Your counterexamples make no fucking sense because, as I keep repeating but you're too fucking thick to understand, saying "the US bears some responsibility for the shape of things today" does NOT entail any less responsibility for the Iranians.
I really don't know how to express my disgust with what you said. You would absolve history's major actors of any responsibility for the shape of the world, as if they were bystanders. You act like yesterday and today are just accidental neighbours.
I guess in your justice system, the bank robbers do split the sentence.
I see how fucking stupid your ignorant bullshit sounds. I don't see how observing that the current state of the mideast is heavily dominated by its recent colonial history is somehow either dehumanizing or infantilizing to Iranians.
Talking about the chain of events and how earlier events trigger or motivate later events doesn't take away anyone's responsibility. Your bullshit does though: It says that America has no responsibility at all for Iranian hostility, which is both fucking incoherent and leaves one with no sense at all to make of why Iran is so hostile now.
Here's the Protip: responsibility isn't zero sum. Saying that "but for Americans installing the Shah, Iran wouldn't be so hostile now" does nothing to inoculate Iranians for funding Hezbollah or DOSing JP Morgan. If you need help remembering this, ask yourself: If two guys get caught robbing a bank together, do they split the sentence between them?
Go back to kuro5hin, moron. The current president of Iran was one of the students who took over the U.S. embassy in the revolution that overthrew the U.S.'s puppet ruler. The current Iranian leadership is in place just because they participated in that revolution. If you can argue with a straight face that their decisions today have "nothing" to do with that, then you're detached from reality. Do you think they're making decisions in a vacuum?
Your mewling attempts to divorce action from motivation and history do nothing but free every nation state from dealing with the consequences of its own actions.
And yet, by every aggregate measure of health outcomes, Canada and the UK do far, far better than the U.S. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, fewer complications, shorter hospital stays... It's almost like you're being fed bullshit propaganda slandering the two nearest examples of health care systems that work vastly better than your own.
Again, "If you don't like it, leave" is not a solution, or a practical means of addressing a problem. This isn't to whine about life not being fair, it's to observe that local idiocy isn't somehow superior to national idiocy, just because it's superficially more plausible to escape it.
Agreed that not all homeschoolers are radical Christian fundies. It's also irrelevant. The option of homeschooling doesn't make local idiocy by the school board somehow more palatable than national idiocy.
Unless the next county is also going creationist, or is already, or is too far from your job so you have to get another job, but one as good isn't available, and you already moved to thiscounty because the next county over introduced an abstinence only sex ed program...
"Move" as a solution to an issue isn't, for the most part, a viable solution, especially when balanced against other issues.
If you're a parent living in Kentucky who wants evolution taught as standard science says it should be, would it be comforting that your kid is learning creationism because the local school board decided it rather than the state or national standard?
Getting education wrong isn't an argument for either local or national control. They're orthogonal to the correctness of the strategy.
Twenty years ago, would you have said those jokes in front of someone of said race?
I did. I told nigger jokes to black people who were friends and kike jokes to jews--some of my best jokes at the time came from them because they were exposed to them more than I was.
I've confirmed since that they really weren't happy smiling through those episodes, but felt like they had little choice except to participate or to ostracize themselves by speaking up.
You did nothing to address my criticism that there are far more women who tell dirty jokes than blacks who tell racist jokes about blacks.
I can't respond meaningfully to anecdote and subjective observations, except to note that it hasn't been my experience.
I'm pretty sure the intention is "people who are greedy will exploit the system in the absence of credible wrong doing"
Yes, and in Cheyenne8's eyes, the people who are greedy are... women. That's sexism, and it's the classic defense of workplace sexism: we're not doing anything wrong, it's just greedy bitches looking for a payout.
You should have seen my fiance's brother's divorce.
More anecdote. Fine as far as it goes, but it says nothing about women in general. Cheyenne8's comment was categorical.
I dislike the black guy analogy because I don't see it as really comparing properly to women.
It's not supposed to be a perfect match, it's supposed to be illustrative, and I think it succeeds on that level, at least from the perspective of the black guy or the woman. I would also disagree that telling racist jokes indicates real underlying racism. It's socially unacceptable to do so now, but when I was in college twenty years ago, we all knew a lot of racist humor that we shared, and we'd all have been scandalized to be accused of actually hating non-white people (and our lives since then bear out that we're not deeply racist). We were being casually racist, just as Cheyenne8 and others are being (and defending being) casually sexist.
Come to think of it, we had exactly the dismissive attitude towards racist jokes then that many today have towards dirty jokes and sexist innuendo and general "guys being guys" interaction. Maybe race is a better example than I first thought.
that same person doesn't actually hate women deep down.
Did you miss where Cheyenne8 said "any woman walking into that group can likely immediately have $$ signs in her eyes, regardless if the atmosphere is truly hostile"? I think Cheyenne8 has a little more sexism under the hood than he may be aware of.
dirty jokes aren't taken as intentionally malicious the way a racist joke is
Racist jokes are far, far more serious things these days than they were in the 80s, largely because we were successful in learning that, despite the absence of harsher racism, they create a hostile environment that no one should have to tolerate.
Sexually distracting clothing is always handled by a dress code that amounts to "keep a professional appearance". The guys aren't being required to work around sexual distractions, unless their own definition of "sexual distraction" is so broad as to render them disabled.
It's not about being targeted, it's about being forced to work in an particular environment that has little, if anything, to do with the job. If they told racist jokes all day, they could plausibly argue that they weren't targeting the lone black guy in the office--but that doesn't make it okay for the black guy, does it? Or do you think telling the black guy "they don't mean you specifically" is sufficient reason for him to grin and bear it?
Because behaviour that you find okay, because you're not the target, is behaviour that others can find problematic.
Imagine you have a team in the workplace where everyone is white, and you guys like to tell racist jokes. Nothing wrong with that, right? You're not racist, you just find them funny, and it makes for a nice atmosphere where you're all having fun and feel comfortable, and no one's ever complained, and you're all okay with it because, deep down, you're all pretty good people.
Then management tells you that your new colleague starts Monday, and he's black. Does the same "why do we have to change?" question make sense? Your new colleague could just suck it up, tell some of his own jokes, and be a good sport about it. But why should he have too? Why should keeping and excelling at his job require that he listen to you telling nigger jokes, and laugh along with you so you don't feel the kind of "why do I have to change?" resentment you're displaying now?
You don't have a right to any particular group dynamic, and just because one works at one point doesn't mean it'll work at another. It also doesn't mean that other dynamics won't work as well, or better. As a lot of testimony in this thread demonstrates, lots of people enjoy their jobs and their teams without requiring the particular behaviour you seem to find essential.
where guys can be guys
To be perfectly clear, "guys being guys" is a totally artificial definition that's basically meaningless because you're just blessing your current behaviour. There's nothing essential to "guyness" that requires the kind of behaviour you're defending.
any woman walking into that group can likely immediately have $$ signs in her eyes, regardless if the atmosphere is truly hostile
Clearly you don't understand the perspective of women in the workplace, so maybe just accept that a lot of women, walking into the situation you seem to enjoy, would rather just be able to do their jobs without having to put up with you making jokes about her short skirt and how she should buy a more push-up-like bra so she can get a raise.
I'm a guy, and I've never found it difficult not to bring sex into workplace conversations and situations. Here's a short list of other things I find it easy not to do in a professional context:
1. Masturbate. 2. Shit myself. 3. Spend all day reading Facebook updates. 4. Nap. 5. Talk about my cats.
Your definition of "being a guy" seems to include acting like you're in a frat house when you're not. Okay, shine on, you crazy diamond. The rest of us will get on with our day accepting boundaries and getting on with our jobs.
If guys behave this way in general, perhaps it's a problem with the legal system and not guys.
As most of the other posters in this thread have demonstrated, guys don't behave this way in general. It's just not that difficult to leave a lot of sexual innuendo and horseplay out of a workplace. This isn't about paying someone to tell you how not to act like human beings--that's just an excuse for not doing anything about sloppy behaviour.
If you're such a sad, immature specimen that you just can't help bringing sex into every conversation and situation, that's your damage, not society's.
Nonsense. America banned alcohol for several years. Temperance movements go back decades before that into the 19th century. America was never a "man up and deal with it" nation. You've always been a nation who wants to pad the world's corners.
Steam is doing great, and vendors selling games through Steam are very happy with it. EA copied Valve with it's own system, and they're doing great guns too.
Yes, 'the system' allowed him to earn that money. It prints the money and maintains a relatively stable currency in a volatile world market, going so far as to maintain the largest military ever to preserve the nation and influence events in its favour. It built the Internet. It built the roads that move the goods that form the backbone of the economy. It structures and staffs a justice system to make contracts enforceable and reduce corruption. 'The system' is responsible for building and maintaining the circumstances under which Saverin could make billions. And really, 'the system' is nothing more than a bunch of people getting by on far less than Saverin, who don't have the option to emigrate to Singapore to reduce their taxes.
Every billionaire's fortune stands on the tax dollars of those who went before. I don't think handing over 1.4% of it to keep the game going is that fucking onerous a demand.
Yeah, I mean he earned that money fair and square, starting with inventing computers and setting up the Internet and creating the legal system to enforce the partnership agreement, and under which he sued to avoid stock dilution. Then he created the school systems that educated the programmers that actually built Facebook. Oh, and he created the worldwide computer market so that PCs would be inexpensive enough to put one in every home, creating the conditions under which computerized social networking could occur. And don't forget how he legislated the 40 hour work week so that people would have time to dick around on the Internet. Oh, and it was really helpful how he maintained a standing army so that the country where they were building Facebook didn't face an invasion.
It's a good presentation because they're in love with none of them and are moving for specific reasons each time, handling different issues. It's not coders chasing the new hotness.
Slashdot Mirror
Your counterexamples make no fucking sense because, as I keep repeating but you're too fucking thick to understand, saying "the US bears some responsibility for the shape of things today" does NOT entail any less responsibility for the Iranians.
You really are that shit-stupid, aren't you?
I really don't know how to express my disgust with what you said. You would absolve history's major actors of any responsibility for the shape of the world, as if they were bystanders. You act like yesterday and today are just accidental neighbours.
I guess in your justice system, the bank robbers do split the sentence.
America! Fuck yeah!
I see how fucking stupid your ignorant bullshit sounds. I don't see how observing that the current state of the mideast is heavily dominated by its recent colonial history is somehow either dehumanizing or infantilizing to Iranians.
Talking about the chain of events and how earlier events trigger or motivate later events doesn't take away anyone's responsibility. Your bullshit does though: It says that America has no responsibility at all for Iranian hostility, which is both fucking incoherent and leaves one with no sense at all to make of why Iran is so hostile now.
Here's the Protip: responsibility isn't zero sum. Saying that "but for Americans installing the Shah, Iran wouldn't be so hostile now" does nothing to inoculate Iranians for funding Hezbollah or DOSing JP Morgan. If you need help remembering this, ask yourself: If two guys get caught robbing a bank together, do they split the sentence between them?
Go back to kuro5hin, moron. The current president of Iran was one of the students who took over the U.S. embassy in the revolution that overthrew the U.S.'s puppet ruler. The current Iranian leadership is in place just because they participated in that revolution. If you can argue with a straight face that their decisions today have "nothing" to do with that, then you're detached from reality. Do you think they're making decisions in a vacuum?
Your mewling attempts to divorce action from motivation and history do nothing but free every nation state from dealing with the consequences of its own actions.
And yet, by every aggregate measure of health outcomes, Canada and the UK do far, far better than the U.S. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, fewer complications, shorter hospital stays... It's almost like you're being fed bullshit propaganda slandering the two nearest examples of health care systems that work vastly better than your own.
Again, "If you don't like it, leave" is not a solution, or a practical means of addressing a problem. This isn't to whine about life not being fair, it's to observe that local idiocy isn't somehow superior to national idiocy, just because it's superficially more plausible to escape it.
Agreed that not all homeschoolers are radical Christian fundies. It's also irrelevant. The option of homeschooling doesn't make local idiocy by the school board somehow more palatable than national idiocy.
Unless the next county is also going creationist, or is already, or is too far from your job so you have to get another job, but one as good isn't available, and you already moved to thiscounty because the next county over introduced an abstinence only sex ed program...
"Move" as a solution to an issue isn't, for the most part, a viable solution, especially when balanced against other issues.
If you're a parent living in Kentucky who wants evolution taught as standard science says it should be, would it be comforting that your kid is learning creationism because the local school board decided it rather than the state or national standard?
Getting education wrong isn't an argument for either local or national control. They're orthogonal to the correctness of the strategy.
Probably. So why is so hard to believe that women are being harassed at mostly male events?
Twenty years ago, would you have said those jokes in front of someone of said race?
I did. I told nigger jokes to black people who were friends and kike jokes to jews--some of my best jokes at the time came from them because they were exposed to them more than I was.
I've confirmed since that they really weren't happy smiling through those episodes, but felt like they had little choice except to participate or to ostracize themselves by speaking up.
You did nothing to address my criticism that there are far more women who tell dirty jokes than blacks who tell racist jokes about blacks.
I can't respond meaningfully to anecdote and subjective observations, except to note that it hasn't been my experience.
I'm pretty sure the intention is "people who are greedy will exploit the system in the absence of credible wrong doing"
Yes, and in Cheyenne8's eyes, the people who are greedy are... women. That's sexism, and it's the classic defense of workplace sexism: we're not doing anything wrong, it's just greedy bitches looking for a payout.
You should have seen my fiance's brother's divorce.
More anecdote. Fine as far as it goes, but it says nothing about women in general. Cheyenne8's comment was categorical.
I dislike the black guy analogy because I don't see it as really comparing properly to women.
It's not supposed to be a perfect match, it's supposed to be illustrative, and I think it succeeds on that level, at least from the perspective of the black guy or the woman. I would also disagree that telling racist jokes indicates real underlying racism. It's socially unacceptable to do so now, but when I was in college twenty years ago, we all knew a lot of racist humor that we shared, and we'd all have been scandalized to be accused of actually hating non-white people (and our lives since then bear out that we're not deeply racist). We were being casually racist, just as Cheyenne8 and others are being (and defending being) casually sexist.
Come to think of it, we had exactly the dismissive attitude towards racist jokes then that many today have towards dirty jokes and sexist innuendo and general "guys being guys" interaction. Maybe race is a better example than I first thought.
that same person doesn't actually hate women deep down.
Did you miss where Cheyenne8 said "any woman walking into that group can likely immediately have $$ signs in her eyes, regardless if the atmosphere is truly hostile"? I think Cheyenne8 has a little more sexism under the hood than he may be aware of.
dirty jokes aren't taken as intentionally malicious the way a racist joke is
Racist jokes are far, far more serious things these days than they were in the 80s, largely because we were successful in learning that, despite the absence of harsher racism, they create a hostile environment that no one should have to tolerate.
Sexually distracting clothing is always handled by a dress code that amounts to "keep a professional appearance". The guys aren't being required to work around sexual distractions, unless their own definition of "sexual distraction" is so broad as to render them disabled.
It's not about being targeted, it's about being forced to work in an particular environment that has little, if anything, to do with the job. If they told racist jokes all day, they could plausibly argue that they weren't targeting the lone black guy in the office--but that doesn't make it okay for the black guy, does it? Or do you think telling the black guy "they don't mean you specifically" is sufficient reason for him to grin and bear it?
why should you have to leave it out?
Because behaviour that you find okay, because you're not the target, is behaviour that others can find problematic.
Imagine you have a team in the workplace where everyone is white, and you guys like to tell racist jokes. Nothing wrong with that, right? You're not racist, you just find them funny, and it makes for a nice atmosphere where you're all having fun and feel comfortable, and no one's ever complained, and you're all okay with it because, deep down, you're all pretty good people.
Then management tells you that your new colleague starts Monday, and he's black. Does the same "why do we have to change?" question make sense? Your new colleague could just suck it up, tell some of his own jokes, and be a good sport about it. But why should he have too? Why should keeping and excelling at his job require that he listen to you telling nigger jokes, and laugh along with you so you don't feel the kind of "why do I have to change?" resentment you're displaying now?
You don't have a right to any particular group dynamic, and just because one works at one point doesn't mean it'll work at another. It also doesn't mean that other dynamics won't work as well, or better. As a lot of testimony in this thread demonstrates, lots of people enjoy their jobs and their teams without requiring the particular behaviour you seem to find essential.
where guys can be guys
To be perfectly clear, "guys being guys" is a totally artificial definition that's basically meaningless because you're just blessing your current behaviour. There's nothing essential to "guyness" that requires the kind of behaviour you're defending.
any woman walking into that group can likely immediately have $$ signs in her eyes, regardless if the atmosphere is truly hostile
Clearly you don't understand the perspective of women in the workplace, so maybe just accept that a lot of women, walking into the situation you seem to enjoy, would rather just be able to do their jobs without having to put up with you making jokes about her short skirt and how she should buy a more push-up-like bra so she can get a raise.
I'm a guy, and I've never found it difficult not to bring sex into workplace conversations and situations. Here's a short list of other things I find it easy not to do in a professional context:
1. Masturbate.
2. Shit myself.
3. Spend all day reading Facebook updates.
4. Nap.
5. Talk about my cats.
Your definition of "being a guy" seems to include acting like you're in a frat house when you're not. Okay, shine on, you crazy diamond. The rest of us will get on with our day accepting boundaries and getting on with our jobs.
If guys behave this way in general, perhaps it's a problem with the legal system and not guys.
As most of the other posters in this thread have demonstrated, guys don't behave this way in general. It's just not that difficult to leave a lot of sexual innuendo and horseplay out of a workplace. This isn't about paying someone to tell you how not to act like human beings--that's just an excuse for not doing anything about sloppy behaviour.
If you're such a sad, immature specimen that you just can't help bringing sex into every conversation and situation, that's your damage, not society's.
Nonsense. America banned alcohol for several years. Temperance movements go back decades before that into the 19th century. America was never a "man up and deal with it" nation. You've always been a nation who wants to pad the world's corners.
Care to break down your budget for us?
Steam is doing great, and vendors selling games through Steam are very happy with it. EA copied Valve with it's own system, and they're doing great guns too.
WTF are you smoking?
That's... that's just... My God.
I'll be in my bunk.
Yes, 'the system' allowed him to earn that money. It prints the money and maintains a relatively stable currency in a volatile world market, going so far as to maintain the largest military ever to preserve the nation and influence events in its favour. It built the Internet. It built the roads that move the goods that form the backbone of the economy. It structures and staffs a justice system to make contracts enforceable and reduce corruption. 'The system' is responsible for building and maintaining the circumstances under which Saverin could make billions. And really, 'the system' is nothing more than a bunch of people getting by on far less than Saverin, who don't have the option to emigrate to Singapore to reduce their taxes.
Every billionaire's fortune stands on the tax dollars of those who went before. I don't think handing over 1.4% of it to keep the game going is that fucking onerous a demand.
Yeah, I mean he earned that money fair and square, starting with inventing computers and setting up the Internet and creating the legal system to enforce the partnership agreement, and under which he sued to avoid stock dilution. Then he created the school systems that educated the programmers that actually built Facebook. Oh, and he created the worldwide computer market so that PCs would be inexpensive enough to put one in every home, creating the conditions under which computerized social networking could occur. And don't forget how he legislated the 40 hour work week so that people would have time to dick around on the Internet. Oh, and it was really helpful how he maintained a standing army so that the country where they were building Facebook didn't face an invasion.
No, it's a more complex way of saying that "dine and dash" isn't allowed just because you've got tax lawyers.
Urban Airship went PostgreSQL to MongoDB to Cassandra to PostgreSQL. http://wiki.postgresql.org/images/7/7f/Adam-lowry-postgresopen2011.pdf
It's a good presentation because they're in love with none of them and are moving for specific reasons each time, handling different issues. It's not coders chasing the new hotness.