then pay someone they do like 4.22.
It is why so many of these silly slacktivist campaigns collapse. At the end of the day, the people complaining are going to get into their cars, start up their fossil fuel burning engines, lean back into their leather seats, listen to music brought to them from some publisher or other, possibly stop off to get food at a fast food place, and then pull into their home where they'll engage the central heating which is ultimaely either provided by natural gas or electrical power from a coal power plant.
Logistics in other words. And unless you're prepared to deal with all of that and provide all of those services better at a lower cost... OR convince everyone to pay more for less... who is popular doesn't really matter.
And I don't really mind. Who wants life to just be a repeat of junior high school... forever... where everything is about the popular kid... forever. When does the kid that is smart and works really hard matter? If popularity is everything, that kid will always be the nerd that no one cares about.
Capitalism is great because every type of person can succeed in it. Even the nerd has a chance if he's good at something or has a good idea. the popular kids can be movie stars and politicians. The nerds can make things and design things. The creative types can create art and sell that and have their art judged by whether anyone anywhere is willing to pay anything for it. I've seen people painting in human waste make an impressive living. So... clearly there is something out there for everyone.
It is better this way. It would be a poorer world if it were all about politics and nothing else.
Blast open the door with what? Why do you think a drone can carry more fire power then just some dude walking around?
I weigh about 170 pounds. I can carry about 200 pounds short distances without a lot of trouble. If have to carry it long distances, then I'd like to keep the weight under 50 pounds.
How many pounds do you think a drone can carry?
A toy drone is not as threatening as you make it out to be especially if the thing is flying/hovering. If it is rolling around on wheels then it could perhaps pack some heavier weaponry. But even then its primary advantage would be disposability rather then per unit lethality. I'd bet on the humans every time in equal numbers versus little drones assuming the humans had weapons.
Lets say the the drones were rolling around like those Saber drones. A single RPG would kill one of those easily. Which is cheaper... an RPG round or a saber drone? Same thing with a little flying drone.
I can see those being used for recon and MAYBE an assassination or terrorist attack. But main line combat as an assault asset? Laughable.
If the issues were still that serious then black people would be in chains and women would be making sandwiches.
Get this through your head. White people freed black people. The black people did not heroically rebel and overthrow their overlords. The opinions and values of the nation changed and black people were freed as a consequence of that.
Same thing with women. Look at Saudi Arabia. Do you honestly think that the men of the west couldn't keep the women making sandwiches for all time? Think again.
And on top of that, we're a republic and not a dictatorship so these things happening are a result of a general change in public opinion on the matter.
Does that mean that there aren't racists and sexists out there? They will always exist. Always.
And while you sit there and say "legislating it doesn't make it go away" I have to ask what all the activists are trying to do then if they're not trying to get laws passed? Because it sure sounds like they want laws passed. And if laws don't make something so then clearly they've confused themselves.
The real civil rights issues are not about race or gender. They're about basic human freedoms. Access to information. Due process. Transparency of government. Corruption.
These are things that will matter in the generation to come.
This gender race thing makes about as much sense as those moron politicians that thought the solution to the 2008 economic crisis was to build literal bridges and literal trains as if the whole thing were a repeat of the 1930s.
It isn't the 1930s and it isn't the 1960s.
It is 2000 fucking 15. I'm guessing everyone saw some movie or documentary that got them all nostalgic but that sentiment is about as rational as 8 year olds running around naked with red towels tied around their necks because they saw 300 or something.
The problems that we face are contextual to this time period. Not the whatever your parents or grand parents precieve as the "glory days". Those were THEIR glory days.
OUR glory days are NOW. And our issues are OURS to define. Not theirs. Stop letting other people define what you must think and believe. That is another big problem we need to struggle against.
Mass media, politicians, interest groups... the megaphone ideas out there and most people just slurp them up without thinking about them. That has to stop. Liberate your mind. Think for yourself. Stop just repeating shit someone repeated in front of you so many times that it is stuck in your head like a catchy tune.
This should be the rise of the individual. We are in the age of the 3d printer. The age of the internet where any fool can get access to any bit of information. We have all these wonderful technologies that level the playing field between the haves and the have nots and so many idiots are stuck singing an old song that is about as relevant today as "Johnny comes marching home"... which is a WW1 song by the way.
You don't have why, sport. And you need it for your moral crusade. Absent why, you have some interesting statistics that are justification for further inquiry.
Not a crusade. You want your moral hobby horse to ride against the evil doers? Get why locked down.
Well, you have to consider that we've also created a situation where it is expensive for businesses to take risks on employees as well.
Now, right or wrong... would you blame a company for feeling that one name or another was less risky?
Something you could do that would make it cheaper to take risks would be to make it easier to fire people arbitarily shortly after being hired. Additionally, reduce the red tape and legal exposure of hiring and then firing someone.
If I can try someone out, see if they're any good first hand, and then have the option to keep them on or terminate them without being subjected to a bunch of bullshit then I'm going to be more inclined to hire people that might not work out.
The other issue is that all this racial/gender/political correct diversity nonsense just makes everyone feel really tense for no reason. Especially people that are painted as the wicked stepmother in this little fairy tale. It is the 21st century.
Raise your hand if you've ever owned slaves.
Raise your hand if you've ever beaten a women for not knowing her place.
Exactly. Can we get over this shit please? We're all just people. If we're going to work together then this nonsense needs to stop. Because bringing it up endlessly if anything makes people of all arbitrarily relevant phenotypes uncomfortable with anyone that isn't a member of their arbitrarily relevant phenotype.
I can fire or yell at a person that is from my phenotype and not get accused of discrimination or racism or sexism or whatever. But do that to someone of another phenotype? Suddenly I'm a fucking monster. That creates problems.
And here some bright spark is going to say "well just don't yell at people"... only sometimes people need to be yelled at. Its that or you just fire everyone that fucked up the first time and while terrible managers think that is a great idea the turn over and constant retraining required to sustain that folly isn't efficient. It is a lot easier to fix a broken employee then it is to replace them typically. The only thing you cannot abide is a lack of integrity or a lack of respect. Either one of those happens from a subordinate and it has to get corrected fast or they're gone.
Not necessarily. There are a lot of rich kids that know who all the rappers are and there are some poor kids that learned how to play the violin at 8.
You're trying to simply the world. To break everyone down into simple groups and pretend that we're not all just individuals.
I'm an individual. I am not a group. I am not strictly speaking in a lot of groups but I share things in common with a lot of groups that you wouldn't expect.
I know things you wouldn't expect looking at my background. And I like things that you wouldn't expect looking at my background.
I am capable of things that you wouldn't expect unless I just told you. It won't show up on anything.
As to diversity solving problems... people that think differently can come up with different approaches. That is about as far as that goes. It is useful. But more relevant is how competent they actually are. I'll take a dozen really good but very similar engineers any day over a bunch of okay engineers that are all really different.
Yes, the work done by the diverse group will probably be more interesting but the point of engineering is not to be entertaining. The really good engineers are more likely to actually have done a good job even if it were done in a boring way.
If one person stands up and says something that the rest don't want to hear they'll just say "liar" and shut him down even if he's completely legit. That is the problem with down voting etc. It is really just a popularity contest.
I get up voted and downvoted on this site pretty much at random. I'll say something that seems like a reach and everyone loves it. I'll say something else that makes some little faction unhappy but is completely f'ing obvious and get downvoted.
Up or down votes have nothing to do with truth. Just popularity.
Likely a gender studies department. No one ever audits them and they get to peer review themselves. I believe nearly all of it comes from a circle of about 5 prominent female professors that basically just circle jerk the entire subject.
We're talking about low flying, slow, unarmored toy drones... A flak shell will fucking murder those things. Kindly stop repeating something you misheard in a documentary.
Flak was very effective in WW2. If it were not then why were the bombers flying at such a high altitude? Have any idea what the survival rate of bombers would be if they flew a bit above tree level? Ground fire would annihilate them.
The B17s could operate at well above 6 miles above sea level. Why were they flying that high? Were they trying to bomb clouds or get as far away from the ground as possible until they got near their target? And even then, why did they develop bomber sights so that bombers could hit targets at altitude instead of just dive bomb? Dive bombing or bombing at lower altitudes would not require the computer and would probably be more accurate regardless.
Why did they do all that? Because getting near the ground was death. Because the flak was fucking murder.
That is why.
And we're talking about little stupid toy drones that are going to operate at less then 500 feet probably. And you're telling me flak wouldn't kill a toy drone or be able to target it?
Absolutely not. You do not have anything that says why they did it. You are pulling their speculation from the bottom of the abstract and calling it a fact derived from the study which is literally impossible without "WHY".
As to your retraction that longer life is the dominant reason female healthcare is higher, then that means your statement above did not refute my point about the healthcare being relevant. My argument on that point is therefore sustained. Noted.
As to relevant facts, you don't know which facts are and are not relevant. You are assuming things. Yes, the resumes were identical except for the sex. Granted. Why the stats break down the way they did? You don't know. You NEED to know to judge people. You don't know why and you MUST know why to make a moral judgment.
MORALITY REQUIRES WHY.
If I shoot someone in the face, is the reason I did that relevant? If I hit someone with my car, is the reason for that relevant? If I steal from someone, is the reason relevant?
Context is relevant. Here you'll say all these people were previously unknown and so can't have any personal context with the hiring party. Sure. But that ignores that the hiring party exists within a culture, legal system, and financial system that might make simply knowing the gender enough to bias what the SHOULD pay a given applicant and of course whether or not they should even hire a given applicant.
You don't know any of this without why. Absent why you have nothing but speculation. You can sputter and sputter and sputter. But the why is critical for a moral judgment. You cannot show prejudice without it. And without prejudice you cannot justify a moral crusade. The why is vital.
As to asking only working if it is conscious, then you're in even more trouble because if you can't ask then you have to psychoanalyze the answer out of each person until you can get a pattern out of them. And that might prove difficult. What is more, you don't know how psychoanalyzing works... so I'm guessing you're just going to assume that you can look at someone for five seconds and mind read them which has been your previous impression of how that practice works. You'd better hope it isn't subconscious. If it is subconscious then getting a definitive answer is going to be almost impossible.
As to disproving that institutional sexism does not exist, you would need to prove that it does to disprove what I said. What you showed was a study that suggests it might exist.
Slashdot Mirror
It is utterly futile. One thing which happened is that a significant amount of this got pushed into conservative space since it is mostly the left wing types pushing to shut these places down. And right or wrong a lot of obstensively left wing people found allies in right wing sources if only because they were allowed to keep talking. The whole GG thing was really sort of amazing. There are were a lot of life long democrats that literally switched political affiliations because of that thing.
There is no real way to shut down speech in our society and the technology just makes it extremely futile. All you can do is out yourself as a fascist by trying to shut down speech. That is the closest you can get to limiting speech... declaring yourself as a fascist. It has no other long term effect.
How long did it take after moot started fucking around with 4chan before 8chan existed? No time at all. The people trying to shut down speech are only making fools of themselves. Its like fighting the war on drugs or something. The harder you try to shut it down the more pressure there is for someone to provide the product. It is a feed back loop. You can't win.
Fair point. However, a huge amount of the gender studies stuff does go through a uniformly female academic program and nearly all of it is peer reviewed by literally 5 people. So in this case not the case... point to you.
I stand corrected.
yep. I preferred it.
If you can't handle the occasional goatse then just get off the internet. It is one of the nice things about communities like that in that they self filter out whining babies that lose their shit at anything.
If you just pulse something horrible every now and again they all leave and what is left is ironically more mature. The whiners talk about civility but it really just boils down to an endless list of things they expect everyone to do. Go to tumblr to find out where they all went apparently.
That would actually be a great PSA.
Show a picture of a 50 year old guy in his underwear that looks really excited. Then say something like "Do you really want your naked body to be what this guy is staring at tonight?"
Or something like that. That should get the message home to the stupid 13 year old girls. Nothing short of a sledgehammer gets through to teenagers.
Worst case you can flee to the deep web. Anarchy should have a place where it can be itself.
You pull out your trans card like it somehow is a rhetorical auto win.
You believe in our equality yes? Then why are you presuming to cite your persuasion and some how instantly win without actually presenting a reason for it?
You say "maybe people speak about me like you behind my back"... like what? What did I say that was wrong?
Even someone that is trans should get the humor of the trans feminists shutting down the vagina monologues because they don't have vaginas. Come on. That's hilarious.
I'm not afraid of your trans nature. It doesn't mean anything to me. What offends me if anything is that people of any gender presume to use their gender to exert power over other people when they didn't earn that power.
You're trans? Great. Remind me why I care. I don't look down upon you.
I also don't look down upon the women feminists or otherwise but their vaginas are not an excuse to tell anyone to shut up about anything. That's plumbing.
We are both individuals. You. Me. Individuals.
You talk to me individual to individual and we can respect each other. You presume to play your trans card and that frankly gives me the right to play my hetro male card. You can doubtless slam some very powerful politically correct punches at me. But then if I play my hetro male card I can just laugh at and not care. That's how the hetro male card works. I didn't make those rules they're printed on the card.
Now, I'd rather not do that. So you don't try to use your gender against me and I won't use my gender against you.
Seems fair. We can all just respect and love each other... if people aren't going out of their way to be assholes to each other. And the feminists are going out of their way to be assholes. And you shoving your trans in my face and presuming to make me feel bad for you or something is also a dick move.
Be nice or how is it immoral if your opposition takes the gloves off and engages?
I am not your enemy. All I ask is to be left alone. You leave me alone. I leave you alone. Feminists get in my face... then they want to play. What do you expect men to do? Roll over and die because some confused bats get tweaked by some seriously silly propaganda?
Not going to happen.
Saying something deserves inquiry is no more an admission of your correctness then an accused man refusing to speak is evidence that he is guilty.
What you have is evidence of something interesting. I didn't say that it wasn't worth looking into because really even if it isn't sexism clearly something is going on. And whatever it is will be interesting.
... personality is tracable to your real life personality.
That should be a day in computer "science" class in... grade school.
"Okay kids"... "Repeat after me, NEVER use your real name or post pictures of yourself on the internet".
If you want to share photos with a friend, email them to him/her. If you want to have a place where you can store videos and photos, then do that on a private server or on some system you can wipe.
Do not use facebook. I know, that's hard. But if you use facebook, the principle will ask for your password at some point for no reason and you'll be compelled to provide it on pain of expulsion. So. Don't be that dumb. Don't use facebook.
that place always had a different vibe... Rotten is more cesspit of hell rather then the anarchy of 4chan. 4chan would have people going just to look at all the weirdos. Or possibly dragon slay some crazy people. But rotten was pretty much demons and devils 69 skull raping each other... and apparently loving every horrifying minute of it.
I believe rotten is what gave rise to the term "eye bleach" and "mind bleach" because you'd see something so disturbing that you needed it erased from your life to carry on without emotional scars.
... I don't want to kick a man while he's down and it is nice that he's not taking any parting shots at anyone as he goes. But I think the stress of running the community was that at some point he forgot the point of 4chan.
4chan was the place you could say ANYTHING. People would go on the most insane rants on that site. Say some positively evil things. And judge that as you will, there are very few places on the internet that are well known that you could get away with that sort of thing. And was sort of cathordic in its wild west post apocalypic simplicity.
4chan was chaos and anarchy. It was full of people rhetorically stuffing kittens with explosives and then offering them to people with grin. The trolling was incredible.
But there was also a savage beauty to the place.
At some point, I think Moot tried to civilize it. And that was a huge mistake. These people... were already civilized. They spent every day being civilized and polite people going throughout their lives. And 4chan was a place people could go to be wild... people would spray paint their faces blue and randomly shiv someone because that was what they felt like doing. Wrong? that sort of thing is in us at some level. Might as well let it out on an internet forum rather then elsewhere.
Anyway, lets hope either 4chan returns to what it was or 8chan picks up the slack.
Those that say "8chan has something in it I don't like"... that's the point. Its there because it can't be anywhere else. Which is what 4chan used to be.
Fine... whatever. I think I made my point. You disagree if you like... I'm bored now.
But are we not told that not all women have vaginas and that some women can be women while also having penises?
So... why so bigoted? :-D
I believe a production put on by a feminist organization of the vagina monologues was canceled because it was discriminatory towards women without vaginas. True story.
It is turtles all the way down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
True enough. Though capitalism, much to the frustration of socialists and communists and politicians, is not a popularity contest.
Hated people do well all the time because while someone might not like a person, they'd rather pay that person 2.05 then pay someone they do like 4.22.
It is why so many of these silly slacktivist campaigns collapse. At the end of the day, the people complaining are going to get into their cars, start up their fossil fuel burning engines, lean back into their leather seats, listen to music brought to them from some publisher or other, possibly stop off to get food at a fast food place, and then pull into their home where they'll engage the central heating which is ultimaely either provided by natural gas or electrical power from a coal power plant.
Logistics in other words. And unless you're prepared to deal with all of that and provide all of those services better at a lower cost... OR convince everyone to pay more for less... who is popular doesn't really matter.
And I don't really mind. Who wants life to just be a repeat of junior high school... forever... where everything is about the popular kid... forever. When does the kid that is smart and works really hard matter? If popularity is everything, that kid will always be the nerd that no one cares about.
Capitalism is great because every type of person can succeed in it. Even the nerd has a chance if he's good at something or has a good idea. the popular kids can be movie stars and politicians. The nerds can make things and design things. The creative types can create art and sell that and have their art judged by whether anyone anywhere is willing to pay anything for it. I've seen people painting in human waste make an impressive living. So... clearly there is something out there for everyone.
It is better this way. It would be a poorer world if it were all about politics and nothing else.
Blast open the door with what? Why do you think a drone can carry more fire power then just some dude walking around?
I weigh about 170 pounds. I can carry about 200 pounds short distances without a lot of trouble. If have to carry it long distances, then I'd like to keep the weight under 50 pounds.
How many pounds do you think a drone can carry?
A toy drone is not as threatening as you make it out to be especially if the thing is flying/hovering. If it is rolling around on wheels then it could perhaps pack some heavier weaponry. But even then its primary advantage would be disposability rather then per unit lethality. I'd bet on the humans every time in equal numbers versus little drones assuming the humans had weapons.
Lets say the the drones were rolling around like those Saber drones. A single RPG would kill one of those easily. Which is cheaper... an RPG round or a saber drone? Same thing with a little flying drone.
I can see those being used for recon and MAYBE an assassination or terrorist attack. But main line combat as an assault asset? Laughable.
No. I said the stats justified inquiry.
No where did I ever say the subject shouldn't be studied or investigated.
I'm bored with you now... you're another of those sad figures that just wants to win rather then caring if he's actually right or not.
By all means... disagree. I'm bored.
Its the internet and a discussion forum at that... colorful language is a prerequist to being read.
If you're boring, people don't listen and then you might as well not even post... unless it is really short.
And I do love to rant.
If the issues were still that serious then black people would be in chains and women would be making sandwiches.
Get this through your head. White people freed black people. The black people did not heroically rebel and overthrow their overlords. The opinions and values of the nation changed and black people were freed as a consequence of that.
Same thing with women. Look at Saudi Arabia. Do you honestly think that the men of the west couldn't keep the women making sandwiches for all time? Think again.
And on top of that, we're a republic and not a dictatorship so these things happening are a result of a general change in public opinion on the matter.
Does that mean that there aren't racists and sexists out there? They will always exist. Always.
And while you sit there and say "legislating it doesn't make it go away" I have to ask what all the activists are trying to do then if they're not trying to get laws passed? Because it sure sounds like they want laws passed. And if laws don't make something so then clearly they've confused themselves.
The real civil rights issues are not about race or gender. They're about basic human freedoms. Access to information. Due process. Transparency of government. Corruption.
These are things that will matter in the generation to come.
This gender race thing makes about as much sense as those moron politicians that thought the solution to the 2008 economic crisis was to build literal bridges and literal trains as if the whole thing were a repeat of the 1930s.
It isn't the 1930s and it isn't the 1960s.
It is 2000 fucking 15. I'm guessing everyone saw some movie or documentary that got them all nostalgic but that sentiment is about as rational as 8 year olds running around naked with red towels tied around their necks because they saw 300 or something.
The problems that we face are contextual to this time period. Not the whatever your parents or grand parents precieve as the "glory days". Those were THEIR glory days.
OUR glory days are NOW. And our issues are OURS to define. Not theirs. Stop letting other people define what you must think and believe. That is another big problem we need to struggle against.
Mass media, politicians, interest groups... the megaphone ideas out there and most people just slurp them up without thinking about them. That has to stop. Liberate your mind. Think for yourself. Stop just repeating shit someone repeated in front of you so many times that it is stuck in your head like a catchy tune.
This should be the rise of the individual. We are in the age of the 3d printer. The age of the internet where any fool can get access to any bit of information. We have all these wonderful technologies that level the playing field between the haves and the have nots and so many idiots are stuck singing an old song that is about as relevant today as "Johnny comes marching home"... which is a WW1 song by the way.
We can be better then this.
You don't have why, sport. And you need it for your moral crusade. Absent why, you have some interesting statistics that are justification for further inquiry.
Not a crusade. You want your moral hobby horse to ride against the evil doers? Get why locked down.
Till then... nope.
Well, you have to consider that we've also created a situation where it is expensive for businesses to take risks on employees as well.
Now, right or wrong... would you blame a company for feeling that one name or another was less risky?
Something you could do that would make it cheaper to take risks would be to make it easier to fire people arbitarily shortly after being hired. Additionally, reduce the red tape and legal exposure of hiring and then firing someone.
If I can try someone out, see if they're any good first hand, and then have the option to keep them on or terminate them without being subjected to a bunch of bullshit then I'm going to be more inclined to hire people that might not work out.
The other issue is that all this racial/gender/political correct diversity nonsense just makes everyone feel really tense for no reason. Especially people that are painted as the wicked stepmother in this little fairy tale. It is the 21st century.
Raise your hand if you've ever owned slaves.
Raise your hand if you've ever beaten a women for not knowing her place.
Exactly. Can we get over this shit please? We're all just people. If we're going to work together then this nonsense needs to stop. Because bringing it up endlessly if anything makes people of all arbitrarily relevant phenotypes uncomfortable with anyone that isn't a member of their arbitrarily relevant phenotype.
I can fire or yell at a person that is from my phenotype and not get accused of discrimination or racism or sexism or whatever. But do that to someone of another phenotype? Suddenly I'm a fucking monster. That creates problems.
And here some bright spark is going to say "well just don't yell at people"... only sometimes people need to be yelled at. Its that or you just fire everyone that fucked up the first time and while terrible managers think that is a great idea the turn over and constant retraining required to sustain that folly isn't efficient. It is a lot easier to fix a broken employee then it is to replace them typically. The only thing you cannot abide is a lack of integrity or a lack of respect. Either one of those happens from a subordinate and it has to get corrected fast or they're gone.
Not necessarily. There are a lot of rich kids that know who all the rappers are and there are some poor kids that learned how to play the violin at 8.
You're trying to simply the world. To break everyone down into simple groups and pretend that we're not all just individuals.
I'm an individual. I am not a group. I am not strictly speaking in a lot of groups but I share things in common with a lot of groups that you wouldn't expect.
I know things you wouldn't expect looking at my background. And I like things that you wouldn't expect looking at my background.
I am capable of things that you wouldn't expect unless I just told you. It won't show up on anything.
As to diversity solving problems... people that think differently can come up with different approaches. That is about as far as that goes. It is useful. But more relevant is how competent they actually are. I'll take a dozen really good but very similar engineers any day over a bunch of okay engineers that are all really different.
Yes, the work done by the diverse group will probably be more interesting but the point of engineering is not to be entertaining. The really good engineers are more likely to actually have done a good job even if it were done in a boring way.
Tell me how they obtained the "why"?
I'm going to focus on that issue exclusively since until that gets addressed there isn't any point going forward.
If one person stands up and says something that the rest don't want to hear they'll just say "liar" and shut him down even if he's completely legit. That is the problem with down voting etc. It is really just a popularity contest.
I get up voted and downvoted on this site pretty much at random. I'll say something that seems like a reach and everyone loves it. I'll say something else that makes some little faction unhappy but is completely f'ing obvious and get downvoted.
Up or down votes have nothing to do with truth. Just popularity.
Likely a gender studies department. No one ever audits them and they get to peer review themselves. I believe nearly all of it comes from a circle of about 5 prominent female professors that basically just circle jerk the entire subject.
We're talking about low flying, slow, unarmored toy drones... A flak shell will fucking murder those things. Kindly stop repeating something you misheard in a documentary.
Flak was very effective in WW2. If it were not then why were the bombers flying at such a high altitude? Have any idea what the survival rate of bombers would be if they flew a bit above tree level? Ground fire would annihilate them.
The B17s could operate at well above 6 miles above sea level. Why were they flying that high? Were they trying to bomb clouds or get as far away from the ground as possible until they got near their target? And even then, why did they develop bomber sights so that bombers could hit targets at altitude instead of just dive bomb? Dive bombing or bombing at lower altitudes would not require the computer and would probably be more accurate regardless.
Why did they do all that? Because getting near the ground was death. Because the flak was fucking murder.
That is why.
And we're talking about little stupid toy drones that are going to operate at less then 500 feet probably. And you're telling me flak wouldn't kill a toy drone or be able to target it?
Wrong.
Absolutely not. You do not have anything that says why they did it. You are pulling their speculation from the bottom of the abstract and calling it a fact derived from the study which is literally impossible without "WHY".
As to your retraction that longer life is the dominant reason female healthcare is higher, then that means your statement above did not refute my point about the healthcare being relevant. My argument on that point is therefore sustained. Noted.
As to relevant facts, you don't know which facts are and are not relevant. You are assuming things. Yes, the resumes were identical except for the sex. Granted. Why the stats break down the way they did? You don't know. You NEED to know to judge people. You don't know why and you MUST know why to make a moral judgment.
MORALITY REQUIRES WHY.
If I shoot someone in the face, is the reason I did that relevant? If I hit someone with my car, is the reason for that relevant? If I steal from someone, is the reason relevant?
Context is relevant. Here you'll say all these people were previously unknown and so can't have any personal context with the hiring party. Sure. But that ignores that the hiring party exists within a culture, legal system, and financial system that might make simply knowing the gender enough to bias what the SHOULD pay a given applicant and of course whether or not they should even hire a given applicant.
You don't know any of this without why. Absent why you have nothing but speculation. You can sputter and sputter and sputter. But the why is critical for a moral judgment. You cannot show prejudice without it. And without prejudice you cannot justify a moral crusade. The why is vital.
As to asking only working if it is conscious, then you're in even more trouble because if you can't ask then you have to psychoanalyze the answer out of each person until you can get a pattern out of them. And that might prove difficult. What is more, you don't know how psychoanalyzing works... so I'm guessing you're just going to assume that you can look at someone for five seconds and mind read them which has been your previous impression of how that practice works. You'd better hope it isn't subconscious. If it is subconscious then getting a definitive answer is going to be almost impossible.
As to disproving that institutional sexism does not exist, you would need to prove that it does to disprove what I said. What you showed was a study that suggests it might exist.
That's it.