to discount your voice by branding you as "privileged".
A brand which becomes little more than a euphemism/dog whistle for "male", because he or she doesn't actually know what the circumstances of my life consisted of. The only information used to reach these conclusions seems to be my gender. So really, it's all about the fact that I'm male.
I'm not sure whether to say this seriously or sarcastically, so I guess a little of both: just because you don't get anything you personally value out of your privilege doesn't mean you don't have it.
Likewise, just because you can baselessly attribute someone's position to "privilege" doesn't make it so. Lacking any salient basis for accusing me of succeeding through patronage, but having leveled the accusation anyway, what you've just done is prejudged me. Based on my gender.
You just responded to a thoughtful, detailed, logical post with a "can't get a girlfriend joke", but you're the one complaining about the tenor of the conversation? How is it even possible to be so shameless?
Lifetime didn't set out to *MAKE* their audience into misandrists, I don't think, although there can be self-reinforcing aspects to it. It set out to *CATER TO* an audience of misandrists. The misandrist sentiment already existed among a subset of the female population, it just hadn't been turned into a niche market yet.
Many even otherwise quite thoughtful people are bigoted. If they have a bad experience with a single individual, or maybe a run of bad luck with a few individuals, who all share a trait not shared by the victim, then many victims will begin to associate the trait with the behavior. They'll begin to expect the same behavior out of everyone who exhibits that trait. It's the same thing going on now with black people and police officers. And it's why every show on Lifetime is about a woman being abused by her husband, or getting cheated on, or stuff like that: because those tend to be at the root of misandrist thought, or at a very minimum serve to emotionally confirm a misandrist bias.
If nursing and elementary education paid the same as STEM
Ah! Maybe now we're getting somewhere.
Go on, ask me if I got into computers in the 1980s because my crystal ball predicted the dot com boom. I'd dearly like to give my seven year old self the credit for being some Warren Buffet Baby, anticipating the growth of the internet.
It's not true, though. I didn't get into my STEM career for money. I got into it because of passion. And that (along with grace and luck) is what I attribute my success to: I love what I do. Nobody and nothing was going to keep me away from computers, from the thing I loved. Not even the inability of my parents to afford anything but outdated second-hand computers. Certainly not by something as trivial as glancing at my ass as I walked out the door.
Show me a doctor who is a doctor for the money, and I will show you a doctor who isn't as good as another doctor who does the same job for the love of craft. The same thing holds true with woodworkers, sculptors, chefs, or convenience store clerks.
If you're trying to get or be involved with a STEM field, and you aren't experiencing the success that you see others experiencing, maybe it isn't because of some deep-rooted gender bias creeping into every person with whom you interact. Maybe it's because you're in it for the wrong reasons.
Ah, the old 'we are abused, so we need someone below us in order to feel better!' argument.
That's not what they said. Not at all. What they said is more like a complaint about hypocrisy and double standards. "Why is this stuff only wrong when people like us do it, not when those who aren't like us, including the people who are complaining, do it to us?"
Nobody is out there writing 10 page think pieces on Medium about how we should not stare at overweight people with neck beards and man boobs because it might prevent them from coming out of their shells and pursuing their career in ballet.
Maybe I'll start listening to them when they get more consistent. For now, I just look at the SJW phenomenon as a bunch of privileged, spoiled brats looking for people to blame so that they can be victims and not at all responsible for the sorry condition of their own existence.
Why does Mrs. Clinton pay women on her staff 87 cents for each dollar she pays men? Why does Obama pay women 78 cents for each dollar he pays men on his staff?
Probably because both of those statistics derive from studies using flawed/dishonest methodology?
The professor who’d talk to a student professionally and politely, then stare at her rear end while she walked away.
Oh yes, how terrible. Great think piece, Sir Galahad.
If people looking at your ass makes you uncomfortable, wear clothes that obscure your ass. That's what clothes are for, covering the parts of your body that you don't want others to see.
The more recent changes aren't anywhere near as bad as people think.
Drew's failure to reign in moderator agendas is what's so bad, and it is clearly never going to get better there. He's encouraging it and thinks he's on the side of right and justice with making rules about it being fine to say "i hope you die in a fire" but HORRIBLE and BANWORTHY to say "rape rape". If you're cool with that kind of twisted, identity-based morality, maybe Fark is still the site for you.
This, so much this. The problem started with mod Genevieve Marie and all her trolling alts, targeting anyone reasonably well-spoken that she didn't consider to exemplify sufficiently feminist opinions. If you look at my username, you'll probably be able to figure out which Farker I was. Drew circled the wagons instead of fixing his shit. Now we have a forum torn between "anything goes" humor when it targets certain groups and safe spaces with eggshells on the floor for other groups. Who is who? Never fear, the dear leaders will decide for you.
There's no attempt to make Fark more PC. I think what happened is the rest of the Internet moved -far- past us on the anything-goes relative scale.
Really, Drew? You're playing the "fair and balanced" game with us? Anyone can look at Fark.com headlines or comments from 2006 as compared to today and see that Fark simply lost its edge. I'm not a huge fan of rape jokes, either, but I'm less a fan of sacred cows. Remember when Fark didn't have those?
We'll see how that works in Ferguson, MO, next month.
It might work out differently if those who thought like you do did more than "wait and see". Democracy demands the active participation of its members in order to function correctly.
talking to people I don't even know.
Just my two cents, but it seems to me that this part is probably the more effective strategy in this case. I think activists call this, "building awareness".
But this case is black and white, so cheerleading is appropriate.
Is it, then? McCarthy probably found a real communist or two.
How about instead of blanket statements we look at individual cases and cheer or scold based on merit?
This guy got lucky. He wasn't good, he was fortunate. That's not merit.
This is all free speech.
The product may be speech, but you can't claim to know that the means with which it was acquired was mere speech.
Don't get all hand-wringy about dad's good speech
Dad's speech isn't good. It's emotionally satisfying but a stupid action that makes him vulnerable to predators and dangerous to innocents all at once.
This is the same inability to make obvious value judgments
Don't get all moralistic defending stupid behavior. This was stupid behavior.
And what happens when the police departments show complete disinterest to your problem?
Change the system. Sorry there isn't an easier answer, but that's the price of living in a democracy.
If someone hurts my feelings online I'll try to get revenge online.
I've just shown you the cliff at the end of the road you're traveling. If you choose to proceed despite this, there isn't much more that I can say. Via con Dios.
What percentage broken constitutes "broken"? If you're talking about policing, I'm assuming you don't see any major problems with, say, badges. So you don't want to change 100% of the system, then.
So now we're onto a saner argument: what specifically is broken, and how should we approach fixing it?
Come on, you realistically expect the police to handle every case like this?
Police departments that currently exist? Not in every case we'd be talking about, no. We evidently need something new, but that something new is more like a police department than mob justice.
This is no different from having a reasonable right to self defense to protect your life.
The claim that mob internet justice is "no different" than individual right to self-defense is so utterly ridiculous that it borders on not worth responding to. Here is a rather meaningful difference: when you're going to shoot someone, you can see them and know what you're aiming at. I guess you didn't think of that.
If you are being harassed online you should be able to do something about it
I completely concur. That's the point of what I'm saying. You totally should be able to do something about it, and that something should not require you to become a private investigator, politician, lawyer, judge, and security guard. Nor should it only be available to those with enough resources: time, money, knowledge, physical or intellectual capabilities, etcetera.
The earlier you take action, the more you cut off the really bad stuff.
This behavior pattern - acting before thinking it through - leads to what's called "flailing". Experts will tell you pretty universally that this is one of the worst things to do if you're being stalked and harassed on the internet.
What if what is broken is having inherent trust in the system to do everything for you?
Then you've engaged in a strawman. Nothing about what I've just said demands "having inherent trust in the system to do everything for you".
Slashdot Mirror
to discount your voice by branding you as "privileged".
A brand which becomes little more than a euphemism/dog whistle for "male", because he or she doesn't actually know what the circumstances of my life consisted of. The only information used to reach these conclusions seems to be my gender. So really, it's all about the fact that I'm male.
I'm not sure whether to say this seriously or sarcastically, so I guess a little of both: just because you don't get anything you personally value out of your privilege doesn't mean you don't have it.
Likewise, just because you can baselessly attribute someone's position to "privilege" doesn't make it so. Lacking any salient basis for accusing me of succeeding through patronage, but having leveled the accusation anyway, what you've just done is prejudged me. Based on my gender.
You just responded to a thoughtful, detailed, logical post with a "can't get a girlfriend joke", but you're the one complaining about the tenor of the conversation? How is it even possible to be so shameless?
Lifetime didn't set out to *MAKE* their audience into misandrists, I don't think, although there can be self-reinforcing aspects to it. It set out to *CATER TO* an audience of misandrists. The misandrist sentiment already existed among a subset of the female population, it just hadn't been turned into a niche market yet.
Many even otherwise quite thoughtful people are bigoted. If they have a bad experience with a single individual, or maybe a run of bad luck with a few individuals, who all share a trait not shared by the victim, then many victims will begin to associate the trait with the behavior. They'll begin to expect the same behavior out of everyone who exhibits that trait. It's the same thing going on now with black people and police officers. And it's why every show on Lifetime is about a woman being abused by her husband, or getting cheated on, or stuff like that: because those tend to be at the root of misandrist thought, or at a very minimum serve to emotionally confirm a misandrist bias.
If nursing and elementary education paid the same as STEM
Ah! Maybe now we're getting somewhere.
Go on, ask me if I got into computers in the 1980s because my crystal ball predicted the dot com boom. I'd dearly like to give my seven year old self the credit for being some Warren Buffet Baby, anticipating the growth of the internet.
It's not true, though. I didn't get into my STEM career for money. I got into it because of passion. And that (along with grace and luck) is what I attribute my success to: I love what I do. Nobody and nothing was going to keep me away from computers, from the thing I loved. Not even the inability of my parents to afford anything but outdated second-hand computers. Certainly not by something as trivial as glancing at my ass as I walked out the door.
Show me a doctor who is a doctor for the money, and I will show you a doctor who isn't as good as another doctor who does the same job for the love of craft. The same thing holds true with woodworkers, sculptors, chefs, or convenience store clerks.
If you're trying to get or be involved with a STEM field, and you aren't experiencing the success that you see others experiencing, maybe it isn't because of some deep-rooted gender bias creeping into every person with whom you interact. Maybe it's because you're in it for the wrong reasons.
Ah, the old 'we are abused, so we need someone below us in order to feel better!' argument.
That's not what they said. Not at all. What they said is more like a complaint about hypocrisy and double standards. "Why is this stuff only wrong when people like us do it, not when those who aren't like us, including the people who are complaining, do it to us?"
Nobody is out there writing 10 page think pieces on Medium about how we should not stare at overweight people with neck beards and man boobs because it might prevent them from coming out of their shells and pursuing their career in ballet.
Maybe I'll start listening to them when they get more consistent. For now, I just look at the SJW phenomenon as a bunch of privileged, spoiled brats looking for people to blame so that they can be victims and not at all responsible for the sorry condition of their own existence.
Why does Mrs. Clinton pay women on her staff 87 cents for each dollar she pays men?
Why does Obama pay women 78 cents for each dollar he pays men on his staff?
Probably because both of those statistics derive from studies using flawed/dishonest methodology?
The professor who’d talk to a student professionally and politely, then stare at her rear end while she walked away.
Oh yes, how terrible. Great think piece, Sir Galahad.
If people looking at your ass makes you uncomfortable, wear clothes that obscure your ass. That's what clothes are for, covering the parts of your body that you don't want others to see.
The more recent changes aren't anywhere near as bad as people think.
Drew's failure to reign in moderator agendas is what's so bad, and it is clearly never going to get better there. He's encouraging it and thinks he's on the side of right and justice with making rules about it being fine to say "i hope you die in a fire" but HORRIBLE and BANWORTHY to say "rape rape". If you're cool with that kind of twisted, identity-based morality, maybe Fark is still the site for you.
This, so much this. The problem started with mod Genevieve Marie and all her trolling alts, targeting anyone reasonably well-spoken that she didn't consider to exemplify sufficiently feminist opinions. If you look at my username, you'll probably be able to figure out which Farker I was. Drew circled the wagons instead of fixing his shit. Now we have a forum torn between "anything goes" humor when it targets certain groups and safe spaces with eggshells on the floor for other groups. Who is who? Never fear, the dear leaders will decide for you.
There's no attempt to make Fark more PC. I think what happened is the rest of the Internet moved -far- past us on the anything-goes relative scale.
Really, Drew? You're playing the "fair and balanced" game with us? Anyone can look at Fark.com headlines or comments from 2006 as compared to today and see that Fark simply lost its edge. I'm not a huge fan of rape jokes, either, but I'm less a fan of sacred cows. Remember when Fark didn't have those?
There's no way the politicians will change the law so they can no longer get paid ... it's simply too lucrative.
Lucrative like Enron. Only in the very short term.
So let me go back to how.
To bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
It's a new feature of Beta intended to line the owners' pockets.
We'll see how that works in Ferguson, MO, next month.
It might work out differently if those who thought like you do did more than "wait and see". Democracy demands the active participation of its members in order to function correctly.
talking to people I don't even know.
Just my two cents, but it seems to me that this part is probably the more effective strategy in this case. I think activists call this, "building awareness".
I have told you to fix the flaws in your system. Your response to my suggestion is to point out that your system is flawed?
While it is in many ways (far) less than ideal, there is an easier answer: vigilantism.
Sure, that's an answer in the same way that death is a cure for cancer, I suppose. It may be 100% effective but the cost is a bit high.
One man can solve his "justice" problems by himself
That might make a great intro to a movie trailer, but it's a really poor foundation to base a humongous society on.
But this case is black and white, so cheerleading is appropriate.
Is it, then? McCarthy probably found a real communist or two.
How about instead of blanket statements we look at individual cases and cheer or scold based on merit?
This guy got lucky. He wasn't good, he was fortunate. That's not merit.
This is all free speech.
The product may be speech, but you can't claim to know that the means with which it was acquired was mere speech.
Don't get all hand-wringy about dad's good speech
Dad's speech isn't good. It's emotionally satisfying but a stupid action that makes him vulnerable to predators and dangerous to innocents all at once.
This is the same inability to make obvious value judgments
Don't get all moralistic defending stupid behavior. This was stupid behavior.
Ahh well y'see that's where the "living in a democracy" part comes in handy!
And what happens when the police departments show complete disinterest to your problem?
Change the system. Sorry there isn't an easier answer, but that's the price of living in a democracy.
If someone hurts my feelings online I'll try to get revenge online.
I've just shown you the cliff at the end of the road you're traveling. If you choose to proceed despite this, there isn't much more that I can say. Via con Dios.
I'll rest my case here, I think...
because someone might get framed for murder, we can't go after real murderers
That's not my argument at all. I'm saying that we should have professionals to do things like that.
The knowledge of nuclear weapons will fade with time when governments break up and people will worry with survival.
That's a very thin limb upon which to base so much.
Maybe the system itself is broken.
What percentage broken constitutes "broken"? If you're talking about policing, I'm assuming you don't see any major problems with, say, badges. So you don't want to change 100% of the system, then.
So now we're onto a saner argument: what specifically is broken, and how should we approach fixing it?
Come on, you realistically expect the police to handle every case like this?
Police departments that currently exist? Not in every case we'd be talking about, no. We evidently need something new, but that something new is more like a police department than mob justice.
This is no different from having a reasonable right to self defense to protect your life.
The claim that mob internet justice is "no different" than individual right to self-defense is so utterly ridiculous that it borders on not worth responding to. Here is a rather meaningful difference: when you're going to shoot someone, you can see them and know what you're aiming at. I guess you didn't think of that.
If you are being harassed online you should be able to do something about it
I completely concur. That's the point of what I'm saying. You totally should be able to do something about it, and that something should not require you to become a private investigator, politician, lawyer, judge, and security guard. Nor should it only be available to those with enough resources: time, money, knowledge, physical or intellectual capabilities, etcetera.
The earlier you take action, the more you cut off the really bad stuff.
This behavior pattern - acting before thinking it through - leads to what's called "flailing". Experts will tell you pretty universally that this is one of the worst things to do if you're being stalked and harassed on the internet.
What if what is broken is having inherent trust in the system to do everything for you?
Then you've engaged in a strawman. Nothing about what I've just said demands "having inherent trust in the system to do everything for you".