Are you assuming that there is no possible way to redact identifying information from screen shots? It sure seems that you are, so consider that it's possible to do so. Don't you think that it would have been the job of the journalist to provide some evidence to support the allegation, instead of having an allegation support the allegation? Do you not think that journalists know how to redact? I have a Birthday, and it was not yesterday.
Except that the majority of Doctors since 2008 are women, right? 59% of Masters Degrees are going to women too, and 56% of Bachelor Degrees. We could also add in 61% of Associates degrees. Let me also be clear that the numbers given here are for White/Caucasian population. If you look at the numbers by Race/Ethnic lines they go even further toward women and away from men.
So is your argument that Women should not be able to choose their degree program and should be forced into STEM?
Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left. I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists. Such as I did above showing wage discrimination. Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over. The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)
Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.
There is NO, Zero, Zip, NADA Shred, of evidence provided in TFA. Her claiming to have evidence is the same exact value as her claiming she was harassed. Both are possible, but neither are demonstrated with any facts. Considering that there were plenty of alleged "facts" with the UNLV rape hoax, and the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax, and Ellen Pao's discrimination case, the fake Muslim hate crime in NYC we should _all_ be demanding and waiting for evidence prior to making assumptions. "Hands up don't shoot", Duke Lacrosse, and countless other hoaxes have ruined plenty of lives. Numerous "news" agencies were caught faking and fabricating video and audio to support the narratives.
You would guess that people would have learned their lesson already.
The larger number is the unadjusted amount. It's less of an issue because to some extent it is down to choices made, but to some extent it is also down to more systemic problems like the burden of child care tending to fall more on women than on men.
Are you claiming systematic discrimination of men? 80% of all custody awards go to women, if not a bit higher. I'd agree that we need to look at systematic problems, but the lens should not be positioned in a biased starting point. FWIW, I am a single parent and raised my kid from 10mos without any assistance or support. Even though my ex got hooked on drugs and became physically abusive after my child was born (both proven in court), it was an extremely difficult court case because I'm a man. We had to settle on joint legal custody with me having sole physical custody to make the Judge happy. She fought for money, I fought for the best interest of my child.
Facts or no action required. In the case of facts, each case should be reviewed. Dishonesty is not a male only trait, and we have plenty of cases of dishonest allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Here.
Every company I have worked at in the last 3 decades has had a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. IT work is the easiest place to _prove_ sexual harassment. Do you know anyone working in IT that does not know how to take a screenshot? How to use a thumb drive or send an email to their private email from work? I'd give much more leeway to a different line of work without the same ability to have evidence of wrong doing but still would not prosecute or form opinion without hearing both sides.
Given the political climate, I am suspicious of any claim devoid of evidence or corroboration. We have seen false allegations over and over. Not just with women in the work place either, and not with a single media source promoting a specific narrative. Uber should have chat logs and email to validate her claim, and I'll wait for the evidence before supporting _either_ side. Justice does not come from ignorance, and I'm baffled by the continued push by people of a certain political leaning to prosecute based on allegation and one side of a story.
Those same people accuse others of being "part of the problem" simply for requesting evidence to substantiate a claim. That is a Nazi tactic and quite frightening to continually hear.
That doesn't seem unreasonable, but in this case the her immediate superior opened on day 1 with "I'm in an open relationship, please have sex with me". Later she finds out that HR is basically encouraging him by taking no action against a "high flyer", which explains why he (correctly) thinks he can get away with it.
Allegedly.
After Ellen Pao, UNLV, Duke LaCrosse, and countless false police reports (resulting in legal action) about discrimination I'm waiting for evidence. Chat logs, screen shots, and email logs should be enough to prove the case. TFA reports no such evidence.
Innocence until proven guilty should have meaning to all Americans, but seems like many are fine prosecuting without evidence let alone proof.
The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.
Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.
PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)
Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.
I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.
I heard you fine and gave you facts to back my claim, which in turn discounts yours. You even admit that evidence shows that you are empirically wrong, yet still attempt to claim that AI will make a difference. No, it won't. Just like Robot Wars, AI Racing will have a tiny number of people watching, and most of those will be gone as soon as the novelty wears off. There are facts to back my claim, and those facts run counter to yours. Why not look at total TV viewers for Robotwars versus Nascar or Formula One. Look at Robotwars ratings over time. There is a reason they went to a single show with condensed fights even though those fights lasted days.
If you had bothered to read my whole post you would have seen I mentioned specifically Robot wars. Ratings were mediocre at best on a mediocre market channel. Racing has a massive fan base, sell out crowds across the globe, massive amounts of funding for product spokespersons, massive sponsor contracts and awards.
If human risk was not an issue in drawing and maintaining crowds then you need to explain a continued success of boxing, UFC, Xtreme Games, The Blue Angels and Redbull extreme flying events, various forms of racing. While people don't necessarily root for injury Football, Basketball, Hockey, and Baseball all have large elements of human risk. That risk may not be the whole reason for professional sports popularity, but to deny it's a factor is an outright lie.
People watch racing because there is risk of a crash with humans in the cockpit. People drive in professional racing because there is a risk to themselves. Those things translate into money, jobs, technological advancements in vehicles (performance and safety). Take away the human element and it's like sitting and watching airplanes fly. Interesting for a few visits, but no sustainable market and not really entertaining. Put up a bar and bleacher stand, and it would be mostly empty.
Hell, look at the robot warrior events, which are cool but don't make money for any duration of time.
If they are doing this to build safety, no spectators needed. IMHO, bit whoop. Sarcastiball anyone?
You proved nothing wrong, you simply claimed "nu uh" on every item. Facts back my position, not yours. Financial holdings and wealth are constantly changing, mostly upward in Western "Free" countries.
Oh, so you have some magical way of calculating that progress is no progress if it does not come in a big enough dose fast enough. Good grief, you fail.
Actually yes. Economics, History, Psychology, Biology, Anthropology, and Sociology are all real "social sciences" which co-mingle well together using facts like wealth, census data, longevity, health, crime rates, etc... Perhaps you were attempting to throw up a strawman pretending that intersectionality and gender studies is the only form of social science? While I'd agree with the latter being a modern phrenology, that does not dismiss a whole heap of real sciences.
Nuh uh is the remainder of your post, so not worth responding to. Except for your last line with is a flat out lie. Communication has evolved in nearly every culture since recorded history. So who's making up bullshit?
think in your own rambling way you're trying to say that without the struggle for survival folks will fall to Ennui. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That is quite amazing considering you said it, I didn't. Were you going for reductio ad absurdum?
You yell out loud that the Utopia can't exist but you haven't given a lick of evidence.
Fallacy, claim that I need to prove non-existence. You say it's possible, you need to prove it. We only have a few thousand years of Governments and Societies to pick through to find one. Just one.
Meanwhile I can point out that folks who are independently wealthy do just fine at finding stuff to do.
And exactly how did they get independently wealthy? Sitting around smoking pot all day? Parents who similar sat around smoking pot all day? I know, they all won a lottery right? Your personal anecdote is worse than useless unless you answer how they got to be "independently wealthy".
If they did the Netherlands would be a wasteland.
So since people never died the whole world can live off of the Government tit? There are only two options and nothing in between? Or is it more likely that the people who are ambitious and work hard help to support the lower end of the spectrum? Yeah, you don't do critical thinking.
There is a big difference between movies and books. Most recently, but also historically, movies have been propaganda. Next, I may reference books and suggest people read them (as I'm about to do) but I don't just make up stories as AC did and then say "go watch and understand a movie" for life lessons.
Interestingly you mentioned a book which demonstrates my original point, because I have read Atlas Shrugged. Hopefully you did too. The individual and Capitalism are both celebrated in that book. Imagine a world full of James Taggarts and Orren Boyles, with no Dagney Taggarts, no Hank Reardens, and no John Ghalts.
Little? Hah! The majority of people I have met save, get promoted, find better jobs, got married, had kids, lived in apartments and bought houses, purchased cars and better cars and better cars. Like I said, keep your personal anecdote to yourself. You are not the majority.
Yes.. and I'm guessing you are one of those that champion a living wage?
No. Of course that won't stop you from making more bad assumptions or silly statements will it?
You should watch and understand.. the movie Elysium.
Got it, you believe that movies are reality. Sadly I'm not surprised.
The sample case is the state of California.. where the people dependent on assistance exceed those employed and have broken the 50% level. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
People on Welfare are mostly stuck in poverty and it's extremely hard to get out. Hence we have a huge amount of crime in those same areas, because many people see it as their only way out. That fact alone backs my statement that humans want to make progress, have security, have better lives for their children, have a retirement, buy a better house, etc.. etc.. etc...
Innovation, or theft of innovations, creates NEW wealth. Innovation does not divide wealth, and nobody mentioned dividing wealth. Except you, proving my point about bad assumptions and silly statements
In summary, go back to your bong and let the adults discuss the important issues.
If your statement was true nobody would ever change status. Nobody would have retirement funds, nobody would work to purchase a newer bigger car, nobody would have children, nobody would take a better job, etc.. etc... After all, they only feel it and don't make effort.
Perhaps you were giving your own personal analogy. In that case, speak for yourself. Most people do all of the things I mentioned and then some.
I programmed Fortran my first year, but after that we used Pascal. Pascal was not as fast for some operations, but in others was faster. C was no match, and yes I took a year of C and even a semester of Cobol just so I could say I did.
Don't pretend that science does not exist just because your narrative is harmed by science. Most normal humans don't want to sit around and do nothing, they want to be productive and make personal goals, balance risk versus security, have control of their destiny, and be able to provide better for their families than they did for themselves. Normal humans don't want to have the same job as everyone else, don't want to live in the same kind of house, wear the same kinds of clothing, eat the same foods, etc.. etc.. etc... The whole point of every story of Utopia ever written is that Utopia CAN NOT EXIST! Individuality is part of being a human, and individual liberty is the normal state of a human.
Don't sit around telling us how great science is when you ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you assuming that there is no possible way to redact identifying information from screen shots? It sure seems that you are, so consider that it's possible to do so. Don't you think that it would have been the job of the journalist to provide some evidence to support the allegation, instead of having an allegation support the allegation? Do you not think that journalists know how to redact? I have a Birthday, and it was not yesterday.
So is your argument that Women should not be able to choose their degree program and should be forced into STEM?
Most of the people on the right that I know have to provide evidence to debunk the claims and positions of the left. I read everything I can get my hands on so that I can argue against the leftists. Such as I did above showing wage discrimination. Leftists on the other hand simply repeat the same bogus numbers over and over and over. The 70c on the dollar fabrication is repeated not just by former President Obama but every voice in the Left (Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer). That gets repeated by most leftist media outlets (just about all print and broadcast), and executives are repeating the lies. If they don't, they get lambasted by the left for being politically incorrect (members of the patriarchy, misogynists, bigots, etc...)
Now what you may be hinting at is the RINOs, of which there are plenty. Considering your statement about Trump, I'm guessing that you perhaps are one.
There is NO, Zero, Zip, NADA Shred, of evidence provided in TFA. Her claiming to have evidence is the same exact value as her claiming she was harassed. Both are possible, but neither are demonstrated with any facts. Considering that there were plenty of alleged "facts" with the UNLV rape hoax, and the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax, and Ellen Pao's discrimination case, the fake Muslim hate crime in NYC we should _all_ be demanding and waiting for evidence prior to making assumptions. "Hands up don't shoot", Duke Lacrosse, and countless other hoaxes have ruined plenty of lives. Numerous "news" agencies were caught faking and fabricating video and audio to support the narratives.
You would guess that people would have learned their lesson already.
The larger number is the unadjusted amount. It's less of an issue because to some extent it is down to choices made, but to some extent it is also down to more systemic problems like the burden of child care tending to fall more on women than on men.
Are you claiming systematic discrimination of men? 80% of all custody awards go to women, if not a bit higher. I'd agree that we need to look at systematic problems, but the lens should not be positioned in a biased starting point. FWIW, I am a single parent and raised my kid from 10mos without any assistance or support. Even though my ex got hooked on drugs and became physically abusive after my child was born (both proven in court), it was an extremely difficult court case because I'm a man. We had to settle on joint legal custody with me having sole physical custody to make the Judge happy. She fought for money, I fought for the best interest of my child.
Facts or no action required. In the case of facts, each case should be reviewed. Dishonesty is not a male only trait, and we have plenty of cases of dishonest allegations of sexual assault and harassment. Here.
Every company I have worked at in the last 3 decades has had a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment. IT work is the easiest place to _prove_ sexual harassment. Do you know anyone working in IT that does not know how to take a screenshot? How to use a thumb drive or send an email to their private email from work? I'd give much more leeway to a different line of work without the same ability to have evidence of wrong doing but still would not prosecute or form opinion without hearing both sides.
Given the political climate, I am suspicious of any claim devoid of evidence or corroboration. We have seen false allegations over and over. Not just with women in the work place either, and not with a single media source promoting a specific narrative. Uber should have chat logs and email to validate her claim, and I'll wait for the evidence before supporting _either_ side. Justice does not come from ignorance, and I'm baffled by the continued push by people of a certain political leaning to prosecute based on allegation and one side of a story.
Those same people accuse others of being "part of the problem" simply for requesting evidence to substantiate a claim. That is a Nazi tactic and quite frightening to continually hear.
That doesn't seem unreasonable, but in this case the her immediate superior opened on day 1 with "I'm in an open relationship, please have sex with me". Later she finds out that HR is basically encouraging him by taking no action against a "high flyer", which explains why he (correctly) thinks he can get away with it.
Allegedly.
After Ellen Pao, UNLV, Duke LaCrosse, and countless false police reports (resulting in legal action) about discrimination I'm waiting for evidence. Chat logs, screen shots, and email logs should be enough to prove the case. TFA reports no such evidence.
Innocence until proven guilty should have meaning to all Americans, but seems like many are fine prosecuting without evidence let alone proof.
The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.
Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.
PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)
Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.
I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.
I heard you fine and gave you facts to back my claim, which in turn discounts yours. You even admit that evidence shows that you are empirically wrong, yet still attempt to claim that AI will make a difference. No, it won't. Just like Robot Wars, AI Racing will have a tiny number of people watching, and most of those will be gone as soon as the novelty wears off. There are facts to back my claim, and those facts run counter to yours. Why not look at total TV viewers for Robotwars versus Nascar or Formula One. Look at Robotwars ratings over time. There is a reason they went to a single show with condensed fights even though those fights lasted days.
If you had bothered to read my whole post you would have seen I mentioned specifically Robot wars. Ratings were mediocre at best on a mediocre market channel. Racing has a massive fan base, sell out crowds across the globe, massive amounts of funding for product spokespersons, massive sponsor contracts and awards.
If human risk was not an issue in drawing and maintaining crowds then you need to explain a continued success of boxing, UFC, Xtreme Games, The Blue Angels and Redbull extreme flying events, various forms of racing. While people don't necessarily root for injury Football, Basketball, Hockey, and Baseball all have large elements of human risk. That risk may not be the whole reason for professional sports popularity, but to deny it's a factor is an outright lie.
People watch racing because there is risk of a crash with humans in the cockpit. People drive in professional racing because there is a risk to themselves. Those things translate into money, jobs, technological advancements in vehicles (performance and safety). Take away the human element and it's like sitting and watching airplanes fly. Interesting for a few visits, but no sustainable market and not really entertaining. Put up a bar and bleacher stand, and it would be mostly empty.
Hell, look at the robot warrior events, which are cool but don't make money for any duration of time.
If they are doing this to build safety, no spectators needed. IMHO, bit whoop. Sarcastiball anyone?
No offense, but this used to be assigned reading in 5th grade in the US.
You proved nothing wrong, you simply claimed "nu uh" on every item. Facts back my position, not yours. Financial holdings and wealth are constantly changing, mostly upward in Western "Free" countries.
Oh, so you have some magical way of calculating that progress is no progress if it does not come in a big enough dose fast enough. Good grief, you fail.
Do you mean "social science"? :)
Actually yes. Economics, History, Psychology, Biology, Anthropology, and Sociology are all real "social sciences" which co-mingle well together using facts like wealth, census data, longevity, health, crime rates, etc... Perhaps you were attempting to throw up a strawman pretending that intersectionality and gender studies is the only form of social science? While I'd agree with the latter being a modern phrenology, that does not dismiss a whole heap of real sciences.
Nuh uh is the remainder of your post, so not worth responding to. Except for your last line with is a flat out lie. Communication has evolved in nearly every culture since recorded history. So who's making up bullshit?
Seems like we agree much more than initially hinted at.
think in your own rambling way you're trying to say that without the struggle for survival folks will fall to Ennui. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
That is quite amazing considering you said it, I didn't. Were you going for reductio ad absurdum?
You yell out loud that the Utopia can't exist but you haven't given a lick of evidence.
Fallacy, claim that I need to prove non-existence. You say it's possible, you need to prove it. We only have a few thousand years of Governments and Societies to pick through to find one. Just one.
Meanwhile I can point out that folks who are independently wealthy do just fine at finding stuff to do.
And exactly how did they get independently wealthy? Sitting around smoking pot all day? Parents who similar sat around smoking pot all day? I know, they all won a lottery right? Your personal anecdote is worse than useless unless you answer how they got to be "independently wealthy".
If they did the Netherlands would be a wasteland.
So since people never died the whole world can live off of the Government tit? There are only two options and nothing in between? Or is it more likely that the people who are ambitious and work hard help to support the lower end of the spectrum? Yeah, you don't do critical thinking.
There is a big difference between movies and books. Most recently, but also historically, movies have been propaganda. Next, I may reference books and suggest people read them (as I'm about to do) but I don't just make up stories as AC did and then say "go watch and understand a movie" for life lessons.
Interestingly you mentioned a book which demonstrates my original point, because I have read Atlas Shrugged. Hopefully you did too. The individual and Capitalism are both celebrated in that book. Imagine a world full of James Taggarts and Orren Boyles, with no Dagney Taggarts, no Hank Reardens, and no John Ghalts.
Little? Hah! The majority of people I have met save, get promoted, find better jobs, got married, had kids, lived in apartments and bought houses, purchased cars and better cars and better cars. Like I said, keep your personal anecdote to yourself. You are not the majority.
Yes.. and I'm guessing you are one of those that champion a living wage?
No. Of course that won't stop you from making more bad assumptions or silly statements will it?
You should watch and understand.. the movie Elysium.
Got it, you believe that movies are reality. Sadly I'm not surprised.
The sample case is the state of California.. where the people dependent on assistance exceed those employed and have broken the 50% level. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
People on Welfare are mostly stuck in poverty and it's extremely hard to get out. Hence we have a huge amount of crime in those same areas, because many people see it as their only way out. That fact alone backs my statement that humans want to make progress, have security, have better lives for their children, have a retirement, buy a better house, etc.. etc.. etc...
Innovation, or theft of innovations, creates NEW wealth. Innovation does not divide wealth, and nobody mentioned dividing wealth. Except you, proving my point about bad assumptions and silly statements
In summary, go back to your bong and let the adults discuss the important issues.
If your statement was true nobody would ever change status. Nobody would have retirement funds, nobody would work to purchase a newer bigger car, nobody would have children, nobody would take a better job, etc.. etc... After all, they only feel it and don't make effort.
Perhaps you were giving your own personal analogy. In that case, speak for yourself. Most people do all of the things I mentioned and then some.
Delphi.. Ohhh such wonderful memories..
I programmed Fortran my first year, but after that we used Pascal. Pascal was not as fast for some operations, but in others was faster. C was no match, and yes I took a year of C and even a semester of Cobol just so I could say I did.
Don't pretend that science does not exist just because your narrative is harmed by science. Most normal humans don't want to sit around and do nothing, they want to be productive and make personal goals, balance risk versus security, have control of their destiny, and be able to provide better for their families than they did for themselves. Normal humans don't want to have the same job as everyone else, don't want to live in the same kind of house, wear the same kinds of clothing, eat the same foods, etc.. etc.. etc... The whole point of every story of Utopia ever written is that Utopia CAN NOT EXIST! Individuality is part of being a human, and individual liberty is the normal state of a human.
Don't sit around telling us how great science is when you ignore it.
Pascal has always been exceptional performing math. Makes sense for a super computer IMHO. The fact that I wrote pascal for my math degree is bonus!