He claimed that male conservatives are best suited. Not only are males, according to him, biologically superior when it comes to tech, but conservatives are best suited because they are more conscientious.
Try reading his actual memo. Everything you've said here is false. He doesn't even mention conservatives at all, and self-identifies as a classical liberal. Everything he said here is 100% consistent with classic liberalism. His overall premise is that males and females are better suited for different roles, and it is a very correct one: It's well backed by science that women are less suited as firefighters and athletes for example.
I think the main takeaway is that the Google CEO is dead wrong here in that genetics (and indeed, sex alone) can and does make somebody less suited for a job. As a general rule, women make worse construction workers, firefighters, and athletes, and this is well supported by science. Sure, there are some rare exceptions, and some men with no disabilities in their 20's have to make an effort just to stand up, therefore just about any fit woman would be better, so you can not and should not ever say that a man should automatically have the job first. However, you are only kidding yourself if 50 randomized men and 50 randomized women apply for a firefighter job, that 10 men and 10 women should be selected. It would be more like 18 men and 2 women, unless you just want to cripple your fire department and put people's lives at risk all in the name of social justice.
As for whether men make better IT people? I really don't know, so I couldn't say. What I do know, however, is that in every classroom training environment I've been in during college, very few females were present, even in an atmosphere that was highly supportive of the ones that were present. So how many do you think will actually apply for jobs to begin with? And if as a manager you're going to throw away talent just to meet some diversity quota, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
As for why they don't entertain the thought of IT in any significant numbers? I can only guess, but I did speak to one girl on campus who was in that classic situation of not being sure what career she wanted, and I suggested maybe give the college's Network Academy a shot because those jobs are in huge demand right now, but she just wasn't interested. I can however say that where I work, the infosec team consists of two females and no males, and they seem to like their jobs and do them well, but infosec isn't a very technical job, rather it's more about risk assessment, creating policies, and making sure those policies are enforced.
no, he was fired for intentionally creating a hostile working environment.
Talk about hyperbole, Mr. alt-left. This isn't even remotely accurate. A hostile work environment is defined by EEOC as:
1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive
What he said is anything but that. In fact, you could even argue that Google was intimidating and hostile against this guy's (and other people like him) opinion on this matter.
You come into a business then denigrate a sizable chunk of its workforce, then why should you expect anything else than getting fired?
Again, the hyperbole is real here. He didn't denigrate anybody. His argument amounted to "men and women are actually objectively different in terms of desires and mannerisms", something that is well supported by science.
It's telling that a conservative was the author of the essay
And you base this on?...Oh that's right, absolutely nothing, just like every other psuedo-fact you routinely post.
Linus Torvalds has said almost exactly the same thing as this guy, by the way.
"the most important part of open source is that people are allowed to do what they are good at" and "all that [diversity] stuff is just details and not really important."
Unless you want to argue that Linus is a conservative (lol). And because this issue is so important to you, then I encourage you to join the FSF:
Absolutely no coding experience is necessary: all code are equal in the eyes of the Feminist Software Foundation. There is no objective way to determine whether one person's code is better than another's. In light of this fact, all submitted code will be equally accepted. However, marginalized groups, such as wom*n and trans* will be given priority in order to make up for past discrimination. Simply submit a pull request for any submission, whether code, artwork, or even irrelevant bits — nothing is irrelevant in the grand struggle for a Truly Tolerant UNIX-ike Kernel!:
If companies promote because of socializing with your coworkers, then they have a pretty poor way of promoting.
It's not a bad idea to include that into any metrics for promotion, albeit with lighter weight. For example, you probably don't want to promote a guy to a leadership role if he's a total jackoff, or else you'll probably lose a lot of employees on account of them hating their boss. And it is absolutely a good idea to use that as a heavy weight when you hire somebody, because if you hire lots of assholes, then the company morale will suffer, and again, you're going to have problems getting and retaining talent.
Not just his knees, the whole media is doing this right now with their knees, and the hyperbole is in full swing. Here are a few headline titles I've seen on Google News:
- Dueling Google Memos Reveal a Company Struggling With Culture Change - Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral' - Google Engineer writes anti-women essay
Anyways, it's best to just ignore barbarahudson, he's a narcissist who can't stand it when people say something that he doesn't like, up to and including telling you to go to Canada so he can have you arrested for your opinions.
And when I sued for sexual discrimination, I demanded an apology in the newspapers and a $100 donation to charity, not "suing people for insane amounts of money for offending" me.
And where, pray tell, is the proof that you were actually able to enforce such a demand? Show the court record with your name on it showing the judgement forcing the other person to do this, or it didn't happen.
Or you think that a $100 to charity is an insane amount of money. Either way you're below pitiful.
Ahh that's the thing about narcissists, they deny their missteps it til the cows come home, but when the proof comes...
...they pretend it never happened. (And Bradley Manning is still a coward according to you.)
What's worse is you don't even know your own legal code. While I'm not an expert on Canadian law, it seems that nothing you said would apply to me or even a Canadian who happens to be like me: Moral damages that you threatened me with don't even apply to somebody like me and only apply to employers who have wrongfully dismissed you. Besides, in your case it would be easy for an employer to fire you just for being a dick all the time, or maybe they just don't like butt ugly people. At the very least, this is probably why your pay is shit, even though you like to attribute it to you giving yourself the chop.
And then of course, you threatened me with discrimination charges, saying, and I quote, "I'll have the cops on your ass in minutes", only that wouldn't actually happen because it also doesn't apply to somebody like me. You'd call the cops and they'd be like "Son, it's not a crime for somebody to offend you, and we're not in the business of offering a shoulder to cry on." And your earlier comments about people identifying your real gender being a crime doesn't seem to be a crime. And again, while I'm only vaguely familiar with Canadian law, it seems that you're grossly misinterpreting your own country's laws. To wit:
In other words, speech alone does not qualify. This remains true of the C-16 bill that was enacted two months ago. So in reality, Canada isn't as nazist as you want it to be. So me identifying you by your real gender or saying that removing your genitals doesn't make you a woman is not illegal, nor can it gain you any kind of civil damages.
Also as for your statement of winning two cases against somebody: I'm calling BS because you're all talk. Show the court records with your name on them along with the actual judgement amount, or it didn't happen. Like the US, Canada also makes court records public domain, so you can certainly obtain them. Don't be stupid and give some sort of cop-out like "you're not worth my time", because that will only confirm how transparent you are.
You mean somebody besides yourself (on multiple occasions)?
You are an excellent example of the torrential flood of shit that comes with anonymous and pseudo-anonymous speech from cowards.
Most of the insults I've hurled at you are just an echo of things you've said to me, only I do it much better than you do. For example, the whole trans-fat and buttlift picture only came after you started labeling me as fat. Do I troll? Yup, I've never denied that, and the way I do it isn't appreciably different from the way I bust my friends' chops and they do the same thing to me. Hell, one time I offered a gesture of good will to you, and you just verbally spat in my face. Say what you will about me, but I'm not the bad guy here.
Besides, APK seems to have done a pretty good job at showing just how much of a troll you actually are:
Oh and I like the lies you often tell about how you sue people for insane amounts of money for offending you, or how people have to buy full page ads to apologize to you personally. This is yet another trait of narcissism, by the way.
You're a real fuck-up, you know that )I suspect you do). I have no reason to go to Pakistan or India. However, I would have zero problems in Iran, or Cuba.
And yet you always insist that I go to Canada...Hypocrite much? But that is beside the point. The point is that forbidding anonymous speech about unpopular opinions creates undue hardship no matter how right or wrong those opinions may be, especially in the case of whistleblowing, where retaliation is very common. If your own country banned anonymous speech, it would easily turn into another China. The fact that you are blind to this either speaks volumes about your stupidity or just says that you're a nazi.
As for your "psychological insight", you have none. Unlike you, I don't cherry-pick articles off the web, I actually use medical specialists. Anyone who takes medical advice from you is even more fucked up than you are.
It's funny you say this, because just yesterday my psychologist (who has been practicing since 1980) commented to me that my knowledge on this is pretty good for somebody with no relevant degree, without me even soliciting such a comment. It probably helps that I read a lot about my own conditions.
As for attention-seeking, you're the one always indulging in trying to get my attention by stalking my posts so you can turn the conversation off-topic because you secretly have a thing for transsexual women that is so obvious it's not funny. Anyone can verify this by checking your posting history, stupid tranny-chaser.
If that was actually the case, there are far more (and honestly, more interesting) targets than you on slashdot, and yet my discussions with them always remain short and civil in the event that they rarely happen. But you wouldn't know because you gave up civility a long time ago. Anybody who attacks personal liberties and demands authoritarianism the way you do is inevitably going to get the same response out of me. You being a trans-fat is notwithstanding and is just yet another ad-hominem on your part, which seems to be your get out of jail card every time somebody proves you wrong.
Your capacities, path, opportunities, drives, and circumstances are not universal constants.
So your "I've been there" is bound to be inaccurate for others, and any general conclusions you draw about those other people from such a presumption are bound to be flawed.
Accuracy of my situation to others is completely irrelevant. No two people are alike. And so why do we need justice for this? Justice means being impartial or righting a wrong. If we're truly being impartial, then all people will need to succeed or fail on their own merits, which includes everything you just mentioned above rather than being given special favors, which is by definition NOT impartial.
But if you're talking about righting a wrong, then who wronged whom?
Was the 16 hours a day for 8 years world of warcraft player wronged by society for him making a decision to do that with his time? Do I deserve justice for being so risk averse that I likely won't ever have a director or executive position compared to other people who take just the right amount of risk and therefore are more qualified for those positions? Does somebody else deserve to take my 401k and my house that I paid cash for when I die instead of me being able to choose what person I pass it to, even though I sacrificed much for this by aggressively saving money far more than other people in my position do? Or in other words, do I need to be punished for having the forethought to guarantee my own retirement in the likely event that I will be disabled and unable to work due to my chronic kidney disease, and does the lesson need to be that I shouldn't save money and should spend it all in the short-term instead?
If you're not prepared for the repercussions of your speech, then you don't believe in it all that much to suffer the consequences. It's the same as people who take part in a protest and then get all upset when they're arrested because they don't want to go to jail - useless cowards. They lack the courage of their convictions.
I'll tell you what: Go to Pakistan and tell everybody about how you think it's awesome to remove your genitals and dress like a woman. Let's see just how well your convictions hold up. And I'm going to add this: Give me your address, and next time I'm in Canada (if it should happen again, but honestly after going to some bore's asshole called Toronto, I don't really think I want to go back there) I'll happily and loudly say what I think of your sorry trans-fat genital-less silicon-poisoned butt-lifted ass, Tom, and you're welcome to try to sue me but it won't do you any good: The US does not extradite anybody (including foreign citizens) for actions protected by the constitution, nor does it enforce foreign lawsuit judgements against the same actions (this is something the Obama administration with a democrat dominated house and senate did, by the way.) Unlike Canada, we have this thing called the bill of rights, which among other things not provided by your government, gives us free speech and protection against compelled self-incrimination.
And I never said you were older than me if you were my age, you'd probably be wiser.
I'm easily far wiser than you are. Every time I argue with you, I do it on scientific grounds, and you always counter with logical fallacies, speculation, and total bullshit.
But you'll die before I will, so I don't give a fuck.
Hmm....well, I have stage 4 chronic kidney disease so there is some merit to your argument...but only just.
You're a narcissist, which has a suicide rate 50 times that of the general population, and you're a trans-fat, which has a suicide rate far, far higher than that even. Combine the two and...I'd give you...hmm...about 5 more years? Give or take a year; it just depends on how long it takes for you to realize that you aren't fooling anyone. But if you're able to remain very good at self-delusion like you currently are, then maybe add another two years before you OD on heroin while trying to amplify your delusions of yourself as a Mary-Sue character.
As for me...I'm in overall good physical shape, which usually means a good outcome for people with my condition...so...another 40 years? Give or take 5, unless UCSF's iRAD (or something like it) is successful in the long-term, then I can possibly live into the 80's. And unlike you, I won't be closeted about the fact that some of my organs are no longer intact.
All you guys who are living the movie "40 Year Old Virgin" have already demonstrated your total lack of social skills.
My "lack of social skills" as you put it is a symptom of PTSD. While you feign harassment and persecution all the damn time, I've actually lived it. You're just a dickhead narcissist with a victim complex, so you make it a point to talk about it all the time, but actual victims don't do this; they prefer to never mention it at all, especially in the case of sexual harassment, and will only occasionally do so if they deem it therapeutic (i.e. group therapy.)
In fact I often hang out at a local bar with a group of friends, and occasionally one really manipulative narcissistic woman (real woman, mind you) that nobody really likes comes around and talks about how she's been raped many times in her life, because she likes the attention it gets her (that is, until people get sick of her.) One time I said to the group that she's full of shit for the exact reason I'm telling you that you're full of shit, and I specifically mentioned some psychology articles I had read about the topic. And you know what happened? Two (real) women pulled me aside (at different times) an
It's amazing how anything you say that doesn't toe the social media populism line is immediately considered alt-right, simply because you don't toe the line. I'm not a member of the "right", let alone the "alt-right". And of course you use this as an attempt to discredit me, but it's not going to work, asshole, so take your irrational ad-hominem bullshit elsewhere. But if you do want to debate this rationally, then stop using logical fallacies.
And yes, I'm pretty serious about this. It's probably not uniform across Canada, but go to Toronto and try making edgy jokes to the locals. Inevitably, they're going to avoid the subject. But if you meet with them in private, especially the local Iranians, they make jokes about homosexuals, jews, etc, all day long, as Iranians often do. But, they'll specifically tell you that you NEVER do this in a public place in Toronto.
Comedians notoriously have this exact same problem:
I'm the 1% of the population who doesn't give a fuck about social justice. Not even four years ago I was living below the federal poverty level for the 10 years of my adult life with my crowning achievement being a 20 hour a week minimum wage job at Staples where I mostly just manned the till and stocked shelves. And according to this I'm now within the upper class, and I didn't need any stupid social justice.
I didn't have an inheritance of any kind, parents didn't pay for a thing that I needed, I didn't have any special privileges, and the only opportunities I had were ones I created for myself. I just went to college, got a job with a so-so but comfortable salary, then got laid off, then got another job with a very good salary. Both jobs were asking for much more experience than I even had, and the only reason I landed both jobs was because the interviewers were just impressed with the knowledge I gained from a no-name community college associates degree.
I honestly feel that somebody who thinks they're deserving of some kind of justice for whatever shitty situation they put themselves in is just being lazy. I know this because I've been there.
Apparently in Canadian law, if it's a civil discovery, you can be compelled to provide evidence, which means that protections against self-incrimination only work in criminal cases. Where it gets complicated is that this may or may not be used against you in a criminal case, in addition to the civil case.
Honestly I'd be a little on edge in Canada in general, or at least in Toronto anyways. There are actual undercover PC police that listen for anybody making comments or light jokes that might in some way be discriminatory against "any identifiable group", and they like to make examples out of people for violating hate speech laws.
If the USA were like Canada, then half of slashdot would be serving life sentences right about now.
Typical conservative. The fucked up math and logical conclusions you have to come up with to make your bullshit seem believable is astounding. Yes, they were referring to liberal treehuggers.
Not only am I neither liberal nor conservative, but I actually hate the concept entirely because it compresses political opinions into one dimension, when it should be no less than three, but ideally 5 or more. But because you're very much one dimensional, I'll dumb this down for you.
Using NIMBY and Green together in any context is a dog whistle meaning treehugging hippy fags
No it doesn't. NIMBY is basically everywhere, and the green movement is almost universally opposed to nuclear power, with the only exception being people who actually understand science. Unless you're going to argue that the left is almost universally opposed to nuclear power, then your whole argument is bunk.
just like saying "urban" refers to niggaz n spics. Don't try to pull your bullshit here. You know damned well what you're doing.
So when I say that I live in an urban area, I'm automatically talking about "niggaz n spics" as you put it? You're even more one dimensional than I thought.
You just failed reading comprehension, kid. Go back to elementary school, literally. He explicitly named the green movement, which is absolutely a leftist one.
While that may be considered a leftist movement, it doesn't represent the entire left. Or in other words, if I bash Evergreen State, then that's the same as bashing the whole left according to you; i.e. e+g+d = L, therefore g = L.
You just tried to insult me because I didn't follow your assfucked logic, so try again moron.
You can tell that this narrative about the Left ruining everything
He didn't say anything at all about the left, nor was it implied, unless you think all of the left are part of one of the notorious groups that claim to be environmentalists and yet ignore science any time it conflicts with their narrative, such as greenpeace and many organizations like them.
If you really think that, then you'd be an excellent fit for Evergreen State.
You bought a written-off, salvaged 2015 Ford and use that to claim Ford sucks?
I've been driving them for decades, cars and trucks, they are no more or less reliable than any other major car brand...
False. My 2013 Camry is salvaged, and it has no problems at all, vs the brand new 2015 Ford that is already having problems in its very short lifespan.
How is saying safe spaces are a way to avoid fixing the underlying problem in any way related to my wanting to ban anonymous speech? Oh, right, they actually go hand in hand. You should have to stand behind what you say. Anonymous speech prevents that. Same way that hiding in safe spaces avoids confronting the problem you're hiding from.
If you say something unpopular, no matter how correct it may be, you can be subjecting yourself for hardship. This is EXACTLY why anonymous speech needs to be protected, and if it isn't, it contributes directly to the echo chamber that you claim to be against. Case in point: Try saying anything even slightly against the grain at Evergreen State. You'll be subject to anything from constant harassment to physical assaults if you do.
I see logic is still something you're only vaguely familiar with.
Far from it, rather democracy is something you're only vaguely familiar with.
And when it comes to different opinions, you've already proven you lie at the drop of a hat, and contradict yourself in the same thread.
That's rich; I've done neither of these things while you've done both in the same post.
And you're still just a pitiful fat aging virgin troll, and will be until you die.
Umm...everything you've just accused me of is something you're guilty of. Seriously, all of it. Furthermore, I'm not anywhere near as old as you are.
Yeah, I have actually, my aunt happens to own a Ford Fusion. Hers is a 2015, and my Camry is 2013. I got my car the same year she got hers (I paid $10k cash for mine, salvaged.) Hers drives ok from my experience, but it's already having transmission problems. The only problem mine technically had was the result of its previous owner being involved in a wreck that damaged the front right wheel well, which was easily fixed, but that wasn't inherent in its build quality at all.
Every mechanic I know (and there are many in my family) hates Ford because they break often and suffer from designs that are very anti-mechanic, even to this day. This is why I say you have to throw it out after 5 years. There's a reason you don't see as many people drive around in older Fords as you do other brands, except for Ford trucks. The only reason you think otherwise is because the dealer did this to you:
Toyota isn't what it once was, Ford isn't either... give Consumer Reports try, they talk about this in recent auto reviews, that the gap has closed and the old issues are largely gone...
That's rich given you have little tolerance for somebody with a different opinion from yourself, and you advocate banning anonymous speech. Your alias is King Echochamber.
As far as your studies go...oh boy. So the statistical error you're making is not considering or controlling for other confounding factors. Assault and various kinds of sexual and other abuse occur at a rate far higher than the general population
Aside from the fact that you were demanding citations earlier and then just feel you don't need to provide any yourself, if you actually read the second citation I gave, it specifically mentions that these conditions are found among those who haven't yet begun.
You might have noticed that the one was published in "Psychiatry Journal", the other in "Medical Journal of Islamic Republic of Iran", and both of them were done in Iran.
Well duh, they're cheap because they don't last for shit. If you want a decent car of that class, get a Toyota Camry; it's usually priced lower and you don't have to throw it away after 5 years.
BTW you sound just like car dealer. Honestly, fuck buying new cars, otherwise you're just throwing away lots of money, just like one does when they buy a Ford (except maybe Ford trucks.)
Slashdot Mirror
He claimed that male conservatives are best suited. Not only are males, according to him, biologically superior when it comes to tech, but conservatives are best suited because they are more conscientious.
Try reading his actual memo. Everything you've said here is false. He doesn't even mention conservatives at all, and self-identifies as a classical liberal. Everything he said here is 100% consistent with classic liberalism. His overall premise is that males and females are better suited for different roles, and it is a very correct one: It's well backed by science that women are less suited as firefighters and athletes for example.
I think the main takeaway is that the Google CEO is dead wrong here in that genetics (and indeed, sex alone) can and does make somebody less suited for a job. As a general rule, women make worse construction workers, firefighters, and athletes, and this is well supported by science. Sure, there are some rare exceptions, and some men with no disabilities in their 20's have to make an effort just to stand up, therefore just about any fit woman would be better, so you can not and should not ever say that a man should automatically have the job first. However, you are only kidding yourself if 50 randomized men and 50 randomized women apply for a firefighter job, that 10 men and 10 women should be selected. It would be more like 18 men and 2 women, unless you just want to cripple your fire department and put people's lives at risk all in the name of social justice.
As for whether men make better IT people? I really don't know, so I couldn't say. What I do know, however, is that in every classroom training environment I've been in during college, very few females were present, even in an atmosphere that was highly supportive of the ones that were present. So how many do you think will actually apply for jobs to begin with? And if as a manager you're going to throw away talent just to meet some diversity quota, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
As for why they don't entertain the thought of IT in any significant numbers? I can only guess, but I did speak to one girl on campus who was in that classic situation of not being sure what career she wanted, and I suggested maybe give the college's Network Academy a shot because those jobs are in huge demand right now, but she just wasn't interested. I can however say that where I work, the infosec team consists of two females and no males, and they seem to like their jobs and do them well, but infosec isn't a very technical job, rather it's more about risk assessment, creating policies, and making sure those policies are enforced.
no, he was fired for intentionally creating a hostile working environment.
Talk about hyperbole, Mr. alt-left. This isn't even remotely accurate. A hostile work environment is defined by EEOC as:
1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or
2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive
What he said is anything but that. In fact, you could even argue that Google was intimidating and hostile against this guy's (and other people like him) opinion on this matter.
You come into a business then denigrate a sizable chunk of its workforce, then why should you expect anything else than getting fired?
Again, the hyperbole is real here. He didn't denigrate anybody. His argument amounted to "men and women are actually objectively different in terms of desires and mannerisms", something that is well supported by science.
It's telling that a conservative was the author of the essay
And you base this on? ...Oh that's right, absolutely nothing, just like every other psuedo-fact you routinely post.
Linus Torvalds has said almost exactly the same thing as this guy, by the way.
"the most important part of open source is that people are allowed to do what they are good at" and "all that [diversity] stuff is just details and not really important."
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
Unless you want to argue that Linus is a conservative (lol). And because this issue is so important to you, then I encourage you to join the FSF:
Absolutely no coding experience is necessary: all code are equal in the eyes of the Feminist Software Foundation. There is no objective way to determine whether one person's code is better than another's. In light of this fact, all submitted code will be equally accepted. However, marginalized groups, such as wom*n and trans* will be given priority in order to make up for past discrimination. Simply submit a pull request for any submission, whether code, artwork, or even irrelevant bits — nothing is irrelevant in the grand struggle for a Truly Tolerant UNIX-ike Kernel!:
https://github.com/The-Feminis...
If companies promote because of socializing with your coworkers, then they have a pretty poor way of promoting.
It's not a bad idea to include that into any metrics for promotion, albeit with lighter weight. For example, you probably don't want to promote a guy to a leadership role if he's a total jackoff, or else you'll probably lose a lot of employees on account of them hating their boss. And it is absolutely a good idea to use that as a heavy weight when you hire somebody, because if you hire lots of assholes, then the company morale will suffer, and again, you're going to have problems getting and retaining talent.
Not just his knees, the whole media is doing this right now with their knees, and the hyperbole is in full swing. Here are a few headline titles I've seen on Google News:
- Dueling Google Memos Reveal a Company Struggling With Culture Change
- Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'
- Google Engineer writes anti-women essay
Anyways, it's best to just ignore barbarahudson, he's a narcissist who can't stand it when people say something that he doesn't like, up to and including telling you to go to Canada so he can have you arrested for your opinions.
I have never said that I think you would be someone who would be a desirable visitor or immigrant to Canada.
I didn't say it in that way, however I do like how you use the word "desire". You clearly wanted me to "come" to you, so how is that not desire?
And when I sued for sexual discrimination, I demanded an apology in the newspapers and a $100 donation to charity, not "suing people for insane amounts of money for offending" me.
And where, pray tell, is the proof that you were actually able to enforce such a demand? Show the court record with your name on it showing the judgement forcing the other person to do this, or it didn't happen.
Or you think that a $100 to charity is an insane amount of money. Either way you're below pitiful.
Ahh that's the thing about narcissists, they deny their missteps it til the cows come home, but when the proof comes...
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
What's worse is you don't even know your own legal code. While I'm not an expert on Canadian law, it seems that nothing you said would apply to me or even a Canadian who happens to be like me: Moral damages that you threatened me with don't even apply to somebody like me and only apply to employers who have wrongfully dismissed you. Besides, in your case it would be easy for an employer to fire you just for being a dick all the time, or maybe they just don't like butt ugly people. At the very least, this is probably why your pay is shit, even though you like to attribute it to you giving yourself the chop.
And then of course, you threatened me with discrimination charges, saying, and I quote, "I'll have the cops on your ass in minutes", only that wouldn't actually happen because it also doesn't apply to somebody like me. You'd call the cops and they'd be like "Son, it's not a crime for somebody to offend you, and we're not in the business of offering a shoulder to cry on." And your earlier comments about people identifying your real gender being a crime doesn't seem to be a crime. And again, while I'm only vaguely familiar with Canadian law, it seems that you're grossly misinterpreting your own country's laws. To wit:
Discrimination is an action or a decision that treats a person or a group negatively for reasons such as their race, age or disability. These reasons are known as grounds of discrimination. Federal employers and service providers, as well as employers and service providers of private companies that are regulated by the federal government, cannot discriminate against individuals for these reasons.
In other words, speech alone does not qualify. This remains true of the C-16 bill that was enacted two months ago. So in reality, Canada isn't as nazist as you want it to be. So me identifying you by your real gender or saying that removing your genitals doesn't make you a woman is not illegal, nor can it gain you any kind of civil damages.
Also as for your statement of winning two cases against somebody: I'm calling BS because you're all talk. Show the court records with your name on them along with the actual judgement amount, or it didn't happen. Like the US, Canada also makes court records public domain, so you can certainly obtain them. Don't be stupid and give some sort of cop-out like "you're not worth my time", because that will only confirm how transparent you are.
Why would ANY Canadian want you to go to Canada?
You mean somebody besides yourself (on multiple occasions)?
You are an excellent example of the torrential flood of shit that comes with anonymous and pseudo-anonymous speech from cowards.
Most of the insults I've hurled at you are just an echo of things you've said to me, only I do it much better than you do. For example, the whole trans-fat and buttlift picture only came after you started labeling me as fat. Do I troll? Yup, I've never denied that, and the way I do it isn't appreciably different from the way I bust my friends' chops and they do the same thing to me. Hell, one time I offered a gesture of good will to you, and you just verbally spat in my face. Say what you will about me, but I'm not the bad guy here.
Besides, APK seems to have done a pretty good job at showing just how much of a troll you actually are:
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Oh and I like the lies you often tell about how you sue people for insane amounts of money for offending you, or how people have to buy full page ads to apologize to you personally. This is yet another trait of narcissism, by the way.
You're a real fuck-up, you know that )I suspect you do). I have no reason to go to Pakistan or India. However, I would have zero problems in Iran, or Cuba.
And yet you always insist that I go to Canada...Hypocrite much? But that is beside the point. The point is that forbidding anonymous speech about unpopular opinions creates undue hardship no matter how right or wrong those opinions may be, especially in the case of whistleblowing, where retaliation is very common. If your own country banned anonymous speech, it would easily turn into another China. The fact that you are blind to this either speaks volumes about your stupidity or just says that you're a nazi.
As for your "psychological insight", you have none. Unlike you, I don't cherry-pick articles off the web, I actually use medical specialists. Anyone who takes medical advice from you is even more fucked up than you are.
It's funny you say this, because just yesterday my psychologist (who has been practicing since 1980) commented to me that my knowledge on this is pretty good for somebody with no relevant degree, without me even soliciting such a comment. It probably helps that I read a lot about my own conditions.
As for attention-seeking, you're the one always indulging in trying to get my attention by stalking my posts so you can turn the conversation off-topic because you secretly have a thing for transsexual women that is so obvious it's not funny. Anyone can verify this by checking your posting history, stupid tranny-chaser.
If that was actually the case, there are far more (and honestly, more interesting) targets than you on slashdot, and yet my discussions with them always remain short and civil in the event that they rarely happen. But you wouldn't know because you gave up civility a long time ago. Anybody who attacks personal liberties and demands authoritarianism the way you do is inevitably going to get the same response out of me. You being a trans-fat is notwithstanding and is just yet another ad-hominem on your part, which seems to be your get out of jail card every time somebody proves you wrong.
Your capacities, path, opportunities, drives, and circumstances are not universal constants.
So your "I've been there" is bound to be inaccurate for others, and any general conclusions you draw about those other people from such a presumption are bound to be flawed.
Accuracy of my situation to others is completely irrelevant. No two people are alike. And so why do we need justice for this? Justice means being impartial or righting a wrong. If we're truly being impartial, then all people will need to succeed or fail on their own merits, which includes everything you just mentioned above rather than being given special favors, which is by definition NOT impartial.
But if you're talking about righting a wrong, then who wronged whom?
Was the 16 hours a day for 8 years world of warcraft player wronged by society for him making a decision to do that with his time? Do I deserve justice for being so risk averse that I likely won't ever have a director or executive position compared to other people who take just the right amount of risk and therefore are more qualified for those positions? Does somebody else deserve to take my 401k and my house that I paid cash for when I die instead of me being able to choose what person I pass it to, even though I sacrificed much for this by aggressively saving money far more than other people in my position do? Or in other words, do I need to be punished for having the forethought to guarantee my own retirement in the likely event that I will be disabled and unable to work due to my chronic kidney disease, and does the lesson need to be that I shouldn't save money and should spend it all in the short-term instead?
If you're not prepared for the repercussions of your speech, then you don't believe in it all that much to suffer the consequences. It's the same as people who take part in a protest and then get all upset when they're arrested because they don't want to go to jail - useless cowards. They lack the courage of their convictions.
I'll tell you what: Go to Pakistan and tell everybody about how you think it's awesome to remove your genitals and dress like a woman. Let's see just how well your convictions hold up. And I'm going to add this: Give me your address, and next time I'm in Canada (if it should happen again, but honestly after going to some bore's asshole called Toronto, I don't really think I want to go back there) I'll happily and loudly say what I think of your sorry trans-fat genital-less silicon-poisoned butt-lifted ass, Tom, and you're welcome to try to sue me but it won't do you any good: The US does not extradite anybody (including foreign citizens) for actions protected by the constitution, nor does it enforce foreign lawsuit judgements against the same actions (this is something the Obama administration with a democrat dominated house and senate did, by the way.) Unlike Canada, we have this thing called the bill of rights, which among other things not provided by your government, gives us free speech and protection against compelled self-incrimination.
And I never said you were older than me if you were my age, you'd probably be wiser.
I'm easily far wiser than you are. Every time I argue with you, I do it on scientific grounds, and you always counter with logical fallacies, speculation, and total bullshit.
But you'll die before I will, so I don't give a fuck.
Hmm....well, I have stage 4 chronic kidney disease so there is some merit to your argument...but only just.
You're a narcissist, which has a suicide rate 50 times that of the general population, and you're a trans-fat, which has a suicide rate far, far higher than that even. Combine the two and...I'd give you...hmm...about 5 more years? Give or take a year; it just depends on how long it takes for you to realize that you aren't fooling anyone. But if you're able to remain very good at self-delusion like you currently are, then maybe add another two years before you OD on heroin while trying to amplify your delusions of yourself as a Mary-Sue character.
As for me...I'm in overall good physical shape, which usually means a good outcome for people with my condition...so...another 40 years? Give or take 5, unless UCSF's iRAD (or something like it) is successful in the long-term, then I can possibly live into the 80's. And unlike you, I won't be closeted about the fact that some of my organs are no longer intact.
All you guys who are living the movie "40 Year Old Virgin" have already demonstrated your total lack of social skills.
My "lack of social skills" as you put it is a symptom of PTSD. While you feign harassment and persecution all the damn time, I've actually lived it. You're just a dickhead narcissist with a victim complex, so you make it a point to talk about it all the time, but actual victims don't do this; they prefer to never mention it at all, especially in the case of sexual harassment, and will only occasionally do so if they deem it therapeutic (i.e. group therapy.)
In fact I often hang out at a local bar with a group of friends, and occasionally one really manipulative narcissistic woman (real woman, mind you) that nobody really likes comes around and talks about how she's been raped many times in her life, because she likes the attention it gets her (that is, until people get sick of her.) One time I said to the group that she's full of shit for the exact reason I'm telling you that you're full of shit, and I specifically mentioned some psychology articles I had read about the topic. And you know what happened? Two (real) women pulled me aside (at different times) an
It's amazing how anything you say that doesn't toe the social media populism line is immediately considered alt-right, simply because you don't toe the line. I'm not a member of the "right", let alone the "alt-right". And of course you use this as an attempt to discredit me, but it's not going to work, asshole, so take your irrational ad-hominem bullshit elsewhere. But if you do want to debate this rationally, then stop using logical fallacies.
And yes, I'm pretty serious about this. It's probably not uniform across Canada, but go to Toronto and try making edgy jokes to the locals. Inevitably, they're going to avoid the subject. But if you meet with them in private, especially the local Iranians, they make jokes about homosexuals, jews, etc, all day long, as Iranians often do. But, they'll specifically tell you that you NEVER do this in a public place in Toronto.
Comedians notoriously have this exact same problem:
http://www.torontosun.com/2017...
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/1...
I'm the 1% of the population who doesn't give a fuck about social justice. Not even four years ago I was living below the federal poverty level for the 10 years of my adult life with my crowning achievement being a 20 hour a week minimum wage job at Staples where I mostly just manned the till and stocked shelves. And according to this I'm now within the upper class, and I didn't need any stupid social justice.
I didn't have an inheritance of any kind, parents didn't pay for a thing that I needed, I didn't have any special privileges, and the only opportunities I had were ones I created for myself. I just went to college, got a job with a so-so but comfortable salary, then got laid off, then got another job with a very good salary. Both jobs were asking for much more experience than I even had, and the only reason I landed both jobs was because the interviewers were just impressed with the knowledge I gained from a no-name community college associates degree.
I honestly feel that somebody who thinks they're deserving of some kind of justice for whatever shitty situation they put themselves in is just being lazy. I know this because I've been there.
Apparently in Canadian law, if it's a civil discovery, you can be compelled to provide evidence, which means that protections against self-incrimination only work in criminal cases. Where it gets complicated is that this may or may not be used against you in a criminal case, in addition to the civil case.
https://www.bennettjones.com/P...
Honestly I'd be a little on edge in Canada in general, or at least in Toronto anyways. There are actual undercover PC police that listen for anybody making comments or light jokes that might in some way be discriminatory against "any identifiable group", and they like to make examples out of people for violating hate speech laws.
If the USA were like Canada, then half of slashdot would be serving life sentences right about now.
Typical conservative. The fucked up math and logical conclusions you have to come up with to make your bullshit seem believable is astounding. Yes, they were referring to liberal treehuggers.
Not only am I neither liberal nor conservative, but I actually hate the concept entirely because it compresses political opinions into one dimension, when it should be no less than three, but ideally 5 or more. But because you're very much one dimensional, I'll dumb this down for you.
Using NIMBY and Green together in any context is a dog whistle meaning treehugging hippy fags
No it doesn't. NIMBY is basically everywhere, and the green movement is almost universally opposed to nuclear power, with the only exception being people who actually understand science. Unless you're going to argue that the left is almost universally opposed to nuclear power, then your whole argument is bunk.
just like saying "urban" refers to niggaz n spics. Don't try to pull your bullshit here. You know damned well what you're doing.
So when I say that I live in an urban area, I'm automatically talking about "niggaz n spics" as you put it? You're even more one dimensional than I thought.
/facepalm Oh boy...another one...
You just failed reading comprehension, kid. Go back to elementary school, literally. He explicitly named the green movement, which is absolutely a leftist one.
While that may be considered a leftist movement, it doesn't represent the entire left. Or in other words, if I bash Evergreen State, then that's the same as bashing the whole left according to you; i.e. e+g+d = L, therefore g = L.
You just tried to insult me because I didn't follow your assfucked logic, so try again moron.
/facepalm Oh dear...another victim complex...
You can tell that this narrative about the Left ruining everything
He didn't say anything at all about the left, nor was it implied, unless you think all of the left are part of one of the notorious groups that claim to be environmentalists and yet ignore science any time it conflicts with their narrative, such as greenpeace and many organizations like them.
If you really think that, then you'd be an excellent fit for Evergreen State.
Here's an actual compiled report with data to back it up, vs your nothing:
https://www.consumerreports.or...
You bought a written-off, salvaged 2015 Ford and use that to claim Ford sucks?
I've been driving them for decades, cars and trucks, they are no more or less reliable than any other major car brand...
False. My 2013 Camry is salvaged, and it has no problems at all, vs the brand new 2015 Ford that is already having problems in its very short lifespan.
How is saying safe spaces are a way to avoid fixing the underlying problem in any way related to my wanting to ban anonymous speech? Oh, right, they actually go hand in hand. You should have to stand behind what you say. Anonymous speech prevents that. Same way that hiding in safe spaces avoids confronting the problem you're hiding from.
If you say something unpopular, no matter how correct it may be, you can be subjecting yourself for hardship. This is EXACTLY why anonymous speech needs to be protected, and if it isn't, it contributes directly to the echo chamber that you claim to be against. Case in point: Try saying anything even slightly against the grain at Evergreen State. You'll be subject to anything from constant harassment to physical assaults if you do.
I see logic is still something you're only vaguely familiar with.
Far from it, rather democracy is something you're only vaguely familiar with.
And when it comes to different opinions, you've already proven you lie at the drop of a hat, and contradict yourself in the same thread.
That's rich; I've done neither of these things while you've done both in the same post.
And you're still just a pitiful fat aging virgin troll, and will be until you die.
Umm...everything you've just accused me of is something you're guilty of. Seriously, all of it. Furthermore, I'm not anywhere near as old as you are.
Yeah, I have actually, my aunt happens to own a Ford Fusion. Hers is a 2015, and my Camry is 2013. I got my car the same year she got hers (I paid $10k cash for mine, salvaged.) Hers drives ok from my experience, but it's already having transmission problems. The only problem mine technically had was the result of its previous owner being involved in a wreck that damaged the front right wheel well, which was easily fixed, but that wasn't inherent in its build quality at all.
Every mechanic I know (and there are many in my family) hates Ford because they break often and suffer from designs that are very anti-mechanic, even to this day. This is why I say you have to throw it out after 5 years. There's a reason you don't see as many people drive around in older Fords as you do other brands, except for Ford trucks. The only reason you think otherwise is because the dealer did this to you:
http://livingstingy.blogspot.c...
Toyota isn't what it once was, Ford isn't either... give Consumer Reports try, they talk about this in recent auto reviews, that the gap has closed and the old issues are largely gone...
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.consumerreports.or...
That's rich given you have little tolerance for somebody with a different opinion from yourself, and you advocate banning anonymous speech. Your alias is King Echochamber.
Personally, I dealt with
The singular form of data is not anecdote.
As far as your studies go...oh boy. So the statistical error you're making is not considering or controlling for other confounding factors. Assault and various kinds of sexual and other abuse occur at a rate far higher than the general population
Aside from the fact that you were demanding citations earlier and then just feel you don't need to provide any yourself, if you actually read the second citation I gave, it specifically mentions that these conditions are found among those who haven't yet begun.
You might have noticed that the one was published in "Psychiatry Journal", the other in "Medical Journal of Islamic Republic of Iran", and both of them were done in Iran.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Well duh, they're cheap because they don't last for shit. If you want a decent car of that class, get a Toyota Camry; it's usually priced lower and you don't have to throw it away after 5 years.
BTW you sound just like car dealer. Honestly, fuck buying new cars, otherwise you're just throwing away lots of money, just like one does when they buy a Ford (except maybe Ford trucks.)