As to conservative media, they were merely immunized from caring what the feminists said. They battle people from that general political alliance every day. So getting told "believe this or you're a bigot" rolls off them like shit down a sewer pipe.
That isn't an attack on them or a defense. Just saying... what made them resistant is that they don't take the threats to make them outcasts from the "good people" to be especially credible since the left has already done whatever it could think of long ago to them.
As to the TFYC, well yeah... because they actually care about the issues rather then seeing everything as a pretext to get donations and political support from morons.
Having a guy and a girl does not mean you have diversity of thought or ideas or talent or ability. It means you have one person that can pee standing up and another that can gestate babies if you give them 9 months and all the ice cream.
If you have a white girl and a black guy that does not mean you have diversity. You have one person that sits down to pee and one person that has to make sure he wears bright clothing when he walks at night to avoid getting hit by cars.
REAL diversity is diversity of MIND not diversity of sex organ or color. You can have more diversity with 10 black women then some random mix of genders and races because those 10 black women might actually be very different people while your random mix of genders and races might only be different on the surface.
This obessession with statistical diversity figures is tedious, stupid, and increasingly depressing.
I am not my gender.
I am not my skin color.
I am not my nationality.
How many people do you think that share my phenotypes are likely to agree with me or think the same way as I do about everything? I assure you... not a lot of them do. I am an odd duck. I am as likely to find someone with a vagina or a different shade of skin that holds my views or thinks the way I do as one that superficially resembles me.
Diversity is not gender or skin color. Diversity is mind.
And if there is anything ironic about the people crying for diversity it is how intolerant they frequently are of anyone that holds any view that is even a little different from their own.
What ever their intentions, they're not creating diversity. They're bullying everyone around them to fall into exact lockstep according to arbitary statistical data that doesn't actually mean anything.
Imagine if we were a bunch of cats. Does it really f'ing matter how many cats of some random number of spots are doing one thing or another?
This is the 21st century. Get over it. You're fighting last century's civil rights issues instead of opening your eyes to the civil rights issues of the 21st century.
What you should be concerned with are things like privacy, corruption, freedom, economic mobility, free flow of information, etc.
That is something that will actually matter. This gender/race crap is relevant only so far as you're dealing with actual racists etc. And since most of these claims boil down to subconscious bias the reality is that we know we're not dealing with the old bigotry anymore. There are bigger issues out there. Focusing on this if anything simply makes it worse because you're making it harder for people to be gender/race blind.
All this crap boils down to at some point is that people want UNofficial race/gender quotas. I think Channel 4 in the UK recently told their managers they'd only get bonuses if their staffs reflected specific race and gender quotas. That is what this stuff creates.
And assuming you got race and gender quotas ubiquitously imposed everywhere, how would that be good for traditionally discriminated populations? After all, everyone would know that they HAVE to be hired even if they're not competent because there are quotas. Which means everyone will assume right or wrong that they're incompetent because they can be hired without being competent.
Just think it through, kids. You're like that simple kid that shows up to track and just runs through all the hurdles without understanding he was supposed to try to jump over them.
As to not convicting millions of people, then you retract your statement about institutional sexism.
Noted. And further noted, if you retract your retraction you will be confirming your belief that that study convicts the entire academic apparatus as being sexist.
As to why being irrelevant to a moral judgment, you cannot prove bigotry without why.
As to women's healthcare, that is what you said. You said it was almost entirely because they lived longer. Do you want me to quote you or have your remembered your own words?
You apparently don't know what prejudice means: ""Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. "" Without the why you can't prove prejudice.
And without a prejudice judgment your whole argument becomes irrelevant.
As to gene ray, I am unfamiliar with that individual. Provide a link at your convenience.
As to your quotation at the bottom, that appears to be a speculation and not something derived by actually asking anyone. Thus their statement at that portion of the study is no more credible then any of your own speculations.
Again, has anyone checked this thing? I could find no evidence of anyone going over its claims, methodology, data... anything.
How many studies have we seen come out that have later been found to be crap? Lots. It happens. And the only way it can get found out is if someone goes over the study. I see no evidence of that. And it is again ONE FUCKING STUDY.
You are trying to damn pretty much all of academia on the grounds of ONE FUCKING STUDY.
The losses of US and UK bombers in the day was a serious problem actually. The enemy fighters worked nearly as well at night as during the day. But enemy flak during the night was not nearly as accurate.
1. I would situate military assets with a clear field of fire if I were on the defensive. This is regardless of whether I am invading or defending. The only situation where I might have to worry about civilian causalities would be invading an enemy city. In that case, I'm not sure how effective small drone attackers are going to be in dense city streets. But if I were actually worried about these stupid things then I would probably take up a defensive posture outside the city that could weather the drone attacks and then bait them into attacking me out there. I don't want to fight an enemy where there are directions I am not allowed to shoot. That cedes too much of an advantage to the enemy. When they fight me, I want to be able to cut loose and annihilate them. That is war.
2. As to the proposed drone enemy... there are so many variables I don't know what we're really talking about here. Are we talking about those little quad copter go pro drones but with bombs attached to them or what? They're saying "cheap drones" which implies commercially available drones. Which makes me think the little quad copters. A couple of those coming at you something you can drop with some machine gun fire. They're not that fast and their flight stability makes them predictable targets. A shotgun with bird shot for example would probably be extremely effective. Which is basically a tiny flak cannon vs birds.
3. But if we're talking masses of them... huge numbers... maybe 100 or 1000 of them... then close defensive artillery is the way to go. As to avoiding collateral damage, the shaped charges can project the sharpnal everywhere but where the shot was fired from. So it would not hurt your own people except perhaps from the shock wave. But that's nothing special in the military. The army has been using precision artillery for generations. At least since WW1. It was infamous in Vietnam because the US army could create a wall of death that enemy VC could not cross and the wall could be only feet in front of a US army defensive line. It is dangerous and requires extreme precision with those munitions but if you know what you're doing... it works.
So that is how I would deal with cheap drones. If it is one or two of them... issuing some shot guns to the troops with bird shot should be sufficient. If we're talking about stupid numbers of them then... defensive air burst artillery for the win.
Wrong. Her doxxing is on record. I think someone else just cited it and I could provide other attributation if required.
What is more, that evidence is far stronger then anything you could level against gamergate.
Show me evidence of any prominent gamergate figure doxxing anyone.
What twits like you don't seem to get is that gamergate was the reaction to being attacked. It was the defense. There was a massive media campaign which triggered the whole thing.
And really, it seems since the fucktarded articles are starting up again that they've learned absolutely nothing.
In regards to institutional sexism, ONE study that has not been analyzed or criticized is not enough to convict millions of people.
END OF STORY. You need more. Period.
Next issue.
As to your reasons for why female scientists are skeptical of the qualifications of female scientists... you've provided no proof as to why they're doing anything.
Again, you have your study and you don't seem to understand that knowing the WHY of it is very important to make a moral judgment. Which is ultimately what all this groping for civil rights issues is about. You want a moral justification to go on a crusade.
Well, you need to know why to judge morally. That's just text book philosophy.
NEXT ISSUE.
As to women's healthcare just being that they live longer and nothing else...
Are you sure you want to stand on that point? Because I don't want to call you a fucking moron. But that is precisely the sort of opinion a fucking moron would hold. Don't be a fucking moron... it isn't a nice place.
Obviously children play a huge part. Women not only have all sorts of healthcare expenses around that but they also leave work and put their careers on hold or give them up because of children.
That's just a fact. And that might be a factor. You don't know why they're doing any of these things.
Next issue.
As to the healthcare expenses bringing the wages down and your acceptance of that as a legitimate reason for paying less... consider that some employers might not have the same flexibility in what they pay. This whole "some people are paid less" thing has resulted in jobs increasingly having fixed salaries. Which means you can't pay people less or more in many cases. And that means if someone actually is worth less and you can't pay them less then you can't hire them unless you want to take a loss.
And that could account for the remaining difference all by itself.
Now is that what is happening? I have no idea. What I have proved however is that you do not have check mate. And without checkmate, you can't say "this is the way things are because SCIENCE". Science only happens when you have checkmate.
You need to know the why of it.
What is more, I would like people like you to stop conflating science and morality. The two have about as much to do with each other as polar bears and black holes.
They're both draw on branches of philosophy but they're not the same branch and each branch has different rules. What I have seen people do is jump between the branches whenever one of them would require something be done to cross a certain threshold. They'll jump to science when morality needs them to do something to justify something and then jump back into morality when science requires something.
It is a rhetorical clouding technique used to confuse issues by making them complicated. But if anyone is anal enough to follow all the threads then it is rather obvious where the fallacies lie.
I am that anal and tenacious. I will follow the threads. Complexity and clouding techniques are ineffective against me. Just fyi.
Oh obviously. She's been on that kick for awhile. Her game was just to create something so she could call herself a dev in the first place. She never had any interest in actually being a dev and making a living off of creating things.
Incorrect. They're trying to placate the masses so that they can continue business as usual.
Absent a big security upgrade, everyone is going to insist that the immigration get cut back.
The immigration cut will have political consequences for political factions that rely on big support for welfare programs. They require a constant transfer of wealth to sustain power. The only way they can keep their political position is by importing poor people that they can then transfer wealth from the middle class to the poor.
Cynical but true. And not especially different from what happened to Rome.
So being that their political position collapses if they cut off immigration which will reduce their ability to sustain their position through wealth transfers... they are instead telling you that they're going to upgrade security. Which will allow the immigration and the wealth transfers to go on despite many of the people they're importing being actively hostile to the society.
The US has less of a problem mostly because we're importing large numbers of very poor south American Catholics. They've got lots of problems but they don't cut people's throats for their religion or blow up buildings.
Regardless, it all boils down to politicians exploiting a common flaw in both of our political systems. That you can take money from one pocket and give it to another and it isn't classified as vote buying when it quiet obviously is vote buying.
"VOTE FOR ME, I WILL GIVE YOU OTHER PEOPLE"S MONEY!"
And upon that is much of modern western politics based. Which shall ruin us all eventually if it isn't stopped. This exact problem was known to be a fatal flaw from the start. I believe the quote from the time was "the country will be damned the moment the people realize they can just vote themselves more stuff."
Shifting away from fiat currency might help if only by restraining borrowing. But even that wouldn't be enough. We need to make it illegal for people to vote on things they won't be paying for.
For example, if you're not going to pay the tax, you shouldn't be voting on whether it is raised or even exists.
A relatively easy way to do this would be to restructure congress.
The house of representatives can remain the same.
The senate should be changed back to the way it worked before, in that rather then people electing senators directly, you have the state governments appointment them. The whole point of the Senate was to give the state governments themselves a strong hand in federal policy.
And then you create some additional body that has representation linked to the tax rolls in various ways. The way all the chambers of congress interact would have to be hashed out, but the concept I'm laying out is that the power to levey taxes would be restrained somewhat by an additional chamber that gave weighted representation based on tax contributions. In this way, progressive taxes would be levied in so far as the people that they were levied against found them to be reasonable. And it should incline the government to have more flat taxes because if they had too many progressive taxes they'd effectively disenfranchise too much of the country.
The point I am laying out here is of course heresy to socialists and crypto communists... but they're pretty much the problem in the first place... so fuck em'.
Or high explosive fragmentation shells... which ever you think is going to be more effective.
We're talking about war here... not fucking tiddly winks. So I'm inclined to be brutal because brutal works. And when you're pinned down by enemy fire, shard of concrete and blood going everywhere... fuck the enemy. Eat a high explosive lead cocktail, fuckers.
Even worse then I thought... I don't care about Zoe. She's a little schemer and nothing more.
What remains troubling is both the people in the media that are backing people up like her and the large number of people in the public dumb enough to fall for this crap.
A very simple WW2 weapon that worked very well against tightly clustered enemy airplanes.
It doesn't work as well today for a lot of reasons but mostly it is that you don't see raids by 100 bombers anymore.
If you want to drop SWARMS of flying aircraft, flak is great. They bunch up and they die the same way everyone in a foxhole dies if someone throws a grenade in there. It doesn't matter if there were ten people in that fox hole... they're done.
Same thing with flak. Set it up so it is computer controlled with timed fuses the same way they had timed fuses in WW2.
In WW2, the flak shells were set to explode at specific altitudes that the bombers were all flying in. So you could have massed flak fire from the ground all detonating in the flight path of the bomber swarm.
Ships still use Flak to defend themselves. I believe they call it "defensive artillery"... the concept being that if a missile is coming at the ship, they can fire a salvo of exploding shells to create a wall of death that the missile cannot cross intact.
The same thing could be used against a swarm of small drones.
That's all this means. They're going to have a harder time using this nonsense outside of US jurisdiction. So that means the whole US tech sector that was hoping to get the world to log into US cloud data centers is dead.
That's all these insane politicians and regulatory agencies have accomplished. The whole thing will just be moved to Sweden or Ireland or something where FBI orders are ultimately ignorable.
The french have one of the weaker democracies. They are on what? The fifth republic? And let us not forget that the only reason they still exist as an independent country at all is because their allies in WW2 bailed them out.
France f'ed up the post WW1 european political and economic and diplomatic situation that my country literally walked away from it all in disgust.
Germany after WW1 for example should not have been subjected to crippling sanctions.
Look at how the US treats countries we defeat. What did we do to Germany after we flattened their cities? What did we do to Japan after we nuked them? Etc.
You do not do what France did. We tried to tell them. The records of our protest are on file.
So I'd rather not talk about the relience of the "great" french republic. It is a vassal power that only exists because stronger allied nations have shielded it from the consequences of its mistakes. There is no reason for example why the French should have lost to the Germans in WW2. They could have won or held the line. All they had to do was take the security situation seriously. They didn't.
The United States has been facing off against global security threats since the end of WW2. We've been in continuous cold war mode ever since with only a very brief period of perhaps 5 years where we thought we could let our guard down. Then 9/11 and we're right back on Red Alert.
We're tired. We're frustrated. We're angry. And being told by the Europeans that did almost nothing during the Cold War that they can hold their own is just absurd.
The nukes aren't going to save you. You need massive spy nets and the ruthlessness to employ them. You think Stalin was kept back with reasonable words? No. Nuclear weapons. Massive air assaults. And thousands upon thousands of daggers in the dark.
There is a reason why to this day the Russians respect the US CIA. Their agents were hunted by our agents and vanished. The secret history. Classified forever.
If Europe presumes to stand... it is going to have to toughen up to levels unseens since the days of their grandfathers if not their great grandfathers. The old metal. If you can dig that up, then you might stand. Absent that... dust in the wind.
Sure it does... the implication is that it is men being sexist that is the problem. If everyone is being sexist against women including women then that begs the question of why? There might be an actual conscious impression of inferiority and that might be something worth looking into as again they might have reasons.
Take for example healthcare costs... maybe these academic people are in charge of budgets and possibly the women draw on the budget harder. If they do that then it isn't discrimination for example because the two are not actually equal.
If you offer to sell me two one pound bags of sugar and one of those bags costs 2 dollars and the other costs 4 dollars then I'm not showing prejudice when I buy the 2 pound bag. I am making a logical economic choice.
And this is why you need to know why they're making these choices.
Because if they have a rational reason then it isn't discrimination. You have to show that the reason is irrational and PRE-JUDGED. Which is what prejudice means. It means judging a book by its cover. You look at someone, assume character traits or capability base on limited information that couldn't possibly tell you if that were true and then go ahead on the presumption that you were right.
If on the other hand they DO know simply from that information then it isn't prejudice. The example of the healthcare reason is just an example of something that could be valid given that small amount of information that would be entirely reasonable.
Now how would you address such a thing? Given our current culture, I don't think it is solvable. We generally have come to the common belief that employers should provide healthcare and that that must include all the expensive reproductive things women do. The problem is that on a dollars and cents assessment it makes women LESS valuable or if you prefer MORE expensive.
Women do consume dramatically more healthcare then men. And not just from reproduction but from all sorts of things. They go to the doctor more often for example. Where as men tend to stay away from doctors unless they are feeling badly. And feeling badly for men often means they tried pounding pain killers for two weeks and it isn't going away.
This is just ONE possibility and entirely speculation on my point as to whether it is relevant. However, it could be and were it relevant it would be a non-prejudicial reason to not hire women. If they are more expensive then what you have to do is pay them less and the difference in pay balances out once they get their healthcare.
You're acting like absent that your case is closed. To the contrary, you need these answers as much as I do because your conclusions are supposition without them.
because the sitting all day is happening... so... genetic engineering anyone?
I look forward to a new genetically engineered super species... and of course the gills... and flying squirrel wings... and internal testicles. And I assume women would like to lay eggs or something because they don't appear to like the whole pregnancy thing.
I'd still like to ask the sorts of people making these choices why'd they'd do such a thing. I find such statistics to be unsatisfying when the conclusions are left to the numbers.
I can think of three or four non-sexist reasons to actually not hire a woman for various positions. That is if we define sexism as an irrational bias.
For example, assuming the job were physical in nature that might not be unreasonable. The research jobs don't apply to this case, I'm just being broad so you can see that there are non-sexist reasons to bias hiring.
Another example is babies... there are really a lot of consequences here of babies that both make an employee less valuable and possibly even a financial burden.
There are others that have nothing to do with what you think a person is capable of IF they apply themselves. The question is will they? Whether you think that is justified or not is another matter. But why they did anything is not known since no one asked. I'd like to know that.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be a fitting response to a toy drone swarm.
Alternatively you could issue children with spud launchers to see if they can knock the drones down with pneumatically propelled potatoes.
As to conservative media, they were merely immunized from caring what the feminists said. They battle people from that general political alliance every day. So getting told "believe this or you're a bigot" rolls off them like shit down a sewer pipe.
That isn't an attack on them or a defense. Just saying... what made them resistant is that they don't take the threats to make them outcasts from the "good people" to be especially credible since the left has already done whatever it could think of long ago to them.
As to the TFYC, well yeah... because they actually care about the issues rather then seeing everything as a pretext to get donations and political support from morons.
explain to me why a shotgun loaded with bird shot would not drop such a drone? Any police officer could drop that drone.
Pop. And done.
Now might this be a surprising weapon the first time it was used? Sure.
Would it be effective at doing anything more then scaring a few people? not really.
... actual diversity.
Having a guy and a girl does not mean you have diversity of thought or ideas or talent or ability. It means you have one person that can pee standing up and another that can gestate babies if you give them 9 months and all the ice cream.
If you have a white girl and a black guy that does not mean you have diversity. You have one person that sits down to pee and one person that has to make sure he wears bright clothing when he walks at night to avoid getting hit by cars.
REAL diversity is diversity of MIND not diversity of sex organ or color. You can have more diversity with 10 black women then some random mix of genders and races because those 10 black women might actually be very different people while your random mix of genders and races might only be different on the surface.
This obessession with statistical diversity figures is tedious, stupid, and increasingly depressing.
I am not my gender.
I am not my skin color.
I am not my nationality.
How many people do you think that share my phenotypes are likely to agree with me or think the same way as I do about everything? I assure you... not a lot of them do. I am an odd duck. I am as likely to find someone with a vagina or a different shade of skin that holds my views or thinks the way I do as one that superficially resembles me.
Diversity is not gender or skin color. Diversity is mind.
And if there is anything ironic about the people crying for diversity it is how intolerant they frequently are of anyone that holds any view that is even a little different from their own.
What ever their intentions, they're not creating diversity. They're bullying everyone around them to fall into exact lockstep according to arbitary statistical data that doesn't actually mean anything.
Imagine if we were a bunch of cats. Does it really f'ing matter how many cats of some random number of spots are doing one thing or another?
This is the 21st century. Get over it. You're fighting last century's civil rights issues instead of opening your eyes to the civil rights issues of the 21st century.
What you should be concerned with are things like privacy, corruption, freedom, economic mobility, free flow of information, etc.
That is something that will actually matter. This gender/race crap is relevant only so far as you're dealing with actual racists etc. And since most of these claims boil down to subconscious bias the reality is that we know we're not dealing with the old bigotry anymore. There are bigger issues out there. Focusing on this if anything simply makes it worse because you're making it harder for people to be gender/race blind.
All this crap boils down to at some point is that people want UNofficial race/gender quotas. I think Channel 4 in the UK recently told their managers they'd only get bonuses if their staffs reflected specific race and gender quotas. That is what this stuff creates.
And assuming you got race and gender quotas ubiquitously imposed everywhere, how would that be good for traditionally discriminated populations? After all, everyone would know that they HAVE to be hired even if they're not competent because there are quotas. Which means everyone will assume right or wrong that they're incompetent because they can be hired without being competent.
Just think it through, kids. You're like that simple kid that shows up to track and just runs through all the hurdles without understanding he was supposed to try to jump over them.
As to not convicting millions of people, then you retract your statement about institutional sexism.
Noted. And further noted, if you retract your retraction you will be confirming your belief that that study convicts the entire academic apparatus as being sexist.
As to why being irrelevant to a moral judgment, you cannot prove bigotry without why.
As to women's healthcare, that is what you said. You said it was almost entirely because they lived longer. Do you want me to quote you or have your remembered your own words?
You apparently don't know what prejudice means: ""Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. "" Without the why you can't prove prejudice.
And without a prejudice judgment your whole argument becomes irrelevant.
As to gene ray, I am unfamiliar with that individual. Provide a link at your convenience.
As to your quotation at the bottom, that appears to be a speculation and not something derived by actually asking anyone. Thus their statement at that portion of the study is no more credible then any of your own speculations.
Again, has anyone checked this thing? I could find no evidence of anyone going over its claims, methodology, data... anything.
How many studies have we seen come out that have later been found to be crap? Lots. It happens. And the only way it can get found out is if someone goes over the study. I see no evidence of that. And it is again ONE FUCKING STUDY.
You are trying to damn pretty much all of academia on the grounds of ONE FUCKING STUDY.
No.
The losses of US and UK bombers in the day was a serious problem actually. The enemy fighters worked nearly as well at night as during the day. But enemy flak during the night was not nearly as accurate.
Why would I use uranium when the targets are unarmored? Cheap little drones will be fragile. Lead is sufficient.
Depleted Uranium slugs were designed to punch through soviet tanks.
That is why we built that weapon. Not to screw over little countries or whatever. But as a weapon to fight the big one.
Did we use it in smaller wars? Against soviet tanks.... yep.
I don't agree with your scenario.
1. I would situate military assets with a clear field of fire if I were on the defensive. This is regardless of whether I am invading or defending. The only situation where I might have to worry about civilian causalities would be invading an enemy city. In that case, I'm not sure how effective small drone attackers are going to be in dense city streets. But if I were actually worried about these stupid things then I would probably take up a defensive posture outside the city that could weather the drone attacks and then bait them into attacking me out there. I don't want to fight an enemy where there are directions I am not allowed to shoot. That cedes too much of an advantage to the enemy. When they fight me, I want to be able to cut loose and annihilate them. That is war.
2. As to the proposed drone enemy... there are so many variables I don't know what we're really talking about here. Are we talking about those little quad copter go pro drones but with bombs attached to them or what? They're saying "cheap drones" which implies commercially available drones. Which makes me think the little quad copters. A couple of those coming at you something you can drop with some machine gun fire. They're not that fast and their flight stability makes them predictable targets. A shotgun with bird shot for example would probably be extremely effective. Which is basically a tiny flak cannon vs birds.
3. But if we're talking masses of them... huge numbers... maybe 100 or 1000 of them... then close defensive artillery is the way to go. As to avoiding collateral damage, the shaped charges can project the sharpnal everywhere but where the shot was fired from. So it would not hurt your own people except perhaps from the shock wave. But that's nothing special in the military. The army has been using precision artillery for generations. At least since WW1. It was infamous in Vietnam because the US army could create a wall of death that enemy VC could not cross and the wall could be only feet in front of a US army defensive line. It is dangerous and requires extreme precision with those munitions but if you know what you're doing... it works.
So that is how I would deal with cheap drones. If it is one or two of them... issuing some shot guns to the troops with bird shot should be sufficient. If we're talking about stupid numbers of them then... defensive air burst artillery for the win.
Wrong. Her doxxing is on record. I think someone else just cited it and I could provide other attributation if required.
What is more, that evidence is far stronger then anything you could level against gamergate.
Show me evidence of any prominent gamergate figure doxxing anyone.
What twits like you don't seem to get is that gamergate was the reaction to being attacked. It was the defense. There was a massive media campaign which triggered the whole thing.
And really, it seems since the fucktarded articles are starting up again that they've learned absolutely nothing.
In regards to institutional sexism, ONE study that has not been analyzed or criticized is not enough to convict millions of people.
END OF STORY. You need more. Period.
Next issue.
As to your reasons for why female scientists are skeptical of the qualifications of female scientists... you've provided no proof as to why they're doing anything.
Again, you have your study and you don't seem to understand that knowing the WHY of it is very important to make a moral judgment. Which is ultimately what all this groping for civil rights issues is about. You want a moral justification to go on a crusade.
Well, you need to know why to judge morally. That's just text book philosophy.
NEXT ISSUE.
As to women's healthcare just being that they live longer and nothing else...
Are you sure you want to stand on that point? Because I don't want to call you a fucking moron. But that is precisely the sort of opinion a fucking moron would hold. Don't be a fucking moron... it isn't a nice place.
Obviously children play a huge part. Women not only have all sorts of healthcare expenses around that but they also leave work and put their careers on hold or give them up because of children.
That's just a fact. And that might be a factor. You don't know why they're doing any of these things.
Next issue.
As to the healthcare expenses bringing the wages down and your acceptance of that as a legitimate reason for paying less... consider that some employers might not have the same flexibility in what they pay. This whole "some people are paid less" thing has resulted in jobs increasingly having fixed salaries. Which means you can't pay people less or more in many cases. And that means if someone actually is worth less and you can't pay them less then you can't hire them unless you want to take a loss.
And that could account for the remaining difference all by itself.
Now is that what is happening? I have no idea. What I have proved however is that you do not have check mate. And without checkmate, you can't say "this is the way things are because SCIENCE". Science only happens when you have checkmate.
You need to know the why of it.
What is more, I would like people like you to stop conflating science and morality. The two have about as much to do with each other as polar bears and black holes.
They're both draw on branches of philosophy but they're not the same branch and each branch has different rules. What I have seen people do is jump between the branches whenever one of them would require something be done to cross a certain threshold. They'll jump to science when morality needs them to do something to justify something and then jump back into morality when science requires something.
It is a rhetorical clouding technique used to confuse issues by making them complicated. But if anyone is anal enough to follow all the threads then it is rather obvious where the fallacies lie.
I am that anal and tenacious. I will follow the threads. Complexity and clouding techniques are ineffective against me. Just fyi.
Oh obviously. She's been on that kick for awhile. Her game was just to create something so she could call herself a dev in the first place. She never had any interest in actually being a dev and making a living off of creating things.
Incorrect. They're trying to placate the masses so that they can continue business as usual.
Absent a big security upgrade, everyone is going to insist that the immigration get cut back.
The immigration cut will have political consequences for political factions that rely on big support for welfare programs. They require a constant transfer of wealth to sustain power. The only way they can keep their political position is by importing poor people that they can then transfer wealth from the middle class to the poor.
Cynical but true. And not especially different from what happened to Rome.
So being that their political position collapses if they cut off immigration which will reduce their ability to sustain their position through wealth transfers... they are instead telling you that they're going to upgrade security. Which will allow the immigration and the wealth transfers to go on despite many of the people they're importing being actively hostile to the society.
The US has less of a problem mostly because we're importing large numbers of very poor south American Catholics. They've got lots of problems but they don't cut people's throats for their religion or blow up buildings.
Regardless, it all boils down to politicians exploiting a common flaw in both of our political systems. That you can take money from one pocket and give it to another and it isn't classified as vote buying when it quiet obviously is vote buying.
"VOTE FOR ME, I WILL GIVE YOU OTHER PEOPLE"S MONEY!"
And upon that is much of modern western politics based. Which shall ruin us all eventually if it isn't stopped. This exact problem was known to be a fatal flaw from the start. I believe the quote from the time was "the country will be damned the moment the people realize they can just vote themselves more stuff."
Shifting away from fiat currency might help if only by restraining borrowing. But even that wouldn't be enough. We need to make it illegal for people to vote on things they won't be paying for.
For example, if you're not going to pay the tax, you shouldn't be voting on whether it is raised or even exists.
A relatively easy way to do this would be to restructure congress.
The house of representatives can remain the same.
The senate should be changed back to the way it worked before, in that rather then people electing senators directly, you have the state governments appointment them. The whole point of the Senate was to give the state governments themselves a strong hand in federal policy.
And then you create some additional body that has representation linked to the tax rolls in various ways. The way all the chambers of congress interact would have to be hashed out, but the concept I'm laying out is that the power to levey taxes would be restrained somewhat by an additional chamber that gave weighted representation based on tax contributions. In this way, progressive taxes would be levied in so far as the people that they were levied against found them to be reasonable. And it should incline the government to have more flat taxes because if they had too many progressive taxes they'd effectively disenfranchise too much of the country.
The point I am laying out here is of course heresy to socialists and crypto communists... but they're pretty much the problem in the first place... so fuck em'.
Or high explosive fragmentation shells... which ever you think is going to be more effective.
We're talking about war here... not fucking tiddly winks. So I'm inclined to be brutal because brutal works. And when you're pinned down by enemy fire, shard of concrete and blood going everywhere... fuck the enemy. Eat a high explosive lead cocktail, fuckers.
Even worse then I thought... I don't care about Zoe. She's a little schemer and nothing more.
What remains troubling is both the people in the media that are backing people up like her and the large number of people in the public dumb enough to fall for this crap.
No, anonymous coward, I did not admit any such thing.
Have anything constructive or is this all you're worth?
A very simple WW2 weapon that worked very well against tightly clustered enemy airplanes.
It doesn't work as well today for a lot of reasons but mostly it is that you don't see raids by 100 bombers anymore.
If you want to drop SWARMS of flying aircraft, flak is great. They bunch up and they die the same way everyone in a foxhole dies if someone throws a grenade in there. It doesn't matter if there were ten people in that fox hole... they're done.
Same thing with flak. Set it up so it is computer controlled with timed fuses the same way they had timed fuses in WW2.
In WW2, the flak shells were set to explode at specific altitudes that the bombers were all flying in. So you could have massed flak fire from the ground all detonating in the flight path of the bomber swarm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Ships still use Flak to defend themselves. I believe they call it "defensive artillery"... the concept being that if a missile is coming at the ship, they can fire a salvo of exploding shells to create a wall of death that the missile cannot cross intact.
The same thing could be used against a swarm of small drones.
That's all this means. They're going to have a harder time using this nonsense outside of US jurisdiction. So that means the whole US tech sector that was hoping to get the world to log into US cloud data centers is dead.
That's all these insane politicians and regulatory agencies have accomplished. The whole thing will just be moved to Sweden or Ireland or something where FBI orders are ultimately ignorable.
... So I really don't see why she's in any moral position to judge anyone else that doxxes.
I forget who it was, I think it was a civil rights lawyer from Los Angeles... so we'll hear more about this as that breaks down.
But ol' Zoe has some esplaining to do.
The french have one of the weaker democracies. They are on what? The fifth republic? And let us not forget that the only reason they still exist as an independent country at all is because their allies in WW2 bailed them out.
France f'ed up the post WW1 european political and economic and diplomatic situation that my country literally walked away from it all in disgust.
Germany after WW1 for example should not have been subjected to crippling sanctions.
Look at how the US treats countries we defeat. What did we do to Germany after we flattened their cities? What did we do to Japan after we nuked them? Etc.
You do not do what France did. We tried to tell them. The records of our protest are on file.
So I'd rather not talk about the relience of the "great" french republic. It is a vassal power that only exists because stronger allied nations have shielded it from the consequences of its mistakes. There is no reason for example why the French should have lost to the Germans in WW2. They could have won or held the line. All they had to do was take the security situation seriously. They didn't.
The United States has been facing off against global security threats since the end of WW2. We've been in continuous cold war mode ever since with only a very brief period of perhaps 5 years where we thought we could let our guard down. Then 9/11 and we're right back on Red Alert.
We're tired. We're frustrated. We're angry. And being told by the Europeans that did almost nothing during the Cold War that they can hold their own is just absurd.
The nukes aren't going to save you. You need massive spy nets and the ruthlessness to employ them. You think Stalin was kept back with reasonable words? No. Nuclear weapons. Massive air assaults. And thousands upon thousands of daggers in the dark.
There is a reason why to this day the Russians respect the US CIA. Their agents were hunted by our agents and vanished. The secret history. Classified forever.
If Europe presumes to stand... it is going to have to toughen up to levels unseens since the days of their grandfathers if not their great grandfathers. The old metal. If you can dig that up, then you might stand. Absent that... dust in the wind.
Sure it does... the implication is that it is men being sexist that is the problem. If everyone is being sexist against women including women then that begs the question of why? There might be an actual conscious impression of inferiority and that might be something worth looking into as again they might have reasons.
Take for example healthcare costs... maybe these academic people are in charge of budgets and possibly the women draw on the budget harder. If they do that then it isn't discrimination for example because the two are not actually equal.
If you offer to sell me two one pound bags of sugar and one of those bags costs 2 dollars and the other costs 4 dollars then I'm not showing prejudice when I buy the 2 pound bag. I am making a logical economic choice.
And this is why you need to know why they're making these choices.
Because if they have a rational reason then it isn't discrimination. You have to show that the reason is irrational and PRE-JUDGED. Which is what prejudice means. It means judging a book by its cover. You look at someone, assume character traits or capability base on limited information that couldn't possibly tell you if that were true and then go ahead on the presumption that you were right.
If on the other hand they DO know simply from that information then it isn't prejudice. The example of the healthcare reason is just an example of something that could be valid given that small amount of information that would be entirely reasonable.
Now how would you address such a thing? Given our current culture, I don't think it is solvable. We generally have come to the common belief that employers should provide healthcare and that that must include all the expensive reproductive things women do. The problem is that on a dollars and cents assessment it makes women LESS valuable or if you prefer MORE expensive.
Women do consume dramatically more healthcare then men. And not just from reproduction but from all sorts of things. They go to the doctor more often for example. Where as men tend to stay away from doctors unless they are feeling badly. And feeling badly for men often means they tried pounding pain killers for two weeks and it isn't going away.
This is just ONE possibility and entirely speculation on my point as to whether it is relevant. However, it could be and were it relevant it would be a non-prejudicial reason to not hire women. If they are more expensive then what you have to do is pay them less and the difference in pay balances out once they get their healthcare.
You're acting like absent that your case is closed. To the contrary, you need these answers as much as I do because your conclusions are supposition without them.
Shhhhh... you're fucking us all out of gills and internal testicles... shut up!
because the sitting all day is happening... so... genetic engineering anyone?
I look forward to a new genetically engineered super species... and of course the gills... and flying squirrel wings... and internal testicles. And I assume women would like to lay eggs or something because they don't appear to like the whole pregnancy thing.
I'd still like to ask the sorts of people making these choices why'd they'd do such a thing. I find such statistics to be unsatisfying when the conclusions are left to the numbers.
I can think of three or four non-sexist reasons to actually not hire a woman for various positions. That is if we define sexism as an irrational bias.
For example, assuming the job were physical in nature that might not be unreasonable. The research jobs don't apply to this case, I'm just being broad so you can see that there are non-sexist reasons to bias hiring.
Another example is babies... there are really a lot of consequences here of babies that both make an employee less valuable and possibly even a financial burden.
There are others that have nothing to do with what you think a person is capable of IF they apply themselves. The question is will they? Whether you think that is justified or not is another matter. But why they did anything is not known since no one asked. I'd like to know that.
Out of curiosity, why do you think the women in your study agreed with the men?
That is an interesting point of your little study... that if there is sexism it is shared equally by men and women against women?
Why would the women being women discriminate against women?
Just an odd little thing that I think you don't really process between your childish taunting fits.