So you don't even know your point. And you have done everything you accused me of doing.
Typical leftist self righteousness. You are going to be put into a remedial education program to teach you how to clean toilets along with everyone else like you.
This is just a bunch of hearsay with subjective interpretations of irrelevant data.
This is some classic marxist propaganda.
Let's read along:
But replacing experienced women with male novices didnâ(TM)t go as government bureaucrats planned, according to Dr. Hicks. âoeThey were just hemorrhaging money and time to try and train and recruit this ideal young man, this technocrat who will manage people and machines,â she said.
Not only were the male recruits often less qualified, they frequently left the field because they viewed it as an unmanly profession. A shortage of programmers forced the U.K. government to consolidate its computers in a handful of centers with the remaining coders.
So men are the bad guys for trying to solve the problem of women leaving the job too early by hiring the only other people available...men...and they ruined the industry because that didn't work either even though there were no other options. So because no one wanted to program computers, men are the ones at fault, because the author of the story feels like saying so.
Sexism in the tech industry is as old as the tech industry itself.
Americaâ(TM)s computing workforce is 24% women, and that proportion is falling too, despite hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent on diversity and inclusion efforts.
So which is it, is the industry sexist or is it inclusive?
Oh its the male hiring managers that are the good guys and every other man is evil and sexist! At least there are some good men!
Seriously, Slashdot was sold to marxist SJWs, this kind of story has no place in existence much less here. It is 100% lies and nonsense. Our society is being destroyed by stories like this. Civilization is doomed unless we fight back against this poison. We need to start being very, very vocal about these things.
What exactly is the problem supposed to be? No one wants to train and invest in people who are going to flake out. What matters is not their gender, but their behavior. The behavior was the consideration, not the gender.
These gender war baiting articles are starting to piss me off. Slashdot is controlled by social justice warriors.
But what motivated you to make that ridicule? The echo of some objection some one made against the religion for a reason, or of some personal quarrel some one had against a member of the religion?
In any competition, the loser gets hurt. So there can be no competition? Then how will we establish right and wrong? Pacifism does not work.
Here's the thing that flushes this turd of a post down the poopoo hole:
You don't have to look at anything you don't want you.
Certain viewpoints tend to accumulate at certain venues. If you are a coward and have no self discipline and it would destabilize your mental health to see a contrary opinion, there are places you can stick to where you have a reasonable expectation of seeing only things you agree with.
This poster is literally arguing that the internet is one big uncompartmentalized room. Obviously that's just wrong.
And the language he uses is infantile. Are we in kindergarten? Is poop really a good symbol for evil? Bad allocation of mod points.
Social media is forcing people to respond to different ideas. They aren't becoming fundamentally more intolerant, their intolerances are being manifested and taking up a greater proportion of their energy.
That doesn't mean people are turned off to new ideas. They will be looking for solutions to release their distress and so will actually be much more tolerant of certain ideas.
You're throwing around the idea of tolerance too generally you need to break down the semantics and context more to make a meaningful statement. You're really muddling the whole thing hopelessly.
What's really happening here is a civil war in the making. People are going to be less open to discourse and more open to warfare. They all feel like their point of view is being cheated. Some more rightly than others. There is simply no accountability in this society. The concept of freedom has been perverted to mean "do whatever you feel like whenever you want as long as you have money to do it" and has nothing to do with responsibility. This is because of our materialistic culture that has been enforced from the top down by the endless bloating of government since the start of WW1. Our entire society has become corrupted by plutocratic industrialists and bankers, especially bankers. The industrial revolution simply unleashed too much wealth too fast and our civilization is struggling to work it out. The situation is very grim.
People scream in your face because they WANT you to fight them. You don't just automatically win because you think you're right. You can't just successfully "knock out someone's teeth" 100% of the time some one is aggressive to you. Conflict is no sure thing. Unless of course you are a far-leftist authoritarian and the state, whose policies you unconditionally support, solves all your arguments for you because you never stray far enough to release your grip from its skirts.
To be clear, we are not talking about unpopular ideas or positions you don't agree with
But actually it seems like most people are. There are certain opinions they consider unspeakable and refuse to deal with in any way, seeking to have everyone who talks about them thrown out of society. Are you missing this whole free speech crisis in universities and media and in society in general?
What does civility even entail? Your ideal of "the golden rule" has never worked. It has never been real. Ever. There is no case for it. People are tribalistic and warlike. At best "the golden rule" applies within a tribe SOME of the time. "It is by the art of war that all other arts can be." Perpetual peace is a cancer. You can't determine what is real without struggle and pain. There needs to be death for there to be life. This idea of "world peace" comes from stunted people who grew up in cities and have no concept of nature or even reality.
Real civility is simply a protocol for violence that reduces the inefficiency of war by narrowing down what we're going to fight about and why ahead of time. It does not prevent war. Nothing can stop us from giving nature its due.
You have absolutely no point and you make absolutely no sense.
Did you notice how many times you said "bigot"? Why are you so focused on that word? You can describe this phenomenon and break it down, as some one usually does when they are explaining something, but you for some reason refuse to break this word down into its constituent ideas.
This is what the marxist liberals, and all blind dogmatic people, do. It implies that this word is part of the basis of their reality.
The point is the proportions of people supporting any specific ideology in the world need to change in order for the influence of the ideology to change and there's no case for how or why the proportions changed or even that they did at all.
The implicit argument is that "bigots", "racists", etc. are irrational and only operate on emotional feedback. This perception is why you label them so broadly and easily. And you won't challenge the blanket definition because you refuse to debate them because of your own emotional reaction to them.
Maybe your ridicule of that religion had the seeds of some rational discourse that you threw away because you were embarrassed by social norms? Do you value "not hurting other people's feelings" more than the truth? Where in your reaction to hurting that kid's feelings did you evaluate whether or not what you were saying was true?
This is the pitfall of leftism. Shame over rationality. Casting blankets over things and saying "it's all good maan". This is not a viable way to conduct a society. Which is why it's being promoted - the people in charge want to crack this society open and use its insides to build their false utopia.
Your entire non-point was that these thought-criminals are gaining influence, but in order for them to do that they would have to tilt to proportions of their followers in the population........................
You're completely incoherent and you aren't addressing the objection. I asked you what you thought, but what I meant really, is logically why. As a matter of propriety I granted you the faith that you would be gracious enough to respond this way and not just further abuse my ears of your baseless opinion.
Let's break it down for you. If there is a clan in your town and they are coordinating with another several clans several different places, those clans are were still in existence independently. You are apparently trying to articulate your perception that this allows them to grow more than they could locally by comparing notes and refining strategies or something to that effect.
But whatever the advantages are, every other ideology on earth has the same advantages provided by the internet. So why would one ideology benefit more than another? Why wouldn't the growth be proportional to the populations of the seed groups?
Facebook was so invested in because its potential to break down society was realized by its big investors. It wasn't a shot in the dark with their billions of dollars. It wasn't a surprise that social media would transform our society. They knew what it was to become and it profits them immensely. Why do they want to break down society? Because they want to increase the level of control they have. Instead of programming society on the scale of groups, they want to control every atom; every individual, and open up new roads to exponentially more power.
People always explain away things like this saying "well that's just what people want and the company is just giving them what they want and making money, so this isn't really bad, this is progress! There's no conspiracy! People are smart, they aren't so easily suckered into things! They know what's good!"
The thing is that people are actually not that picky. They will accept just about ANY given solution for their basic needs as long as authority backs it consistently enough. So it becomes a question of what exactly we are progressing towards and who's interest it really is in.
Humans are not some transcendent creature with the guarantee of self awareness and intellect and rationality because of how much inherently better they are than all other life on Earth. These are optional features supported by a certain way of life. If you take away the nuances from the human way of life, if you take away the culture that support these higher functions, people go into "backward compatibility mode"; they re-adapt to a simpler, savage, prehistoric world. Simply put they devolve.
While most people don't know themselves well enough to see this, there are people who know this about humanity, and they know about it deeply. These people are leaders. Leaders either choose to try to raise people up to their own level of awareness or leaders choose to plunge people down so they can never rise up. Leaders choose either cooperation or enslavement.
Humans are tribal creatures. They are beyond racist. They are beyond nepotistic. They will kill members of their own families who displease them. Humans are not only genocidal by default, they a fratricidal by default. We can see this at every point in our history. We can see this in our close relatives like the chimpanzee that continue to live a way of life that we departed from eons ago.
Leaders cooperate and enslave in degrees. The closer you are to directly supporting the substance of the leader, that is, the more you share in common with the leader that you align with that leader's will, the more cooperation you will receive. The further, the more enslavement you will receive, up to the point that when your interests drift sufficiently you are immediately killed or otherwise neutralized. What this amounts to is simple: as time goes on you will only become more distant and unable to adapt to the leader. The leader's own will replace everyone else. Eventually you drift into the zone of no return in relation to a current leader and unless the leader changes, your line will end: you, your family, your children all die and there are no more children thereafter. Usually this takes a long time, so long that the diverse interests in the world shift and leaders change and most tribes survive at least long enough to make a compromise and intermingle with the dominant tribe. But things are becoming unusual: power is being consolidated on unprecedented scales with unprecedented stability, and it is making ever more exacting demands on its subjects as their numbers swell to challenge the Earth's ability to sustain them. Humanity's genocidal nature has risen to the surface.
This all sounds very grim, until you consider the fact we've been up and down this situation for millions of years and have some pretty good solutions to the pitfalls and the problems that lead to them. All the machinery is in place for us to CHOOSE our own leaders. Are you choosing yours? Are you prepare
....for political reasons. To characterize older workers and inflexible.
In reality, a good worker evolves with the tasks his company actually does. When you stay abreast of business you figure out for yourself what new things need to be done.
It's not just a sudden thing that you don't know how to do anything. When exactly did these people in this story start sitting around doing nothing? That's when they should have gotten fired and given the signal to wake up.
Yeah, but what the hell is the point of that? The purpose behind athletics is already destroyed; our athletic role models live for nothing but the game. That's not healthy. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in 99.9999% of cases. They just play games.
Athleticism is supposed to make you a well-rounded individual.
Bitcoin will probably never crash to zero. It's used by a lot of people for business transaction; there is a whole 'off-grid' economy with people exchanging actual goods and services and not just speculating. If it does crash below $1000 it will be because another cryptocurrency took its place for those transactions, which actually might be soon considering that the volatility makes it difficult to use as currency.
But as long as this technology shows promise there will be speculation on crypto, and the only thing that will certainly kill Bitcoin is when the demand for crypto transactions exceeds the ability of its network, and then it will probably be Bitcoin Cash (BCH) that takes over, which strictly speaking is more Bitcoin than Bitcoin is.
Slashdot Mirror
Next you're going to tell me to "give communism a chance".
Marxism is characterized most simply by establishing artificial and false dichotomies and pitting the two sides against each other.
So yeah, that word means exactly what I think it means.
So you don't even know your point.
And you have done everything you accused me of doing.
Typical leftist self righteousness.
You are going to be put into a remedial education program to teach you how to clean toilets along with everyone else like you.
First: data entry != computer programming
This is just a bunch of hearsay with subjective interpretations of irrelevant data.
This is some classic marxist propaganda.
Let's read along:
But replacing experienced women with male novices didnâ(TM)t go as government bureaucrats planned, according to Dr. Hicks. âoeThey were just hemorrhaging money and time to try and train and recruit this ideal young man, this technocrat who will manage people and machines,â she said.
Not only were the male recruits often less qualified, they frequently left the field because they viewed it as an unmanly profession. A shortage of programmers forced the U.K. government to consolidate its computers in a handful of centers with the remaining coders.
So men are the bad guys for trying to solve the problem of women leaving the job too early by hiring the only other people available...men...and they ruined the industry because that didn't work either even though there were no other options. So because no one wanted to program computers, men are the ones at fault, because the author of the story feels like saying so.
Sexism in the tech industry is as old as the tech industry itself.
Americaâ(TM)s computing workforce is 24% women, and that proportion is falling too, despite hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent on diversity and inclusion efforts.
So which is it, is the industry sexist or is it inclusive?
Oh its the male hiring managers that are the good guys and every other man is evil and sexist! At least there are some good men!
Seriously, Slashdot was sold to marxist SJWs, this kind of story has no place in existence much less here. It is 100% lies and nonsense.
Our society is being destroyed by stories like this. Civilization is doomed unless we fight back against this poison. We need to start being very, very vocal about these things.
There is no evidence for women or minorities being paid less for the same work.
No evidence. It's just a rumor.
In fact the evidence contradicts the rumor. Just google "pay gap myth" and please never open your stupid mouth again.
What exactly is the problem supposed to be?
No one wants to train and invest in people who are going to flake out. What matters is not their gender, but their behavior. The behavior was the consideration, not the gender.
These gender war baiting articles are starting to piss me off. Slashdot is controlled by social justice warriors.
You're an insane person.
But what motivated you to make that ridicule? The echo of some objection some one made against the religion for a reason, or of some personal quarrel some one had against a member of the religion?
In any competition, the loser gets hurt. So there can be no competition? Then how will we establish right and wrong?
Pacifism does not work.
You're the toddler that wants to make poop jokes at the meeting of the senate throwing a tantrum when you're taken back to the nursery.
Here's the thing that flushes this turd of a post down the poopoo hole:
You don't have to look at anything you don't want you.
Certain viewpoints tend to accumulate at certain venues. If you are a coward and have no self discipline and it would destabilize your mental health to see a contrary opinion, there are places you can stick to where you have a reasonable expectation of seeing only things you agree with.
This poster is literally arguing that the internet is one big uncompartmentalized room. Obviously that's just wrong.
And the language he uses is infantile. Are we in kindergarten? Is poop really a good symbol for evil? Bad allocation of mod points.
So what was your point
You have absolutely no point. You are just conjecturing a shaky narrative with no conclusion.
The internet does nothing but increase the scale of everything in proportion and you have no argument otherwise.
Yeah, typical, you can't argue so you try to win on a technicality of a typo. You're an animal, keep it up!
Social media is forcing people to respond to different ideas. They aren't becoming fundamentally more intolerant, their intolerances are being manifested and taking up a greater proportion of their energy.
That doesn't mean people are turned off to new ideas. They will be looking for solutions to release their distress and so will actually be much more tolerant of certain ideas.
You're throwing around the idea of tolerance too generally you need to break down the semantics and context more to make a meaningful statement. You're really muddling the whole thing hopelessly.
What's really happening here is a civil war in the making. People are going to be less open to discourse and more open to warfare. They all feel like their point of view is being cheated. Some more rightly than others. There is simply no accountability in this society. The concept of freedom has been perverted to mean "do whatever you feel like whenever you want as long as you have money to do it" and has nothing to do with responsibility.
This is because of our materialistic culture that has been enforced from the top down by the endless bloating of government since the start of WW1. Our entire society has become corrupted by plutocratic industrialists and bankers, especially bankers. The industrial revolution simply unleashed too much wealth too fast and our civilization is struggling to work it out. The situation is very grim.
People scream in your face because they WANT you to fight them.
You don't just automatically win because you think you're right. You can't just successfully "knock out someone's teeth" 100% of the time some one is aggressive to you. Conflict is no sure thing.
Unless of course you are a far-leftist authoritarian and the state, whose policies you unconditionally support, solves all your arguments for you because you never stray far enough to release your grip from its skirts.
To be clear, we are not talking about unpopular ideas or positions you don't agree with
But actually it seems like most people are. There are certain opinions they consider unspeakable and refuse to deal with in any way, seeking to have everyone who talks about them thrown out of society. Are you missing this whole free speech crisis in universities and media and in society in general?
What does civility even entail? Your ideal of "the golden rule" has never worked. It has never been real. Ever. There is no case for it. People are tribalistic and warlike. At best "the golden rule" applies within a tribe SOME of the time.
"It is by the art of war that all other arts can be." Perpetual peace is a cancer. You can't determine what is real without struggle and pain. There needs to be death for there to be life.
This idea of "world peace" comes from stunted people who grew up in cities and have no concept of nature or even reality.
Real civility is simply a protocol for violence that reduces the inefficiency of war by narrowing down what we're going to fight about and why ahead of time. It does not prevent war. Nothing can stop us from giving nature its due.
You have absolutely no point and you make absolutely no sense.
What's your point?
Did you notice how many times you said "bigot"? Why are you so focused on that word? You can describe this phenomenon and break it down, as some one usually does when they are explaining something, but you for some reason refuse to break this word down into its constituent ideas.
This is what the marxist liberals, and all blind dogmatic people, do. It implies that this word is part of the basis of their reality.
The point is the proportions of people supporting any specific ideology in the world need to change in order for the influence of the ideology to change and there's no case for how or why the proportions changed or even that they did at all.
The implicit argument is that "bigots", "racists", etc. are irrational and only operate on emotional feedback. This perception is why you label them so broadly and easily. And you won't challenge the blanket definition because you refuse to debate them because of your own emotional reaction to them.
Maybe your ridicule of that religion had the seeds of some rational discourse that you threw away because you were embarrassed by social norms?
Do you value "not hurting other people's feelings" more than the truth?
Where in your reaction to hurting that kid's feelings did you evaluate whether or not what you were saying was true?
This is the pitfall of leftism. Shame over rationality. Casting blankets over things and saying "it's all good maan". This is not a viable way to conduct a society. Which is why it's being promoted - the people in charge want to crack this society open and use its insides to build their false utopia.
Your entire non-point was that these thought-criminals are gaining influence, but in order for them to do that they would have to tilt to proportions of their followers in the population........................
You talk like a child. You relate your idea of evil to poop like a baby or infant does. You need to be silenced.
You're completely incoherent and you aren't addressing the objection. I asked you what you thought, but what I meant really, is logically why. As a matter of propriety I granted you the faith that you would be gracious enough to respond this way and not just further abuse my ears of your baseless opinion.
Let's break it down for you.
If there is a clan in your town and they are coordinating with another several clans several different places, those clans are were still in existence independently.
You are apparently trying to articulate your perception that this allows them to grow more than they could locally by comparing notes and refining strategies or something to that effect.
But whatever the advantages are, every other ideology on earth has the same advantages provided by the internet.
So why would one ideology benefit more than another? Why wouldn't the growth be proportional to the populations of the seed groups?
Dumbfuck retard.
So are you speaking from your experience as a bigot then?
Back in WHAT day?
Like people always gathered together. What do you think started these internet groups?
Where is your support for what you're saying? Why do you think the internet groups aren't proportional to real-life groups?
Sorry, but your comment is extremely stupid.
Are you an infant whose primary experience with evil is what comes out of his anus? Do you know any big boy words to express yourself?
How can you judge others when you are in a state of arrested development stuck in the 'anal' stage of development?
Wow that's so insightful....
Facebook was so invested in because its potential to break down society was realized by its big investors. It wasn't a shot in the dark with their billions of dollars. It wasn't a surprise that social media would transform our society. They knew what it was to become and it profits them immensely.
Why do they want to break down society? Because they want to increase the level of control they have. Instead of programming society on the scale of groups, they want to control every atom; every individual, and open up new roads to exponentially more power.
People always explain away things like this saying "well that's just what people want and the company is just giving them what they want and making money, so this isn't really bad, this is progress! There's no conspiracy! People are smart, they aren't so easily suckered into things! They know what's good!"
The thing is that people are actually not that picky. They will accept just about ANY given solution for their basic needs as long as authority backs it consistently enough. So it becomes a question of what exactly we are progressing towards and who's interest it really is in.
Humans are not some transcendent creature with the guarantee of self awareness and intellect and rationality because of how much inherently better they are than all other life on Earth. These are optional features supported by a certain way of life. If you take away the nuances from the human way of life, if you take away the culture that support these higher functions, people go into "backward compatibility mode"; they re-adapt to a simpler, savage, prehistoric world. Simply put they devolve.
While most people don't know themselves well enough to see this, there are people who know this about humanity, and they know about it deeply. These people are leaders.
Leaders either choose to try to raise people up to their own level of awareness or leaders choose to plunge people down so they can never rise up. Leaders choose either cooperation or enslavement.
Humans are tribal creatures. They are beyond racist. They are beyond nepotistic. They will kill members of their own families who displease them. Humans are not only genocidal by default, they a fratricidal by default.
We can see this at every point in our history. We can see this in our close relatives like the chimpanzee that continue to live a way of life that we departed from eons ago.
Leaders cooperate and enslave in degrees. The closer you are to directly supporting the substance of the leader, that is, the more you share in common with the leader that you align with that leader's will, the more cooperation you will receive. The further, the more enslavement you will receive, up to the point that when your interests drift sufficiently you are immediately killed or otherwise neutralized.
What this amounts to is simple: as time goes on you will only become more distant and unable to adapt to the leader. The leader's own will replace everyone else. Eventually you drift into the zone of no return in relation to a current leader and unless the leader changes, your line will end: you, your family, your children all die and there are no more children thereafter.
Usually this takes a long time, so long that the diverse interests in the world shift and leaders change and most tribes survive at least long enough to make a compromise and intermingle with the dominant tribe. But things are becoming unusual: power is being consolidated on unprecedented scales with unprecedented stability, and it is making ever more exacting demands on its subjects as their numbers swell to challenge the Earth's ability to sustain them.
Humanity's genocidal nature has risen to the surface.
This all sounds very grim, until you consider the fact we've been up and down this situation for millions of years and have some pretty good solutions to the pitfalls and the problems that lead to them.
All the machinery is in place for us to CHOOSE our own leaders. Are you choosing yours? Are you prepare
....for political reasons. To characterize older workers and inflexible.
In reality, a good worker evolves with the tasks his company actually does. When you stay abreast of business you figure out for yourself what new things need to be done.
It's not just a sudden thing that you don't know how to do anything.
When exactly did these people in this story start sitting around doing nothing? That's when they should have gotten fired and given the signal to wake up.
Yeah, but what the hell is the point of that?
The purpose behind athletics is already destroyed; our athletic role models live for nothing but the game. That's not healthy. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in 99.9999% of cases. They just play games.
Athleticism is supposed to make you a well-rounded individual.
Yeah those damn fundies and their objections to the mass murder of infants.
Bitcoin will probably never crash to zero. It's used by a lot of people for business transaction; there is a whole 'off-grid' economy with people exchanging actual goods and services and not just speculating. If it does crash below $1000 it will be because another cryptocurrency took its place for those transactions, which actually might be soon considering that the volatility makes it difficult to use as currency.
But as long as this technology shows promise there will be speculation on crypto, and the only thing that will certainly kill Bitcoin is when the demand for crypto transactions exceeds the ability of its network, and then it will probably be Bitcoin Cash (BCH) that takes over, which strictly speaking is more Bitcoin than Bitcoin is.