Yes, I agree. My point was that those poor people, should they find themselves wealthy, would most likely move up into a gated community and pull the ladder up behind them.
Well as long as you feel fine then that is all that matters...
And feel safe in the knowledge that 90+% of the rest of the world feel the same way so you are no more selfish and arrogant than them. Almost no one will hold it against you...at the moment.
Future generations of course will curse your very existence, but fuck them right?
While I empathise with their plight and wish it was different I really cannot agree with the rose coloured glasses people view those in poorer countries with. The motivations will be a form of jealously and lack of exposure to the PR machine that people who can afford a TV are exposed to.
It works like this:
- An impoverished person is just a poor person without the basic means for survival - A poor person is just a middle-class person without sufficient income - A middle-class person is just a rich person without the surplus cash - A rich person is just a millionaire without the millions - A millionaire is just a billionaire.....
See where I am going with this?
There are exceptions, as there always are, but they are rare enough to be considered outliers.
Your wilful inability to see my point and your insistence on arguing against something I am not saying has become tiresome. Your own deeply rooted bias and hypocrisy prevent you from speaking in a rational fashion on this subject.
So this is conversation over.
Coward, I would say it was great talking to you but it was not.
I totally agree with your statement but in this context "the rest of the world" was mainly referring to the leaders of other countries.
The couch vegetables don't count when discussing these issues. What they think only ever matters once every few years at voting time and what they think can be easily installed with scandal, BS and appealing to their bias - so not that much at all really.
Those that are not the vege type are too small in number to matter as a group.
You can call me a foolish cynic all you want but I will hold up the entirety of the global political sphere as a counter example and we shall see who is the more foolish!:)
Not that it is relevant but that IS the case in my country. I read an article from a former homeless person in Auckland. But they also have an apparent lack of segregation outside of the bed space and unwanted attention and harassment is also common. Which raises a very important point: Homeless women are typically in a LOT more danger than men on the street. So that decision is one I would support.
Because having said all of the above, men and women are NOT the same. They do have SOME differences!?
My opinion of all of this is that the concept of homeless shelters is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Thank you so much for you post friend Coward. (can I call you Anonymous or is that too informal?)
You could not have illustrated my point any better if you had tried. More so because your post almost refrains from insulting me (but unfortunately failed at the end there) and hence you sound almost reasonable.
First things first: I am NOT saying that equality exists or that men as a sex are victims or that there should not be more done to achieve said equality. In fact I believe the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of that. At no point did I say any of those things. So please stop being biased, stereotyping me and doing all the things you just accused me of - its makes you a giant hypocrite. Not that this is all that relevant to the discussion but to defend against your "Ad Hominem" attack: The best boss I ever had (and who mentored me in my first management role) was a woman - her being female was never and would never have been an issue. As an IT manager I try to mentor and help female staff to help buffer the very male dominated workplace typically found in IT should they need it - many do not - and have helped several of my female staff become team leaders where otherwise they may very well of been looked over for not being "leadership material" (often code for not enough bravo rather than competence).
So please take your biased and hypocritical views elsewhere if that is all you have to offer.
But back to my rebuttal:
Firstly, your post makes it quite obvious you are using the loose and incorrect definition of Misogyny. You are wrong to do this. What you are claiming is that all these men "hate, mistrust or dislike" women, which is just ridiculous - most had mothers and many sisters for a start! If that is your position then you are part of the problem - hate like this NEVER solves problems.
Men who DO actively (i.e. consciously) work against full equality are some of the shit bags I was talking about. They exist and I am sure without even having to look you will see them in this forum posting. But most men are not actively doing this. We shall ignore them for now because we both agree they are shit bags I think.
But I just love how you state there are men working "passively" against full equality. Exactly how does this work? They are hypnotized and end up "hating, mistrusting or disliking" women? The sleep Misogynize?? You are of course (badly) describing men being ignorant of the lack of equality and/or are just following the social scripts they grew up with. Men (and women too BTW - you forget that many women are the problem also) who were brought up a certain way and for whatever reason have not changed and don't know any better. Apparently in your world not becoming an activist and trying to change the world you live in is now an act of Misogyny - even if you have not been educated about it. It is most certainly not and your statements above implying it is are just ridiculous.
As I was at pains to describe in 2) of my post was that this sort of bias, generalisation and stereotyping is a fundamental part of human nature. This is not just a sexism thing , this is what we humans do with all sorts of things - race, sex, religion, class/wealth, geographical location, sports team, country...etc...etc... YES IT IS WRONG. YES WE NEED TO STOP THIS. But the solution is not some of the truly vitriolic shite I have seen about the place - that just antagonises and causes even MORE misinformed people. Rise above, don't sink to their level and become a hypocrite for god's sake! The only viable solution is education (the younger the better) and time to let those set in their ways to die off and stop spreading it. Such changes require generations for this reason.
And YOU have these same biases! In fact without even realising it YOU have been biased against me for being a man in the final few sentences of you post. By your loose definitions of such terms you are in fact quite undeniably a Misandrist! You tarred me with a certain brush before you knew who I was an
The problem is not the definitions - many words are subjectively interpretations and that is perfectly fine.
There are two main problems that cause what you are describing: 1) The words have become common insults that are hurled willy nilly about the place even when they do not really apply. The people hurling them are simply wrong but then when it comes to insults how often are they accurate?
2) All the above words describe feelings that are rooted in the shared human psyche. Bias, generalisation and stereotyping are EXTREMELY fundamental parts. It takes a very large amount of concious effort to avoid inappropriately applying them - it is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid them entirely. e.g. If you grew up in a country/neighbourhood where a certain race is associated with a certain negative thing (NB: it does not matter why) you will pick up these biases naturally. And as much as you will state otherwise it will be almost impossible for you to avoid these biases.
Therefore just honestly speaking your mind consistent with the cultural context you grew up with is typically more than enough to make you "racist" etc.
The word "Misogyny" is a trickier one. Its OFFICIAL definition is "the hatred, mistrust or dislike" of woman. Now while there are some real shit bags out there for which this will be true, this will not be the case for most men.
However this term has been captured (by the feminist movement?) to include any anyone with any sort of "bias" against women also. Because of point 2) above this loose definition COULD cover every man in existence based on physically based bias alone. Having said that I think that the real reason they have loosened this definition in this way is simply point 1) - they want a convenient insult for people they don't agree with.
Now here is the ironic thing: That unofficial loosening of the definition is really a form of "Misandry" - a word so uncommon it is not even in my web spell checker.
I thought of that also and it is not really an important issue as you point out. But it is also restricted to crazy christen people and not that prevalent outside of the US. So probably fails on 2) and 4) also.
I imagine if you are in the US or somehow closer to the states destroying their school systems this issue burns brighter than it does globally.:)
I am marked flamebait and him insightful and interesting because hey, telling truth to fools is highly inflammatory and they cannot resist the fire while Ad Hominem attacks on scientists is A OK! Poor me. (NB: The above is more to do with the Ostrich effect I was talking about - I think this really is a thing. Social psychology sort of investigation required I think )
But since I have karma to burn so I shall flame away!
As per usual your type, in the face of overwhelming evidence, has to resort to irrational straw man and ad hominem attacks against the scientists themselves. I am truly sick to death of reading posts like these from Ostriches who are too afraid to see the truth for what it is so they can remain blissfully ignorant and do nothing about it. After all if it WAS true and you wilfully ignored it that would make you a terrible person....best to just pretend it is not happening. Well sorry, no you don't get to do that without being called out on your bullshit.
There are a number of points about this issue you are missing - almost certainly on purpose. This is why the situation is actually unique and not just due to what you have called "fanaticism":
1) Rarely do scientists HAVE to go after people spouting complete and utter bullshit about their field in public that is so demonstratively wrong. Typically the debate is within the field with people who know what they are talking about. 2) Rarely is a scientific issue turned into such a ignorant political and PR fiasco requiring public defence for the benefit of laypeople. 3) Rarely are the potential consequences of ignoring/maligning a finding so dire. 4) Rarely have so many idiots responded to a battle cry for ignorance and made it their personal mission to post complete and utter shit in public wherever they can - as you have done just now and probably countless other places. 5) While each of the above is rare in itself, although they happen, I cannot think of ANY other issue which combines all of the above. This may be a historical first.
That is why this is different. Not because of the ridiculous, quite obviously incorrect and deceitful reason you have given above.
Why I am even bothering I don't know. Your ears are most likely filled with too much wax to hear anything anybody has to say on the issue. (as are all others like you)
OMG you are sooooo tough and awesomely violently inclined Mr Coward. (Would it be too informal of me to call you Anonymous?) I bask in the glory that is you manly internet post full of testosterone and scary words.
You give me such hope for humanity. Bless you good sir!
Such as the holes that put prisoners in in vietnam.
A lot of comments on this story are forgetting a very obvious fact: the pills will not dilate time itself.
If 1 year = 10 years it does not mean you race around like you are in a movie on fast forward. Your PERCEPTION of time slows thus your world becomes an agonising ly dull affair. Sort of like being in a hole in vietnam. I doubt the psychological effects would be at all pleasant.
I mistook the 75Hz refresh rate for FPS which was silly. The max refresh is 75Hz. Have no idea what the max FPS is of the headset or how that relates to the low persistence part.
Nope. Not even close. Although nice attempt at catching me out on a straw man and ignoring how I succentely and utterly destroyed everything you had to say point by point with evidence.
It wont work however.
Reread what you wrote without the bias of wanting it to agree with what you want it to say.
You made it sound with your second sentence as if the only reason it was a mistake was because the person was not present. If that was not the case then WHY BRING IT UP AT ALL. It does not matter if he was there or not. It was an evil and immoral act in either case. The fact he wasn't there makes it ALSO a cluster fuck - an unrelated point.
I realised that you may have not meant that so I used the IF word on purpose.
So you are sadly wrong again - today just is not your day my friend.
I consider this discussion concluded and leave you to stew in the radioactive, slug filled crater that is your argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I agree. My point was that those poor people, should they find themselves wealthy, would most likely move up into a gated community and pull the ladder up behind them.
This is what tends to happen...
Your HO is not important.
Anti-trust was setup up to protect the free market for businesses.
The only Labour anti-trust you are going to find is anti-union sentiment.
HO HO HO
Except in this case twitters user interface and navigation system has always been a completely shitty experience.
Yes, popular things can have shitty interfaces and their popularity can hide that fact from the creators.
Well as long as you feel fine then that is all that matters...
And feel safe in the knowledge that 90+% of the rest of the world feel the same way so you are no more selfish and arrogant than them. Almost no one will hold it against you...at the moment.
Future generations of course will curse your very existence, but fuck them right?
I've got mine, fuck you: The capitalist way.
Yeah...
While I empathise with their plight and wish it was different I really cannot agree with the rose coloured glasses people view those in poorer countries with. The motivations will be a form of jealously and lack of exposure to the PR machine that people who can afford a TV are exposed to.
It works like this:
- An impoverished person is just a poor person without the basic means for survival
- A poor person is just a middle-class person without sufficient income
- A middle-class person is just a rich person without the surplus cash
- A rich person is just a millionaire without the millions
- A millionaire is just a billionaire.....
See where I am going with this?
There are exceptions, as there always are, but they are rare enough to be considered outliers.
I have seen many blimps about the place so this is not amazing news, they are becoming more and more common...but I thought that McDs was behind it?
Blimps don't live to 90.....heart Disease or diabetes takes them long before then.
Three Blimps walk into a bar....thank god there wasn't a fire or everybody would have died.
I am a horrible disgusting "fat shamer".....and I will be here weekends and friday nights folks!
Your wilful inability to see my point and your insistence on arguing against something I am not saying has become tiresome. Your own deeply rooted bias and hypocrisy prevent you from speaking in a rational fashion on this subject.
So this is conversation over.
Coward, I would say it was great talking to you but it was not.
I totally agree with your statement but in this context "the rest of the world" was mainly referring to the leaders of other countries.
:)
The couch vegetables don't count when discussing these issues. What they think only ever matters once every few years at voting time and what they think can be easily installed with scandal, BS and appealing to their bias - so not that much at all really.
Those that are not the vege type are too small in number to matter as a group.
You can call me a foolish cynic all you want but I will hold up the entirety of the global political sphere as a counter example and we shall see who is the more foolish!
If you needed to learn that by now then you have not been paying attention....
Not that it is relevant but that IS the case in my country. I read an article from a former homeless person in Auckland.
But they also have an apparent lack of segregation outside of the bed space and unwanted attention and harassment is also common. Which raises a very important point: Homeless women are typically in a LOT more danger than men on the street.
So that decision is one I would support.
Because having said all of the above, men and women are NOT the same. They do have SOME differences!?
My opinion of all of this is that the concept of homeless shelters is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Thank you so much for you post friend Coward. (can I call you Anonymous or is that too informal?)
You could not have illustrated my point any better if you had tried. More so because your post almost refrains from insulting me (but unfortunately failed at the end there) and hence you sound almost reasonable.
First things first:
I am NOT saying that equality exists or that men as a sex are victims or that there should not be more done to achieve said equality. In fact I believe the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of that. At no point did I say any of those things. So please stop being biased, stereotyping me and doing all the things you just accused me of - its makes you a giant hypocrite.
Not that this is all that relevant to the discussion but to defend against your "Ad Hominem" attack:
The best boss I ever had (and who mentored me in my first management role) was a woman - her being female was never and would never have been an issue. As an IT manager I try to mentor and help female staff to help buffer the very male dominated workplace typically found in IT should they need it - many do not - and have helped several of my female staff become team leaders where otherwise they may very well of been looked over for not being "leadership material" (often code for not enough bravo rather than competence).
So please take your biased and hypocritical views elsewhere if that is all you have to offer.
But back to my rebuttal:
Firstly, your post makes it quite obvious you are using the loose and incorrect definition of Misogyny. You are wrong to do this. What you are claiming is that all these men "hate, mistrust or dislike" women, which is just ridiculous - most had mothers and many sisters for a start! If that is your position then you are part of the problem - hate like this NEVER solves problems.
Men who DO actively (i.e. consciously) work against full equality are some of the shit bags I was talking about. They exist and I am sure without even having to look you will see them in this forum posting. But most men are not actively doing this. We shall ignore them for now because we both agree they are shit bags I think.
But I just love how you state there are men working "passively" against full equality. Exactly how does this work? They are hypnotized and end up "hating, mistrusting or disliking" women? The sleep Misogynize??
You are of course (badly) describing men being ignorant of the lack of equality and/or are just following the social scripts they grew up with. Men (and women too BTW - you forget that many women are the problem also) who were brought up a certain way and for whatever reason have not changed and don't know any better.
Apparently in your world not becoming an activist and trying to change the world you live in is now an act of Misogyny - even if you have not been educated about it. It is most certainly not and your statements above implying it is are just ridiculous.
As I was at pains to describe in 2) of my post was that this sort of bias, generalisation and stereotyping is a fundamental part of human nature. This is not just a sexism thing , this is what we humans do with all sorts of things - race, sex, religion, class/wealth, geographical location, sports team, country...etc...etc...
YES IT IS WRONG. YES WE NEED TO STOP THIS.
But the solution is not some of the truly vitriolic shite I have seen about the place - that just antagonises and causes even MORE misinformed people. Rise above, don't sink to their level and become a hypocrite for god's sake! The only viable solution is education (the younger the better) and time to let those set in their ways to die off and stop spreading it. Such changes require generations for this reason.
And YOU have these same biases! In fact without even realising it YOU have been biased against me for being a man in the final few sentences of you post. By your loose definitions of such terms you are in fact quite undeniably a Misandrist! You tarred me with a certain brush before you knew who I was an
The problem is not the definitions - many words are subjectively interpretations and that is perfectly fine.
There are two main problems that cause what you are describing:
1) The words have become common insults that are hurled willy nilly about the place even when they do not really apply. The people hurling them are simply wrong but then when it comes to insults how often are they accurate?
2) All the above words describe feelings that are rooted in the shared human psyche. Bias, generalisation and stereotyping are EXTREMELY fundamental parts. It takes a very large amount of concious effort to avoid inappropriately applying them - it is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid them entirely.
e.g. If you grew up in a country/neighbourhood where a certain race is associated with a certain negative thing (NB: it does not matter why) you will pick up these biases naturally. And as much as you will state otherwise it will be almost impossible for you to avoid these biases.
Therefore just honestly speaking your mind consistent with the cultural context you grew up with is typically more than enough to make you "racist" etc.
The word "Misogyny" is a trickier one. Its OFFICIAL definition is "the hatred, mistrust or dislike" of woman. Now while there are some real shit bags out there for which this will be true, this will not be the case for most men.
However this term has been captured (by the feminist movement?) to include any anyone with any sort of "bias" against women also. Because of point 2) above this loose definition COULD cover every man in existence based on physically based bias alone.
Having said that I think that the real reason they have loosened this definition in this way is simply point 1) - they want a convenient insult for people they don't agree with.
Now here is the ironic thing: That unofficial loosening of the definition is really a form of "Misandry" - a word so uncommon it is not even in my web spell checker.
Wait. Are we saying people such as world leaders sabotaged the term or just people in general?
:)
I am saying that people in general have been doing this.
Are you implying that there was a global conspiracy led by people such as Bush to malign people who theorise about conspiracies?
This is getting meta...
haha. God you are funny.
You are not going to bully me into it with school yard tactics dude.
I am not engaging in pointless debate with someone such as you as I have already said. Once that decision is made I don't care what you think.
This discussion is over for me now. Have a nice life.
I thought of that also and it is not really an important issue as you point out.
:)
But it is also restricted to crazy christen people and not that prevalent outside of the US. So probably fails on 2) and 4) also.
I imagine if you are in the US or somehow closer to the states destroying their school systems this issue burns brighter than it does globally.
I am marked flamebait and him insightful and interesting because hey, telling truth to fools is highly inflammatory and they cannot resist the fire while Ad Hominem attacks on scientists is A OK! Poor me.
(NB: The above is more to do with the Ostrich effect I was talking about - I think this really is a thing. Social psychology sort of investigation required I think )
But since I have karma to burn so I shall flame away!
Do they still sell stuff??
Jeez....I had just assumed the quality of their products would have killed off their business by now.
Wonders will never cease...
As per usual your type, in the face of overwhelming evidence, has to resort to irrational straw man and ad hominem attacks against the scientists themselves. I am truly sick to death of reading posts like these from Ostriches who are too afraid to see the truth for what it is so they can remain blissfully ignorant and do nothing about it.
After all if it WAS true and you wilfully ignored it that would make you a terrible person....best to just pretend it is not happening. Well sorry, no you don't get to do that without being called out on your bullshit.
There are a number of points about this issue you are missing - almost certainly on purpose. This is why the situation is actually unique and not just due to what you have called "fanaticism":
1) Rarely do scientists HAVE to go after people spouting complete and utter bullshit about their field in public that is so demonstratively wrong. Typically the debate is within the field with people who know what they are talking about.
2) Rarely is a scientific issue turned into such a ignorant political and PR fiasco requiring public defence for the benefit of laypeople.
3) Rarely are the potential consequences of ignoring/maligning a finding so dire.
4) Rarely have so many idiots responded to a battle cry for ignorance and made it their personal mission to post complete and utter shit in public wherever they can - as you have done just now and probably countless other places.
5) While each of the above is rare in itself, although they happen, I cannot think of ANY other issue which combines all of the above. This may be a historical first.
That is why this is different. Not because of the ridiculous, quite obviously incorrect and deceitful reason you have given above.
Why I am even bothering I don't know. Your ears are most likely filled with too much wax to hear anything anybody has to say on the issue. (as are all others like you)
At least until you need a new iphone/ipad - then you can conveniently forget this ever happen.
Because lets all be perfectly honest here: this is what 99.99999999% of people making such claims are going to do.
OMG you are sooooo tough and awesomely violently inclined Mr Coward. (Would it be too informal of me to call you Anonymous?)
I bask in the glory that is you manly internet post full of testosterone and scary words.
You give me such hope for humanity. Bless you good sir!
The drugs don't dilate time.
Their lives would become an agonisingly slow and empty thing. I doubt the psychological effects would be pleasant.
Certain types of confinement are in fact torture.
Such as the holes that put prisoners in in vietnam.
A lot of comments on this story are forgetting a very obvious fact: the pills will not dilate time itself.
If 1 year = 10 years it does not mean you race around like you are in a movie on fast forward. Your PERCEPTION of time slows thus your world becomes an agonising ly dull affair. Sort of like being in a hole in vietnam.
I doubt the psychological effects would be at all pleasant.
So in effect this would be a form of torture.
He was not brining race into it.
The employers who make the employment decisions do.
The stats back his statement.
Retraction:
I mistook the 75Hz refresh rate for FPS which was silly. The max refresh is 75Hz. Have no idea what the max FPS is of the headset or how that relates to the low persistence part.
Nope. Not even close. Although nice attempt at catching me out on a straw man and ignoring how I succentely and utterly destroyed everything you had to say point by point with evidence.
It wont work however.
Reread what you wrote without the bias of wanting it to agree with what you want it to say.
You made it sound with your second sentence as if the only reason it was a mistake was because the person was not present. If that was not the case then WHY BRING IT UP AT ALL. It does not matter if he was there or not. It was an evil and immoral act in either case.
The fact he wasn't there makes it ALSO a cluster fuck - an unrelated point.
I realised that you may have not meant that so I used the IF word on purpose.
So you are sadly wrong again - today just is not your day my friend.
I consider this discussion concluded and leave you to stew in the radioactive, slug filled crater that is your argument.
Because you are being wilfully ignorant and nothing I say will change your point of view ergo I decided some time ago not to waste my time.
You are quite obviously not here for a discussion - you are here to broadcast your point of view regardless of what others might say.
I also saw that there are a bunch of other posters who have given many good examples - not that it will mean anything.